Title: Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence
Series: Research Report
Author: Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes
Published: National Institute of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, July 2000
Subject: Criminal victimization reports; domestic violence; rape and sexual
assault
55 pages 
130,000 bytes

---------------------------

Figures, charts, forms, and tables are not included in this ASCII plain-text file.
To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file
available from this Web site or order a print copy from NCJRS at 800-851-
3420 (877-712-9279 For TTY users).

---------------------------

Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings From
the National Violence Against Women Survey
research report

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
810 Seventh Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20531

Janet Reno
Attorney General

Daniel Marcus
Acting Associate Attorney General

Mary Lou Leary
Acting Assistant Attorney General

Julie E. Samuels
Acting Director, National Institute of Justice

Office of Justice Programs        
World Wide Web Site           
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov

National Institute of Justice
World Wide Web Site 
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij

---------------------------

Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings From
the National Violence Against Women Survey

Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes

July 2000

NCJ 181867

National Institute of Justice

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Julie E. Samuels
Acting Director, National Institute of Justice

Stephen B. Thacker
Acting Director, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control

This research was sponsored jointly by the National Institute of Justice and the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under NIJ Grant #
93-IJ-CX-0012. The opinions and conclusions expressed in this document are
solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S.
Department of Justice or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

---------------------------

The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice
Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and
the Office for Victims of Crime.

---------------------------

Executive Summary

This report presents findings from the National Violence Against Women
(NVAW) Survey on the extent, nature, and consequences of intimate partner
violence in the United States. The National Institute of Justice and the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention cosponsored the survey through a grant to
the Center for Policy Research. The survey consists of telephone interviews
with a nationally representative sample of 8,000 U.S. women and 8,000 U.S.
men about their experiences with intimate partner violence.

The survey compares victimization rates among women and men, specific racial
groups, Hispanics and non-Hispanics, and same-sex and opposite-sex
cohabitants. It also examines risk factors associated with intimate partner
violence, the rate of injury among rape and physical assault victims, injured
victims' use of medical services, and victims' involvement with the justice
system. 

Analysis of the survey data produced the following results:

o Intimate partner violence is pervasive in U.S. society. Nearly 25 percent of
surveyed women and 7.5 percent of surveyed men said they were raped and/or
physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or date
at some time in their lifetime; 1.5 percent of surveyed women and 0.9 percent
of surveyed men said they were raped and/or physically assaulted by a partner
in the previous 12 months. According to these estimates, approximately 1.5
million women and 834,732 men are raped and/or physically assaulted by an
intimate partner annually in the United States. Because many victims are
victimized more than once, the number of intimate partner victimizations
exceeds the number of intimate partner victims annually. Thus, approximately
4.9 million intimate partner rapes and physical assaults are perpetrated against
U.S. women annually, and approximately 2.9 million intimate partner physical
assaults are committed against U.S. men annually. These findings suggest that
intimate partner violence is a serious criminal justice and public health concern.

o Stalking by intimates is more prevalent than previously thought. Almost 5
percent of surveyed women and 0.6 percent of surveyed men reported being
stalked by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or date at some time
in their lifetime; 0.5 percent of surveyed women and 0.2 percent of surveyed
men reported being stalked by such a partner in the previous 12 months.
According to these estimates, 503,485 women and 185,496 men are stalked
by an intimate partner annually in the United States. These estimates exceed
previous nonscientific "guesstimates" of stalking prevalence in the general
population. These findings suggest that intimate partner stalking is a serious
criminal justice problem, and States should continue to develop constitutionally
sound and effective antistalking statutes and intervention strategies.

o Women experience more intimate partner violence than do men. The NVAW
survey found that women are significantly more likely than men to report being
victims of intimate partner violence whether it is rape, physical assault, or
stalking and whether the timeframe is the person's lifetime or the previous 12
months. These findings support data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics'
National Crime Victimization Survey, which consistently show women are at
significantly greater risk of intimate partner violence than are men. However,
they contradict data from the National Family Violence Survey, which
consistently show men and women are equally likely to be physically assaulted
by an intimate partner. Studies are needed to determine how different survey
methodologies affect women's and men's responses to questions about intimate
partner violence. 

o Rates of intimate partner violence vary significantly among women of diverse
racial backgrounds. The survey found that Asian/Pacific Islander women and
men tend to report lower rates of intimate partner violence than do women and
men from other minority backgrounds, and African-American and American
Indian/Alaska Native women and men report higher rates. However,
differences among minority groups diminish when other sociodemographic and
relationship variables are controlled. More research is needed to determine
how much of the difference in intimate partner prevalence rates among women
and men of different racial and ethnic backgrounds can be explained by the
respondent's willingness to disclose intimate partner violence and how much by
social, demographic, and environmental factors. Research is also needed to
determine how prevalence rates vary among women and men of diverse
American Indian/Alaska Native and Asian/Pacific Islander groups.

o Violence perpetrated against women by intimates is often accompanied by
emotionally abusive and controlling behavior. The survey found that women
whose partners were jealous, controlling, or verbally abusive were significantly
more likely to report being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by their
partners, even when other sociodemographic and relationship characteristics
were controlled. Indeed, having a verbally abusive partner was the variable
most likely to predict that a woman would be victimized by an intimate partner.
These findings support the theory that violence perpetrated against women by
intimates is often part of a systematic pattern of dominance and control.

o Women experience more chronic and injurious physical assaults at the hands
of intimate partners than do men. The survey found that women who were
physically assaulted by an intimate partner averaged 6.9 physical assaults by the
same partner, but men averaged 4.4 assaults. The survey also found that 41.5
percent of the women who were physically assaulted by an intimate partner
were injured during their most recent assault, compared with 19.9 percent of
the men. These findings suggest that research aimed at understanding and
preventing intimate partner violence against women should be stressed.

o Women living with female intimate partners experience less intimate partner
violence than women living with male intimate partners. Slightly more than 11
percent of the women who had lived with a woman as part of a couple
reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a female
cohabitant, but 21.7 percent of the women who had married or lived with a
man as part of a couple reported such violence by a husband or male
cohabitant. These findings suggest that lesbian couples experience less intimate
partner violence than do heterosexual couples; however, more research is
needed to support or refute this conclusion.

o Men living with male intimate partners experience more intimate partner
violence than do men who live with female intimate partners. Approximately 23
percent of the men who had lived with a man as a couple reported being raped,
physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a male cohabitant, while 7.4 percent of
the men who had married or lived with a woman as a couple reported such
violence by a wife or female cohabitant. These findings, combined with those
presented in the previous bullet, provide further evidence that intimate partner
violence is perpetrated primarily by men, whether against male or female
intimates. Thus, strategies for preventing intimate partner violence should focus
on risks posed by men.

o The U.S. medical community treats millions of intimate partner rapes and
physical assaults annually. Of the estimated 4.9 million intimate partner rapes
and physical assaults perpetrated against women annually, approximately 2
million will result in an injury to the victim, and 570,457 will result in some type
of medical treatment to the victim. Of the estimated 2.9 million intimate partner
physical assaults perpetrated against men annually, 581,391 will result in an
injury to the victim, and 124,999 will result in some type of medical treatment to
the victim. Because many medically treated victims receive multiple forms of
care (e.g., ambulance services, emergency room care, or physical therapy) and
multiple treatments (e.g., several days in the hospital) for the same victimization,
medical personnel in the United States treat millions of intimate partner
victimizations annually. To better meet the needs of intimate partner violence
victims, it is suggested that medical professionals receive training on the physical
consequences of intimate partner violence and appropriate medical intervention
strategies.

o Most intimate partner victimizations are not reported to the police. Only
approximately one- fifth of all rapes, one-quarter of all physical assaults, and
one-half of all stalkings perpetrated against female respondents by intimates
were reported to the police. Even fewer rapes, physical assaults, and stalkings
perpetrated against male respondents by intimates were reported. The majority
of victims who did not report their victimization to the police thought the police
would not or could not do anything on their behalf. These findings suggest that
most victims of intimate partner violence do not consider the justice system an
appropriate vehicle for resolving conflicts with intimates. 

---------------------------

Acknowledgments

The authors thank staff at both the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in particular Lois Mock at
NIJ and Linda Saltzman at CDC, for their advice and support in conducting the
research.

The authors also thank Marcie-jo Kresnow, mathematical statistician at CDC,
and anonymous NIJ peer reviewers for their thorough review and helpful
comments on drafts of this report. Finally, the authors thank Christine Allison
and Gay Dizinski at the Center for Policy Research for their help in producing
and scrutinizing drafts of the report.

---------------------------

Contents

Executive Summary

Acknowledgments

Introduction

Defining Intimate Partner Violence

Prevalence and Incidence of Intimate Partner Violence
--Intimate partner rape
--Intimate partner physical assault
--Intimate partner stalking

Comparison With Previous Estimates
--Intimate partner rape
--Intimate partner physical assault
--Intimate partner stalking

Women Experience More Intimate Partner Violence Than Do Men

Deciphering Disparities in Survey Findings

Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence Among Racial Minorities and
Hispanics

Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence Among Same-Sex Cohabitants

Risk Factors Associated With Intimate Partner Violence

Point in Relationship When Violence Occurs

Frequency and Duration of Intimate Partner Rape and Physical Assault

Rate of Injury Among Victims of Intimate Partner Rape and Physical Assault
--Risk factors associated with injury

Victims' Use of Medical Services
--Estimates of medical services utilization

Victims' Involvement With the Justice System
--Reporting to the police
--Police response to reports of intimate partner violence
--Reasons for not reporting victimization to the police
--Criminal prosecution
--Temporary restraining orders
--Estimates of justice system utilization

Policy Implications

---------------------------

Exhibits

Exhibit 1. Persons Victimized by an Intimate Partner in Lifetime and in Previous
12 Months, by Type of Victimization and Gender

Exhibit 2. Number of Rape, Physical Assault, and Stalking Victimizations
Perpetrated by Intimate Partners Annually, by Victim Gender

Exhibit 3. Persons Physically Assaulted by an Intimate Partner in Lifetime, by
Type of Assault and Victim Gender

Exhibit 4. Estimated Standard Errors Multiplied by the z-Score (1.96) for a
95-Percent Confidence Level, by Sample or Subsample Size

Exhibit 5. Persons Victimized by an Intimate Partner in Lifetime, by Victim
Gender, Type of Victimization, and White/Nonwhite Status of Victim

Exhibit 6. Persons Victimized by an Intimate Partner in Lifetime, by Victim
Gender, Type of Victimization, and Victim Race

Exhibit 7. Persons Victimized by an Intimate Partner in Lifetime, by Victim
Gender, Type of Victimization, and Hispanic/Non-Hispanic Origin of Victim

Exhibit 8. Persons Victimized by an Intimate Partner in Lifetime, by Victim
Gender, Type of Victimization, and History of Same-Sex/Opposite-Sex
Cohabitation

Exhibit 9. Rate of Intimate Partner Victimization, by Perpetrator Gender, Victim
Gender, and History of Same-Sex/Opposite-Sex Cohabitation

Exhibit 10. Distribution of Female Victims of Intimate Partner Rape, Physical
Assault, and Stalking, by Point in Relationship When the Violence Occurred

Exhibit 11. Distribution of Rape and Physical Assault Victims, by Frequency
and Duration of Victimization and Gender

Exhibit 12. Distribution of Intimate Partner Rape and Physical Assault Victims,
by Injury, Type of Medical Care Received, and Gender

Exhibit 13. Distribution of Injured Rape and Physical Assault Victims, by Type
of Injury Sustained: Women Only

Exhibit 14. Average Number of Medical Care Visits for Intimate Partner Rape
and Physical Assault Victims, by Type of Medical Care and Gender

Exhibit 15. Average Annual Injury and Medical Utilization Estimates for Adult
Victims of Intimate Partner Rape and Physical Assault, by Gender

Exhibit 16. Distribution of Intimate Partner Rape, Physical Assault, and Stalking
Victims, by Law Enforcement Outcomes and Gender

Exhibit 17. Distribution of Rape, Physical Assault, and Stalking Victims Who
Did Not Report Their Victimization to the Police, by Reasons for Not
Reporting and Gender

Exhibit 18. Distribution of Intimate Partner Rape, Physical Assault, and Stalking
Victims, by Prosecution Outcomes and Gender

Exhibit 19. Distribution of Intimate Partner Rape, Physical Assault, and Stalking
Victims, by Protective Order Outcomes and Gender

Exhibit 20. Average Annual Justice System Utilization Estimates for Adult
Victims of Intimate Partner Rape, Physical Assault, and Stalking, by Gender

---------------------------

Introduction

Research on intimate partner violence has increased dramatically over the past
20 years. While greatly enhancing public awareness and understanding of this
serious social problem, this research has also created much controversy and
confusion. Findings of intimate partner victimization vary widely from study to
study.[1] Some studies conclude that women and men are equally likely to be
victimized by their partners,[2] but others conclude that women are more likely
to be victimized.[3] Some studies conclude that minorities and whites suffer
equal rates of intimate partner violence,[4] and others conclude that minorities
suffer higher rates.[5]

In addition, there are many gaps in the scientific literature on intimate partner
violence, such as the level of violence committed against men and women by
same-sex intimates.[6] Little empirical data exist on the relationship between
different forms of intimate partner violence, such as emotional abuse and
physical assault.[7] Finally, little is known of the consequences of intimate
partner violence, including rate of injury and victims' use of medical and justice
system services.[8]

This Research Report addresses these and other issues related to intimate
partner violence. The information presented in this report is based on findings
from the National Violence Against Women (NVAW) Survey, a national
telephone survey jointly sponsored by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The survey, which was
conducted from November 1995 to May 1996, consists of telephone
interviews with a representative sample of 8,000 U.S. women and 8,000 U.S.
men. Survey respondents were queried about their experiences as victims of
various forms of violence, including rape, physical assault, and stalking by
intimate partners. Victimized respondents were asked detailed questions about
the characteristics and consequences of their victimization, including the extent
and nature of any injuries they sustained, their use of medical services, and their
involvement with the justice system.

This Research Report also summarizes the survey's findings on victimization
rates among women and men, specific racial groups, Hispanics and
non-Hispanics, and opposite-sex and same-sex cohabitants. It examines risk
factors associated with intimate partner violence, rates of injury among rape and
physical assault victims, injured victims' use of medical services, and victims'
involvement with the justice system. Although this report focuses on women's
and men's experiences as victims of intimate partner violence, complete details
about men's and women's experiences as victims of rape, physical assault, and
stalking by all types of assailants are contained in earlier NIJ and CDC reports
(see sidebar, "Other Publications in the Series").

Because of the sensitive nature of the survey, state-of-the-art techniques were
used to protect the confidentiality of the information being sought and to
minimize the potential for retraumatizing victims of violence and jeopardizing the
safety of respondents. 

o The sample was generated through random-digit dialing, thereby ensuring that
only a 10-digit telephone number linked the respondent to the survey. The area
code and telephone exchanges were included as part of the completed
interview for each case in the dataset for analysis purposes, but the last four
digits of the telephone number were eliminated.

o The survey introduction informed respondents that their answers would be
kept confidential and that participation in the survey was voluntary. 

o Respondents were given a toll-free number to call to verify the authenticity of
the survey or to respond to the survey at a later date. Respondents also were
told to use this number should they need to hang up suddenly during the
interview.

o Only female interviewers interviewed female respondents. (To measure the
possible effects of interviewer gender on male responses to survey questions,
half of the male respondents were interviewed by male interviewers and half by
female interviewers.) 

o Interviewers were instructed to schedule a callback interview if they thought
someone was listening to the interview on another line or was in the room with
the respondent.

o Interviewers, out of concern that the interview might cause some victims of
violence to experience emotional trauma, were provided with rape crisis and
domestic violence hotline telephone numbers from around the country. If a
respondent showed signs of distress, he or she was provided with an
appropriate hotline referral. 

In addition to lessening the possibility that respondents might be harmed due to
their participation in the survey, these techniques improved the quality of the
information gathered.

Notes

1. For example, lifetime rates of victimization by an intimate range from 9 to 30
percent for women and from 13 to 16 percent for men. See Nisonoff, L., and I.
Bittman, "Spouse Abuse: Incidence and Relationship to Selected Demographic
Variables," Victimology 4 (1979): 131-140; Peterson, R., "Social Class, Social
Learning, and Wife Abuse," Social Service Review 50 (1980): 390-406;
Schulman, M., A Survey of Spousal Violence Against Women In Kentucky,
Study Number 792701, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Law
Enforcement Assistance Administration, 1979; Teske, R.H.C., and M.L.
Parker, Spouse Abuse in Texas: A Study of Women's Attitudes and
Experiences, Newark, New Jersey: Criminal Justice/National Center for Crime
and Delinquency, John Cotton Dana Library, 1983; Scanzoni, J., Sex Roles,
Women's Work, and Marital Conflict, Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington
Books, 1978.

2. Schafer, J., R. Caetano, C.L. Clark, "Rates of Intimate Partner Violence in
the United States," American Journal of Public Health 88 (11) (1998):
1702-1704; Straus, M.A., "Trends in Cultural Norms and Rates of Partner
Violence: An Update to 1992,"  in Understanding Partner Violence:
Prevalence, Causes, Consequences, and Solutions, Families in Focus Series,
eds. M.A. Straus and S.M. Smith, Minneapolis: National Council on Family
Relations, 1995: 30-33; Straus, M., and R. Gelles, "Societal Change and
Change in Family Violence From 1975 to 1985 as Revealed by Two National
Surveys," Journal of Marriage and the Family 48 (1987): 465-479.

3. Bachman, R., Violence Against Women: A National Crime Victimization
Survey Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, 1994, NCJ 145325; Bachman, R., and L.E. Saltzman,
Violence Against Women: Estimates From the Redesigned Survey, Special
Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,  Bureau of Justice
Statistics, 1995, NCJ 154348; Gaquin, D., "Spouse Abuse: Data from the
National Crime Survey," Victimology 2 (1977-78): 634-643; Greenfeld, L.,
M.R. Rand, D. Craven, P.A. Klaus, C.A. Perkins, C. Ringel, G. Warchol, C.
Matson, and J.A. Fox, Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data on Crimes by
Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends, Bureau of Justice
Statistics Factbook, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, 1998, NCJ 167237; Klaus, P., and M. Rand, Family
Violence, Special Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1984, NCJ 093449.

4. Bachman, Violence Against Women: A National Crime Victimization Survey
Report.

5. For example, see Bachman, R., Death and Violence on the Reservation:
Homicide, Family Violence, and Suicide in American Indian Populations,
Westport, Connecticut: Auburn House, 1992; Cazenave, N.A., and M.A.
Straus, "Race, Class, Network Embeddedness and Family Violence: A Search
for Potent Support Systems," Journal of Comparative Family Studies 10 (3)
(1979): 281-300; Gelles, R., "Violence in the Family: A Review of Research in
the Seventies," Journal of Marriage and the Family 42 (1980): 873-885;
Hampton, R.L., "Family Violence and Homicides in the Black Community: Are
They Linked?" in Violence in the Black Family: Correlates and Consequences,
ed. R.L. Hampton, Lexington, Massachusetts, 1987: 135-187; Neff, J.A., B.
Holamon, and T.D. Schluter, "Spousal Violence Among Anglos, Blacks, and
Mexican Americans: The Role of Demographic Variables, Psychological
Predictors, and Alcohol Consumption," Journal of Family Violence 10 (1)
(1995): 1-21; Shoemaker, D.J., and J.S. Williams, "The Subculture of Violence
and Ethnicity," Journal of Criminal Justice 15 (6) (1987): 461-472; and Behind
Closed Doors, ed. Straus, M.A., R.J. Gelles, and S. Steinmetz, Newbury
Park, California: Sage Publications, 1980.

6. Renzetti, C.M., "Violence and Abuse Among Same-Sex Couples," in
Violence Between Intimate Partners: Patterns, Causes, and Effects, ed.
Cardarelli, A.P., Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1997: 70-89.

7. National Research Council, Understanding  Violence Against Women,
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1996: 4-5.

8. Ibid.

---------------------------

Defining Intimate Partner Violence

There is currently little consensus among researchers on exactly how to define
the term "intimate partner violence."[1] As a result, definitions of the term vary
widely from study to study, making comparisons difficult. One source of
controversy revolves around whether to limit the definition of the term to acts
carried out with the intention of, or perceived intention of, causing physical pain
or injury to another person. Although this approach presents a narrow definition
of intimate partner violence that can be readily operationalized, it ignores the
myriad behaviors that persons may use to control, intimidate, and otherwise
dominate another person in the context of an intimate relationship. These
behaviors may include acts such as verbal abuse, imprisonment, humiliation,
stalking, and denial of access to financial resources, shelter, or services.

Another source of controversy revolves around whether to limit the definition of
the term to violence occurring between persons who are married or living
together as a couple or to include persons who are dating or who consider
themselves a couple but live in separate domiciles. At present the research
literature is bifurcated, with some studies focusing on violence occurring in
marital or heterosexual cohabiting relationships and others focusing on violence
occurring in heterosexual dating relationships. Only a handful of studies examine
violence in same-sex cohabiting or dating relationships.

The definition of intimate partner violence used in the NVAW Survey includes
rape, physical assault, and stalking perpetrated by current and former dates,
spouses, and cohabiting partners, with cohabiting meaning living together at
least some of the time as a couple. Both same-sex and opposite-sex
cohabitants are included in the definition. The survey's definition of intimate
partner violence resembles the one developed by CDC[2] because it includes
violence occurring between persons who have a current or former dating,
marital, or cohabiting relationship and same-sex and opposite-sex cohabitants.
However, it deviates from CDC's definition because it includes stalking as well
as rape and physical assault. 

For purposes of the survey, "rape" is defined as an event that occurs without
the victim's consent and involves the use of threat or force to penetrate the
victim's vagina or anus by penis, tongue, fingers, or object or the victim's mouth
by penis. The definition includes both attempted and completed rape. "Physical
assault" is defined as behaviors that threaten, attempt, or actually inflict physical
harm. The definition includes a wide range of behaviors, from slapping, pushing,
and shoving to using a gun. "Stalking" is defined as a course of conduct directed
at a specific person involving repeated visual or physical proximity;
nonconsensual communication; verbal, written, or implied threats; or a
combination thereof that would cause fear in a reasonable person, with
"repeated" meaning on two or more occasions. The definition of stalking used in
the survey does not require stalkers to make a credible threat against victims,
but it does require victims to feel a high level of fear. The specific questions
used to screen respondents for rape, physical assault, and stalking victimization
are behaviorally specific and are designed to leave little doubt in the
respondent's mind as to what is being measured (see sidebar, "Survey
Screening Questions").

Notes

1. National Research Council, Understanding  Violence Against Women,
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1996: 9-10.

2. Saltzman, L.E., J.L. Fanslow, P.M. McMahon, and G.A. Shelley, Intimate
Partner Violence Surveillance: Uniform Definitions and Recommended Data
Elements, Atlanta: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, 1999.

---------------------------

Prevalence and Incidence of Intimate Partner Violence

The NVAW Survey generated information on both the prevalence and
incidence of intimate partner violence. "Prevalence" refers to the percentage of
persons within a demographic group (e.g., female or male) who are victimized
during a specific period, such as the person's lifetime or the previous 12
months. "Incidence" refers to the number of separate victimizations or incidents
of violence committed against persons within a demographic group during a
specific period. Incidence can also be expressed as a victimization rate, which
is obtained by dividing the number of victimizations committed against persons
in a demographic group by the number of persons in that demographic group
and setting the rate to a standard population base, such as 1,000 persons.[1]

Intimate partner rape

Using a definition of rape that includes completed or attempted forced vaginal,
oral, and anal sex, the survey found 7.7 percent of surveyed women and 0.3
percent of surveyed men reported being raped by a current or former intimate
partner at some time in their lifetime, and 0.2 percent (n = 16) of surveyed
women reported being raped by a partner in the 12 months preceding the
survey. Based on U.S. Census estimates of the number of women aged 18
years and older in the country, an estimated 201,394 women were forcibly
raped by an intimate partner in the 12 months preceding the survey (exhibit 1).
[The number of male rape victims (n < 5) was insufficient to reliably calculate
annual prevalence estimates for men.]

Because women raped by an intimate partner in the previous 12 months
averaged 1.6 rapes, the incidence of intimate partner rape (number of separate
victimizations) exceeded the prevalence of intimate partner rape (number of
victims). Thus, there were an estimated 322,230 intimate partner rapes
committed against U.S. women during the 12 months preceding the survey.
(This national estimate is based on only 16 women who reported being raped
by an intimate partner in the previous 12 months and should be viewed with
caution.) This figure equates to an annual victimization rate of 3.2 intimate
partner rapes per 1,000 U.S. women aged 18 years and older (322,230
divided by 100,697,000 = 0.0032 x 1,000 = 3.2) (exhibit 2).

Intimate partner physical assault

Using a definition of physical assault that includes a range of behaviors, from
slapping and hitting to using a gun, the survey found that 22.1 percent of
surveyed women and 7.4 percent of surveyed men reported being physically
assaulted by a current or former intimate partner at some time in their lifetime,
whereas 1.3 percent of all surveyed women and 0.9 percent of all surveyed
men reported being physically assaulted by such a partner in the previous 12
months. Thus, approximately 1.3 million women and 834,732 men were
physically assaulted by an intimate partner in the 12 months preceding the
survey (exhibit 1). 

Because women and men who were physically assaulted by an intimate partner
in the previous 12 months averaged 3.4 and 3.5 physical assaults, respectively,
there were approximately 4.5 million intimate partner physical assaults
perpetrated against women and approximately 2.9 million intimate partner
physical assaults perpetrated against men in the 12 months preceding the
survey. These figures equate to an annual victimization rate of 44.2 intimate
partner physical assaults per 1,000 U.S. women aged 18 years and older
(4,450,807 divided by 100,697,000 = 0.0442 x 1,000 = 44.2) and 31.5
intimate partner physical assaults per 1,000 U.S. men aged 18 years and older
(2,921,562 divided by 92,748,000 = 0.0315 x 1,000 = 31.5) (exhibit 2).

Results from the survey show that most physical assaults committed against
women and men by intimates are relatively minor and consist of pushing,
grabbing, shoving, slapping, and hitting. Fewer women and men reported that
an intimate threw something that could hurt them, pulled their hair, kicked or
beat them, or threatened them with a knife or gun. Only a negligible number
reported that an intimate actually used a knife or gun on them (exhibit 3).

Intimate partner stalking

Using a definition of stalking that requires victims to feel a high level of fear, the
survey found that 4.8 percent of surveyed women and 0.6 percent of surveyed
men reported being stalked by a current or former intimate partner at some time
in their lifetime; 0.5 percent of surveyed women and 0.2 percent of surveyed
men reported being stalked by such a partner in the 12 months preceding the
survey. These figures equate to an estimated 503,485 women and 185,496
men who were stalked by an intimate partner in the 12 months preceding the
survey (exhibit 1).

Because stalking by definition involves repeated acts of harassment and
intimidation and because no respondent reported being stalked by more than
one intimate in the 12 months preceding the survey, the incidence of intimate
partner stalking is equivalent to the prevalence of intimate partner stalking.
Thus, there were an estimated 503,485 stalking victimizations perpetrated
against women and 185,496 stalking victimizations perpetrated against men by
intimates in the year preceding the survey (exhibit 2). These figures equate to an
annual victimization rate of 5 intimate partner stalkings per 1,000 U.S. women
aged 18 years and older (503,485 divided by 100,697,000 = 0.005 x 1,000 =
5.0) and 1.8 intimate partner stalkings per 1,000 U.S. men aged 18 years and
older (185,496 divided by 97,748,000 = 0.0018 x 1,000 = 1.8) (exhibit 2).

Note

1. Koss, M.P., and M.R. Harvey, The Rape Victim: Clinical and Community
Interventions, 2d ed. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, 1991: 8-9. 

---------------------------

Comparison With Previous Estimates

Intimate partner rape

No previous national survey has generated estimates of the lifetime prevalence
of intimate partner rape.[1] However, a study of 930 women in San Francisco
found that 8 percent were survivors of marital rape,[2] and a study of 323
ever-married/cohabited women in Boston found that 10 percent were survivors
of wife or partner rape.[3] Though not directly comparable, the NVAW Survey
finding that 7.7 percent of U.S. women have been raped by an intimate partner
at some time in their lifetime is similar to these earlier community-based
estimates.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS),
which is administered yearly, generates annual rape and sexual assault
victimization estimates for women and men. One study based on 1992-93
NCVS data found that the average annual rate of rape and sexual assault by an
intimate was 1.0 per 1,000 women aged 12 years and older.[4] This estimate is
lower than the average annual rate of intimate partner rape for women
generated by the NVAW Survey, which is 3.2 per 1,000 women aged 18
years and older (exhibit 2). However, direct comparisons between the findings
of the two surveys are difficult to make because estimates reported by the two
surveys refer to somewhat different populations and sexual victimizations, and
the two surveys differ substantially methodologically (see "Deciphering
Disparities in Survey Findings"). 

Intimate partner physical assault

Several community-based studies have generated estimates of the lifetime
prevalence of physical assault by an intimate. Estimates from these surveys
range from 9 to 30 percent for women and from 13 to 16 percent for men (see
note 1 in "Introduction"). In addition, a 1997 Gallup poll, which surveyed a
nationally representative sample of 434 women and 438 men, found that 22
percent of women and 8 percent of men have been physically abused by a
spouse or companion.[5] NVAW Survey estimates that 22.1 percent of
women and 7.4 percent of men have been physically assaulted by an intimate at
some time in their lifetime are nearly identical to the Gallup estimates. 

National estimates of the annual rate of physical assault by an intimate come
from two primary sources--the previously mentioned NCVS and the National
Family Violence Survey (NFVS), which was first conducted in 1975 and then
repeated in 1985. Portions of the NFVS were also included in the 1992
National Alcohol and Family Violence Survey and a special component of the
1995 National Alcohol Survey.

Annual rates of physical assault by an intimate generated from the NVAW
Survey are substantially higher than those generated by the NCVS. One study
based on 1992-93 NCVS data found that the average annual rate of simple
and aggravated assault by an intimate was 7.6 per 1,000 women aged 12 years
and older and 1.3 per 1,000 men aged 12 years and older.[6] A more recent
study that used 1996 NCVS data and Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform
Crime Report homicide data--and combined data on intimate partner murder,
rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault--found the
annual rate of violent victimization by an intimate was 7.5 per 1,000 women
aged 12 years and older and 1.4 per 1,000 men aged 12 years and older.[7] In
comparison, the NVAW Survey annual rate of physical assault by an intimate
was 44.2 per 1,000 women aged 18 years and older and 31.5 per 1,000 men
aged 18 years and older. Thus, the NVAW Survey annual rate of physical
assault by an intimate far exceeds the NCVS annual rate of violent victimization
by an intimate.

On the other hand, annual rates of physical  assault generated from the NVAW
Survey are substantially lower than those generated by the NFVS. The 1975
and 1985 NFVS found that 11 to 12 percent of married/cohabiting women and
12 percent of married/cohabiting men were physically assaulted by their
intimate partner annually.[8] The 1992 National Alcohol and Family Violence
Survey found that approximately 1.9 percent of married/cohabiting women
were severely assaulted by a male partner annually, and approximately 4.5
percent of married/cohabiting men were severely assaulted by a female partner
annually.[9] The 1995 National Alcohol Survey found that 5.2 to 13.6 percent
of married/cohabiting couples experienced male-to-female partner violence,
and 6.2 to 18.2 percent of married/cohabiting couples experienced
female-to-male intimate partner violence.[10] In comparison, the NVAW
Survey found that only 1.3 percent of surveyed women and 0.9 percent of
surveyed men were physically assaulted by a current or former intimate partner
annually. The disparity in NFVS and NVAW findings is particularly striking
because both surveys used similar behaviorally specific questions to screen
respondents for physical assault victimization.

As discussed in this report (see "Deciphering Disparities in Survey Findings"),
studies are needed to determine why the NCVS, NFVS, and NVAW Survey
produced such disparate findings on the prevalence and incidence of intimate
partner violence in the United States. 

Intimate partner stalking

Prior to the NVAW Survey, information on stalking prevalence was limited to
guesses provided by mental health professionals based on their work with
known stalkers. The most frequently cited "guesstimate" was made by forensic
psychiatrist Dr. Park Dietz, who reported in 1992 that 5 percent of U.S.
women are stalked at some time in their lifetime, and 500,000 are stalked
annually.[11] Because these figures pertain to stalking by all types of
perpetrators, not just intimates, it is fair to say the NVAW Survey
estimates--that 4.8 percent of women have been stalked by an intimate in their
lifetime and 503,485 women are stalked by an intimate each year--are higher
than previous stalking estimates.

Notes

1. The National Women's Study generated estimates of the prevalence of rape
by all types of assailants but not by intimates; see Rape in America: A Report to
the Nation, Arlington, Virginia: National Victim Center and the Crime Victims
Research and Treatment Center, April 23, 1992.

2. Russell, D.E.H., Rape in Marriage, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press,
1990.

3. Finklehor, D., and K. Yllo, License To Rape: Sexual Abuse of Wives, New
York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1985.

4. Bachman, R., and L.E. Saltzman, Violence Against Women: Estimates From
the Redesigned Survey, Special Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1995, NCJ 154348.

5. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Bureau of Justice Statistics Sourcebook of
Criminal Justice Statistics--1997, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1998: 198, NCJ 171147, table 3.39.

6. Bachman and Saltzman, Violence Against Women: Estimates From the
Redesigned Survey, note 4.

7. Greenfeld, L., M.R. Rand, D. Craven, P.A. Klaus, C.A. Perkins, C. Ringel,
G. Warchol, C. Matson, and J.A. Fox, Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data
on Crimes by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends, Bureau
of Justice Statistics Factbook, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1998, NCJ 167237.

8. Straus, M., and R. Gelles, "Societal Change and Change in Family Violence
From 1975 to 1985 as Revealed by Two National Surveys," Journal of
Marriage and the Family 48 (1987): 465-479.

9. Straus, M.A., "Trends in Cultural Norms and Rates of Partner Violence: An
Update to 1992," in Understanding Partner Violence: Prevalence, Causes,
Consequences, and Solutions, Families in Focus Series, eds. M.A. Straus and
S.M. Smith, Minneapolis: National Council on Family Relations, 1995: 30-33.

10. Schafer, J., R. Caetano, and C.L. Clark, "Rates of Intimate Partner
Violence in the United States," American Journal of Public Health 88 (11)
(1998): 1702-1704.

11. Puente, M., "Legislators Tackling the Terror of Stalking: But Some Experts
Say Measures Are Vague," USA Today, July 21, 1992.

---------------------------

Women Experience More Intimate Partner Violence Than Do Men

As shown in exhibit 1, the NVAW Survey found that women were significantly
more likely than men to report being victimized by an intimate partner, whether
the period was the individual's lifetime or the 12 months preceding the survey
and whether the type of violence was rape, physical assault, or stalking.
Moreover, the survey found that differences between women's and men's rates
of physical assault by an intimate partner become greater as the seriousness of
the assault increases. For example, women were two or three times more likely
than men to report that an intimate partner threw something that could 
hurt them or pushed, grabbed, or shoved them. However, they were 7 to 14
times more likely to report that an intimate partner beat them up, choked or
tried to drown them, or threatened them with a gun or knife (exhibit 3).

The NVAW Survey finding that women are significantly more likely than men to
report being victimized by an intimate partner supports results from the NCVS,
which have consistently shown that women are at significantly greater risk of
intimate partner violence (see note 3 in "Introduction"). However, it contradicts
results from the NFVS, which have consistently shown that men and women
are nearly equally likely to be physically assaulted by marital or cohabiting
partners (see note 2 in "Introduction").

---------------------------

Deciphering Disparities in Survey Findings 

It is difficult to explain why the NCVS, NFVS, and NVAW Survey generated
such disparate estimates of intimate partner violence or why the NCVS and
NVAW Survey produced evidence of asymmetry in women's and men's risk of
intimate partner violence while the NFVS produced evidence of symmetry. For
years, researchers have attributed the low rate of intimate partner violence
uncovered by the NCVS to the fact that it is administered in the context of a
crime survey. Because they reflect only violence perpetrated by intimates that
victims are willing to label as criminal and report to interviewers, estimates of
intimate partner violence generated from the NCVS are thought to
underestimate the true amount of intimate partner violence.[1] 

At first glance, results from the NVAW Survey appear to support this theory.
The NVAW Survey--which was administered in the context of a survey on
personal safety rather than crime--generated substantially higher intimate
partner victimization rates than those generated by the NCVS. It is likely,
however, that methodological factors other than the overall context in which the
two surveys were administered account for some of the differences in the
findings.

For example, the two surveys differ substantially with respect to sample design
and survey administration. The NVAW Survey sample was drawn by
random-digit dialing from a database of households with a telephone (see
sidebar, "Survey Methodology"). Moreover, NVAW Survey interviewers used
state-of-the-art techniques to protect the confidentiality of the respondents and
minimize the potential for retraumatizing victims of violence. In comparison, the
NCVS sample consists of housing units (e.g., addresses) selected from a
stratified multistage cluster sample. When a sample unit is selected for inclusion
in the NCVS, U.S. Census workers interview all individuals in the household
12 years of age and older every 6 months for 3 years. Thus, after the first
interview, respondents know the contents of the survey. This may pose a
problem for victims of domestic violence who may be afraid that disclosing
abuse by a family member may put them in danger of further abuse. Although
census interviewers document whether others were present during the
interview, time and budget constraints prevent them from ensuring privacy
during an interview.

In addition, screening questions used by the NVAW Survey and the NCVS
differ substantially. For example, the NVAW Survey uses 5 questions to screen
respondents for rapes they may have sustained over their lifetime and 12
questions to screen respondents for physical assaults they may have sustained
as adults (see sidebar, "Survey Screening Questions"). Respondents disclosing
victimization are asked additional questions about the victim-perpetrator
relationship and the frequency, duration, and consequences of their
victimization. In comparison, the NCVS uses four questions--each with multiple
components--to screen respondents for threats, physical and sexual attacks,
and property crimes they may have experienced in different locations and by
different offenders.[2] Although empirical data on this issue are lacking,
researchers assume that both the number of screening questions used and the
manner in which they are asked affect disclosure rates.[3]

Another possible reason for the difference in the NVAW Survey and NCVS
findings is that published NCVS estimates count series victimization--reports of
six or more crimes within a 6-month period for which the respondent cannot
recall details of each crime--as a single victimization. Thus, published NCVS
estimates of the number of intimate partner rapes, sexual assaults, and physical
assaults are lower than would be obtained by including all incidents reported to
its survey interviewers. To produce NCVS estimates more directly comparable
to those generated by the NVAW Survey, each crime in a series of
victimizations reported to NCVS interviewers would have to be counted.

Finally, the sampling errors associated with the estimates from the NVAW
Survey and the NCVS would have to be compared to determine whether
estimates generated by the two surveys actually differ or whether apparent
differences are not statistically significant.

Differences between the NVAW Survey and the NFVS estimates are
somewhat harder to explain because the two surveys used similar sampling
strategies and the Conflict Tactics Scale to screen respondents for physical
assaults by intimates (see sidebar, "Survey Screening Questions"). Straus
argues the NVAW Survey generated annual rates of physical assault by an 
intimate partner that were substantially lower than those generated by the
NFVS because it was presented to respondents as a survey on personal
safety.[4] According to Straus, the term "personal safety" led many respondents
to perceive the NVAW Survey as a crime study and, therefore, to restrict their
reports to "real crimes." 

Aside from being inherently unconvincing--the terms "crime" and "personal
safety" conjure very different images--this explanation fails to explain why the
NVAW Survey generated high lifetime intimate partner victimization rates that
are generally consistent with findings from other surveys or why the NVAW
Survey uncovered high rates of other forms of family violence, such as incest
and physical abuse of children by adult caretakers.[5] It is unlikely that using the
term "personal safety" in the NVAW Survey introduction would have set up a
perceptual screen for intimate partner violence experienced in the previous 12
months but not for intimate partner violence experienced over the course of the
respondent's lifetime. Similarly, it is unlikely that using the term "personal safety"
in the NVAW Survey introduction would have set up a perceptual screen for
one type of family violence (e.g., physical assaults by marital/cohabiting
partners) but not for other types of family violence (e.g., incest and physical
assault by caretakers in childhood).

A more plausible explanation for the disparity in the NFVS and NVAW Survey
findings is the different ways the two surveys frame and introduce screening
questions about intimate partner violence. In the NFVS, respondents are
queried about specific acts of intimate partner violence they may have
committed or sustained against their current partner. Published NFVS estimates
of the number of women and men who experience intimate partner violence
annually count reports of both perpetration and victimization. In other words, if
a woman reports that she assaulted her husband, her report is counted as a
male victimization. Similarly, if a man reports that he assaulted his wife, his
report is counted as a female victimization. To produce NFVS estimates
directly comparable with NVAW Survey estimates, perpetrations reported to
NFVS interviewers would have to be excluded.

In addition, the NFVS introduces screening questions about intimate partner
violence perpetration and victimization with an exculpatory statement that
acknowledges the pervasiveness of marital/partner conflict. Although this
approach may seem more accepting of intimate partner violence and, therefore,
more likely to result in disclosure of intimate partner violence, it may also be
considered more leading. 

Finally, the NFVS frames its screening questions in terms of how many times in
the past 12 months respondents have committed or sustained these violent acts
rather than whether they have ever committed or sustained these violent acts.
This approach assumes intimate partner violence is the norm and requires
respondents who neither committed nor sustained such violence to provide an
answer to the contrary. 

By contrast, the NVAW Survey queries respondents only about their
experiences with victimization. Furthermore, the NVAW Survey does not use
an exculpatory statement to introduce screening questions. Rather than asking
respondents how many times they have sustained acts of intimate partner
violence in the past 12 months, the NVAW Survey asks respondents whether
they ever sustained violent acts at the hands of any type of perpetrator and, if
so, whether their perpetrator was a current or past intimate partner. Only
respondents who report they have ever experienced such acts are asked
whether these acts were perpetrated in the past 12 months. While this
approach may be considered less accepting of intimate partner violence and
therefore less likely to result in disclosure, it may also be considered less
leading. 

In summary, it is likely that the manner in which screening questions are
introduced and framed has more of an effect on intimate partner victimization
rates than does the overall context in which the survey is administered. Clearly,
more research is needed to fully understand how methodological factors such
as sample design, survey administration, survey introduction, and question
wording affect research findings on intimate partner violence. 

Notes

1. Klaus, P., and M. Rand, Family Violence, Special Report, Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1984, NCJ
093449; Straus, M.A., "Physical Assault by Wives: A Major Social Problem,"
in Current Controversies on Family Violence, eds. R.J. Gelles and D.R.
Loeske, Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, 1993: 67-87.

2. The four screening questions used in the NCVS are:

1) Were you attacked or threatened, OR did you have something
stolen from you:

--a) At home, including the porch or yard?

--b) At or near a friend's, relative's, or neighbor's home?

--c) At work or school?

--d) In a place such as a storage shed or laundry room, a shopping
mall, restaurant, bank, or airport?

--e) While riding in any vehicle?

-- f) On the street or in a parking lot?

--g) At such places as a party, theater, gym, picnic area, bowling
lanes, or while fishing or hunting?

2) Other than any incidents already mentioned, has anyone attacked
or threatened you in any of these ways:

--a) With any weapon, for instance, a gun or knife?

--b) With anything like a baseball bat, frying pan, scissors, or a
stick?

--c) By something thrown, such as a rock or bottle?

--d) Include any grabbing, punching, or choking?

--e) Any rape, attempted rape, or other type of sexual attack?

-- f) Any face-to-face threats?

--g) Any attack or threat of use of force by anyone at all?

Please mention it even if you are not certain it was a crime.

3) People often don't think of incidents committed by someone they
know. Did you have some thing stolen from you, OR were you attacked
or threatened by:

--a) Someone at work or school?

--b) A neighbor or friend?

--c) A relative or family member?

--d) Any other person you've met or known?

4) Incidents involving forced or unwanted sexual acts are often
difficult to talk about. Have you been forced or coerced to engage in unwanted
sexual activity by:

--a) Someone you didn't know before?

--b) A casual acquaintance?

--c) Someone you know well?

3. For example, see Helton, A.M., "The Pregnant Battered Women,"
Responses to Victimization of Women and Children 9 (1) (1986): 22-23;
Koss, M.P., "Detecting the Scope of Rape: A Review of Prevalence Research
Methods," Journal of Interpersonal Violence 8 (2) (1993): 198-222; Schuman,
H., and S. Presser, Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments
on Question Form, Wording, and Content, New York: Academic Press, Inc.,
1981; Sudman, S., and N.M. Bradburn, Response Effects in Surveys: A
Review and Synthesis, Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1974.

4. Straus, M.A., "The Controversy Over Domestic Violence by Women: A
Methodological, Theoretical, and Sociology of Science Analysis," in Violence in
Intimate Relationships, eds. X.B. Arriaga and S. Oskamp, Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage Publications, 1999.

5. For example, 40 percent of surveyed women and 54 percent of surveyed
men said they were physically assaulted as a child by an adult caretaker. In
addition, 9 percent of surveyed women said they were raped before age 18. Of
these rape victims, 76 percent were raped by a relative. See Tjaden, P., and N.
Thoennes, Final Report on Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of
Violence Against Women, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, forthcoming.

---------------------------

Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence Among Racial Minorities and
Hispanics

As noted, previous studies have produced contradictory findings as to whether
race and ethnicity affect one's risk for involvement in intimate partner violence
(see notes 4 and 5 in "Introduction"). Most of these studies compare
victimization rates of only one minority group with those of whites, and others
compare victimization rates of all minority groups with those of whites. None
compare victimization rates of several diverse racial groups.

To determine victimization rates for women and men of diverse racial
backgrounds, respondents to the NVAW Survey were asked whether they
would best classify themselves as white, black or African-American, Asian or
Pacific Islander, American Indian or Alaska Native, or of mixed race. They
were also asked whether they were of Hispanic origin. The response rate on
both these questions was very high (98 and 99 percent, respectively).

When data on African-American, Asian/Pacific Islander, American
Indian/Alaska Native, and mixed-race respondents are combined, nonwhite
women and men report significantly more intimate partner violence than do their
white counterparts (exhibit 5). These findings suggest that all racial minorities
experience more intimate partner violence than do whites.

However, a comparison of intimate partner victimization rates among persons
of specific racial backgrounds shows that different types of minorities report
significantly different rates of intimate partner violence. In general, American
Indian/Alaska Native women report significantly higher rates of intimate partner
violence than do women of other racial backgrounds, and Asian/Pacific
Islander women and men report significantly lower rates (exhibit 6). These
findings underscore the need for research on intimate partner violence among
specific racial and ethnic groups. As the survey results show, combining data on
different minorities may exaggerate differences between whites and nonwhites
and, at the same time, obscure very large differences among persons of diverse
minority backgrounds.

The finding that American Indians/Alaska Native women report significantly
higher rates of intimate partner violence is consistent with previous research that
shows American Indian couples are significantly more violent than their white
counterparts.[1] However, a paucity of information on violence against
American Indians makes it difficult to explain why they report more intimate
partner violence. How much of the difference in intimate partner victimization
rates among American Indian/Alaska Native women and those of other racial
backgrounds may be explained by differences in willingness to report
victimization to interviewers and how much by actual victimization experiences
is unclear and requires further study. Moreover, there may be significant
differences in intimate partner victimization rates among women (and men) of
diverse American Indian tribes and Alaska Native communities that cannot be
discerned from the survey. Finally, research is needed to ascertain how much of
the difference in intimate partner victimization rates among Native Americans
and persons of different racial backgrounds may be explained by demographic,
social, and environmental factors. 

Because information on violence against Asian/Pacific Islander women and men
is also limited, it is difficult to explain why they reported significantly less
intimate partner violence than did women and men of other racial backgrounds.
It has been suggested that traditional Asian values emphasizing close family ties
and harmony may discourage Asian women from disclosing physical and
emotional abuse by intimates.[2] Thus, the lower intimate partner victimization
rates found among Asian/Pacific Islander women may be, at least in part, an
artifact of underreporting. There may also be significant differences in rates of
intimate partner violence between Asian and Pacific Islander women that
cannot be discerned from the survey because data on these two groups are
combined. Finally, there may be significant differences between Asian/Pacific
Islander women born in this country and those who immigrated. A recent
nonrepresentative study of immigrant Korean women found that 60 percent had
been battered by their husbands.[3] Clearly, more research is recommended on
violence committed by intimates against Asian and Pacific Islander women.

The survey found little difference in Hispanic and non-Hispanic women's
reports of intimate partner physical assault and intimate partner stalking.
However, Hispanic women were significantly more likely than non-Hispanic
women to report that they were raped by a current or former intimate partner at
some time in their lifetime (exhibit 7). These findings are noteworthy because
previously published NVAW Survey findings show that Hispanic women report
significantly less rape victimization than do non-Hispanic women when all types
of perpetrators are considered.[4] Future research should focus on why
Hispanic women are less likely to be raped by a nonintimate but more likely to
be raped by an intimate.

The survey found no significant difference in reports of intimate partner violence
among Hispanic and non-Hispanic men (exhibit 7). However, this finding must
be viewed with caution, given the small number of Hispanic male victims.

Notes

1. Bachman, R., Death and Violence on the Reservation: Homicide, Family
Violence, and Suicide in American Indian Populations, Westport, Connecticut:
Auburn House, 1992.

2. National Research Council, Understanding Violence Against Women,
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1996: 40-41.

3. Song, Y.I., "Battered Korean Women in Urban America: The Relationship
of Cultural Conflict to Wife Abuse," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio
State University, Columbus, 1986.

4. Tjaden, P., and N. Thoennes, Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of
Violence Against Women: Findings From the National Violence Against
Women Survey, Research in Brief; Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1998, NCJ 172837. 

---------------------------

Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence Among Same-Sex Cohabitants 

Research on violence in same-sex relationships has been limited to studies of
small, unrepresentative samples of gay and lesbian couples. Results from these
studies suggest that same-sex couples are about as violent as heterosexual
couples.[1] 

Although the NVAW Survey did not ask respondents about their sexual
orientation, it did ask them whether they had ever lived with a same-sex partner
as part of a couple. As such, it is possible to compare intimate partner
victimization rates among women and men who have a history of same-sex
cohabitation with women and men who have a history of marital/opposite-sex
cohabitation only.

The survey found that 1 percent of surveyed women (n = 79) and 0.8 percent
of surveyed men (n = 65) reported living with a same-sex intimate partner at
least once in their lifetime, and 90 percent of surveyed women (n = 7,193) and
86 percent of surveyed men (n = 6,879) reported marrying/living with an
opposite-sex partner but never with a same-sex partner. For brevity's sake, 
the former will be referred to as same-sex cohabitants and the latter will be
referred to as opposite-sex cohabitants. It is unknown how many same-sex or
opposite-sex cohabitants identified themselves as homosexual, bisexual, or
heterosexual at the time of the interview.

The survey found that same-sex cohabitants reported significantly more intimate
partner violence than did opposite-sex cohabitants. Among women, 39.2
percent of the same-sex cohabitants and 21.7 percent of the opposite-sex
cohabitants reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a
marital/cohabiting partner at some time in their lifetime. Among men, the
comparable figures are 23.1 percent and 7.4 percent (exhibit 8).

At first glance, these findings suggest that both male and female same-sex
couples experience more intimate partner violence than do opposite-sex
couples. However, a comparison of intimate partner victimization rates among
same-sex and opposite-sex cohabitants by perpetrator gender produced some
interesting findings: 30.4 percent of same-sex cohabiting women reported being
victimized by a male partner, whereas 11.4 percent reported being victimized
by a female partner. Thus, same-sex cohabiting women were nearly three times
more likely to report being victimized by a male partner than by a female
partner. Moreover, opposite-sex cohabiting women were nearly twice as likely
to report being victimized by a male partner than were same-sex cohabiting
women by a female partner (20.3 percent and 11.4 percent) (exhibit 9).

Somewhat different patterns were found for men. Like their female
counterparts, same-sex cohabiting men were more likely to report being
victimized by a male partner than by a female partner. Specifically, 15.4 percent
of same-sex cohabiting men reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or
stalked by a male partner, but 10.8 percent reported such violence by a female
partner. However, same-sex cohabiting men were nearly twice as likely to
report being victimized by a male partner than were opposite-sex cohabiting
men by a female partner (15.4 percent and 7.7 percent). These findings suggest
that intimate partner violence is perpetrated primarily by men, whether against
male or female partners.

Note

1. Brand, P., and A. Kidd, "Frequency of Physical Aggression in Heterosexual
and Female Homosexual Dyads," Psychological Reports 59 (1986):
1307-1313; Lie, G., and S. Gentlewarrior, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian
Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," Journal
of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41-59; Lockhart, L., B. White, V.
Causby, and A. Issac, "Letting Out the Secret: Violence in Lesbian
Relationships," Journal of Interpersonal Violence 9 (1994): 469-492; Perry, S.,
"Lesbian Alcohol and Marijuana Use: Correlates of HIV Risk Behaviors and
Abusive Relationships," Journal of Proactive Drugs 27 (1995): 413-419;
Renzetti, C.M., "Violence and Abuse Among Same-Sex Couples," in Violence
Between Intimate Partners: Patterns, Causes, and Effects, ed. A.P. Cardarelli,
Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1997: 70-89; Schilit, R., G. Lie, and M. Montagne,
"Substance Use as a Correlate of Violence in Intimate Lesbian Relationships,"
Journal of Homosexuality 19 (1990): 51-65; Waldner-Haugrud, L.K., L.V.
Gratch, and B. Magruder, "Victimization and Perpetration Rates of Violence in
Gay and Lesbian Relationships: Gender Issues Explored," Violence and Victims
12 (2) (1997): 173-184; Waldner-Haugrud, L.K., and L.V. Gratch, "Sexual
Coercion in Gay/Lesbian Relationships: Descriptives and Gender Differences,"
Violence and Victims 12 (1) (1997): 87-98; Waterman, C., L. Dawson, and
M. Bologna, "Sexual Coercion in Gay Male and Lesbian Relationships:
Predictors and Implications for Support Services," Journal of Sex Research 26
(1989): 118-124.

---------------------------

Risk Factors Associated With Intimate Partner Violence 

Risk factors are characteristics associated with an increased likelihood that a
problem behavior will occur. It is important to note that the presence of a risk
factor does not mean that the behavior will necessarily occur, only that the odds
of it occurring are greater.

Numerous studies have examined risk factors associated with intimate partner
violence. Results from these studies show that unmarried, cohabiting couples
have higher rates of intimate partner violence than do married couples[1];
minorities have higher rates of intimate partner violence than do whites (see note
5 in "Introduction"); lower income women have higher rates of intimate partner
violence than do higher income women[2]; less educated women have higher
rates of intimate partner violence than do more educated women[3]; and
couples with income, educational, or occupational status disparities have higher
rates of intimate partner violence than do couples with no status disparity.[4]
Research also shows that experiencing and/or witnessing violence in one's
family of origin increases one's chances of being a perpetrator or victim of
intimate partner violence.[5] In addition, research shows that wife assault is
more common in families where power is concentrated in the hands of the
husband or male partner and the husband makes most of the decisions
regarding family finances and strictly controls when and where his wife or
female partner goes.[6] Finally, research suggests that persons with a disability
are at greater risk of violence,[7] although there is no empirical evidence that
having a disability increases one's risk of intimate partner violence.

To increase understanding of risk factors associated with intimate partner
violence, logistic regressions were conducted using a backward stepwise
procedure on respondents married or cohabiting with a partner at the time of
the interview to determine what characteristics of the relationship, respondent,
or partner differentiated those who reported being victimized by their current
partner from those who did not. Separate analyses were conducted for women
(n = 4,896) and men (n = 5,056).

In each of the logistic regressions, the dependent variable was whether the
respondent reported being raped, physically assaulted, or stalked by his or her
current spouse or cohabiting partner. The independent variables were as
follows: 

--Whether the respondent was cohabiting versus married.

--Whether the respondent was white, African-American, American
Indian/Alaska Native, Asian/Pacific Islander, or mixed race.

--Whether the respondent was Hispanic.

--Whether the respondent's race and/or Hispanic origin was different from the
partner's.

--Whether the respondent's education level was a high school diploma or less.

--Whether the respondent's education level was higher than the partner's.

--Whether the respondent was physically assaulted as a child by an adult
caretaker.

--Whether the partner was jealous or possessive.

--Whether the partner denied the respondent access to family, friends, or
family income.

--Whether the partner called the respondent names or shouted or swore at the
respondent in front of other people.

--Whether the respondent was physically disabled when the relationship
started.

The logistic regressions were designed to provide a measure by which the
relative importance of the independent variables could be assessed and to
determine which variables increased the odds that a woman or man would be
victimized by an intimate partner. Income variables were not included in the
analyses because of the--large number of respondents who refused to provide
information about their or their partner's income.

The results of the logistic regression reveal a strong link between child
maltreatment and subsequent victimization by an intimate partner. Women and
men who were physically assaulted as children by adult caretakers were
significantly more likely to report being victimized by their current partner, even
when the effects of other independent variables were controlled (see tables I
and II in sidebar, "Results of the Logistic Regressions"). It is possible that
persons victimized as children by adult caretakers were more tolerant of
persons who engaged in violent and threatening behaviors as adults and,
therefore, more likely to get involved with abusive partners. However, it is also
possible that respondents who reported one type of victimization (e.g., child
maltreatment) were simply more willing to report other types of victimization
(e.g., intimate partner violence). Clearly, more research is recommended on the
possible link between childhood victimization and intimate partner victimization. 

Results of the logistic regression for women, but not men, support previous
research that shows unmarried couples are at greater risk of intimate partner
violence than married couples, and African-American couples are at greater
risk than white couples. They also show a strong link between violence and
emotionally abusive and controlling behavior in intimate relationships. Indeed,
having a verbally abusive partner was associated with the largest change in the
odds that a woman would be victimized by an intimate partner (see table I in
sidebar, "Results of the Logistic Regressions"). These findings support the
theory that much of the violence perpetrated against women by male partners is
part of a systematic pattern of dominance and control, or what some
researchers have called "patriarchal terrorism."[8] 

Results of the logistic regressions for both women and men support the theory
that couples with status disparities experience more intimate partner violence
than do couples with no status disparities. Women were significantly more likely
to report violence by a current partner if their education level was greater than
their partner's, and men were significantly more likely to report being victimized
by their current partner if their race and/or Hispanic origin was different from
their partner's (see tables I and II in sidebar, "Results of the Logistic
Regressions").

Notes

1. Yllo, K., and M. Straus, "Interpersonal Violence Among Married and
Cohabiting Couples," Family Relations 30 (1981): 339-347; Stets, J.E., and
M.A. Straus, "The Marriage License as a Hitting License: A Comparison of
Assaults in Dating, Cohabiting, and Married Couples," Journal of Family
Violence 4 (2) (1989): 161-180; Ellis, L., Theories of Rape: Inquiries Into the
Causes of Sexual Aggression, New York: Hemisphere Books, 1989.

2. Bachman, R., Violence Against Women: A National Crime Victimization
Survey Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, 1994, NCJ 145325; Bachman, R., and L.E. Saltzman,
Violence Against Women: Estimates From the Redesigned Survey, Special
Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, 1995, NCJ 154348; Behind Closed Doors, eds. Straus, M.A., R.J.
Gelles, and S. Steinmetz, Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, 1980;
Zawit, M.W., Violence Between Intimates, Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1994, NCJ 149259.

3. Ibid., Bachman and Saltzman; ibid., Zawit; Hornung, C.A., B.C.
McCullough, and T. Sugimoto, "Status Relationships in Marriage, Risk Factors
in Spouse Abuse," Journal of Marriage and the Family 43 (1981): 675-692.

4. Ibid., Hornung, McCullough, and Sugimoto.

5. Hotaling, G.T., and D.B. Sugarman, "An Analysis of Risk Markers in
Husband-to-Wife Violence," Journal of Family Violence 5 (1990): 1-13;
Kaufman, K.G., J.L. Jasinski, and E. Aldarondo, "Sociocultural Status and
Incidence of Marital Violence in Hispanic Families," Violence and Victims 9 (3)
(1994): 207-222.

6. Frieze, I., and A. Browne, "Violence in Marriage," in Family Violence, eds.
L. Ohlin and M. Tonry, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989: 163-218;
Levinson, D., Violence in Cross-Cultural Perspective, Newbury Park,
California: Sage Publications, 1989.

7. Sobsey, D., Violence and Abuse in the Lives of People With Disabilities:
The End of Silent Acceptance? Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing
Company, 1994; Sobsey, D., and C. Varnhagen, "Sexual Abuse, Assault, and
Exploitation of Individuals With Disabilities," Child Sexual Abuse: Critical
Perspectives on Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment, eds. C. Gagley and
R.J. Thomlinson, Toronto: Wall and Emerson, 1991: 203-216.

8. Johnson, M.P., "Patriarchal Terrorism and Common Couple Violence: Two
Forms of Violence Against Women," Journal of Marriage and the Family 57
(1995): 283-294.

---------------------------

Point in Relationship When Violence Occurs

It is a common belief that the termination of a relationship poses an increased
risk for, or escalation of, intimate partner violence. This assumption is based on
two types of evidence: Divorced or separated women report more intimate
partner violence than do married women.[1] Also, interviews with men who
have killed their wives indicate that either threats of separation by their partner
or actual separation are most often the precipitating events that lead to the
murder.[2]

The NVAW Survey found that married women who lived apart from their
husbands were nearly four times more likely to report that their husbands had
raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked them than were women who lived
with their husbands (20 percent and 5.4 percent). Similarly, married men who
lived apart from their wives were nearly three times more likely to report that
their wives had victimized them than were men who lived with their wives (7.0
percent and 2.4 percent). These findings suggest that termination of a
relationship poses an increased risk of intimate partner violence for both women
and men. However, it should be noted that the survey data do not indicate
whether the violence happened before, after, or at the time the couple
separated. Thus, it is unclear whether the separation triggered the violence or
the violence triggered the separation. 

To test the assumption that the termination of a relationship leads to an
increased risk of intimate partner violence, the NVAW Survey asked women
victimized by a former spouse or cohabiting partner whether their victimization
occurred before, after, or both before and after the relationship ended. Only
6.3 percent of the rape victims and 4.2 percent of the physical assault victims
said their victimization started after the relationship ended (exhibit 10). These
findings suggest most rapes and physical assaults perpetrated against women by
intimates occur in the context of an ongoing rather than terminated relationship.
In comparison, 42.8 percent of the stalking victims said their victimization
started after the relationship ended. Thus, stalking is more likely to occur in the
context of a terminated relationship than is rape or physical assault. 

It is not possible to ascertain from the data whether violence occurring before
the relationship ended was linked to threats about leaving the relationship. It is
also unclear whether women who said they were victimized before and after the
relationship ended experienced more severe violence at the time of separation.
Finally, it is important to note that when a relationship ends is a matter of
interpretation rather than objective reality. Some women may have equated the
end of the relationship with when they or their partner first started talking about
leaving the relationship, whereas others may have equated it with the formal
dissolution of a marriage. Clearly, more research is needed on how terminating
a relationship increases the risk of intimate partner violence for women and
men.

Notes

1. Klaus, P., and M. Rand, Family Violence, Special Report, Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1984, NCJ
093449; Stark, E., and A. Flitcraft, "Violence Among Intimates: An
Epidemiological Review," in Handbook of Family Violence, ed. V.B. Van
Hasselt, New York: Plenum Press, 1988: 307-308; Zawit, M.W., Violence
Between Intimates, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, 1994, NCJ 149259.

2. Bernard, M.L., and J.L. Bernard, "Violent Intimacy: The Family as a Model
for Love Relationships," Family Relations 32 (1983): 283-286; Daly, M., and
M. Wilson, "Evolutionary Social Psychology and Family Homicide," Science
242 (1988): 519-524.

---------------------------

Frequency and Duration of Intimate Partner Rape and Physical Assault

Results from the NVAW Survey confirm previous reports that much of the
violence perpetrated against women by intimates is chronic in nature.[1]
Approximately half (51.2 percent) of the women raped by an intimate and
two-thirds (65.5 percent) of the women physically assaulted by an intimate said
they were victimized multiple times by the same partner. (Stalking victims were
not asked how many times they were stalked by the same partner because
stalking by definition means repeated acts of threat and harassment.) Overall,
female rape victims averaged 4.5 rapes by the same partner, and female
physical assault victims averaged 6.9 assaults. Among women who were
victimized multiple times by the same partner, 62.6 percent of the rape victims
and 69.5 percent of the assault victims said their victimization lasted a year or
more. On average, women who were raped multiple times said their
victimization occurred over 3.8 years, and women who were physically
assaulted multiple times said their victimization occurred over 4.5 years (exhibit
11).

The survey also found that much of the violence perpetrated against men by
intimates is chronic in nature. Two-thirds (66.2 percent) of the physically
assaulted men said they were assaulted more than once by the same intimate
partner. Of these, 66.2 percent said their victimization lasted a year or more.
On average, male victims of intimate partner physical assault reported 4.4
assaults by the same partner. On average, men reporting multiple assaults said
their victimization lasted 3.6 years (exhibit 11). Although much of the physical
assault perpetrated against men by intimates is chronic, it is important to note
that both the average frequency and the average duration of physical assaults
perpetrated against women by intimates are significantly higher than the average
frequency/duration of physical assaults perpetrated against men by intimates.
(Estimates were not calculated for male rape victims because there were fewer
than five victims when stratified by variables.)

Note

1. Langen, P.A., and C.A. Innes, Preventing Domestic Violence Against
Women, Special Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1986, NCJ 102037.

---------------------------

Rate of Injury Among Victims of Intimate Partner Rape and Physical Assault

To generate information on the extent and nature of injuries associated with
violent victimization, respondents disclosing rape and physical assault were
asked whether they were injured during their most recent victimization and, if
so, the types of injuries they sustained. (Respondents disclosing stalking
victimization were not asked these questions because the definition of stalking
used in the survey does not include behaviors that inflict physical harm.) 

The survey found that 36.2 percent of the women raped by an intimate since
age 18 sustained an injury other than the rape itself during their most recent
victimization. (Estimates were not calculated for male rape victims because
there were fewer than five victims when stratified by variables.) The survey also
found that women physically assaulted by an intimate were more than twice as
likely as their male counterparts (41.5 percent and 19.9 percent, respectively)
to be injured during their most recent victimization (exhibit 12). This finding
supports previous research that shows women are more likely than men to be
injured during an assault by an intimate.[1] 

Injury estimates for female victims of intimate partner violence generated by the
NVAW Survey are somewhat lower than injury estimates generated by the
NCVS. A recent study conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that
51 percent of the assaults perpetrated against women by intimates during
1992-96 resulted in some type of injury to the victim.[2] The higher rate of
injury uncovered by the NCVS suggests that the context in which that study is
administered and the type of screening questions used leads respondents to
report more serious types of assaults to interviewers. 

Most of the women who were injured during their most recent intimate partner
rape or physical assault sustained relatively minor injuries, such as scratches,
bruises, and welts. Relatively few women sustained more serious types of
injuries, such as lacerations, broken bones, dislocated joints, head or spinal
cord injuries, chipped or broken teeth, or internal injuries (exhibit 13). 

Risk factors associated with injury

Logistic regression was used to determine what characteristics of the victim,
perpetrator, and incident may increase the risk of injury during intimate partner
rapes and physical assaults. Separate regressions, using a backward stepwise
procedure, were conducted for female victims of intimate partner rape (n =
374), female victims of intimate partner physical assault (n = 1,254), and male
victims of intimate partner physical assault (n = 479).

In each of the regressions, the dependent variable was whether the victim was
injured during her or his most recent victimization by an intimate. The
independent variables were as follows:

--Whether the perpetrator was a spouse, cohabiting partner, or date. 

--Whether the victim was white, African-American, American Indian/Alaska
Native, Asian/Pacific Islander, or mixed race.

--Whether the victim was Hispanic.

--Whether the victim was 18 to 25 years of age.

--Whether the incident occurred in the victim's or perpetrator's home.

--Whether the perpetrator threatened to harm or kill the victim or someone
close to the victim.

--Whether the perpetrator used a weapon.

--Whether the victim was using drugs or alcohol at the time of the incident.

--Whether the perpetrator was using drugs or alcohol at the time of the
incident.

Results of the logistic regression show that women raped by an intimate partner
were significantly more likely to be injured if they were Hispanic, if their
perpetrator was a spouse or cohabiting partner (rather than a date), if their 
perpetrator threatened to harm or kill them or someone close to them, and if
their perpetrator was using drugs or alcohol at the time of the incident (see table
III in sidebar, "Results of the Logistic Regressions" in "Risk Factors Associated
With Intimate Partner Violence").

In comparison, women who were physically assaulted by an intimate partner
were significantly more likely to be injured if their perpetrator threatened to
harm or kill them or someone close to them and if the perpetrator was using
drugs or alcohol at the time of the incident (see table IV in sidebar, "Results of
the Logistic Regressions" in "Risk Factors Associated With Intimate Partner
Violence").

Finally, results of the logistic regression show that men who were physically
assaulted by an intimate partner were significantly more likely to be injured if
their perpetrator threatened to harm or kill them or someone close to them and
if their perpetrator used a weapon (see table V in sidebar, "Results of the
Logistic Regressions" in "Risk Factors Associated With Intimate Partner
Violence").

Results of the logistic regressions show a strong link between threats of bodily
injury and actual occurrences of injury. These findings imply that threats of
violence should be taken seriously, and violence prevention strategies should
emphasize this fact. Results also show a strong link between drug and alcohol
use on the part of the perpetrator and victim injury. These findings suggest that
some of the inhibitors that may prevent persons from hurting others under
ordinary circumstances are relaxed when persons are under the influence of
drugs or alcohol.

Notes

1. Brush, L.D., "Violent Acts and Injurious Outcomes in Married Couples:
Methodological Issues in the National Survey of Family and Households,"
Gender and Society 4 (1) (1990): 56-67; Kurz, D., "Interventions With
Battered Women in Health Care Settings," Violence and Victims, 5 (1990):
243-256; Langen, P.A., and C.A. Innes, Preventing Domestic Violence
Against Women, Special Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1986, NCJ 102037; McLeer, S.R., and R.
Anwar, "A Study of Battered Women Presenting in Emergency Departments,"
American Journal of Public Health 79 (1989): 65-66; Morse, B., "Beyond the
Conflict Tactics Scale: Assessing Gender Differences in Partner Violence,"
Violence and Victims 10 (4) (1995): 251-272; Schwartz, M.D., "Gender and
Injury in Spousal Assault," Sociological Focus 20 (1987): 61-75; Stark, E., A.
Flitcraft, and W. Frazier, "Medicine and Patriarchal Violence: The Social
Construction of a 'Private' Event," International Journal of Health Services 9
(1979): 461-493.

2. Greenfeld, L., M.R. Rand, D. Craven, P.A. Klaus, C.A. Perkins, C. Ringel,
G. Warchol, C. Matson, and J.A. Fox, Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data
on Crimes by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends, Bureau
of Justice Statistics Factbook, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1998, NCJ 167237.

---------------------------

Victims' Use of Medical Services

Approximately one-third (31 percent) of the women injured during their most
recent intimate partner rape received some type of medical care (e.g.,
ambulance/paramedic services, care in a hospital emergency facility, physical
therapy). Somewhat fewer women and men who were injured during their most
recent physical assault received some type of medical care (28.1 percent and
21.5 percent, respectively) (exhibit 12). Injured women and men had similar
rates and types of medical care. This indicates that injuries sustained by women
and men were similar in severity.

Some victims received more than one type of medical care (e.g., hospitalization
as well as outpatient physical therapy), whereas others received a specific type
of medical care more than once (e.g., 13 physical therapy sessions). Thus, the
annual number of medical treatments provided to intimate partner rape and
physical assault victims exceeds the annual number of intimate partner
victimizations that resulted in treatment. 

Estimates of medical services utilization

Exhibit 14 provides estimates of the average number of nights spent in the
hospital and the average number of visits made to specific medical providers by
adult victims of intimate partner rape and physical assault. These estimates are
based on responses from victims who received the specific type of medical care
considered. For example, the estimate of the average number of nights spent in
the hospital by female intimate partner rape victims (3.9) is based only on
responses by female intimate partner rape victims treated in a hospital on an
inpatient basis. Some of the average frequency estimates are based on a very
small number of responses and, therefore, have a relatively high margin of error
(see footnotes c through f in exhibit 14).

Exhibit 15 presents estimates of the number of intimate partner rapes and
physical assaults resulting in injuries annually, as well as estimates of the specific
types of medical care provided for these rapes and physical assaults annually.
The first row of estimates is based on reported incidents of intimate partner
violence in the past 12 months (see exhibit 2). The remaining estimates are
based on the most recent intimate partner victimization since age 18 (see
exhibits 12 and 14). As these estimates show, women and men made 557,929
visits to hospital emergency rooms for injuries sustained during rapes and
physical assaults perpetrated by intimate partners in the year preceding the
survey. Fully 87 percent (486,151) of these visits were made by women. These
findings support results from previous studies that show a significant number of
women who have experienced intimate partner violence are seen in hospital
emergency rooms.[1]

The NVAW Survey estimate of women and men treated by hospital emergency
department personnel is substantially higher than an estimate generated from the
Study of Injured Victims of Violence (SIVV), a hospital record-extraction
study conducted for the Bureau of Justice Statistics by the Consumer Product
Safety Commission. The SIVV found that, during 1994, hospital emergency
department personnel treated an estimated 243,400 women and men for
injuries sustained at the hands of spouses, ex-spouses, boyfriends, and
girlfriends.[2] Included in the SIVV estimate (but excluded from the NVAW
Survey estimate) is hospital emergency department care to child and adolescent
victims of intimate partner violence, male victims of intimate partner rape, and
male and female victims of intimate partner sexual assault and robbery. Because
these groups were excluded from the NVAW Survey estimates, differences
between the two studies' estimates are even larger than they appear. However,
the SIVV could not identify the patient/offender relationship in 28.8 percent
(407,600) of the hospital emergency department visits identified by the
study. If just half of these visits were to victims of intimate partner violence,
NVAW Survey and SIVV estimates would be more similar.

Notes

1. Abbott, J., R. Johnson, J. Koziol-McLain, and S.R. Lowenstein, "Domestic
Violence Against Women: Incidence and Prevalence in an Emergency
Department," Journal of the American Medical Association 273 (1995):
1763-1767; Dearwater, S.R., J.H. Coben, J.C. Campbell, G. Nash, N. Glass,
E. McLoughlin, and B. Bekemeier, "Prevalence of Intimate Partner Abuse 
in Women Treated at Community Hospital Emergency Departments," Journal
of the American Medical Association 280 (5) (1998): 433-438; McLeer, S.R.,
and R. Anwar, "A Study of Battered Women Presenting in Emergency
Departments," American Journal of Public Health 79 (1989): 65-66.

2. Rand, M.R., Violence-Related Injuries Treated in Hospital Emergency
Departments, Special Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 
Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997, NCJ 156921.

---------------------------

Victims' Involvement With the Justice System 

Reporting to the police

Less than one-fifth (17.2 percent) of the women raped by an intimate said their
most recent rape was reported to the police. Thus, of the estimated 322,230
intimate partner rapes perpetrated against U.S. women in the 12 months
preceding the survey, only 55,424 were reported to law enforcement. (The
322,230 estimate is based on responses from 16 women and should therefore
be viewed with caution.) The vast majority of the reported rapes were reported
within 24 hours. Most of the reports were made by the victim, rather than a
friend, relative, or other third party (exhibit 16). 

The survey found that women who were physically assaulted by an intimate
were significantly more likely than their male counterparts to report their
victimization to the police (26.7 percent and 13.5 percent, respectively).
Similarly, female victims of intimate partner stalking were significantly more
likely than their male counterparts to report their victimization to the police
(51.9 percent and 36.2 percent, respectively) (exhibit 16). As with reports of
intimate partner rape, most of the physical assault and stalking reports were
made within 24 hours of the incident, and most were made by the victim. 

Police response to reports of intimate partner violence

Survey findings confirm that the majority of reports of intimate partner
violence made to the police result in an officer taking a statement, that is,
conducting a face-to-face interview with the victim (exhibit 16). The survey
found no evidence that police respond differently to women than men stalked
by an intimate. However, there is some evidence that police respond differently
to women than men who are physically assaulted by an intimate. A comparison
of police responses to reports of physical assault committed against women and
men by intimates showed that police were significantly more likely to take a
report and to arrest or detain the perpetrator if the victim was female (exhibit
16). Although it is unclear from the survey data why police respond differently
to reports of physical assaults involving female than male victims, it is possible
they do so because physical assaults committed against women tend to be more
chronic and more injurious. (See "Frequency and Duration of Intimate Partner
Rape and Physical Assaults" and "Rate of Injury Among Victims of Intimate
Partner Rape and Physical Assault.")

Reasons for not reporting victimization to the police

When asked why they chose not to report their victimization to the police,
approximately one-fifth (21.2 percent) of the female rape victims said they
were afraid their attacker would retaliate, and one-fifth (20.3 percent) said the
rape was a one-time or minor incident. In addition, 16 percent reported they
were too ashamed or wanted to keep the incident private, and 13 percent
said the police could not do anything (exhibit 17).

When asked why they chose not to report their victimization to the police,
nearly all of the physical assault victims said they did not think the police could
do anything about their victimization, whereas 61.5 percent of the women and
45 percent of the men said the police would not have believed them. In
addition, approximately one-third of the women and one-quarter of the men
said they did not want the police or courts involved (exhibit 17). These findings
suggest that many victims of intimate partner violence--men and women alike--
do not consider the justice system a viable or appropriate intervention at the
time of their victimization.

Note that significantly more women than men chose not to report their physical
assault to the police because they were afraid of their attacker, whereas
significantly more men than women chose not to report their physical assault to
the police because they considered it a minor or one-time incident. These
findings underscore the fact that violence committed against women by intimates
tends to be more threatening and severe than violence committed against men
by intimates. 

The survey found no significant differences between women's and men's
reasons for not reporting their stalking to the police. However, these findings
should be viewed with caution given the small number of male victims (exhibit
17).

Criminal prosecution

Information from the NVAW Survey shows that violence perpetrated against
women by intimates is rarely prosecuted. Only 7.5 percent of the women who
were raped by an intimate, 7.3 percent of the women who were physically
assaulted by an intimate, and 14.6 percent of the women who were stalked by
an intimate said their attacker was criminally prosecuted (exhibit 18). These
figures increase to 31.1 percent, 24.7 percent, and 25.4 percent, respectively
(not shown in exhibit 18), when only victims whose stalking was reported to the
police are considered. According to women's perceptions of the outcome of
the prosecution, less than one-half of the intimate partner perpetrators who had
criminal charges filed against them were convicted of a crime (exhibit 18).

The number of victims (n < 5) was insufficient to reliably calculate prosecution
estimates for male victims of intimate partner rape or stalking. However,
prosecution estimates for male victims of physical assault show that violence
committed against men by intimates is even less likely to be criminally
prosecuted than violence committed against women by intimates. Only 1.1
percent of the men who were physically assaulted by an intimate since the age
of 18 said their attacker was criminally prosecuted (exhibit 18). This figure
increases to 4.1 percent when only victims whose physical assault was reported
to the police are considered.

Temporary restraining orders

The survey found that female victims of intimate partner violence were
significantly more likely than their male counterparts to obtain a protective or
restraining order against their assailant. Specifically, 17.1 percent of the women
but only 3.5 percent of the men who were physically assaulted by an intimate
obtained a restraining order against their assailant after their most recent
victimization. Similarly, 36.6 percent of the women but only 17 percent of the
men who were stalked by an intimate obtained a restraining order against their
assailant (exhibit 19). These findings suggest that women are more frightened by
intimates who victimize them. They also underscore the fact that violence
committed against women by intimates is more chronic and severe than violence
committed against men by intimates.

The survey also found that women who were stalked by an intimate were
significantly more likely to obtain a restraining order against their assailant than
were women who were physically assaulted or raped by an intimate. Similarly,
men who were stalked by an intimate were significantly more likely to obtain a
restraining order than were men who were physically assaulted. A recent study
by the American Bar Association may help explain these findings. The study
found that victims of violence rarely seek restraining orders as a form of early
intervention but rather as an act of desperation after they have experienced
extensive problems.[1] Because stalking by definition involves repeated acts of
harassment and threats, stalking victims were more likely than rape or physical
assault victims to have experienced extensive problems and to have felt a sense
of desperation. 

Information from the survey confirms previous reports that most temporary
restraining orders are violated.[2] More than two-thirds of the restraining
orders obtained by women against intimates who raped or stalked them were
violated, and approximately one-half of the orders obtained by women against
intimates who physically assaulted them were violated. Similarly, more than
two-thirds of the restraining orders obtained by men against intimates who
physically assaulted them and nearly nine-tenths of the orders obtained by men
against intimates who stalked them were violated (exhibit 19). 

Estimates of justice system utilization

Exhibit 20 presents estimates of the number of intimate partner rape, physical
assault, and stalking victimizations that result in a report to the police, an arrest,
a criminal filing, a conviction, and a temporary restraining order annually. The
first row of estimates is based on reported incidents of intimate partner violence
in the past 12 months (see exhibit 2). The remaining estimates are based on the
most recent intimate partner victimization since age 18 (see exhibits 16, 18, and
19). According to these estimates, law enforcement personnel receive
1,966,659 reports of intimate partner rape, physical assault, and stalking
annually. It is unclear from the data how police personnel classify these reports.
For example, police may classify some physical assault reports as threats or
intimidation, and they may classify some stalking cases as trespassing or
vandalism. 

According to NVAW Survey estimates, law enforcement personnel arrest or
detain 598,125 suspects of intimate partner rape, physical assault, and stalking
annually, and 434,072 such suspects are criminally prosecuted annually. It is
unclear how many of these suspects are charged with misdemeanor versus
felony crimes. It is also unclear what specific types of charges are filed against
these suspects (e.g., simple versus aggravated assault, stalking, harassment).

Survey estimates show that 1,131,999 victims of intimate partner rape, physical
assault, and stalking obtain protective or restraining orders against their
attackers annually. Approximately 60 percent (646,809) of these orders are
violated. 

Notes

1. American Bar Association, Legal Interventions in Family Violence: Research
Findings and Policy Implications, Research Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1998, NCJ 171666.

2. Ibid. The ABA study found that 60 percent of the women with temporary
restraining orders reported the order was violated within the year after it was
issued.

---------------------------

Policy Implications

The NVAW Survey provides compelling evidence of the prevalence, incidence,
and consequences of intimate partner violence in the United States. Information
generated from the survey and presented in this report also addresses many
controversial issues surrounding intimate partner violence research, such as
whether women and men suffer equal rates of violence at the hands of
intimate partners, whether race and Hispanic origin affect one's risk of intimate
partner violence, and whether violence is more prevalent among same-sex
cohabitants compared with heterosexual cohabitants. Thus, information
presented in this report can help inform policy and intervention directed at
violence perpetrated against women and men by intimate partners. Based on
findings from the survey, the following conclusions can be drawn. 

1. Intimate partner violence should be treated as a significant social problem.
Analysis of the survey data validates previous research that shows intimate
partner violence is a pervasive and serious social problem in the United States.
According to survey estimates, approximately 1.5 million U.S. women and
834,732 U.S. men are raped and/or physically assaulted by an intimate partner
annually. Because many of these victims suffer multiple victimizations, the
number of intimate partner rapes and physical assaults perpetrated annually
exceeds the number of intimate partner victims annually. Thus, an estimated
322,230 rapes and 4.5 million physical assaults are committed against U.S.
women by intimate partners annually, and an estimated 2.9 million physical
assaults are committed against U.S. men by intimate partners annually. [The
estimated number of rapes perpetrated against U.S. women annually is based
on 16 women who reported being raped by an intimate partner in the 12
months preceding the survey and should be viewed with caution. Furthermore,
the number of male victims was insufficient (n < 5) to calculate the number of
intimate partner rapes committed against men annually.] In addition, 503,485
U.S. women and 185,496 U.S. men are stalked by intimates annually. Given
the pervasiveness of intimate partner rapes, physical assaults, and stalkings
committed against women and men annually, it is imperative that intimate
partner violence be treated as a major criminal justice and public health
concern. 

2. Women report significantly more intimate partner violence than do men. The
survey found that women were significantly more likely than men to report being
victimized by an intimate partner whether the type of violence was rape,
physical assault, or stalking and whether the period was the victim's lifetime or
the 12 months preceding the survey. Moreover, women who were physically
assaulted by an intimate partner averaged significantly more assaults and
suffered significantly more injuries than did their male counterparts. Given these
findings, intimate partner violence should be considered first and foremost a
crime against women, and prevention strategies should reflect this fact.

3. Studies are needed to determine why different national surveys have
produced such disparate findings with respect to women's and men's
experiences with intimate partner violence. Prior to the NVAW Survey,
national information on women's and men's annual experiences with physical
assault by an intimate came primarily from the Bureau of Justice Statistics'
NCVS and the NFVS. The NVAW Survey finding that women report
significantly more intimate partner violence than do men is consistent with
findings from the NCVS but inconsistent with findings from the NFVS.
Although the NVAW Survey and the NFVS used similar behaviorally
specific questions to screen respondents for physical assault, victimization
estimates generated from the NVAW Survey are substantially lower than those
generated from the NFVS. Conversely, NVAW Survey victimization estimates
are substantially higher than those generated from the NCVS. Studies are
needed to determine how methodological differences, such as the context in
which the survey is administered and question wording, affect women's and
men's reporting of intimate partner violence.

4. Studies are needed to determine why the prevalence of intimate partner
violence varies significantly among women of different racial and ethnic
backgrounds. The survey found that American Indian/Alaska Native women
report significantly more intimate partner rapes than do women from other racial
backgrounds, and Asian/Pacific Islander women report significantly fewer
intimate partner physical assaults. In addition, Hispanic women report
significantly more intimate partner rapes than do non-Hispanic women.
However, differences between minority groups diminish when certain
demographic and relationship variables are controlled.

It is unclear from the survey data whether differences in intimate partner
victimization rates among women of different racial and ethnic groups are
caused by differences in reporting practices. It is also unclear how social,
environmental, and demographic factors intersect with race and ethnicity to
produce differences in intimate partner victimization rates among women of
different racial and ethnic backgrounds. Thus, more research is needed to
establish the degree of variance in the prevalence of intimate partner violence
among women (and men) of diverse racial and ethnic groups and to determine
how much of the variance may be explained by differences in such factors as
cultural attitudes, community services, and income. Research is also needed to 
determine whether differences exist in intimate partner victimization rates for
women of diverse Asian/Pacific Islander groups, American Indian tribes, and
Alaska Native communities. Finally, research is needed to determine whether
differences exist in intimate partner victimization rates among minority women
born in the United States and those who have recently immigrated.

5. Intimate partner violence is more prevalent among male same-sex couples
than female same-sex couples. Findings from the NVAW Survey refute earlier
findings that same-sex couples are about as violent as heterosexual couples.
Male same-sex cohabitants were more likely to report victimization by a male
partner than were male opposite-sex cohabitants by a female partner. In
comparison, female same-sex cohabitants reported less violence by a female
partner than did female heterosexual cohabitants by a male partner. These
findings suggest that gay male couples are more violent than lesbian couples,
whereas lesbian couples are less violent than heterosexual couples. These
findings also indicate that intimate partner violence is perpetrated primarily by
men, whether against same-sex or opposite-sex partners.

6. Violence and emotionally abusive and controlling behavior in intimate
relationships are interrelated. The NVAW Survey provides compelling
evidence of the link between violence and emotionally abusive and controlling
behavior in intimate relationships. Women whose partners verbally abused
them, were jealous or possessive, or denied them access to family, friends, and
family income were significantly more likely to report being raped, physically
assaulted, and/or stalked by their partners, even when sociodemographic
factors such as race and education were controlled. These findings suggest that
many women in violent relationships are victims of systematic terrorism; that is,
they experience multiple forms of abuse and control at the hands of their
partners. Future research should focus on the extent to which violence
perpetrated against women by intimate partners consists of systematic terrorism
and the consequences of this type of victimization.

7. America's medical community should receive comprehensive training about
the medical needs of victims of intimate partner rape and physical assault. The
injury and medical utilization data generated from the NVAW Survey provide
persuasive evidence of the physical and social costs associated with intimate
partner violence. The survey found that in more than one-third of all rapes and
physical assaults committed against women by intimates, the victim sustains an
injury. Furthermore, in approximately one-third of all such injury victimizations,
the victim receives some type of medical care (e.g., paramedic care, treatment
in a hospital emergency facility, dental care, or physical therapy). The survey
also found that approximately one-fifth of all physical assaults committed against
men by intimates result in an injury to the victim, and in one-fifth of all such
injury victimizations, the victim receives some type of medical treatment. Thus,
of the estimated 7.7 million rapes and physical assaults committed against
women and men annually by intimate partners, approximately 2.5 million will
result in an injury to the victim, and approximately 680,000 will require some
type of medical treatment to the victim. 

Because many female and male victims of intimate partner rape and physical
assault receive multiple forms of care for the same injury victimization, medical
personnel in the United States treat millions of intimate partner injury victims
annually. Given the large number of injury victimizations committed against
women and men by intimate partners annually and the extensive nature of
medical treatment to victims of intimate partner rape and physical assault, it is
imperative that medical professionals receive information about the prevalence
and physical consequences of intimate partner violence and the medical needs
of victims and training on how to make appropriate referrals for victims with
these needs.

8. The U.S. justice system community should receive comprehensive training
about the safety needs of victims of intimate partner violence. As previously
noted, the NVAW Survey produced dramatic confirmation of the pervasive
nature and injurious consequences of intimate partner violence. Information
from the survey also shows that most intimate partner rapes, physical assaults,
and stalkings go unreported to law enforcement. Given these findings, criminal
justice practitioners should receive comprehensive training about the safety
needs of victims and the need to conduct community outreach to encourage
victims of intimate partner violence to report their victimizations to the police. 

---------------------------

Other Publications in the Series

Other publications related to the National Violence Against Women Survey
include:

--Stalking in America: Findings From the National Violence Against Women
Survey, Research in Brief, by Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes,
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,
1998, NCJ 169592.

--Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women:
Findings From the National Violence Against Women Survey, Research in
Brief, by Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes, Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1998, NCJ 172837.

--Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women,
Research Report, by Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes, Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, forthcoming.

To obtain copies of these documents, visit NIJ's Web site at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij or contact the National Criminal Justice 
Service at P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000, 800-851-3420 or
301-519-5500, or send an e-mail message to askncjrs@ncjrs.org. Additional
reports in the series are forthcoming.

Also of interest:

--National Violence Against Women Methodology Report by Patricia Tjaden,
Steven Leadbetter, John Boyle, and Robert A. Bardwell, Atlanta: Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and
Control, forthcoming.

Learn about the availability of this report and other CDC family and intimate
violence prevention activities by visiting the National Center for Injury
Prevention and Control's Web site at http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/fivpt. 

---------------------------

Survey Screening Questions

Rape: Five questions were used to screen respondents for completed and
attempted rape victimization:[a]

--[Female respondents only] Has a man or boy ever made you have sex by
using force or threatening to harm you or someone close to you? Just so there is
no mistake, by sex we mean putting his penis in your vagina.

--Has anyone, male or female, ever made you have oral sex by using force or
threat of force? Just so there is no mistake, by oral sex we mean that a man or
boy put his penis in your mouth or someone, male or female, penetrated your
vagina or anus with their mouth.

--Has anyone ever made you have anal sex by using force or threat of force?
Just so there is no mistake, by anal sex we mean that a man or boy put his penis
in your anus.

--Has anyone, male or female, ever put  fingers or objects in your vagina or
anus against your will or by using force or threats?

--Has anyone, male or female, ever attempted to make you have vaginal, oral,
or anal sex against your will but intercourse or penetration did not occur? 

Physical assault: A modified version of the original Conflict Tactics Scale was
used to screen respondents for physical assault they experienced as an adult at
the hands of another adult:[b]

--Not counting any incidents you have already mentioned, after you became an
adult, did any other adult, male or female, ever:

o Throw something at you that could hurt?

o Push, grab, or shove you?

o Pull your hair?

o Slap or hit you?

o Kick or bite you?

o Choke or attempt to drown you?

o Hit you with some object?

o Beat you up?

o Threaten you with a gun?

o Threaten you with a knife or other weapon?

o Use a gun on you?

o Use a knife or other weapon on you?

Stalking: The following questions were used to screen respondents for stalking
victimization:

--Not including bill collectors, telephone solicitors, or other salespeople, has 
anyone, male or female, ever:

o Followed or spied on you?

o Sent you unsolicited letters or written correspondence?

o Made unsolicited phone calls to you?

o Stood outside your home, school, or workplace?

o Showed up at places you were even though he or she had no business
being there?

o Left unwanted items for you to find?

o Tried to communicate in other ways against your will?

o Vandalized your property or destroyed something you loved?

Respondents who answered yes to one or more of these questions were asked
whether anyone had ever done any of these things on more than one occasion
and whether they felt frightened or feared bodily harm as a result of these
behaviors. Only respondents who reported being victimized on more than one
occasion and who were very frightened or feared bodily harm were counted as
stalking victims.

Victim-perpetrator relationship: Respondents who answered affirmatively to the
rape, physical assault, and/or stalking screening questions were asked whether
their attacker was a current or ex-spouse, a male live-in partner, a female
live-in partner, a relative, someone else they knew, or a stranger. Respondents
disclosing victimization by an ex-spouse or cohabiting partner were asked to
further identify which spouse/partner victimized them (e.g., first ex-husband,
current male live-in partner). Respondents disclosing victimization by a relative
were asked to further specify which relative victimized them (e.g., father,
brother, uncle, cousin). Finally, respondents disclosing victimization by someone
else they knew were asked to further specify the relationship they had with this
person (e.g., date, boss, teacher, neighbor). Only victimizations perpetrated by
current and former spouses, same-sex and opposite-sex cohabiting partners,
and dates are included in the analyses discussed in this report. 

a. Rape screening questions were adapted from those used in The National
Women's Study, Rape in America: A Report to the Nation, National Victim 
Center and the Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center, Arlington,
Virginia, April 23, 1992: 15.

b. Straus, M., "Measuring Intrafamily Conflict and Violence: The Conflict
Tactics (CT) Scale," Journal of Marriage and the Family 41 (1979): 75-88.

---------------------------


Survey Methodology

The National Violence Against Women (NVAW) Survey was conducted from
November 1995 to May 1996 by interviewers at Schulman, Ronca, Bucuvalas,
Inc. (SRBI) under the direction of John Boyle.a The authors of this report
designed the survey and conducted the analysis.

The sample was drawn by random-digit dialing from a database of households
with a telephone in the 50 States and the District of Columbia. The sample was
administered by U.S. Census region. Within each region, a simple random
sample of working residential "hundreds banks" of phone numbers was drawn.
(A hundreds bank is the first 8 digits of any 10-digit telephone number.) A
randomly generated 2-digit number was appended to each randomly sampled
hundreds bank to produce the full 10-digit, random-digit number. Separate
banks of numbers were generated for male and female respondents. These
random-digit numbers were called by SRBI interviewers from their central
telephone facility, where nonworking and nonresidential numbers were
screened out. Once a residential household was reached, eligible adults were
identified. In households with more than one eligible adult, the adult with the
most recent birthday was selected as the designated respondent. 

A total of 8,000 women and 8,005 men 18 years of age and older were
interviewed using a computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) system.
(Five completed interviews with men were subsequently eliminated from the
sample during data editing due to an excessive amount of inconsistent and
missing data.) Only female interviewers surveyed female respondents. To test
for possible bias introduced by the gender of the interviewer, a split-sample
approach was used in the male sample whereby half of the interviews were
conducted by female interviewers and half by male interviewers. A Spanish-
language translation was administered by bilingual interviewers to
Spanish-speaking respondents.

To determine how representative the sample was, select demographic
characteristics of the NVAW Survey sample were compared with demographic
characteristics of the general population as measured by the U.S. Census
Bureau's 1995 Current Population Survey of adult men and women. Sample
weighting was considered to correct for possible biases introduced by the fact
that some households had multiple phone lines and multiple eligibles and for
over- and underrepresentation of selected subgroups. Although there were
some instances of over- and underrepresentation, the overall unweighted
prevalence rates for rape, physical assault, and stalking were not significantly
different from their respective weighted rates. As a result, sample weighting was
not used in the analysis of the survey data.[b]

Data were analyzed using SPSS Base 7.0 for Windows software. Measures of
association were calculated between nominal-level independent and dependent
variables. The chi-square statistic was used to test for statistically significant
differences between two groups (e.g., men and women), and the Tukey's B
statistic was used to test for statistically significant differences among two or
more groups (e.g., whites, African-Americans, Asian/Pacific Islanders,
American Indian/Alaska Natives, and mixed-race persons). Any estimates
based on fewer than five responses were deemed unreliable and, therefore,
were not tested for statistically significant differences between or among groups
and were not presented in the tables. Because estimates presented in this report
generally exclude "don't know," "refused," and other invalid responses, sample
and subsample sizes (n's) vary from table to table.

Because the actual number of victims that is insufficient to reliably calculate
estimates varies depending on the rarity of the exposure and the denominator of
the subgroup being analyzed, the relative standard error (RSE) was calculated
for each estimate presented. (RSE is the ratio of the standard error divided by
the actual point estimate.) Estimates with RSEs that exceed 30 percent were
deemed unstable and were not tested for statistically significant differences
between or among groups. These estimates have been identified in the tables
and should be viewed with caution.

The estimates from this survey, as from any sample survey, are subject to
random sampling error. Exhibit 4 presents the estimated standard errors
multiplied by the z-score (1.96) for specified sample and subsample sizes of
16,000 or less at different response distributions of dichotomous variables (e.g.,
raped/not raped, injured/not injured). These estimated standard errors can be
used to determine the extent to which sample estimates will be distributed
(bounded) around the population parameter (i.e., the true pop-ulation
distribution). As exhibit 4 shows, larger sample and subsample sizes produce
smaller estimated bounds. Thus, the estimated bound at the 95-percent
confidence level for a sample or subsample of 8,000 is 1.1 percentage points if
the response distribution is a 50/50 split, whereas the estimated bound at the
95-percent confidence level for a sample or subsample of 50 is 14 percentage
points if the response distribution is a 50/50 split.

a. John Boyle, Ph.D., is senior vice president and director of the Government
and Social Research Division at SRBI. Dr. Boyle, who specializes in public
policy research in the area of health and violence, also manages the firm's
Washington, D.C., office.

b. A technical report describing the survey methods in more detail and
recording sample characteristics and prevalence rates using weighted and
unweighted data will be available from the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (see sidebar, "Other Publications in the Series").

---------------------------

About the National Institute of Justice

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ), a component of the Office of Justice
Programs, is the research agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. Created
by the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, NIJ
is authorized to support research, evaluation, and demonstration programs;
development of technology; and both national and international information
dissemination. Specific mandates of the Act direct NIJ to: 

--Sponsor special projects and research and development programs that will
improve and strengthen the criminal justice system and reduce or prevent crime.

--Conduct national demonstration projects that employ innovative or promising
approaches for improving criminal justice.

--Develop new technologies to fight crime and improve criminal justice.

--Evaluate the effectiveness of criminal justice programs and identify programs
that promise to be successful if continued or repeated.

--Recommend actions that can be taken by Federal, State, and local
governments as well as by private organizations to improve criminal justice. 

--Carry out research on criminal behavior.

--Develop new methods of crime prevention and reduction of crime and
delinquency. 

In recent years, NIJ has greatly expanded its initiatives, the result of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (the Crime Act),
partnerships with other Federal agencies and private foundations, advances in
technology, and a new international focus. Examples of these new initiatives: 

--Exploring key issues in community policing, violence against women, violence
within the family, sentencing reforms, and specialized courts such as drug
courts.

--Developing dual-use technologies to support national defense and local law
enforcement needs.

--Establishing four regional National Law Enforcement and Corrections
Technology Centers and a Border Research and Technology Center. 

--Strengthening NIJ's links with the international community through
participation in the United Nations network of criminological institutes, the U.N.
Criminal Justice Information Network, and the NIJ International Center.

--Improving the online capability of NIJ's criminal justice information
clearinghouse. 

--Establishing the ADAM (Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring) Program--
formerly the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program--to increase the number of
drug-testing sites and study drug-related crime.

The Institute Director establishes the Institute's objectives, guided by the
priorities of the Office of Justice Programs, the Department of Justice, and the
needs of the criminal justice field. The Institute actively solicits the views of
criminal justice professionals and researchers in the continuing search for
answers that inform public policymaking in crime and justice. 

To find out more about the National Institute of Justice, please contact:

National Criminal Justice Reference Service 
P.O. Box 6000 
Rockville, MD 20849-6000 
800-851-3420
e-mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org

To obtain an electronic version of this document, access the NIJ Web site 
(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij).

If you have questions, call or e-mail NCJRS.

To view all exhibits, please see the PDF file.