Domestic and

Sexual Violence

Data Collection

A Report to Congress under the Violence Against Women Act

Jointly Published with the Bureau of Justice Statistics

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

National Institute of Justice

Research Report

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFF ICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

BJA NI J OJJDP BJS OVC
The studies reported here were mandated by Sections 40292 and 40509 of Title IV, the Violence

Against Women Act, of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The enabling legislation is as follows:

SUBTITLE B—SAFE HOMES FOR WOMEN, DATA AND RESEARCH

SEC. 40292. STATE DATA BASES.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall study and report to the States and to Congress on how

the States may collect centralized data bases on the incidence of sexual and domestic violence

offenses within a State.

(b) CONSULTATION.—In conducting its study, the Attorney General shall consult persons expert in

the collection of criminal justice data, State statistical administrators, law enforcement personnel,

and nonprofit nongovernmental agencies that provide direct services to victims of domestic violence. The final report shall set forth the views of the persons consulted on the recommendations.

(c) REPORT.—The Attorney General shall ensure that no later than 1 year after the date of enactment

of this Act, the study required under subsection (a) is completed and a report describing the findings made is submitted to the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House of

Representatives.

SUBTITLE E—VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT IMPROVEMENTS

SEC. 40509. REPORT ON RECORDKEEPING RELATING TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall complete a

study of, and shall submit to Congress a report and recommendations on problems of recordkeeping of

criminal complaints involving domestic violence. The study and report shall examine—

(1) the efforts that have been made by the Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau of

Investigation, to collect statistics on domestic violence; and 

(2) the feasibility of requiring that the relationship between an offender and victim be reported in

Federal records of crimes of aggravated assault, rape, and other violent crimes.

The National Institute of Justice was charged with carrying out the study of domestic and sexual violence data collection by the States mandated by Section 40292. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)

was given the responsibility of responding to Section 40509. Because national data collections originate

at the State level, BJS joined the Federal study to the State study.
Domestic and 

Sexual Violence 

Data Collection

A Report to Congress under the 

Violence Against Women Act

Justice Research and Statistics Association

A Joint Publication of the National Institute of 

Justice and the Bureau of Justice Statistics

July 1996
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

Jeremy Travis, J.D.

Director

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Jan Chaiken, Ph.D.

Director

Bernard Auchter

Project Monitor

National Institute of Justice

This report was prepared by the Justice Research and Statistics Association (JRSA) under the direction

of Joan C. Weiss, executive director. The primary author of this report is James Zepp, director of the

JRSA National Computer Center. JRSA appreciates the invaluable contributions and support provided

by the representatives of the National Institute of Justice, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and the

Federal Bureau of Investigation as well as the other U.S. Department of Justice officials who participated

in this effort. JRSA also is indebted to the members of the Panel to Assess State and Federal Data on

Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault for their commitment to addressing the issues of domestic and

sexual violence and to this project, and to the directors of the State Statistical Analysis Centers around

the country who took the time to respond to the survey on State data collection efforts.

This project was supported under grant number 95–IJ–CX–0010 to the Justice Research and Statistics

Association by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

Opinions or points of view expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily

reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice.

NCJ 161405

For more information on the National Institute of Justice, please contact:

National Criminal Justice Reference Service

Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

1-800–851–3420

e-mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org

You can view or obtain an electronic version of this document from the NCJRS Bulletin Board System

(BBS) or the NCJRS Justice Information Center World Wide Web site:

To access the BBS, direct dial through your computer modem: 1–301–738–8895—modems should be

set at 9600 baud and 8–N–1. Telnet to ncjrsbbs.ncjrs.org or gopher to ncjrs.org:71

For World Wide Web access, connect to the NCJRS Justice Information Center at:

http://www.ncjrs.org

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

The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice

Assistance, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword ................................................... 1

Executive Summary ............................................ 3

Key Findings ............................................... 3

About This Report ........................................... 5

Purpose and Background ........................................ 6

Findings and Recommendations .................................. 11

Increasing or Improving State and Local Reporting ................ 13

Recognizing the Need for Multiple Indicators To Fully Capture the

 Extent of the Problem ..................................... 14

Identifying Existing Commonalities in Data Definitions and Reporting

 Methods Across States .................................... 14

Data Collection Issues ......................................... 16

Multidimensional Aspects of Domestic and Sexual Violence Offenses ... 16

Offense type—domestic and sexual violence .................... 16

Service domains—criminal justice, health, and social services ....... 17

Criminal justice domains—law enforcement, prosecution, courts

 (criminal and civil), and corrections ......................... 19

Intergovernmental—Federal, State, and local governmental

 coordination ........................................... 19

Multijurisdictional—multiple State and local agencies ............ 20

Definitional aspects of domestic violence ...................... 21

Alternative Approaches to Data Collection ....................... 22

Single focus (domestic or sexual violence) law enforcement

 reporting systems ....................................... 22

Uniform crime reporting ................................... 23

Crime victimization surveys ................................ 30

Other criminal justice domains .............................. 33

Multiservice domain data links .............................. 33

Special studies .......................................... 33

Concerns About Reporting Alternatives .......................... 34

Incomplete coverage of all cases ............................ 34

Possible duplication across data systems ...................... 34

Incomplete reporting ..................................... 35

Definitional issues ....................................... 36

Summary ................................................. 37
Tables

Table 1: States With Non-UCR Criminal Justice Data Bases for Domestic

 and Sexual Violence ......................................... 12

Table 2: States With Noncriminal or Civil Data Bases for Domestic and

 Sexual Violence .............................................. 13

Table 3: Data Collection Concerns for State Survey Respondents ........ 35

Appendixes

Appendix A: List of Project Participants ........................... 39

Appendix B: State Survey Form ................................. 45

Appendix C: List of Respondents to JRSA Survey of States

 and Territories .............................................. 51

Appendix D: State Survey Results ................................ 53

Appendix E: FBI NIBRS Status Report as of 06/02/95 ................ 79

Appendix F: A Note on Terminology for Crime Statistics .............. 83
Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection

1

Foreword

The Violence Against Women Act provides for a fundamental change in our

criminal justice system's response to violent crimes committed against women.

This legislation reflects the recognition that violence against women is a crime

with far-reaching, harmful consequences for families, children, and society. It

recognizes the seriousness of the problem of violence against women and offers

direction for a new, collaborative approach to preventing violence and protecting

victims.

As we seize the opportunity to make a difference in the lives of women and

children victimized by violence, we want to be sure to proceed on the basis of

knowledge. We need sound data to guide our policymaking. The Congress

recognized this need by calling for a study to learn how the States could

centralize data collection on the incidence of sexual and domestic violence

offenses and to examine statistical recordkeeping at the Federal level for domestic

violence-related criminal complaints.

This report, supported by the National Institute of Justice and the Bureau of

Justice Statistics, represents an important first step in analyzing what needs to be

done to ensure reliable estimates of the extent and nature of violent crimes

committed against women. The study found that the Federal Government and the

majority of States currently are collecting some statistics annually on these

crimes: 35 States collect data on domestic violence, 30 gather statistics on sexual

violence. Some of these existing State programs can serve as working models for

States that currently do not collect data on these crimes.

For the future, the study identifies a need to grapple with two issues. One is the

variation across States—in definitions, in types of victims included in reporting

requirements, and in other elements—that make it difficult to compare or

aggregate data at a national level. A second is the need to include not only law

enforcement statistics but data from other parts of the criminal justice system.

The study emphasizes the need for collaborative data collection within the

criminal justice system and from other key sources such as health care providers,

employers, and schools—in order to develop a more detailed picture of domestic

and sexual violence. This study itself is evidence of the importance of

collaboration: in this case, between researchers and policymakers at the Federal,

State, and local levels.
Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection

2

Research on violence against women is gaining unprecedented momentum. We

look forward to continued partnership in using the tools of research and statistics

to improve the way we deal with violence against women and treat women

victims of violent crime.

Bonnie J. Campbell

Director

Violence Against Women Office

U.S. Department of Justice

Jeremy Travis

Director 

National Institute of Justice

U.S. Department of Justice

Jan M. Chaiken

Director

Bureau of Justice Statistics

U.S. Department of Justice
Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection

3

Executive Summary

The objectives of the Project to Assess State and Federal Data on Domestic

Violence and Sexual Assault were twofold: to identify ways that States could

centralize the collection of information on the incidence of domestic and sexual

violence offenses and to examine the problems of statistical recordkeeping at the

Federal level for domestic violence-related criminal complaints.

To meet the first objective—State data collection—the researchers focused on

the current status of reporting in the States, which could serve as a starting point

for future data collection improvement efforts. The project concentrated primarily

on law enforcement-based indicators of domestic and sexual violence offenses.

Because of the complex nature of domestic violence as a community problem and

the legislation's citation of centralized State data bases, consideration was given

to information sources outside of the criminal justice system.

A panel of experts representing backgrounds in criminal justice statistics, law

enforcement, and victim services as well as other related concerns met twice to

provide comments and suggestions to the project staff. Information from States

and Territories on their data collection programs and issues was sought through a

survey, to which 47 responded, and followup interviews.

Information on Federal statistical recordkeeping was obtained from a wide range

of Federal, State, and local agencies involved in domestic violence. The project

primarily focused on the efforts of the U.S. Department of Justice—specifically

the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics

(BJS)—to collect domestic violence incident data. The two major programs

reviewed were the FBI's transition from the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR)

system to the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) and the recent

BJS modifications to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS).

Key Findings

The most significant finding was that the Federal Government and a majority of

States (35 for domestic violence; 30 for sexual violence) are currently collecting

some statistics annually on these offenses. On closer inspection, however, there

was a wide variation in how each State defines these offenses, determines what is

counted, and measures or reports incidents. The variability also applies to the

types of victims included in reports. Since some States 
Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection

4

have adopted family violence as opposed to domestic violence statutes, their

statistics may include child victims along with adults. In addition, some State

statutes apply regardless of the gender of the victims and the offenders, while

others are not as inclusive of all possible relationships and living situations. This

results in State statistics that may not be comparable or suitable for aggregation

at the national level for estimates of prevalence and severity. The reasons for

these disparities include differences in State criminal codes, the characteristics of

existing State information systems, and the relative attention to the concerns of

domestic and sexual violence given by individual States.

Issues about accuracy and completeness of coverage also were raised about the

FBI's and BJS's data sets and collection methodologies:

The FBI's summary UCR system, which is currently the main source of

national criminal offense data, does not provide the detailed information

needed to document the full extent of domestic violence-related events known

to law enforcement agencies.

NIBRS, which is intended to replace the UCR system, would provide much

needed detailed data for domestic violence-related offenses. The progress of

law enforcement agencies toward complying with the NIBRS data standard,

however, has been slower than originally anticipated when the standard was

developed in the late 1980s. Further, while the NIBRS standard includes a

major data element related to domestic violence (i.e., victim-offender

relationship), it is not precisely tailored for measuring domestic violence as it

now stands. Relying on local incident-based reporting systems that contain

relevant information for measuring domestic violence but do not fully meet

the current NIBRS data standard raises considerable practical difficulties at

the Federal level.

The NCVS recently has been modified by BJS as a result of discussions and

studies over the past 20 years about the problem of underreporting of

domestic and sexual violence incidents. The revised survey instrument and

procedures were fully implemented for the data set covering the 1993

calendar year, and the first data from the revised survey became available in

late 1994. The first analyses based on this information were published as this

report was being written. Because of the short time that these revisions have

been in effect, they should continue to be evaluated for their effectiveness.
Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection

5

About This Report

This report discusses data collection issues raised by panel members, Federal,

State, and local agencies, and survey responses. It suggests further actions for

improving and expanding data collection and reporting at the State and national

levels. The seriousness of domestic and sexual violence crimes is increasingly

recognized, and the need for better measures to inform policy and planning

decisions is clearly evident. Although no data system will be able to avoid all

possible sources of error, efforts are being made by the Federal Bureau of

Investigation, Bureau of Justice Statistics, and State agencies to improve the

reporting content of their respective statistical systems. Achieving the goal of

improved reporting and more comprehensive statistics for domestic and sexual

violence, however, will require cooperation and coordination of many Federal,

State, and local governments and agencies. Both organizational and technical

solutions are needed.
Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection

6

Purpose and Background

Section 40292 of Title IV—the Violence Against Women Act—of the 1994

Crime Act specifies that a study shall be conducted on “how the States may

collect centralized data bases on the incidence of sexual and domestic violence

offenses within a State.” The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) asked the Justice

Research and Statistics Association (JRSA) to undertake a study of domestic and

sexual violence incident data collection by the States.

Section 40509 of the Violence Against Women Act authorizes that a study be

conducted on the “problems of recordkeeping of criminal complaints involving

domestic violence.” It specifies that this study include an examination of:

The efforts that have been made by the U.S. Department of Justice, including

the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to collect statistics on domestic violence.

The feasibility of requiring that the relationship between an offender and

victim be reported in Federal records of crimes of aggravated assault, rape,

and other violent crimes.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) was designated by the Office of the

Attorney General with the responsibility of responding to this statutory

requirement. Because national data collections originate at the local level, BJS

joined the Federal study to the State study.

The availability of comprehensive and reliable statistical data on domestic and

sexual violence is a critical imperative because decisionmakers at State and local

levels are confronting questions concerning appropriate policies and effective

procedures for addressing this problem, and they need more information to guide

their thinking. Since most laws and policies that deal directly with domestic and

sexual violence offenses are passed by the States, it is appropriate that

information systems are created or enhanced at this level of government.

A project panel of domestic and sexual violence and criminal justice experts

generally agreed that because these problems are complex issues involving many

types of offenders and behaviors, statistical data are needed that can better inform

policy decisions. The mixed results reported in studies on mandatory arrest

policies for domestic violence offenders were cited as
Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection

 Blumstein, Alfred, and Joan Petersilia, “NIJ and Its Research Program,” 25 Years of Criminal 1

Justice Research: The National Institute of Justice, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Justice, December 1994. Limited copies of this document are available from the

National Criminal Justice Reference Service, 800–851–3420. Ask for NCJ 151287. Or you can

view the document online at http://www.ncjrs.org.

7

indicative of the possible unknown dimensions on which more information may

help to provide answers or explain inconsistent policy outcomes.1

Depending on what information is collected, these data can help address

questions such as:

What are the characteristics of offenders and victims? This could help

agencies direct resources toward subpopulations particularly affected by these

problems.

Are there different behavior patterns evident among various offender

subgroups? As policymakers and agency managers wrestle with finding

appropriate strategies for dealing with domestic and sexual violence, the

documentation of any behavioral differences may help to explain the relative

effectiveness of various approaches.

Are there differences in these offenses across communities? Unmet needs for

crime prevention and treatment services could be identified for better planning

and allocation of resources.

What trends are occurring in domestic violence? Do patterns vary over time

by type of offender, victim, or offense?

Much of this project's efforts concentrated on how the States and other key

agencies define and measure these offenses. Because several States had

established incident-based crime reporting systems long before the Federal

Government began its efforts to implement a national system, and because many

have been involved in addressing domestic and sexual violence issues, it is

appropriate to study how other States can learn from this experience and be

encouraged to collect data where questions remain about the prevalence and

severity of these problems.

For the purposes of this project, the legislation was broadly interpreted to mean

an examination of crime statistics related to domestic and sexual violence. This

may include measures of crime incidents, offenses, offenders, and victims. (See

appendix F, which explains various terms used for crime 
Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection

8

statistics. Care in the use of terms for indicating what is being measured is

important when discussing specific data sets.)

Because of the wide scope of the study's topics and the limited time and resources

available to conduct it, the project could only characterize issues and methods of

data collection in general terms. Subsequent investigation would be needed to

identify concerns such as specific differences among individual Federal, State, and

agency data elements; statutory or administrative powers; and legal definitions of

domestic and sexual violence.

This project gathered input from two major sources: 1) a panel of experts

representing a variety of backgrounds in domestic and sexual violence research

and services, criminal justice statistics, and law enforcement, and 2) a survey of

the States. The purpose of these efforts was to elicit information on the current

status of data reporting, concerns about the quality of the data collected, and

strategies for improving reporting on these offenses.

The 1994 Violence Against Women Act specified that this project seek input

from experts with backgrounds in law enforcement, criminal justice statistics, and

victims' services. In fulfillment of this mandate, a panel of individuals representing

these diverse interests was recruited. To further broaden the perspectives

reflected in the discussions and in recognition of other related research activities,

additional participants from other segments of the criminal justice system and

health research also were invited. Although the focus was on data collection at

the State government level, it was important to consider relevant Federal data

collection efforts in this subject area. States often adopt Federal data standards

for compliance with funding or reporting requirements, comparability with other

States, and ease of adoption since no development time is required. Since the

majority of information generated on domestic and sexual violence incidents is

from local agencies, and they generally have the primary role in implementing

criminal justice policies, their perspective on reporting concerns was important

for this study. For this reason, participation by representatives from Federal and

local governments was sought.

Project activities included two meetings of the Panel to Assess State and Federal

Data on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (April 10–11 and June 29, 1995;

see appendix A for a list of participants). Information relevant to Federal data

collection efforts on domestic and sexual violence was presented by

representatives of BJS and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime

Reporting Program Office. In addition, representatives from other Federal

agencies contributed their expertise, including the Bureau of 
Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection

9

Justice Assistance, National Institute of Justice, the Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention, and the Department of Justice's Violence Against Women Office.

Because of the complementary nature of Federal, State, and local goals,

comments on the Federal statistical efforts also were received from non-Federal

criminal justice professionals, including representatives from the International

Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), National Center for State Courts, six

State Statistical Analysis Centers (Alabama, Connecticut, Colorado, Iowa,

Massachusetts, and Michigan), and three local government agencies (the

Washington Metropolitan Police Department; the Alexandria, Virginia, Police

Department; and the Baltimore, Maryland, Mayor's Coordinating Council on

Criminal Justice). Representatives from several domestic violence victims'

advocacy/service organizations—e.g., National Resource Center on Domestic

Violence, Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and the House of

Ruth—also participated in these discussions.

During the first project panel meeting on April 10–11, 1995, in Washington,

D.C., the Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) directors from Alabama, Connecticut,

Colorado, Massachusetts, and Michigan provided descriptions of domestic and

sexual violence data collection efforts in their respective States. Representatives

from domestic and sexual violence agencies discussed data collection systems to

which they contribute information, concerns about existing statistics on these

problems, and issues involving data sharing among service providers and criminal

justice agencies. Law enforcement and other criminal justice representatives cited

some of the problems and limitations that domestic violence incidents present for

the classification and processing of cases. Additional approaches to estimating

domestic and sexual violence incidents were described by a researcher from the

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Staff from the Bureau of Justice

Statistics and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) provided information on

current Federal data collection systems and recent efforts to improve these data

sets.

The panel members reviewed a draft survey instrument developed by JRSA

project staff to obtain information from the States and Territories on existing

domestic and sexual violence data reporting systems and on problems and

solutions they have experienced. Based on suggestions offered during the panel

meeting and on a field test conducted in four States, the survey instrument was

revised. In May the final version (see appendix B) was mailed to each State's or

Territory's SAC director; this official was considered most likely to have

experience with the broad range of data sources on which information was

sought. If a State did not have a SAC, the respective State 
Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection

10

Uniform Crime Reporting Program Office received the survey as the next most

appropriate agency.

A total of 47 responded—42 by the initial June 5, 1995, deadline, and 5 after

reminder phone calls were made and additional copies of the survey were sent to

nonrespondents. (See appendix C for a listing of responding jurisdictions. A

summary of the survey responses is included in appendix D.)

The panel reconvened on June 29, 1995, in Washington, D.C., to review the State

survey results. In addition, Bonnie Campbell, the newly appointed director of the

Violence Against Women Office, U.S. Department of Justice, spoke to the panel

on the need for reliable crime data on domestic and sexual violence. She indicated

that as national policies are being decided on these issues, more data would help

to inform these discussions. Additional comments were made by representatives

from the National Institute of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Bureau of

Justice Assistance, National Academy of Sciences, and the National Center for

State Courts. The FBI representative also briefed the panel on the FBI Criminal

Information Systems Advisory Committee's recent decision to review that

agency's position on the National Incident-Based Reporting System. The

comments and suggestions from panel members were used in preparation of this

project report.
Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection

11

Findings and Recommendations

The major finding is that many States are already collecting or are implementing

systems to collect data on domestic and sexual violence offenses. According to

the State survey results, 35 of 47 responding States and Territories collect

domestic violence statistics annually, and 30 respondents gather sexual violence

statistics. But there is wide variation among States that have systems in place or

nearing completion with regard to what information is collected and how it is

gathered.

The variability reflects differences in how States have approached these two

issues and the existing structures for collecting general crime incident data. For

example, some States have passed specific domestic or family violence statutes

that clearly define this as an offense and may even have statewide reporting

requirements. Other States have not designated domestic violence as a separate

offense but have instituted reporting systems for cases that can be characterized

as such. If a State already had an incident-based crime reporting system, then it

may have simply added or derived domestic violence crime statistics from this.

Lacking this capability, other States have had to create domestic violence-specific

reporting systems.

Since law enforcement agencies are the primary point of first contact with the

criminal justice system and are responsible for enforcing protection orders, their

data are a major source for estimating the overall prevalence and severity of

domestic and sexual violence problems known to the criminal justice system.

Every State and Territory provides Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) data; there

are about 16,000 agencies contributing information to this statistical data set.

Discussions at both panel meetings focused on the National Incident-Based

Reporting System, one of the major developments in law enforcement statistics in

the past 10 years. (See “Incident-based data” under “Uniform Crime Reporting,”

page 26, which describes the issues raised about this data system's future.)

Information from prosecutors, courts, and corrections can provide important

insights into the processing and subsequent dispositions of cases. However,

comprehensive statewide statistical data bases from these sources are less

frequently available than are law enforcement data sets (see table 1). This may be

due to the fact that most of these systems originally were created for operational

information needs, such as case or agency management, and not necessarily for

the production of statistical reports. Unless these capabilities were included in

their initial system design or subsequently added, data on 
Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection

12

the characteristics of victims, offenders, offenses, and other related information

may not be readily available.

Table 1: States With Non-UCR Criminal Justice Data Bases for Domestic and Sexual

Violence

N=47 Domestic Violence Sexual Violence

Data Source Number of States (percent) Number of States (percent)

Protection order registries 10 (21%) 5 (11%)

Protection order issued 11 (23%) 4 ( 9%)

Community corrections 6 ( 13%) 5 (11%)

Corrections 7 (15%) 7 (15%)

State criminal history repository 14 (30%) 12 (26%)

Civil/criminal courts 13 (28%) 10 (21%)

Special data bases or flagging 9 (19%) 10 (21%)

systems

Source: See appendix D, “State Survey Results,” questions 12a, 12b, 12f, 12g, 12h, 12j, 12k,

13a, 13b, 13f, 13g, 13h, 13j, and 13k.

Although most States collect data on domestic and sexual violence, the State

survey indicates that few draw on noncriminal justice information sources (see

table 2). As noted in the previous discussion of criminal justice data bases, unless

specific statistical reporting capabilities have been built into these information

systems, data may not be easily obtainable for research and policy analysis

purposes.
Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection

13

Table 2: States With Noncriminal or Civil Data Bases for Domestic and Sexual Violence

N=47 Domestic Violence Sexual Violence

Data Source Number of States (percent) Number of States (percent)

Child protection services 8 (17%) 11 (23%)

Health care providers 5 (11%) 4 ( 9%)

Higher education institutions 3 ( 6%) 4 ( 9%)

Victim services providers 18 (38%) 10 (21%)

Source: See appendix D, “State Survey Results,” questions 12c, 12d, 12e, 12i, 13c, 13d, 13e, and

13i.

Despite data collection difficulties cited in the project panel discussions and the

State survey responses, the importance of having reliable and comprehensive

indicators for domestic violence was repeatedly highlighted. Data are needed for

basic research on the problems of domestic and sexual violence, for resolving

debates over proposed legislation and budgets, for guiding administrative or

managerial decisions over program policies and resources, and for informing the

public about the seriousness and extent of these problems in their communities.

The following suggestions for future work on improving and expanding domestic

and sexual violence data collection emerged from the panel discussions and

survey responses.

Increasing or Improving State and Local Reporting

Although the majority of States are collecting some form of information on

domestic and sexual violence offenses, there is still a significant number that do

not. In addition, there are substantial disparities in the types and quantity of data

collected. If the availability of reliable indicators for domestic and sexual violence

is considered an important goal, then several strategies can be employed to

improve and expand this reporting effort.
Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection

14

To encourage States to improve or establish a data reporting program for

domestic and/or sexual violence offenses, various educational activities could be

provided to increase State officials' awareness of successful efforts by other

States. Through publications or meetings, exemplary programs could be

highlighted as working models for other States to adopt.

An important factor in maintaining ongoing data collection programs is showing

that information gathered is used for analyses or is worthwhile for

decisionmaking. Such feedback can be a strong motivating influence to the staff

who are generating data. By providing examples of analyses and applications

based on these data, policymakers may be more willing to allocate the authority

and resources necessary to establish or continue collecting information on these

concerns. These may be analytic approaches to policy alternatives, crime analysis

systems for police, or planning tools for agencies to direct staff and other

resources.

Recognizing the Need for Multiple Indicators To Fully Capture the Extent

of the Problem

It was evident from this study that domestic and sexual violence offenders are not

single populations; there are a number of subgroups that have distinct behaviors

and motivations. Although the reporting of aggregate statistical figures can

provide some rough estimates of prevalence, important differences may be lost

that could be significant for policy and planning decisions.

Therefore, consideration should be given to identifying indicators that could

inform these discussions. Special studies could help to provide detailed

information beyond general statistical data sets. This includes methods for

estimating offender or victim characteristics not captured in general statistical

reports and examining individual histories for patterns of recidivism among

offender subpopulations.

Identifying Existing Commonalities in Data Definitions and Reporting

Methods Across States

A more indepth analysis of State reporting systems could be conducted to identify

existing commonalities in definitions, forms, and practices across States.

Although this study received materials from many of the States in response to the

survey, not all States responded or provided all of the referenced items. The

constraints of this project did not allow for a systematic comparison of individual

data elements, procedures, and definitions across jurisdictions and agencies, but a
Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection

15

review was done of the available materials that looked for examples and general

trends among the respondents.

A State-by-State analysis could serve as a good starting point for any national

reporting standards or help in compiling multi-State data on domestic and sexual

violence incidents. By disseminating this analysis to the States, some may be

persuaded to modify their current practices to increase data comparability across

States.
Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection

16

Data Collection Issues

The following pages present issues and concerns raised during the two panel

meetings, during discussions with individuals involved with domestic and sexual

violence problems or statistical information systems, and from the responses to the

State survey. Any data collection efforts by the States will have to address many of

these concerns in order to implement or expand their systems.

Multidimensional Aspects of Domestic and Sexual Violence Offenses

The many aspects related to domestic and sexual violence include possible data

sources, point-of-case involvement or intervention, and definitional criteria that can

determine what information may be collected and some of the resulting limitations.

Recognizing these multiple dimensions is important to ensure that the resulting data

sets respond to policy and other informational needs. Because both domestic and

sexual violence are complex issues involving many social and psychological forces,

reliance on a single statistical indicator does not present a complete picture of either

problem.

Offense type—domestic and sexual violence

The legislation mandated that this project study data collection alternatives for both

domestic and sexual violence offenses. These are separate crimes that usually have

their own respective statutory definitions and reporting mechanisms. Although the

concept of sexual violence has been expanded over time in many States to include a

broader range of victimizations, its acceptance as a major criminal offense was well

established. Recognition of domestic violence as a serious criminal offense is a more

recent phenomenon.

One indication of the difference between these crimes is that forcible rape was

included in the State data compiled in the Federal Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR)

system at its inception in 1930, while estimates of domestic violence-related incidents

can only be inferred from UCR statistics for murder and manslaughter. Victimoffender relationship information is not collected for other crime categories, so no

domestic violence estimates can be derived from these counts. The data standards

published in 1988 for the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), which

is intended to replace the UCR system, broaden the definition of forcible rape and

increase the sexual violence-related offense categories, but they still do not list

domestic violence as an offense category or provide any other means for explicitly
Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection

 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reporting: National Incident-Based 2

Reporting System—Volume I: Data Collection Guidelines, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, July 1, 1988:5–16.

17

identifying these incidents. It is possible to infer domestic violence incidents from 2

NIBRS information by using the victim-offender relationship data. However, this

could be challenged as including incidents that are not necessarily part of a violent

relationship.

A further distinction between sexual and domestic violence incidents is their defining

characteristics. Sexual violence is a crime that is generally determined by specifically

prohibited sexually related acts taken by a perpetrator against another person. On the

other hand, domestic violence-related incidents not only require a criminal act but also

must occur between individuals with an existing or prior close relationship. Because

any violent act may be considered domestic violence related if a legally accepted

relationship exists between the offender and victim—and the definitions used vary

from jurisdiction to jurisdiction—it is extremely difficult to collect consistent and

reliable statistics for this offense. Furthermore, as with hate crimes, a distinguishing

characteristic for domestic violence incidents may be the offender's intent in

committing an act such as intimidation of the victim. In this instance, a relatively

minor offense like vandalism of property may have a much greater significance when

considered in the context of a violent domestic relationship.

Consequently, the approaches for collecting data on domestic violence are different

from those for sexual violence. In general, domestic violence requires more data

elements and greater detail to derive statistical estimates and to differentiate the

severity or nature of cases. While personnel generating incident reports need training

to ensure accurate reporting for both offenses, domestic violence appears to present

more difficulties for staff in the field to properly identify these cases. Other concerns

that can affect accurate data reporting will be discussed in later sections.

Service domains—criminal justice, health, and social services

A truly comprehensive data collection effort for domestic and sexual violence

incidents would involve multiple service domains. Because of the strong

psychological and social impact that domestic and sexual violence can have on

victims, awareness and treatment of cases often may not originate in or involve the

criminal justice system. Data from health and social service 
Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection

18

providers can be used to supplement prevalence estimates based on criminal justice

sources.

Interest in integrating or sharing information across service domains to promote

coordination of efforts has led the Bureau of Justice Assistance to fund three

demonstration projects (in Baltimore, Maryland; Santa Clara, California; and the

Commonwealth of Virginia). The experience from the Baltimore domestic violence

demonstration project indicated that definitional differences as well as the varying

responsibilities across agencies can create significant problems for data collection and

integration. Concerns about client confidentiality also may prevent health and social

service providers from sharing information on specific individuals with the criminal

justice system. Even with individual case information, it may be impossible or

extremely expensive to link data across agencies and service domains in order to

avoid duplicate counting of incidents or persons. Further, the disparate sources of

data and uses for which they are intended may argue against their close integration.

A practical concern is that few States indicated in their survey responses that there

were noncriminal justice data bases available for analyses. For this and the previously

cited reasons, the active integration of criminal justice, health, and social services

information systems may not be feasible or desirable. Among the alternatives raised in

the panel discussions were special studies that could incorporate information across

service domains and may provide some insights into the overall prevalence and

handling of domestic violence cases.

Limited tracking of cross-service domain interactions also may provide some

estimates of this phenomenon without requiring an elaborate coordination of separate

information systems. Examples of this are the New York State Domestic Incident

Report form, which includes information on whether an officer made a referral to a

protective or victim services agency, and the Wisconsin Domestic Abuse Report

form, which tracks a case through sentencing and includes various forms of

counseling/treatment as sentencing options and information on whether medical

treatment was required. Since many States have mandatory referral laws for health

and social service providers, report forms used for these referrals could provide some

information on cases originating from noncriminal justice sources.
Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection

19

Criminal justice domains—law enforcement, prosecution, courts (criminal and

civil), and corrections

Within the criminal justice system, data collection is complicated by the division of

responsibilities across many independent entities—law enforcement agencies,

prosecutors, courts, and corrections. Although some local jurisdictions have

established integrated criminal justice information systems, most criminal justice data

are fragmented along operational boundaries. The continued difficulties in obtaining

complete and accurate criminal history records were cited as one indicator of the

inability to track individuals as they move through the criminal justice system or

recidivate for subsequent crimes.

Improving this situation requires surmounting technical, procedural, and

organizational obstacles across many agencies. Although this can be done, it is a

lengthy, resource-intensive process that requires coordination and cooperation at all

levels of the participating organizations. Factors that work against achieving this goal

and other forms of information systems integration are changing governmental

priorities for information, short-term budget horizons, frequent personnel changes, the

absence of or conflicting data standards across information sources, and rapidly

shifting technologies. Any major data collection effort should consider these issues as

part of its planning.

Intergovernmental—Federal, State, and local governmental coordination

Even with a State-centered data collection effort, both the Federal and local levels of

government need to be considered. Federal systems often influence the ways State

agencies design or implement their data systems. As previously noted, the Federal

Government has several major statistical data and records systems (UCR/NIBRS,

NCIC 2000 the Project, National Crime Victimization Survey, and National Criminal

History Improvement Program) that provide data standards, funding, and national

data-sharing capabilities.

Although many States have developed their own information systems independent of

any Federal effort, when feasible, planning for future data systems should try to

maximize their usefulness and potential for piggybacking onto other reporting systems

to avoid repetitive data collection or incompatible information systems. In addition to

the obstacles cited in “Criminal justice domains—law enforcement, prosecution,

courts (criminal and civil), and corrections,” there can be wide variations in offense

classifications and procedures from State to State because each State sets its own

criminal code. This situation often requires a translation of State-
Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection

20

generated information, such as offense codes, into a national coding scheme. The

result may sometimes be a grouping of otherwise dissimilar cases. For example, in

Louisiana an assault may be simply a verbal threat, while other States require physical

contact or injury by an assailant. Consequently, Louisiana may appear to have a

greater problem with assaults than other States when national compilations of State

crime data are reviewed. Although automated criminal records systems can be

programmed to perform many of these report translations, some cases may require

human judgment to interpret the circumstances.

In these situations, State agencies frequently find themselves between Federal data

standards and the applicable State and local practices. Even though States generally

determine criminal statutes, health and social service regulations, and many public

services, it is local agencies that often implement or enforce these policies and

programs. Consequently, local personnel are usually responsible for collecting

information from victims and offenders and must process the reports for submission

to State agencies. Given these circumstances, most statewide data collection

programs will involve substantial intergovernmental coordination and cooperation

among a large number of agencies.

In the area of crime data, some of the larger States must collect and process data from

500 to nearly 1,000 different agencies. Gathering complete and accurate data across

all of these entities in a timely manner can be a challenging task that requires careful

planning, adequate resources (particularly training of local staff in reporting

procedures), and good communications at all levels of participation.

Multijurisdictional—multiple State and local agencies

Because of victim and offender mobility, agencies increasingly must be able to share

information across State and local boundaries. There are several Federal and regional

efforts under way to either provide mechanisms to do this or to encourage the

development of these systems. Achieving this goal will take time, however, and many

technical and organizational obstacles will have to be overcome.

One situation where this has been identified as a serious problem is with court

protection orders because officials outside of the originating jurisdictions generally do

not have ready access to the information required for enforcement. In addition,

policies and standards for issuing court protection 
Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection

 Wiersema, B., “The Impact of Series Incidents on Estimates of Violent Victimization,” paper 3

presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Phoenix, 1993.

21

orders can vary from area to area, making enforcement across jurisdictional

boundaries a complex issue for local authorities.

Definitional aspects of domestic violence

Because the recognition of domestic violence as a serious criminal offense is a

relatively recent phenomena for many communities, understanding of the problem

continues to evolve. Hence, the legal definitions and procedures for this offense can

vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The following discussion of two aspects

of this problem explains some of the differences in how domestic violence incidents

are treated.

Domestic abuse as a continuum of violent actions. Domestic violence often does

not consist of a single incident; it is instead a continual state of victimization.3

Therefore, recognizing and counting domestic violence incidents can be somewhat

different from other types of crimes, which are generally limited in time and do not

often involve repeated offender victimization of the same person. In the National

Crime Victimization Survey, this circumstance is acknowledged by the use of a “series

crime incident” designation for situations in which the respondent cannot identify

details for discrete victimization events, and more than five victimizations occurred in

the previous 6 months.

Because intimidation also may be part of the behavior exhibited by abusers, offenses

that otherwise would not be considered violent may be characterized as part of an

overall behavior pattern. This further complicates the recording of criminal events

since it involves judging an offender's motivation.

With this concept of domestic violence as a continuum of behaviors rather than a

discrete event, it is understandable why domestic violence statistics may include many

different criminal actions that vary from relatively minor offenses to extremely serious

ones. This situation particularly applies as the definition of domestic violence is made

more inclusive of the range of abusive behaviors. Some of these may or may not be

part of the governing statutes for any given State, which may make comparing data

across States exceedingly difficult.
Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection

 See appendix D, question 38. 4

 See appendix D, questions 19, 20, 21, and 22. 5

22

It also becomes a measurement issue because thresholds along this continuum must be

established to determine whether and how any given event or action is counted. These

decisions have obvious implications for resulting statistical figures and observations.

A range of relationships from spouses to intimate acquaintances and

nonrelatives. Some States are inclusive in their definition of domestic violence as far

as the range of victim-offender relationships allows, while others require either a

spousal relationship or a child in common for a criminal act to be considered domestic

violence. As legal definitions of domestic violence expand to include more informal 4

relationships such as current or ex-boyfriends/girlfriends, roommates, and cohabitants,

the reporting systems must be modified to reflect these broader perspectives and to

differentiate the characteristics of these victim/offender subgroups within the general

population. Otherwise, important details may be lost in working with aggregate

statistics, which could blur the diversity among domestic violence victims and

offenders.

Alternative Approaches to Data Collection

In both the panel discussions and State survey responses, it was evident that the States

have adopted a wide variety of approaches to collecting data on domestic and sexual

violence incidents. This is largely explained by differences in statutory legal 5

definitions and procedures, individual agency authority, and existing data and

reporting systems.

For example, the State of Connecticut uses a separate form to collect family violence

offense data since it does not have an operational general crime incident-based

reporting system. This data collection program is mandated by a statute that also

specifies many of the data items to be gathered. The State intends to incorporate this

information into NIBRS, which it is currently implementing.

Single focus (domestic or sexual violence) law enforcement reporting systems

Information specific to domestic and sexual violence offenses often has not been

included in general criminal justice reporting systems. Because some 
Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection

 See appendix D, questions 21d and 22d. 6

23

State statutes call for reporting on these concerns, one approach used by several

States has been the development of a special report form for either domestic violence

or sexual violence incidents.6

In some instances this is a supplement to a State's Uniform Crime Reporting form

(Kansas, Michigan, and Puerto Rico), while in others it is a completely separate

reporting system (Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, and Wisconsin). As States

move from the aggregate data reporting system (UCR) to incident-based, NIBRStype systems, many States operating separate reporting systems for domestic and

sexual violence offenses (e.g., Connecticut) are planning to merge them into the

general data collection program.

One advantage of a single-focus approach to data collection is that it allows gathering

of offense-specific information that may be more difficult to include in a general form

intended for all possible crimes. The trade-off is that specialized forms may be more

difficult to implement on a statewide basis and may be considered an additional

reporting burden.

Uniform crime reporting

Since 1930 the Uniform Crime Reporting system has been the major national

statistical series for crimes known to law enforcement agencies. All States contribute

data to this program in some manner. This system, however, only reports aggregate

totals for crimes, which limits any analyses to indicating general trends in crime and

not much more. In the 1980s the FBI conducted studies that led to the decision to

replace the summary UCR system with NIBRS. The following discussion highlights

some of the issues related to UCR and NIBRS and the implementation status of these

data systems.

Aggregate crime data. The summary UCR program provides only aggregate or total

data on eight major crimes and on arrestee age, sex, and racial/ethnic characteristics

for all offenses. Known as the Part I Offenses, the eight offense categories are:

Criminal homicide (murder and nonnegligent manslaughter).

Forcible rape (rape by force and attempts to commit forcible rape).
Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection

 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook, Washington, D.C.: U.S. 7

Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1984:5–32.

 See appendix D, questions 4 and 5. 8

24

Robbery (theft using a firearm, knife or cutting instrument, other dangerous

weapon, or strong-arm method to force or threaten a victim).

Aggravated assault (an unlawful attack on a victim using a firearm; knife or

cutting instrument; other dangerous weapon; or hands, fists, and feet).

Burglary (includes forcible entry; unlawful, nonforcible entry; and attempted

forcible entry of a structure to commit a felony or a theft).

Larceny theft (the unlawful taking, carrying, leading, or riding away of property

from the possession or constructive possession of another person, except for a

motor vehicle).

Motor vehicle theft (theft or attempted theft of an auto, truck, bus, or other

vehicle that is self-propelled and runs on land surface and not on rails).

Arson (willful or malicious burning of or attempt to burn a structure, vehicle, or

other property, with or without intent to defraud).7

About 16,000 law enforcement agencies participate in the FBI's UCR system, and

almost every State has a functioning UCR Program Office. With its long history and

stability, UCR statistics are the most frequently cited data for national, State, and local

crime trends in this country. Unfortunately, the weaknesses of the UCR are generally

acknowledged, and its value for policy and planning decisions is extremely limited.

At this time the majority of States still produce only UCR data reports. Although

most States are working toward implementing a statewide incident-based reporting

system, only a few have fully operational programs. Even among States with

operational systems, the data reported may reflect only a small proportion of the

jurisdictions or crimes in that State.8

Although it would be technically feasible to add domestic violence to the offenses

reported as aggregate statistics, there potentially would be some confusion with other

offenses. Since domestic violence can be any criminal act between persons having a

legally recognized relationship for this purpose,
Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection

 Saltzman, Linda E., James A. Mercy et al., “Identification of Nonfatal Family and Intimate 9

Assault Incidents in Police Data,” American Journal of Public Health, 62, No. 7 (July 1992):1018–

1020.

25

 in an aggregate statistical reporting system that includes domestic violence as a

category, it would be impossible to tell how many domestic violence incidents were

murders, how many were assaults, or even how many were acts of intimidation that

did not involve physical harm. Conversely, in an aggregate reporting system, the

proportion of assaults that were related to domestic violence incidents could not be

determined because only a single figure is given for each offense category.

Recognizing the dual nature of domestic violence, incidents could be counted for both

domestic violence and other appropriate offense categories. This practice, however,

would result in possibly double-counting crime incidents with no way to clearly

determine the extent of overlap between domestic violence and other offense

categories.

More complete estimates of sexual violence from aggregate data systems could be

derived by expanding the number of sexual violence offenses to include more than just

forcible rape. These statistics would have the same limitations as other aggregate

information. However, because of the complexity of domestic and sexual violence as

interpersonal events and as crimes, aggregate statistics would be of minimal value for

policy and planning decisions.

One solution to the problem of lack of detail in aggregate statistics is exemplified by a

study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which

reviewed individual nonfatal incident reports from the Atlanta Police Department to

identify how many involved family or intimate assaults. Even though the department 9

does not specifically record family or domestic violence as an offense, CDC staff

determined from a sample of cases reported in 1984 which ones could be classified as

such. Based on the proportion of family and domestic violence incidents found in this

sample, estimates by known offense category could then be calculated for the total

reported crimes. Assuming that the rates found in this study are transferable to other

jurisdictions and time periods, this approach could be used to estimate domestic

violence incidents occurring in other areas. Similar studies could be conducted to

assess the validity of these estimators for other jurisdictions and time periods.
Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection

 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook—NIBRS Edition,

10

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1992.

26

Incident-based data. With local agencies increasingly automating their records

systems, more will have the ability to generate electronic data files that can be used for

a variety of reports and analyses, and they will be able to develop greater capabilities

to conduct incident-based analyses. Although each agency may be able to

electronically access individual records, the information identified may not be

consistent across agencies because of a lack of State data standards, differences in

software used, or local operational characteristics. Therefore, although automation

may improve the likelihood that States can obtain data from local agencies, it will not

guarantee ready input for centralized data bases.

In 1988 the FBI published its NIBRS data standards. This system is the most

prominent national effort to have States collect crime incident data and represents the

most likely source of reasonably comparable State statistics on reported domestic and

sexual violence incidents. The NIBRS data standard is a substantial departure from

the summary UCR system. Instead of aggregate data for 8 crimes, NIBRS specifies

52 data elements (one more data element was subsequently added for identifying hate

crimes) to be reported for every crime incident known to law enforcement.10

Reporting NIBRS information is even more complex than it appears from the

previous statement because NIBRS data elements are divided into six groups or

segments—Administrative Data, Offense, Property, Victim, Offender, and Arrestee.

Except for Administrative Data, all of the segments may need to be addressed for the

same incident depending on the circumstances. For example, a criminal kills a security

guard while robbing a bank. In reporting this incident, two Offense Segments would

be entered—one for murder and one for robbery. Two Victim Segments also would

be submitted—one for the murdered guard and one for the bank robbed. Depending

on what actually was taken or damaged by the robber, one or more Property

Segments also may be required. The UCR system used a hierarchy rule, which

allowed for the reporting of only the most serious offense committed during an

incident; and it had much more limited, if any, related information about the crimes

being committed. Because most automated information systems must allow for the

largest possible data record, NIBRS data files can be quite large relative to the

amount of data being reported.
Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection

 See appendix D, questions 37 and 38. 11

27

NIBRS also increases the number of crime categories about which offense and

arrestee data are collected from 8 to 22. Group A includes the following crimes:

- Arson - Gambling offenses

- Assault offenses - Homicide offenses

- Bribery - Kidnaping/abduction

- Burglary/breaking and - Larceny/theft offenses

 entering - Motor vehicle theft

- Counterfeiting/forgery - Pornography/obscene material

- Destruction/damage/ - Prostitution offenses

 vandalism of property - Robbery

- Drug/narcotic offenses - Sex offenses, forcible

- Embezzlement - Sex offenses, nonforcible

- Extortion/blackmail - Stolen property offenses

- Fraud offenses - Weapon law violations

Arrestee data only are collected for 11 additional offenses, which are referred to as

Group B offenses:

- Bad checks - Liquor law violations

- Curfew/loitering/vagrancy - Peeping Tom

 violations - Runaway

- Disorderly conduct - Drunkenness

- Family offenses, - Trespass of real property

 nonviolent - All other offenses

Although NIBRS does not include a specific domestic violence offense code, it is

possible to estimate domestic violence incidents from NIBRS data because victimoffender relationships are reported for crimes against persons and robbery. Using this

data element, domestic violence estimates can be calculated for any offense category.

The absence of a national definition of domestic violence causes irregularities in the

inclusion/exclusion of more informal relationships such as current or exboyfriends/girlfriends, roommates, and cohabitants. Some States define domestic

violence in terms of a wide range of victim-offender relationships, while others require

either a spousal relationship or a child in common for a criminal act to be considered

domestic violence. The exclusion of informal relationships obscures the distinctions 11

between the characteristics of these 
Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection

28

victim/offender subgroups and the general population and minimizes the aggregate

national estimate.

During the April 10–11 meeting of the project panel, FBI representatives indicated

that adding to the allowable codes for a specific NIBRS data element would be much

easier to implement than expanding the number of data elements. For example, codes

for indicating “ex-boyfriend/girlfriend,” “child in common,” and “shared domicile”

could be introduced for the victim-offender relationship data element, which would

reflect expanded definitions for domestic violence that are used by some States.

Similarly, domestic violence could be added to the list of NIBRS offense codes.

Adding a separate domestic violence data element (such as Michigan and Kansas have

done to their incident-based reporting data standard), however, would create

significant problems for Federal, State, and local governments because they would

have to reprogram software and reprint manuals and forms to accommodate this

change.

Including victim-offender relationship data in the national statistical data standard

does have one important benefit. Because the definitions for domestic and sexual

violence can vary widely across States regarding which types of relationships and

offenses are included, national estimates based on State-reported statistics for these

crimes would not be uniformly consistent. Calculating prevalence estimates using

selected offense categories and victim-offender relationship data would produce more

reasonably consistent national statistics since these figures would be less affected by

differences in State domestic/sexual violence definitions.

Another major difference between the NIBRS and UCR systems is that the NIBRS

record links original incident reports to subsequent arrestees. This feature will allow

further analysis of crime characteristics related to the eventual capture of a suspect.

For domestic violence incidents, this would provide some indication of how

frequently arrests are made in these cases and for various related offenses or types of

offenders.

As long as a State can produce a data file that complies with the FBI's standards, it is

permitted to expand the incident-based data elements collected from law enforcement

agencies within its jurisdiction. One reason for doing so is to increase the utility of the

data for resource allocation studies, crime analysis, and other applications that need

information on crime patterns. Because NIBRS was originally designed as a statistical

data base, it intentionally lacks certain information items that help agencies with their

operational needs. For example, some States include geocodes to map crime 
Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection

 See appendix C. 12

 See appendix C, question 1. 13

29

data and offender physical characteristics, such as scars, marks, and tattoos, to

identify specific criminals and to link previously unknown cases to particular suspects.

The variability across States in their incident-based reporting standards has created

some difficulties for automated information systems vendors and agency data

processing managers. It generally increases the amount of computer software

customization that is required for each agency before it is able to produce NIBRScompliant data files. Consequently, reporting agencies have experienced difficulties

either in locating records management software that complies with the NIBRS data

standard as well as their own State standard or in obtaining the resources necessary to

revise their existing reporting systems.

Because of these and other concerns, NIBRS implementation across the States has

been slow, and many State and local agencies have complained about the additional

reporting burden placed on them. Since participation in UCR and NIBRS is voluntary,

almost any expansion of these reporting requirements can be a significant resource

issue for many agencies that are already coping with difficult budgetary choices.

According to the FBI UCR Program Office, as of June 2, 1995, 8 States had been

approved as capable of producing NIBRS-compliant data, and 20 States were testing

for NIBRS compliance. Only 7 States do not have plans or have not indicated interest

in NIBRS participation. The survey on State domestic and sexual violence data 12

collection conducted by JRSA also indicated that a majority of the States (38, or 81

percent) have or plan to have an incident-based reporting system in the next 2 years.13

Although only a few States are currently producing NIBRS-compliant data, most are

moving in the direction of implementing some level of incident-based reporting

capability statewide. Even some of the States with no intention of meeting the FBI's

data standards either had or were considering an incident-based reporting system.

Consequently, there will probably be a subset of States for which crime incident data

can be aggregated for national-level analyses, and there even may be certain data

elements for which some additional States can provide information to further expand

data coverage. Attaining the goal of a crime incident-based reporting system that is

national 
Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection

 See appendix D, questions 7, 8, and 9. 14

30

in scope and contains uniform data elements, however, may take substantially more

time than originally envisioned and may never be fully achieved without a significant

commitment of Federal resources.

State survey responses also revealed that States have adopted various reporting

methods for collecting domestic violence data. For example, Michigan and Kansas

have added a box on their crime incident report forms that officers must mark to

indicate whether an incident was domestic violence related. Other States (e.g.,

Connecticut, New York, and Wisconsin) have separate forms for reporting domestic

violence. The special domestic violence report form enables States to collect offensespecific information that may be more difficult to include in a general crime incident

report form. Use of a separate form, however, does carry the physical and

psychological burden of additional paperwork, which increases the likelihood that

officers will fail to complete or submit a report.

Finally, it should be noted that any incident-based reporting system also will be subject

to the underreporting concerns that have been raised about the summary UCR

system. Law enforcement agencies cannot be expected to provide data on crimes of

which they are not aware. Consequently, additional sources may be consulted to

estimate the degree to which the problem of underreporting affects the crime statistics

gathered by law enforcement agencies—such as a major Federal statistical data base,

which is discussed in the next section.

Crime victimization surveys

Crime victimization surveys supplement crime statistics generated by law

enforcement agencies. Their purpose is to provide data about crimes that may not be

reported by victims to police and to obtain detailed information that may not be

collected in traditional police reports. State survey responses showed that only a few

States (10, or 21 percent) conduct such surveys, and only half of these collect

domestic or sexual violence data. Among the possible reasons for the low number of 14

States that do these studies are the costs involved, controversies that can arise over

survey questions or methods, and resistance by government agencies to burden

citizens with more information requests.

National Crime Victimization Survey. At the national level, the Bureau of Justice

Statistics operates the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). 
Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection

 Bachman, Ronet, and Bruce M. Taylor, “The Measurement of Family Violence and Rape by 15

the Redesigned National Crime Victimization Survey,” Justice Quarterly, 11, No. 3 (September

1994).

 Bachman, Ronet, and Linda E. Saltzman, Violence Against Women Estimates from the 16

Redesigned Survey, Special Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of

Justice Statistics (NCJ 154348), August 1995.

31

The survey itself is administered by the Bureau of the Census through a cooperative

agreement. It collects information on the following completed and attempted crimes:

rapes, robberies, assaults, larcenies, burglaries, and motor vehicle thefts. The survey's

purpose is to gather information on unreported crimes as well as on aspects of

reported crimes that may not be collected through police-generated crime statistics.

The data consists of interviews from approximately 50,000 housing units and 100,000

persons. All members of a selected household are interviewed every 6 months for a

period of 3 years. The first and fifth interviews are conducted in person; the remainder

are done over the phone. To encourage cooperation in relating what may be very 15

personal or potentially embarrassing information, interviewees are assured that their

responses will be kept confidential. Interviewers receive special training to address

those portions of the survey instrument requiring greater sensitivity.

Past NCVS-based family violence statistics have been substantially lower than those

from specific family violence surveys and studies. In order to address specific

concerns about the NCVS's ability to accurately reflect the incidence of domestic and

sexual violence, several revisions in the survey's questions and procedures have

recently been implemented. These changes in the NCVS should bring its estimates

closer to those from other information sources, but some differences will remain due

to NCVS's purpose, which is to measure potential criminal behavior, as opposed to

other studies' orientation toward family or domestic relations. The 1993 statistics are

the first data set to fully incorporate these changes. The actual data became available

in late 1994, and the first analyses of this data were published in August 1995.16

One important distinction is that the questions on the NCVS instrument are

intentionally phrased to elicit information about respondents' experiences during the

previous 6 months regardless of whether or not they could be considered crimes. This

approach is taken to avoid underreporting due to interviewee misconceptions, which

may be either culturally based or personal perceptions concerning what constitutes

criminal behavior. Therefore, in 
Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection

 Bachman, Ronet, and Bruce M. Taylor, “The Measurement of Family Violence and Rape by 17

the Redesigned National Crime Victimization Survey,” Justice Quarterly, 11, No. 3 (September

1994):509–510.

 Bureau of Justice Statistics, The National Crime Survey: Working Papers, Volume I: Current 18

and Historical Perspectives and Volume II: Methodological Studies, Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, December 1981.

32

addition to those crimes not reported to police for reasons of inconvenience or fear of

involving authorities, these statistics include events that respondents may not consider

to be crimes and would probably not have reported, even if the other barriers did not

exist.

From this perspective, responses to the NCVS questions “are not crime-specific;

rather, they are behavior specific.” Some may argue that this effort to be more 17

inclusive or comprehensive in coverage may lead to an overestimation of crime

because it counts events that are not truly criminal behavior. For domestic violence in

particular, this can be a difficult issue since the public's and the criminal justice

system's concept of this crime continues to evolve. Consequently, keeping statistical

measurement methods consistent and relevant under such circumstances can be

challenging.

By their very nature, victimization survey-based crime estimates will be higher than

law enforcement-generated crime statistics. Concerns have been raised as to how

many of the discrepancies between the two sets of figures are attributable to

measurement methods as opposed to the actual incidence of crimes. The Bureau of

Justice Statistics has conducted and sponsored many studies to assess the possible

impact of various survey methodologies and procedures on reporting results.18

Although some measurement concerns can be addressed by rephrasing questions or

making changes in the administration of the survey instrument, other errors may be

more difficult to control for. This fact was acknowledged in comments by BJS staff in

describing the NCVS's recent revisions:

This redesign project is only one step in the evolution of our thinking about

issues of rape and family violence. Research, however, including the NCVS,

cannot be divorced from the social context in which it is conducted. Existing

attitudes and stereotypes regarding these victimizations are linked inextricably

to our ability, as researchers, to quantify the problem. Unfortunately, research
Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection

 Bachman, Ronet, and Bruce M. Taylor, “The Measurement of Family Violence and Rape by 19

the Redesigned National Crime Victimization Survey,” Justice Quarterly, 11, No. 3 (September

1994):511.

33

indicates the persistence of impediments that prevent many women from

reporting these victimizations.19

Other criminal justice domains

In addition to law enforcement and victimization data, information from prosecutors,

courts, and corrections can show charging practices, conviction rates, and sentencing

patterns for these offenses. Further analysis of these data sources would go somewhat

beyond the original scope of this project, which was to study how data on the

incidence of domestic and sexual violence offenses could be collected. Obtaining

information from these additional sources would expand knowledge about case

dispositions, possible treatment outcomes, and recidivism among types of offenders.

Many of the data collection problems cited for police information also apply to these

segments of the criminal justice system, i.e., lack of uniform data definitions and

standards, incompatible computer hardware and software, and other organizational

barriers. Another problem is that many of the records systems on which any statistical

information is based were developed for internal processing of individuals or cases.

Consequently, they may lack summary reporting capabilities. Finally, data quality also

may be a concern, particularly for data items that are not required for the originating

agency's information needs and, therefore, may not be thoroughly checked or verified

before submission.

Multiservice domain data links

Although such an information system would present valuable data on victims and

offenders, it would need to overcome substantial technical and organizational

obstacles and probably would require greater funding resources than are currently

available. Concerns such as client confidentiality also would prevent tracking

individuals through multiple service systems.

Special studies

With the diversity of victim-offender subpopulations for both domestic and sexual

violence offenses, no general data reporting system will be able to capture sufficiently

detailed information for all possible analyses. Therefore, 
Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection

34

special studies that focus on specific victim-offender groups or behavior patterns may

be a more reasonable solution for obtaining answers to policy questions that general

statistical data sets may not be able to address. If properly planned, such special

studies can supplement what is known from general crime statistical data and could be

used to estimate specific characteristics that may be lost in larger data categories or

groupings.

Concerns About Reporting Alternatives

Unfortunately, no single data reporting system will be able to find all instances of

domestic or sexual violence. Each has weaknesses in definitional detail or

implementation that can lead to uncertainties about possible under- or overreporting

in the resulting statistics. The following sections explore some of these concerns.

Incomplete coverage of all cases

No data source will be able to capture all possible instances of domestic and sexual

violence. Victims' refusal to report crimes to or cooperate with public officials will

contribute to underreporting problems. Any failures by police, prosecutors, and

service providers to recognize or accurately record domestic and sexual violence

offenses also will result in underestimates of prevalence in agency-generated statistics.

Surveys and victims' self-reports may suffer from errors stemming from how the

survey questions are phrased or administered or from the respondents' unwillingness

or inability to answer accurately.

Prevalence estimates, which may be based on samples or indirectly derived from crime

statistics, may be affected by these and other measurement errors. Unfortunately,

because of the realities imposed by data collection resources and methods and the

nature of the crimes being studied, it is not always possible to eliminate or control for

all of these concerns. Consequently, any analyses of these statistics must simply

acknowledge these limitations and, when available, use alternative measures that may

provide additional support for these indicators.

Possible duplication across data systems

Individual victims and offenders may come into contact with several different criminal

justice, health, and social service agencies. Within an agency, the same person also

may be involved in multiple incidents or service events. Without a universal personal

identifier for victims and offenders, it is 
Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection

35

extremely difficult and expensive to track individuals across records that are usually

organized around cases or incidents. The task is even harder when multiple agencies

are involved, since records systems may not be compatible. Given that domestic abuse

and sexual violence are behaviorally motivated crimes, there is a tendency for these

offenders to recidivate. This may result in the duplication of individuals in statistical

figures based on agency records. Depending on the nature of the analysis, this may or

may not be important. For example, research related to mandatory arrest policies

require specific followup information on known abusers to identify intervention points

and subsequent behaviors. Studies looking at other aspects of victim-offender

characteristics may not be so dependent on the elimination of duplicate records.

Incomplete reporting

Failures to provide complete and accurate data plague most information-gathering

efforts. Criminal offense reporting may be affected by factors such as victim

noncooperation and agency failures to collect data or properly implement procedures.

The level of difficulty these problems create for statewide data collection was

indicated in the State survey (see table 3).

Table 3: Data Collection Concerns for State Survey Respondents

N=47 Serious Problem Some Problem

Data Collection Concerns . Number of States (percent) Number of States (percent)

High error rates in local agency 2 ( 4%) 31 (66%)

submissions

Incomplete local agency submissions 6 (13%) 33 (70%)

Nonparticipation by local agencies 6 (13%) 27 (57%)

Source: See appendix D, question 33.
Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection

36

Because domestic and sexual violence victims can face possible reprisals by the

offenders, a heavy burden of embarrassment, and other repercussions, obtaining their

cooperation can be extremely difficult for law enforcement and other agencies. The

act of reporting domestic violence and some sexual violence incidents may be

considered by victims as a last resort or as a way to make an irreparable break in a

relationship. Consequently, the victims may perceive reporting as an admission of

personal failure that they cannot face or believe is avoidable.

Additionally, the problem of adequate training of personnel in handling these cases

often was cited in the project panel discussions and survey responses. As many

jurisdictions are recognizing the seriousness of these offenses, new laws and policies

are being adopted, which in turn may require time to train all relevant staff in new

procedures and to fully implement them.

For all the above reasons, underreporting of domestic and sexual violence can be

more of a problem than for other types of offenses. Although efforts can be made to

overcome some of the factors hindering accurate reporting, some barriers may never

be completely surmounted given the nature of these crimes and the social and

behavioral issues involved.

Definitional issues

With any statistical data set, it is important to be aware of what definitions are used to

determine what cases or persons are being included or excluded. Both domestic and

sexual violence can be viewed from different perspectives, such as the frequency of

abuse, level of abuse, categories of victims, or types of offenders. Obviously, what is

counted will affect the resulting statistical figures. This situation should be recognized

in any discussion of the prevalence of these social problems.

The panel members and the State survey responders indicated many definitions for

both domestic and sexual violence. This is due in part to statutory differences across

the States, but it also reflects an evolving understanding of domestic and sexual

violence that is occurring in society in general, which is reflected in the policies and

practices of various agencies around the country. Because domestic and sexual

violence are being treated as much more serious criminal offenses than in the past,

these differences can result from some jurisdictions adopting more aggressive or

comprehensive approaches than others.
Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection

37

Unfortunately, this situation makes collecting uniform and consistent data across

jurisdictions much more difficult. During the second panel meeting, the representative

from the Washington Metropolitan Police Department announced that a new sexual

assault law had been recently passed by his government. This announcement

highlighted the challenge of trying to implement statistical measures for events about

which relevant criminal laws may be rapidly changing.

Because identifying domestic violence crimes may involve consideration of a criminal

act, the relationship between the victim and offender, and the offender's motive for

committing the act, properly classifying cases can be more difficult than for other

types of offenses. For example, a crime incident that would normally be considered a

property crime (e.g., a burglary, motor vehicle theft, larceny, or vandalism) could be

classified as a domestic violence incident if the perpetrator's intent is to harass or

intimidate the victim. This may require the investigating officers to go beyond the

facts initially presented for a complaint to its possible underlying circumstances.

An additional complication for data reporting is that some States have not mandated a

specific domestic violence offense with which to charge an offender. In these

instances, the offender is charged with another offense, but his case may be flagged as

a domestic violence case for reporting purposes. Other States have broader family

violence statutes that include domestic violence.

Summary

In summary, different definitions, legal procedures, and records management systems

that are used to identify domestic violence and sexual assault complicate data

collection efforts. Jurisdictional and agency differences can contribute to problems

that prevent the compilation of reliable and uniform national estimates for these

offenses. Definitional differences between service domains such as law enforcement

agencies and victim services providers, along with incomplete sharing of information,

speak to the importance of using multiple sources of data to develop a comprehensive

understanding of the problem.
Appendix A

List of Project Participants
Panel to Assess State and Federal Data

on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault

Yoshio Akiyama, Ph.D.

Chief Statistician

Program Support Section

Criminal Justice Information

Services Division

Federal Bureau of Investigation

10th and Pennsylvania, N.W.

Washington, DC 20535

Fax: 202–324–2258

Bernard V. Auchter

Program Manager

National Institute of Justice

U.S. Department of Justice

633 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Room 842

Washington, DC 20531

Fax: 202–307–9907

Noël Brennan

Deputy Assistant Attorney General

Office of Justice Programs

U.S. Department of Justice

633 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Room 1300

Washington, DC 20531

Fax: 202–514–7805

Debra Bright

Project Coordinator

Mayor’s Coordinating Council on

Criminal Justice

10 South Street, Suite 400

Baltimore, MD 21202

Fax: 410–625–2107

Timothy Bynum, Ph.D.

Michigan Justice Statistics Center

School of Criminal Justice

Michigan State University

560 Baker Hall

East Lansing, MI 48824

Fax: 517–432–1787

Bonnie J. Campbell

Director

Violence Against Women

U.S. Department of Justice

10th and Constitution, N.W., Room 5302

Washington, DC 20531

Fax: 202–307–3911

Nancy Crowell, Research Associate

Commission on Behavior and Social

Science and Education

National Academy of Sciences

2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Suite HA156H

Washington, DC 20418

Fax: 202–334–3829

Kim English

Director

Office of Research & Statistics

Colorado Division of Criminal Justice

700 Kipling Street, Suite 3000

Denver, CO 80403

Fax: 303–239–4491

Mai Fernandez

Special Assistant to the Deputy

Assistant Attorney General

Office of Justice Programs

U.S. Department of Justice

633 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Room 1300

Washington, DC 20531

Fax: 202–514–7805

John Firman

Director of Research

International Association of Chiefs

of Police

515 North Washington Street, 4th Floor

Alexandria, VA 22314

Fax: 703–836–4543

40
Therese Ford

Director

Alabama Criminal Justice Information

Center

770 Washington Avenue, Suite 350

Montgomery, AL 36130

Fax: 334–242–0577

Gilford Gee

Survey Statistician

Programs Support Section

Criminal Justice Information

Services Division

Federal Bureau of Investigation

10th and Pennsylvania, N.W.

Washington, DC 20535

Fax: 202–324–2258

Sgt. Scott Gibson

Patrol Division

Alexandria Police Department

2003 Mill Road

Alexandria, VA 22314

Fax: 703–838–6309

Adele Harrell, Ph.D.

Director

Program on Law and Behavior

The Urban Institute

2100 M Street, N.W., Suite 500

Washington, DC 20037

Fax: 202–659–8985

Barbara Hart

Legal Director, Pennsylvania Coalition

Against Domestic Violence, and

Associate Director, Battered Women’s

Justice Project

6400 Flank Drive, Suite 1300

Harrisburg, PA 17112

Fax: 717–545–9456

Gwen Holden

Executive Vice President

National Criminal Justice Association

444 North Capitol Street, N.W.,

Suite 618

Washington, DC 20001

Fax: 202–508–3859

William Holmes, Ph.D.

Director

Statistical Analysis Center

Executive Office of Public Safety

Division of Programs

100 Cambridge Street, Room 2100

Boston, MA 02202

Fax: 617–727–5356

Jann Jackson

Associate Director

House of Ruth

2201 Argonne Drive

Baltimore, MD 21218

Fax: 410–889–9347

Neal Kauder

Research Associate

National Center for State Courts

300 Newport Avenue

Williamsburg, VA 23187–8798

Fax: 804–220–0449

Susan Keilitz

Senior Research Associate

National Center for State Courts

300 Newport Avenue

Williamsburg, VA 23187–8798

Fax: 804–220–0449

Jackie McCann

Program Specialist

Office for Victims of Crime

U.S. Department of Justice

633 Indiana Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20531

Fax: 202–514–6383

Patti Dobbs Medaris

Branch Chief

Violence Against Women

Bureau of Justice Assistance

U.S. Department of Justice

633 Indiana Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20531

Fax: 202–307–2019

41
Ann Menard

Director

National Resource Center on Domestic

Violence

6400 Flank Drive, Suite 1300

Harrisburg, PA 17112

Fax: 717–545–9456

Richard Moore

Administrator

Statistical Analysis Center

Criminal & Juvenile Justice Planning

Lucas State Office Building

Des Moines, IA 50319

Fax: 515–242–6119

Lisa Doyle Moran

Associate Director for Legal Affairs

National Criminal Justice Association

444 North Capitol Street, N.W.,

Suite 618

Washington, DC 20001

Fax: 202–508–3859

Mary Morgan

Deputy Assistant Attorney General

Office of Policy Development

U.S. Department of Justice

10th and Constitution, N.W., Room 4242

Washington, DC 20530

Fax: 202–514–5715

Ashley Oliver

Presidential Management Intern

Office for Victims of Crime

U.S. Department of Justice

633 Indiana Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20531

Fax: 202–514–6383

Carol Petrie

Director

Planning and Management Division

National Institute of Justice

U.S. Department of Justice

633 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Room 854

Washington, DC 20531

Fax: 202–514–6212

Cathy Poston

Senior Counsel

Office of Policy Development

U.S. Department of Justice

10th and Constitution, N.W., Room 4242

Washington, DC 20530

Fax: 202–514–5715

Dolly Reed

Director

Office of Policy and Management

80 Washington Street

Hartford, CT 06106

Fax: 203–566–1589

Benjamin H. Renshaw, III

Deputy Director

Bureau of Justice Statistics

U.S. Department of Justice

633 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Room 1144

Washington, DC 20531

Fax: 202–307–5846

Stephen Rickman

Director

Crime Bill Support Division

Bureau of Justice Assistance

U.S. Department of Justice

633 Indiana Avenue, N.W., 4th Floor

Washington, DC 20531

Fax: 202–307–2019

Emanuel Ross, Jr., Ph.D.

Operations Research Analyst

Metropolitan Police Department

300 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Room 3142

Washington, DC 20001

Fax: 202–727–0826

Elisabeth Sachs

Senior Counsel

Office of Policy Development

U.S. Department of Justice

10th and Constitution, N.W., Room 4242

Washington, DC 20530

Fax: 202–514–5715

42
Linda Saltzman, Ph.D.

Senior Scientist

Family and Intimate Violence

Prevention Team

Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention

Mail Stop K60, 4770 Buford Highway

Atlanta, GA 30341–3724

Fax: 404–488–4349

Kathy Schwartz

Administrator

Violence Against Women Program

U.S. Department of Justice

633 Indiana Avenue, N.W., 4th Floor

Washington, DC 20531

Fax: 202–307–2019

Edwin Zedlewski, Ph.D.

Director

Office of Criminal Justice Research

National Institute of Justice

633 Indiana Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20531

Fax: 202–307–6394

JRSA Staff

Justice Research & Statistics Association

444 North Capitol Street, N.W.,

Suite 445

Washington, DC 20001

Fax: 202–624–5269

Joan C. Weiss

Executive Director

Jim Zepp

Computer Center Director

Karen Maline

Assistant Director for Information Services

43
Appendix B

State Survey Form
46

Status of Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Reporting in the States

INTRODUCTION - Section 40292 of the Violence Against Women Act mandated that the Attorney General study and report to

the U.S. Congress on the feasibility of collecting domestic and sexual violence data at the state level. A panel of law enforcement,

criminal justice statistics, and domestic violence professionals is working with the Justice Research and Statistics Association

(JRSA) to identify the issues involved in gathering this information. 

As background for this report, JRSA is requesting your assistance in assessing the current status of state-level incident reporting

and in raising concerns that affect this situation. Our focus is on the prevalence of state data collection efforts and the

identification of strategies which may be useful for other states. Consequently, although some differences among states may be a

matter of degree, some questions have only Yes/No responses in order to minimize the questionnaire's complexity. Since the

Federal legislation specifies state-level data collection, discrepancies in items such as reporting formats across states are not

critical issues for this study. We encourage you to consult any other relevant agencies and staff in your state for this subject.

Please return this document to JRSA, 444 North Capitol Street, Suite 445, Washington, DC 20001, (202) 624-5269 fax by

no later than June 5th. If you need a clarification on any questions or additional information, please contact Jim Zepp at JRSA,

(202) 624-8560. Thank you for your cooperation.

State: ___________________ Agency Name: __________________________________________________

Contact Person: __________________________ Phone: ( ) _____-___________

I. CURRENT STATUS OF DATA SOURCES

1. Does your state have or plan to have within the next two years an Yes No

incident-based reporting system for local law enforcement agencies? 1.

(If Yes, please answer Questions 2 through 6. If No, please skip to Question 7.)

2. Which of the following best describes this incident-based reporting

system's current level of implementation? (Check all that apply.)

 a. developing state-wide data standard

 b. implementing data collection among local agencies

 c. applying to FBI for NIBRS data submission certification 

 d. producing incident-based reports but not NIBRS certified

 e. producing incident-based reports and NIBRS certified

2.

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

3. If data reports are not currently available from this system, by what date

would any reports be expected?

3. ___________________

4. If data reports are currently available, indicate the percentage of your

state's local jurisdictions that contribute information. (Check the most

appropriate categories.)

 a. major cities (>50,000 population)

 b. medium to small cities (<50,000 population)

 c. suburban communities

 d. rural areas

4. 25% 50% 75% 100%

a.

b.

c.

d.

0 to 26 to 51 to 76 to
47

5. What percentage of all reported crimes in your state do the incidentbased statistics represent? 5. ____%

6. What percentage of law enforcement agencies in your state record 0 to 26 to 51 to 76 to

victim/offender relationship information for non-homicide offenses? 25% 50% 75% 100%

6.

7. Does your state conduct a crime victimization survey? Yes No

7.

Domestic Violence Sexual Violence

Data Reporting Data Reporting

8./9. If yes to Question 7, does it include data on domestic and/or sexual Yes No Yes No

violence incidents? 8. 9.

10./11. Does your state collect domestic and/or sexual violence data from Yes No Yes No

non-UCR reporting systems? 10. 11.

12./13. If yes to Question(s) 10 or 11, please check all of the following that

apply.

 a. protection order registries

 b. protection order issued

 c. child protection services

 d. health care providers (e.g., individual practitioners, hospitals)

 e. higher education institutions

 f. community corrections (e.g., probation, parole)

 g. corrections (e.g., prison, residential facilities)

 h. state criminal history repository 

 i. victim services providers

 j. civil/criminal courts

 k. special databases or flagging systems (e.g., gun registries, child 

sex offender registries)

12. 13.

a. a.

b. b.

c. c.

d. d.

e. e.

f. f.

g. g.

h. h.

i. i.

j. j.

k. k.

14./15. Is your state required to disseminate the domestic and/or sexual Yes No Yes No

violence data that it collects to specific audiences or agencies? 14. 15.

16. If Yes to Question(s) 14 or 15, please identify these audiences or

agencies. (Specify if your comments only apply to one offense type.)

_______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________
48

II. REPORTING ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE OFFENSES

Domestic Violence Sexual Violence

Data Reporting Data Reporting

17./18. Are annual statistics on domestic and/or sexual violence offenses Yes No Yes No

collected in your state? 17. 18.

(If No, please skip to Question 33.)

19./20. These statistics are produced as part of: (Check the most

appropriate category.)

 a. aggregate crime statistics (e.g., UCR)

 b. incident-based crime statistics (e.g., NIBRS)

 c both a. and b. above

 d. other, please specify _____________________________

19. 20.

a. a.

b. b.

c. c.

d. d.

21./22. How are these statistics derived? 

 a. a specific offense code is entered on incident reports a. a.

 b. a non-offense code or special box is marked on incident reports b. b.

 c. violent offenses are sorted by victim-offender relationship c. c.

 d. domestic/sexual violence specific incident forms are collected d. d.

 e. other methods are used for identifying domestic and/or sexual e. e.

violence cases, please specify

 _____________________________________________________ 

21. Yes No 22. Yes No

23./24. Are victim characteristic data available? 

 a. age a.

 b. race

 c. ethnicity (e.g., Hispanic/Non-Hispanic)

 d. gender

 e. relationship to offender

 f. other, please specify __________________________________

23.

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

Yes No 24. Yes No

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

25./26. Are offender characteristic data available? 

 a. age a. a.

 b. race b. b.

 c. ethnicity (e.g., Hispanic/Non-Hispanic) c. c.

 d. gender d. d.

 e. relationship to victim e. e.

 f. other, please specify __________________________________ f. f.

25. Yes No 26. Yes No

27./28. Can the incidents be categorized by related offense information (e.g., Yes No Yes No

murder, aggravated assault, rape, etc.)? 27. 28.
49

Domestic Violence Sexual Violence

Data Reporting Data Reporting

29./30. Is any information on related injuries (e.g., apparent broken bones, Yes No Yes No

possible internal injuries, severe lacerations, etc.) available? 29. 30.

31./32. Is any information on weapons used (e.g., handgun, knife, fist, etc.) Yes No Yes No

available? 31. 32.

III. DATA COLLECTION ISSUES

33. Please rate the following data collecting concerns as significant problems

for your state:

 a. lateness of local agency data submissions a.

 b. high error rates in local agency submissions b.

 c. incomplete local agency submissions c.

 d. incompatible automated information systems d.

 e. nonparticipation by local agencies e.

 f. lack of adequate local agency staff training f.

 g. ambiguous or inconsistent definition(s) of domestic violence offenses g.

 h. ambiguous or inconsistent definition(s) of sexual violence offenses h.

 i. no state authority to collect these data i.

 j. inadequate funding to implement data collection j.

33. Serious Some None

34. What are the major impediments to state-wide collection of

domestic/sexual violence data? (Please specify if comments apply to only one

offense type.)

35. Are there any resource issues that affect or will affect the collection of

domestic/sexual violence data in your state? (Please specify if comments apply

to only one offense type.)
50

36. Please briefly describe any strategies that your state has successfully

employed for improving data reporting by agencies.

37. If your state has legal definitions for domestic and/or sexual violence

offenses, please attach a copy.

38. If your state has a legal definition for domestic violence offenses, does it

apply to the following victim groups? (Check all that apply.)

 a. female spouses

 b. male spouses

 c. same sex partners

 d. common law partners

 e. ex-spouses

 f. parents

 g. persons having a child in common

 h. boyfriends/girlfriends

 i. ex-boyfriends/girlfriends

 j. children

 k. other, please specify ___________________________________

 l. not applicable

38.

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

g.

h.

i.

j.

k.

l.

39. Does your state's legal definition for sexual violence offenses apply to the

following victim groups? (Check all that apply.)

 a. adult females

 b. adult males

 c. minors

 d. not applicable

39.

a.

b.

c.

d.

40. Please attach copies of the data forms used for collecting domestic

violence and sexual violence information.

We would also appreciate receiving any recent reports or studies that your state has produced on the incidence of domestic and/or

sexual violence. Please return this document to JRSA, 444 North Capitol Street, Suite 445, Washington, DC 20001, (202)

624-5269 fax by no later than June 5th. Thank you again for your help.
Appendix C

List of Respondents to

JRSA Survey of States and Territories
States and Territories Responding to

JRSA Survey on Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection

Alabama Montana

Alaska Nebraska

Arizona Nevada

Arkansas New Hampshire

California New Jersey

Colorado New York

Connecticut North Carolina

Delaware North Dakota

District of Columbia Northern Mariana Islands

Florida Ohio

Georgia Oklahoma

Hawaii Pennsylvania

Idaho Puerto Rico

Illinois Rhode Island

Indiana South Dakota

Iowa Tennessee

Kansas Texas

Louisiana Utah

Maine Virgin Islands

Maryland Washington

Massachusetts West Virginia

Michigan Wisconsin

Minnesota Wyoming

Missouri

52
Appendix D

State Survey Results
54

Status of Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Reporting in the States

SURVEY RESPONSES WITH PERCENTAGES

Please note the following:

- Normal typeface indicates absolute values for responses; italics are used to delineate percentage figures for total responses.

- The N value for each question indicates the total number of responses on which the percentage figures are based.

- Some questions may have less total responses than there were for the overall survey because of negative responses to qualifying questions.

- The percentages given for some questions may not add to 100 due to either rounding error or multiple choice responses.

I. CURRENT STATUS OF DATA SOURCES

1. Does your state have or plan to have within the next two years an incident-based reporting system for N=47 Yes No

local law enforcement agencies? 1. 38 81% 9 19%

(If Yes, please answer Questions 2 through 6. If No, please skip to Question 7.)

2. Which of the following best describes this incident-based reporting system's current level of

implementation? (Check all that apply.)

 a. developing state-wide data standard 40%

 b. implementing data collection among local agencies

 c. applying to FBI for NIBRS data submission certification 

 d. producing incident-based reports but not NIBRS certified

 e. producing incident-based reports and NIBRS certified

N=38

2. # %

a. 15

b. 16

c. 13

d. 12

e. 8

42%

34%

32%

21%
55

3. If data reports are NOT currently available from this system, by what date would any reports be

expected?

State Response

Alabama

Alaska

Arkansas undetermined

Colorado 1-1-96

Connecticut 1-1-96

D.C. 9/96

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Idaho

Indiana unknown

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana 1-1-96

Maine

Maryland July 1996

Massachusetts current

Michigan

Montana 1/1/96

Nebraska 1996

New Hampshire 6/96

New Jersey 7/1/96

New York 1997

North Carolina 6/96

North Dakota

Northern Mariana Islands 12/95

Ohio

Oklahoma

Pennsylvania 1997

Rhode Island 6/97

South Dakota

Tennessee NIBRS

Texas it is in a test mode

Utah

Virgin Islands

Washington 1-1-96

West Virginia in 6 months

Wisconsin
56

4. If data reports are currently available, indicate the percentage of your state's local jurisdictions that contribute information. (Check the most

appropriate categories.)

N=21 0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% No Response

a. major cities (>50,000 population) 8 38% 4 19% 1 5% 8 8% 0 0%

b. medium to small cities 3 14% 5 24% 4 19% 8 38% 1 5%

c. suburban communities 3 14% 4 19% 4 19% 5 15% 5 15%

d. rural areas 6 29% 4 19% 2 10% 7 33% 2 10%

5. What percentage of all reported crimes in your state do the incident-based statistics represent?

 

 Range Frequency Percent 

 1-25% 7 31.8%

 26-50% 3 13.6%

 51-75% 2 9.1%

 76-100% 10 45.5%

 Total responses 22 100.0%

6. What percentage of law enforcement agencies in your state record victim/offender relationship

information for non-homicide offenses?

N=31

 0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% 

 10 32% 4 13% 3 10% 14 45% 

7. Does your state conduct a crime victimization survey? N=47 Yes No

7. 10 21% 37 79%
57

Domestic Violence Sexual Violence

Data Reporting Data Reporting

8./9. If yes to Question 7, does it include data on domestic and/or sexual violence incidents? N=10 Yes No NR N=10 Yes No NR

8. 5 50% 5 50% 0 0% 9. 5 50% 5 50% 0 0%

10./11. Does your state collect domestic and/or sexual violence data from non-UCR N=47 Yes No NR N=47 Yes No NR

reporting systems? 10. 31 66% 15 32% 1 2% 11. 22 47% 20 43% 5 11%

12./13. If yes to Question(s) 10 or 11, please check all of the following that apply. N=31 N=23

 a. protection order registries a. 10 a. 5

 b. protection order issued b. 11 b. 4

 c. child protection services c. 8 c. 11

 d. health care providers (e.g., individual practitioners, hospitals) d. 5 d. 4

 e. higher education institutions e. 3 e. 4

 f. community corrections (e.g., probation, parole) f. 6 f. 5

 g. corrections (e.g., prison, residential facilities) g. 7 g. 7

 h. state criminal history repository h. 14 h. 12

 i. victim services providers i. 18 i. 10

 j. civil/criminal courts j. 13 j. 10

 k. special databases or flagging systems (e.g., gun registries, child sex k. 9 k. 10

offender registries)

12. # % 13. # %

32% 22%

36% 22%

26% 48%

16% 17%

10% 17%

19% 22%

23% 30%

45% 50%

58% 44%

42% 44%

29% 44%

14./15. Is your state required to disseminate the domestic and/or sexual violence data that it N=47 Yes No NR N=47 Yes No NR

collects to specific audiences or agencies? 14. 19 40% 26 55% 2 4% 15. 10 21% 27 57% 10 21%

16. If Yes to Question(s) 14 or 15, please identify these audiences or agencies. (Specify if

your comments only apply to one offense type.)

 (See attached listing for responses to this question.)
58

II. REPORTING ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE OFFENSES

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SEXUAL VIOLENCE

DATA REPORTING DATA REPORTING

17./18. Are annual statistics on domestic and/or sexual violence offenses collected in your N=47 Yes No NR N=47 Yes No NR

state? 17. 35 76% 12 26% 0 0% 18. 30 64% 17 36% 0 0%

(If No, please skip to Question 33.)

19./20. These statistics are produced as part of: (Check the most appropriate category.)

 a. aggregate crime statistics (e.g., UCR)

 b. incident-based crime statistics (e.g., NIBRS) 43% 43%

 c both a. and b. above

 d. other, please specify (See attached listing for responses to this 

question.) 

N=35 N=30

19. 20.

a. 15 a.

b. 10 b.

c. 8 c.

d. 14 d.

29% 27%

23% 30%

40% 23%

13

8

9

7

21./22. How are these statistics derived? N=35 N=30

 a. a specific offense code is entered on incident reports

 b. a non-offense code or special box is marked on incident reports

 c. violent offenses are sorted by victim-offender relationship 

 d. domestic/sexual violence specific incident forms are collected

 e. other methods are used for identifying domestic and/or sexual 

violence cases, please specify (See attached listing for responses to this 

question.)

21. Yes No 22. Yes No

a. a.

b. b.

c. c.

d. d.

e. e.

9 27% 25 74% 17 57% 13 43%

6 17% 29 83% 2 7% 28 93%

13 37% 22 63% 12 40% 18 60%

16 46%

8 23%

19 54% 6 20% 24 80%

27 77% 3 10% 27 90%
59

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SEXUAL VIOLENCE

DATA REPORTING DATA REPORTING

23./24. Are victim characteristic data available? N=35 N=30

 a. age a. a.

 b. race b. b.

 c. ethnicity (e.g., Hispanic/Non-Hispanic) c. c.

 d. gender d. d.

 e. relationship to offender e. e.

 f. other, please specify (See attached listing for responses to this question.)

23. Yes No 24. Yes No

f. f.

29 83% 6 17% 20 67% 10 33%

26 74% 9 26% 21 70% 9 30%

17 49% 18 51% 14 47% 16 53%

29 83% 6 17% 21 70% 9 30%

28 80% 7 20% 20 67% 10 33%

4 11% 34 89% 2 7% 28 93%

25./26. Are offender characteristic data available? N=35 N=30

 a. age a. a.

 b. race b. b.

 c. ethnicity (e.g., Hispanic/Non-Hispanic) c. c.

 d. gender d. d.

 e. relationship to victim e. e.

 f. other, please specify (See attached listing for responses to this question.)

25. Yes No 26. Yes No

f. f.

27 77% 8 23% 21 70% 9 30%

25 71% 10 29% 21 70% 9 30%

18 51% 17 49% 18 60% 12 40%

28 80% 7 20% 21 70% 9 30%

24 69% 11 31% 18 60% 12 40%

 4 11% 31 89% 3 10% 27 90%

27./28. Can the incidents be categorized by related offense information (e.g., murder, N=35 Yes No N=30 Yes No

aggravated assault, rape, etc.)? 27. 27 77% 8 23% 28. 19 63% 11 37%

29./30. Is any information on related injuries (e.g., apparent broken bones, possible internal N=35 Yes No N=30 Yes No

injuries, severe lacerations, etc.) available? 29. 21 60% 14 40% 30. 15 48% 16 52%

31./32. Is any information on weapons used (e.g., handgun, knife, fist, etc.) available? N=35 Yes No N=30 Yes No

31. 26 74% 9 26% 32. 21 70% 9 30%
60

III. DATA COLLECTION ISSUES

33. Please rate the following data collecting concerns as significant problems for your state: N=44

 a. lateness of local agency data submissions a.

 b. high error rates in local agency submissions b.

 c. incomplete local agency submissions c.

 d. incompatible automated information systems d.

 e. nonparticipation by local agencies e.

 f. lack of adequate local agency staff training f.

 g. ambiguous or inconsistent definition(s) of domestic violence offenses g.

 h. ambiguous or inconsistent definition(s) of sexual violence offenses h.

 i. no state authority to collect these data i.

 j. inadequate funding to implement data collection j.

33. Serious Some None

4 9% 37 84% 3 7%

2 5% 31 72% 10 23%

6 14% 33 75% 5 11%

12 27% 21 47% 12 27%

6 13% 27 60% 12 27%

4 9% 35 80% 5 11%

8 19% 15 35% 20 47%

4 10% 16 40% 20 50%

7 17% 10 24% 25 60%

21 50% 13 31% 8 19%

34. What are the major impediments to state-wide collection of domestic/sexual violence data? (Please specify if comments

apply to only one offense type.)

 (See attached listing for responses to this question.)

35. Are there any resource issues that affect or will affect the collection of domestic/sexual violence data in your state?

(Please specify if comments apply to only one offense type.)

 (See attached listing for responses to this question.)

36. Please briefly describe any strategies that your state has successfully employed for improving data reporting by

agencies.

 (See attached listing for responses to this question.)
61

37. If your state has legal definitions for domestic and/or sexual violence offenses, please attach a copy.

 (See attached listing for responses to this question.)

38. If your state has a legal definition for domestic violence offenses, does it apply to the following victim groups. (Check

all that apply.)

 a. female spouses

 b. male spouses 35 75%

 c. same sex partners

 d. common law partners

 e. ex-spouses

 f. parents

 g. persons having a child in common

 h. boyfriends/girlfriends

 i. ex-boyfriends/girlfriends

 j. children

 k. other, please specify (See attached listing for responses to this question.)

 l. not applicable

N=47

38.

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

g.

h.

i.

j.

k.

l.

36 77%

24 51%

29 62%

32 68%

31 66%

32 68%

25 53%

22 47%

29 62%

6 13%

2 4%

39. Does your state's legal definition for sexual violence offenses apply to the following victim groups. (Check all that

apply.)

 a. adult females

 b. adult males 29 62%

 c. minors

 d. not applicable

N=47

39.

a.

b.

c.

d.

31 66%

30 64%

3 6%

40. Please attach copies of the data forms used for collecting domestic violence and sexual violence information.

 (See attached listing for responses to this question.)
Question 16. If Yes to Question(s) 14 or 15, please identify these audiences or agencies. (Specify if your comments only

apply to one offense type.)

State Response

Alaska Governor, legislature, community service providers, native organizations, other state agencies.

California Summary domestic violence data is collected and reported in the Department’s annual publication,

"Crime and Delinquency in California."

Colorado Law enforcement, victims groups, policy analysts (reported in annual state crime report).

Connecticut Published in annual report.

D.C. U.S. attorney, private citizens, women groups, advocacy groups (i.e., Georgetown Law School), attorneys

who represent victims of such crimes.

Florida Governor and legislature; and by request, under our public records law, to any entity requesting such

data. Certain categories, such as our child abuse registry, are exempt.

Georgia GCIC is mandated by state law to provide an annual report on domestic/family violence only.

Idaho All criminal justice agencies.

Louisiana Joint Legislative Workgroup on Treatment and Prevention of Sex Offenses.

Maine All UCR data (including domestic violence and sexual violence) is to be submitted annually to the

Governor, legislators, and all law enforcement agencies.

Montana To Federal agencies.

New Jersey Reports provided to law enforcement agencies and to any agency or person who requests a copy.

Northern

Mariana Islands

Office of Victims of Crime (OVC), U.S. Department of Justice, CNMI Legislature, and any interested

agencies or individuals.

Pennsylvania Report to Legislature on Child Abuse.

Puerto Rico Comisión para los Asuntos de la Mujer, Oficina del Gobernador.

South Dakota Information must be made available to SD law enforcement.

Texas Department of Public Safety.

Utah Department of Human Services Report on Child Abuse.

Washington WASPC will begin collecting domestic violence-related Part I crimes at the direction of the legislature.

We will provide the legislature mid-year and annual statistics. Other distribution of the report will be

provided to local state law enforcement agencies and other governmental groups. Collection will begin

July 1, 1995.

West Virginia UCR information required to be in annual report submitted to legislature, law enforcement, and

Governor’s Office.

Wyoming To the public upon request.

62
Questions 19./20. These statistics are produced as part of: (Check the most appropriate category.)

d. other, please specify

State Response

California Summary reporting form, "Domestic Violence Related Calls for Assistance."

Connecticut Family Violence Reporting Program.

Kansas Through a special report from the Kansas State Attorney General.

Louisiana Sentencing/Corrections.

Maryland State UCR Reports.

Nevada Statewide reporting requirements per statute.

Northern

Mariana

Islands

Federal requirement and SAC activity.

Puerto Rico Other statistical reports required by law.

South Dakota Criminal history statistics.

Tennessee Currently done through Judicial Council; eventually by NIBRS.

West Virginia WV Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

Wisconsin Prosecutor reporting; law enforcement reporting.

Wyoming State DV Collection Program.

63
Questions 21./22. How are these statistics derived?

e. other methods are used for identifying domestic and/or sexual violence cases, please specify

State Response

California Summary form submitted.

Colorado Per NIBRS requirements.

D.C. Non-offense code for domestic violence arrest.

Missouri The contributing agency determines how to identify these types of offenses. They may use one or more of

the methods described above.

New

Hampshire

Crisis center statistics.

South Dakota Fingerprint cards.

Utah NIBRS and Child Abuse Registry.

West Virginia UCR and Domestic Violence Coalition reports.

64
Questions 23./24. Are victim characteristic data available?

f. other, please specify

State Response

Alabama Weapon, injury, location, time of day.

Colorado Per NIBRS requirements.

Connecticut Children involved/present, injury type.

Michigan Injury.

Northern

Mariana

Islands

Location.

Ohio Height, weight, hair, eyes.

West Virginia If victim was complainant.

65
Questions 25./26. Are offender characteristic data available?

f. other, please specify

State Response

Connecticut Liquor/drugs involved, prior court orders, weapons used, offense type.

Michigan Weapon, arrest type, clearances.

Northern

Mariana

Islands

Location.

Ohio Height, weight, hair, eyes.

West Virginia Types of abuse, factors in abuse.

66
Question 34. What are the major impediments to state-wide collection of domestic/sexual violence data? (Please specify if

comments apply to only one offense type.)

State Response

Alabama UCR summary downgrades male sexual assault victims to an assault. Part I offenses lose criminal

mischief and vandalism. Data is not centralized.

Alaska Funding.

Arizona No authority is major problem.

Arkansas Willingness of local agencies to increase reports. This would be a separate program in addition to UCR

and has not really been addressed.

California Funding for IBR when legislation is passed.

Colorado "Ruralness"

- Turnover in small departments.

- Training unavailable (closed state training center five years ago).

- Large number of small (n=<5) law enforcement agencies.

Connecticut We want to implement NIBRS to replace current Family Violence Reporting Program and to begin

collecting data on sexual violence incidents/offenders/victims. Resources are an issue.

D.C. Domestic violence—better training and report writing by officers in the field.

Delaware No statutes relating specifically to domestic violence.

Georgia Lack of training.

Hawaii 1. No standard definition of domestic violence for all agencies.

2. No agency assigned to collect data.

3. No funding to implement a multi-agency data collection system.

Illinois A consistent definition of domestic violence and related offenses is needed for adoption by all reporting

law enforcement agencies. Many revisions need to be made within the current UCR reporting program to

better capture domestic-related incidents.

Indiana Non-UCR state.

Iowa Both types of offenses—non-participation of agencies. Some agencies don’t count cases if the county

attorney decides not to prosecute.

Kansas Lack of training and awareness of officers to identify the specific situation.

Louisiana Funding for data collection.

Maine Accurate and complete data collection for both types of offenses rests in the success or failure of NIBRS

implementation. Congress can mandate, but it is the state UCR Programs and local police agencies that

must struggle to make implementation a reality.

Maryland Domestic violence definitions are geared to criminal law violations and are constrained—they don’t lend

themselves completely to data collection. Funding and other different programs stretching beyond limits

of staff.

67
Massachusetts Non-reporting of domestic violence by non-NIBRS departments.

Michigan With NIBRS, drawing data off by VOR doesn’t guarantee that if your definition says to be a domestic,

you must have "resided" together or had a child in common (this is one definition but widely used), that

this will be the case. You could be a boyfriend or girlfriend and never lived together.

Minnesota Resources to implement NIBRS and definitions of domestic/sexual violence offenses.

Missouri There is no mandatory requirement to report domestic/sexual violence data to the state. Our crime

incident information systems are based on a voluntary reporting standard.

Montana Incompatibility between local and state data collection systems.

Nevada Sexual violence—no statutory authority. Domestic violence—no focus to program, lack of use of data

collected, limited data collection/analysis because of staffing. Both offenses—no Statistical Analysis

Center.

New Jersey None, once all local police departments are automated and participate in IBUCR.

New York Historically, aggregate counts of domestic violence known offenses were reported through UCR.

However, reporting was sporadic and premised on no common definition of domestic violence. In 1994,

legislation was enacted to require police departments to complete a uniform report on all incidents of

"domestic violence," which was defined as criminal conduct between members of the same family or

household.

North Carolina Incident-based crime reporting is not operational in the larger urban departments, which represent almost

half of the reported crimes. The primary source of data is the criminal case filings and dispositions in the

court system, but there is no specific offense classification.

North Dakota Data is collected through NIBRS program. Not all agencies report in incident-based format, therefore data

is not statewide. Also, NIBRS data would only reflect incidents brought to attention of law enforcement.

Northern

Mariana

Islands

Some data donors are not automated nor linked to SAC.

Oklahoma Domestic abuse is collected on a form "as mandated," which collects only date, time, and type of offense.

Pennsylvania Essentially domestic violence is an assault or sexual offense which occurs in a domestic setting. Without

IBR we cannot identify these offenses as domestic violence.

Puerto Rico Lack of funding commitment.

Lack of human resources.

Rhode Island The funding of a full-time position at the state’s Centralized Domestic Violence Unit to process and

analyze data. The VAWA funds will add but $10,000 towards the initiative. The SAC will, however,

lend data collection and analysis assistance.

South Dakota 1. NIBRS reporting is not mandatory in SD.

2. When using FPC’s, there is currently no way to determine if a simple assault charge is related to

domestic violence or not.

Utah NIBRS still needs to be implemented in the larger jurisdictions.

Virgin Islands Need to have automated data collection.

68
Washington Unknown at this time.

West Virginia Switch to IBRS—serious problems with local agency ability to comply, especially with info on sexual

violence. Domestic violence info is okay.

Wisconsin - Incompatible local systems—automated.

- Some non-reporting/non-cooperation.

- The more variables collected, the more errors and/or the more time in correcting them.

69
Question 35. Are there any resource issues that affect or will affect the collection of domestic/sexual violence data in your

state? (Please specify if comments apply to only one offense type.)

State Response

Alabama Developing communications procedures to get data from one state computer system to another. Presently,

courts have civil filings, which include restraining orders. Courts have their own computer network, and it

is not the same as the state’s system.

Alaska Lack of funding.

Arizona Agencies are reluctant to provide data absent clear legislative mandate when additional resources are

required to gather data.

Arkansas Yes, we do not have the resources at this time to add the collection of these two types of data.

Colorado - Training.

- Need computers and software.

Connecticut Yes. Resources are needed for local agencies to switch to NIBRS reporting, particularly the larger cities,

which account for the highest proportion of cases.

D.C. Budget constraints have limited MPD’s efforts to implement Automated Reporting System, which will

capture data elements.

Delaware Lack of data entry funds make late reporting a major issue. Training, especially for new staff, is difficult.

Florida Turnover rate of personnel who handle data causes need for constant training.

Georgia Lack of implementation funding for sexual violence. Funding was just implemented in Jan. ’95 for

Domestic Family Violence.

Hawaii Hawaii needs adequate funding and leaders who are willing to implement a data collection mechanism for

the state regarding domestic violence and general violence.

Illinois Currently there are several problems within the offense and arrest reporting system in Illinois which do not

allow for complete collection of necessary statewide data. These problems need to be alleviated before

additional mechanisms to collect specific domestic/sexual offense data can be put in place.

Iowa Both types of offenses—software concerns and lack of personnel.

Kansas Data is being collected, entered, but funding is not available that allows for additional staff to complete

statistical programs and to eliminate an existing backlog.

Maine Adequate funding to assist local agencies to initially become automated and/or upgrade current software to

be NIBRS compliant.

Maryland The UCR Program already captures domestic violence and has no plans for a separate reporting of sexual

violence. Funding for agencies to report NIBRS. MD Program will collect domestic violence, child

abuse, and sufficient detail on sex crimes to generate adequate information.

Massachusetts Greater use of software for collecting NIBRS data.

Michigan No more so than implementation costs to begin submitting NIBRS data (training, materials, programming,

70
etc.).

Minnesota Lack of funds to implement NIBRS.

Missouri The high costs for reporting complete and accurate crime incident data to the state is always a serious

concern and adversely affects the possibility of complete collection of these data.

Montana No.

Nevada Both offenses—lack of staff/program funding.

New

Hampshire

High caseloads/lack of personnel; no access to fax machines, etc.

New York A statewide database is currently under development.

North Carolina No, it is more of a standards issue of data definition and incident-based automation in the local agencies.

North Dakota Resources at local level for law enforcement agencies to acquire software capable of providing incident

data. Also staff time to enter data. Resources for training/re-training officers ref. incident-based reporting.

Northern

Mariana

Islands

Inadequate funding.

Oklahoma NIBRS, when implemented, will give us much more detail without changing mandate.

Pennsylvania The move to IBR has been funded adequately to date. Funding of protection order registry is unresolved.

Puerto Rico No data available for sexual violence, except for forcible rape.

Rhode Island See previous (question’s) response.

Tennessee Large agencies feel modifying their information systems is prohibitively expensive.

Virgin Islands Lack of computers/automation, need for additional training, and failure to implement (fully) domestic

violence team throughout the Territory.

Washington Unknown at this time.

West Virginia Money, software, equipment lacking, especially at local agency level.

Wisconsin Resources and standards for automation systems and applications—particularly local.

71
Question 36. Please briefly describe any strategies that your state has successfully employed for improving data reporting by

agencies.

State Response

Alabama In crime reporting we use a 4-digit code similar to NCIC codes instead of a 3-digit code. This allows us

to add new codes as we need to.

Alaska Attempting to set standards.

Arizona None have been particularly successful.

Arkansas None—other than extensive quality control of measures and one-to-one training—both by telephone and at

local agencies.

Colorado Provided equipment.

Connecticut In the current Family Violence Reporting Program, staff in the Crime Analysis Unit at state police review

each form for accuracy and completeness and then take the necessary steps to correct them.

D.C. Training of officers, advocacy groups being involved in training, participation of the Metropolitan Police

Department on task forces that are concerned with the issues.

Delaware Used Federal funds to fill in missing and late data.

Florida FDLE has an aggressive training program which serves the entire state. Help is available by phone for

specific questions by agencies.

Georgia Increased the number of training sessions for users; creation of newsletters with information about

procedural changes and issuance of quarterly updates on procedural or systematic changes.

Illinois The Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986 requires law enforcement agencies to forward reports of

domestic violence incidents and information pertaining to orders of protection to the Illinois State Police.

Indiana In process of implementing NIBRS and upgrading CCH.

Iowa Both types of offenses—always have on-going training; paper submission option for agencies that cannot

afford hardware, software, and personnel.

Kansas Newsletter.

Maine 1. Assisted local depts. with NIBRS-based police forms and in-service training.

2. Worked closely with software vendors on NIBRS-compliant standards.

3. Targeted Federal and state justice assistance grants toward record-information improvement.

4. Used special interest groups (victim service agencies) to be NIBRS advocates with police.

Maryland We have an additional Battered Spouse Report associated with our summary UCR Program. This report is

incident based and will evolve into a Domestic Violence Report 1/96. This report will capture crimes and

relationship.

Massachusetts Grants to buy NIBRS software.

72
Michigan - Better definitions.

- Better training/resource manual.

- Expanded VOR/mandatory to complete.

- No defaulting of incomplete data.

Missouri In other criminal justice-related information systems, the state has used video training tapes to promote

completeness, uniformity, and accuracy in field reporting.

Montana None.

Nevada Implemented/completed CHRI baseline assessment.

Implemented III.

Implemented UCR in 1994.

New Jersey Reporting has always been good in New Jersey.

New York Enactment of legislation mandating a uniform report on all alleged incidents of domestic violence.

North Carolina We are presently working with the NC Administrative Office of the Courts to create a database of criminal

cases based on the offense and the last name or address of the complainant and the defendant. This

should give us some good information on cases filed—disposition and sentences of "domestic violence"

cases.

North Dakota So far, low cost things like calling on phone to remind agencies to get their data in—or providing training

upon request. Also train all new officers at academies.

Northern

Mariana

Islands

We have developed a statistical worksheet to be used by our VOCA subgrantees, automate criminal

records, establish criminal history records, and link several criminal justice organizations.

Oklahoma We have been working for several years on NIBRS. Have developed a universal report form, software,

and collection procedures. We hope to get FBI certified this year.

Pennsylvania Funded and assisted in development of IBR software for police.

Rhode Island (a) Assisting in the design of the state domestic violence reporting form, i.e., DV–1.

(b) The move to make the state 90 to 100 percent IBR/NIBR participants.

(c) The negotiating (successfully) for statistical data collecting and activities for the state’s DV Unit.

Utah NIBRS grant—Central Repository plus 50 agencies.

Virgin Islands Tying funding to improved data reporting.

Washington WASPC conducts annual statewide training seminars. We apply extensive editing procedures on every

report received by the Uniform Crime Reporting Section. We have also invited agencies to our office for

any emergency training at the request of any agency.

West Virginia UCR/IBR had best results with legislative mandate for reporting, mandated training for IBRS, and

providing training.

Wisconsin Timely and consistent feedback and error checking (time consuming).

Wyoming Some training of law enforcement officers and the implementation of IBR will give a better picture of

these types of violence.

73
Question 37. If your state has legal definitions for domestic and/or sexual violence offenses, please attach a copy.

State Response

Alabama State statutes on protection from abuse, domestic violence facilities, family violence protection order

enforcement, reporting of child abuse or neglect, and child abuse generally.

Alaska State statutes defining domestic violence for civil laws pertaining to restraining orders.

Arizona State statutes on sexual and family offenses.

Arkansas State statutes on family law definitions; offenses involving family, dependents, etc.; offenses against

children or incompetents; offenses against the person; and sexual offenses.

California State statutes on response to domestic violence.

Colorado State statutes on domestic violence.

Connecticut State statutes on family violence prevention and response: definitions, investigation of family violence by

peace officer, family violence response and intervention units, and family violence offense report.

Florida State statutes on sexual battery.

Georgia State statutes on family violence.

Hawaii State statutes on abuse of family, child, and household members, and sexual offenses.

State statutes on domestic violence crime prevention.

Illinois Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986.

Iowa State statutes on domestic abuse, sex act, sexual abuse definitions.

Kansas State statutes on domestic violence criminal procedure and Suggested Law Enforcement Domestic

Violence Policy.

Maine State statutes on protection from abuse.

Maryland MD House Bill 140—Domestic Violence Act.

Michigan Multiple definitions were indicated but copies were not sent.

Minnesota MN Domestic Abuse Act.

Missouri State statutes on abuse—adults and children—shelters and protective orders and sexual offenses.

Nevada State statutes on domestic violence.

New Jersey State statutory definitions of sexual offenses and domestic violence.

New York NY Family Protection and Domestic Violence Act of 1994 and state statutes on NY State Office for the

Prevention of Domestic Violence.

North Dakota State statutes on adult abuse and gross sexual imposition.

Oklahoma State statutes on domestic abuse, forcible sodomy, rape, and sexual battery.

74
Puerto Rico PR Domestic Abuse Prevention and Intervention Act.

Rhode Island RI Bill 88–H 8719 Domestic Abuse Prevention Act.

Texas Texas Family Code definition of family violence.

Virgin Islands VI statutes on domestic violence, rape, and unlawful sexual contact.

Washington State statutory domestic violence definitions and domestic violence reporting—training, powers, duties.

Wisconsin WI Domestic Abuse Mandatory Arrest Law and Sexual Assault Statutes.

Wyoming State statutes on family violence protection.

75
Question 38. If your state has a legal definition for domestic violence offenses, does it apply to the following victim groups.

(Check all that apply.)

k. other, please specify

State Response

Connecticut Ever lived together.

Florida Anyone who lives, or has lived, together.

Hawaii Persons residing or formerly residing in the same dwelling unit.

Iowa The assault is between persons who have been family or household members residing together within the

past year and are not residing together at the time of the assault.

Kansas No legal definition.

Michigan Dependent upon which one of multiple statutory definitions is applicable to a given case.

Montana In-laws.

North Dakota Any family member.

Northern

Mariana

Islands

The CNMI does not have a domestic violence statute, but existing laws include these victim groups.

Oklahoma Anyone living or who has ever lived under the same roof.

Tennessee Current or former household members.

West Virginia People residing together now or in the past.

Wisconsin Same household or former same household.

76
Question 40. Please attach copies of the data forms used for collecting domestic violence and sexual violence information.

State Response

Alabama AL Uniform Incident/Offense and Arrest Report Forms.

Alaska AK Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault’s Client Intake Report Form.

Connecticut CT NIBRS Form.

D.C. MPD Incident-Based Reporting Form.

Florida State Hate Crime Statistical and Uniform Crime Reports Incident Report Forms.

Georgia GA Family Violence Incident Report Form.

Iowa IA Incident, Arrest, and Supplemental Report Forms.

Kansas KS Standard Arrest/Juvenile and Standard Offense Report Forms.

Maine ME State Police Field, Person/Entity Detail, and Arrestee/Suspect Details Report Forms.

Maryland MD Supplementary Battered Spouse Report Form.

Michigan MI MCR–1 Incident Report Form.

Missouri MO Crime Index Report Form.

Montana MT Department of Family Services Domestic Violence Report Form.

Nevada NV Domestic Violence Arrest Report.

New York NY Standardized Domestic Incident Report.

Northern Mariana Islands CNMI Victim Statistics Worksheet.

Oklahoma OK Domestic Abuse Report Form.

Puerto Rico PR Police Department Domestic Violence Incident Report Forms.

Rhode Island RI DV–1 Domestic Violence Reporting Form.

South Dakota SD Incident Report.

Tennessee TN Domestic Violence Investigations Law Enforcement Log Sheet.

Virgin Islands VI Police Department’s Offense Report and Domestic Violence Supplementary Report Forms.

Washington WA Domestic Violence Related Part One Offenses Report Form.

West Virginia WV Monthly Domestic Violence Report Form.

Wisconsin WI Domestic Abuse and Sexual Assault Report Forms.

Wyoming WY Domestic Violence Reporting Form.

77
Appendix E

FBI NIBRS Status Report

as of 06/02/95*

(Not included)

* For updates, contact the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20531,

or access the Web site at http://www.nibrs.search.org.
Appendix F

A Note on Terminology for Crime Statistics
 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reporting: National Incident-Based Reporting System—Volume 1

I: Data Collection Guidelines, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, July

1, 1988:17.

84

A Note on Terminology for Crime Statistics

In any discussion of domestic and sexual violence crime statistics, it is important to be precise in

the terminology used to describe the crime data being collected and analyzed. Otherwise, what

appear to be conflicts between various prevalence or severity indicators may be actually due to

the use of different units of measure.

A distinction should be made between the terms “incident” and “offense.” According to the

FBI's National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) data standards,

An “incident” is defined for NIBRS reporting purposes as one or more

offenses committed by the same offender, or group of offenders acting in

concert, at the same time and place.

1

From this definition, certain relationships are evident among the terms used, e.g., an incident is

a single event during which multiple offenses or crimes may be committed and with which

several victims and offenders may be associated. Consequently, a jurisdiction's statistics for

offenses, victims, and offenders may be greater than its number of reported incidents.

The number of offenses, victims, and offenders also may be different from one another since

each is an independent phenomenon. In other words, a single offender may have multiple victims

or may commit multiple offenses against a single victim, or multiple offenders may attack a

single victim.

A further refinement is that most crime incident data sets rarely have the ability to distinguish

between first-time offenders and recidivists. This would require examining criminal history

records to determine whether someone is a repeat offender when reporting every crime incident.

Since the offender is often unknown when a crime is first reported, this information would have

to be retroactively added when a case is cleared. Additionally, since the crime is reported at

arrest, subsequent prosecutorial or judicial actions may invalidate the assignment of a crime to an

individual. Tracking these decisions and updating personal records and higher level statistical

data sets require more of a resource commitment than most jurisdictions are willing to make. As

a result, the number of offenders reported in incident-based data sets may be greater than the

actual criminal population. This would be particularly true for offenses such as domestic and

sexual violence that are behaviorally motivated crimes and where offenders may have a greater

tendency to recidivate.

All of this means that the use of specific statistical figures in discussing prevalence or severity of

domestic and sexual violence problems should be done with a full awareness of what they

represent. In addition to concerns about under- or overreporting problems, there may be

legitimate reasons for discrepancies across various data sets because of differences in definitions

and procedures for data collection employed in each.
The National Institute of Justice, a component of the Office of Justice Programs, is the research and

development agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. NIJ was established to prevent and reduce crime and

to improve the criminal justice system. Specific mandates established by Congress in the Omnibus Crime

Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 direct the National

Institute of Justice 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 private

organizations to improve criminal justice.

■ Carry out research on criminal behavior.

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

The National Institute of Justice has a long history of accomplishments, including the following:

■ Basic research on career criminals that led to the development of special police and prosecutor units to

deal with repeat offenders.

■ Research that confirmed the link between drugs and crime.

■ The research and development program that resulted in the creation of police body armor that has meant

the difference between life and death to hundreds of police officers.

■ Pioneering scientific advances such as the research and development of DNA analysis to positively identify

suspects and eliminate the innocent from suspicion.

■ The evaluation of innovative justice programs to determine what works, including drug enforcement,

community policing, community anti-drug initiatives, prosecution of complex drug cases, drug testing

throughout the criminal justice system, and user accountability programs.

■ Creation of a corrections information-sharing system that enables State and local officials to exchange

more efficient and cost-effective concepts and techniques for planning, financing, and constructing new

prisons and jails.

■ Operation of the world’s largest criminal justice information clearinghouse, a resource used by State and

local officials across the Nation and by criminal justice agencies in foreign countries.

The Institute Director, who is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, 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 to identify their most critical problems. Dedicated to the priorities of Federal, State, and local

criminal justice agencies, research and development at the National Institute of Justice continues to search

for answers to what works and why in the Nation’s war on drugs and crime.

About the National Institute

of Justice
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

Washington, D.C. 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

BULK RATE

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/NIJ

Permit No. G–91