U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

research report

Full Report of the

Prevalence, Incidence,

and Consequences of

Violence Against Women

Findings From the National 

Violence Against Women Survey
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street N.W.

Washington, DC 20531

Janet Reno

Attorney General

Daniel Marcus

Acting Associate Attorney General

Mary Lou Leary

Acting Assistant Attorney General

Julie E. Samuels

Acting Director, National Institute of Justice

Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice

World Wide Web Site World Wide Web Site

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij
Full Report of the

Prevalence, Incidence,

and Consequences of Violence

Against Women

Patricia Tjaden

Nancy Thoennes

November 2000

NCJ 183781

Findings From the National

Violence Against Women Survey
Julie E. Samuels

Acting Director, National Institute of Justice

Stephen B. Thacker

Acting Director, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control

This research was sponsored under award number 93–IJ–CX–0012 by the National Institute of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Findings and

conclusions of the research presented here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position

or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

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

Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

AND PREVENTION
iii

Executive Summary

Key Issues

Research on violence against women has exploded in the past 20 years, particularly in the

areas of intimate partner violence and sexual

assault. Despite this outpouring of research,

many gaps exist in our understanding of violence against women. For instance, reliable

information on minority women’s experiences

with violence is still lacking. Few empirical

data exist on the relationship between different

forms of violence against women, such as

victimization in childhood and subsequent

victimization. Finally, empirical data on the

consequences of violence against women, including their injury rates and use of medical

services, are lacking.

To further understanding of violence against

women, the National Institute of Justice and

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

jointly sponsored, through a grant to the Center for Policy Research, a national survey that

was conducted from November 1995 to May

1996. The National Violence Against Women

(NVAW) Survey sampled both women and

men and thus provides comparable data on

women’s and men’s experiences with violent

victimization.

Respondents to the survey were asked about:

● Physical assault they experienced as children by adult caretakers.

● Physical assault they experienced as adults

by any type of assailant.

● Forcible rape and stalking they experienced

at any time in their life by any type of

perpetrator.

Respondents who disclosed that they had been

victimized were asked detailed questions about

the characteristics and consequences of their

victimization, including injuries they sustained

and their use of medical services.

This NIJ Research Report presents findings

from the NVAW Survey on the prevalence

and incidence of rape, physical assault, and

stalking; the rate of injury among rape and

physical assault victims; and injured victims’

use of medical services. The data show that

violence is more widespread and injurious to

women’s and men’s health than previously

thought—an important finding for legislators,

policymakers, intervention planners, and

researchers as well as the public health and

criminal justice communities.

Key Findings

Analysis of survey data on the prevalence,

incidence, and consequences of violence

against women produced the following results:

● Physical assault is widespread among adults

in the United States: 51.9 percent of surveyed

women and 66.4 percent of surveyed men

said they were physically assaulted as a child

by an adult caretaker and/or as an adult by

any type of attacker. An estimated 1.9 million

women and 3.2 million men are physically

assaulted annually in the United States.

● Many American women are raped at an

early age: Of the 17.6 percent of all women

surveyed who said they had been the victim

of a completed or attempted rape at some

time in their life, 21.6 percent were younger

than age 12 when they were first raped, and

32.4 percent were ages 12 to 17. Thus, more
iv

than half (54 percent) of the female rape

victims identified by the survey were

younger than age 18 when they experienced

their first attempted or completed rape.

● Stalking is more prevalent than previously

thought: 8.1 percent of surveyed women and

2.2 percent of surveyed men reported being

stalked at some time in their life; 1.0 percent

of women surveyed and 0.4 percent of men

surveyed reported being stalked in the 12

months preceding the survey. Approximately 1 million women and 371,000 men

are stalked annually in the United States.

● American Indian/Alaska Native women

and men report more violent victimization

than do women and men of other racial

backgrounds: American Indian/Alaska

Native women were significantly more

likely than white women, African-American

women, or mixed-race women to report they

were raped. They also were significantly

more likely than white women or AfricanAmerican women to report they were stalked.

American Indian/Alaska Native men were

significantly more likely than Asian men to

report they were physically assaulted.

● Rape prevalence varies between Hispanic

and non-Hispanic women: Hispanic women

were significantly less likely than nonHispanic women to report they were raped

at some time in their life.

● There is a relationship between victimization as a minor and subsequent victimization: Women who reported they were raped

before age 18 were twice as likely to report

being raped as an adult. Women who reported they were physically assaulted as a

child by an adult caretaker were twice as

likely to report being physically assaulted

as an adult. Women who reported they were

stalked before age 18 were seven times

more likely to report being stalked as an

adult.

● Women experience more intimate partner

violence than do men: 22.1 percent of surveyed women, compared with 7.4 percent

of surveyed men, reported they were physically assaulted by a current or former

spouse, cohabiting partner, boyfriend or

girlfriend, or date in their lifetime; 1.3 percent of surveyed women and 0.9 percent of

surveyed men reported experiencing such

violence in the previous 12 months. Approximately 1.3 million women and 835,000

men are physically assaulted by an intimate

partner annually in the United States.

● Violence against women is primarily intimate partner violence: 64.0 percent of the

women who reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked since age

18 were victimized by a current or former

husband, cohabiting partner, boyfriend, or

date. In comparison, only 16.2 percent of

the men who reported being raped and/or

physically assaulted since age 18 were

victimized by such a perpetrator.

● Women are significantly more likely than

men to be injured during an assault: 31.5

percent of female rape victims, compared

with 16.1 percent of male rape victims,

reported being injured during their most

recent rape; 39.0 percent of female physical

assault victims, compared with 24.8 percent

of male physical assault victims, reported

being injured during their most recent

physical assault.

● The risk of injury increases among female

rape and physical assault victims when

their assailant is a current or former intimate: Women who were raped or physically assaulted by a current or former

spouse, cohabiting partner, boyfriend, or

date were significantly more likely than

women who were raped or physically assaulted by other types of perpetrators to report being injured during their most recent

rape or physical assault.
v

● Approximately one-third of injured female

rape and physical assault victims receive

medical treatment: 35.6 percent of the

women injured during their most recent

rape and 30.2 percent of the women injured

during their most recent physical assault

received medical treatment.

Policy Implications

Information generated by the NVAW Survey

validates opinions held by professionals in

the field about the pervasiveness and injurious

consequences of violence against women.

This study’s findings on the frequency with

which women are victimized by intimate partners confirms previous reports that violence

against women is primarily intimate partner

violence. The study makes it clear that violence

against women, particularly intimate partner

violence, should be classified as a major public

health and criminal justice concern in the

United States. The large number of rape, physical assault, and stalking victimizations committed against women each year and the early

age at which violence starts for many women

strongly suggest that violence against women is

endemic. Because most victimizations are perpetrated against women by current and former

intimates and because women are more likely

to be injured if their assailant is a current or

former intimate, violence prevention strategies

for women that focus on how they can protect

themselves from intimate partners are needed.

Injury and medical utilization data provide compelling evidence of the physical and social costs

associated with violence against women. The

findings suggest that future researchers should

pay greater attention to demographic, social,

and environmental factors that may account

for variations in victimization rates among

women of different racial and ethnic backgrounds and to the link between victimization

they experience as a minor and subsequent

victimization.
vi

Other Publications From the National Violence Against Women Survey

Other NIJ publications provide additional information on the National Violence Against

Women Survey:

● Stalking in America: Findings From the

National Violence Against Women Survey, Research in Brief, by Patricia Tjaden and Nancy

Thoennes, Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1998,

NCJ 169592. This document provides detailed

information from the survey on women’s and

men’s experiences with stalking.

● Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of

Violence Against Women: Findings From the

National Violence Against Women Survey, Research in Brief, by Patricia Tjaden and Nancy

Thoennes, Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1998,

NCJ 172837. This document summarizes the

findings presented in this Research Report.

● Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate

Partner Violence: Findings From the National

Violence Against Women Survey, Research

Report, by Patricia Tjaden and Nancy

Thoennes, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,

2000, NCJ 181867. This document provides

detailed information from the survey on

women’s and men’s experiences with

intimate partner violence.

To obtain copies of these publications, visit

NIJ’s Web site at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij,

or contact the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD

20849–6000; 800–851–3420 or 301–519–5500;

or send an e-mail message to askncjrs@ncjrs.org.

The following journal articles have been or will

be published about the NVAW Survey:

● Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes, “CoWorker Violence and Gender: Findings From

the National Violence Against Women Survey,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Special Edition on Workplace Violence,

Vol. 20, Issue 1 (forthcoming 2001).

● Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes,

“Effects of Interviewer Gender on Men’s

Responses to a Telephone Survey on Violent

Victimization,” Journal of Quantitative

Criminology (forthcoming 2001).

● Patricia Tjaden, Nancy Thoennes, and Christine Allison, “Comparing Stalking Victimization from Legal and Victim Perspectives,”

Violence and Victims, Vol. 15, No. 1 (2000):

1–16.

● Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes,

“Prevalence and Incidence of Violence

Against Women: Findings from the National

Violence Against Women Survey,” The

Criminologist, Vol. 24, No. 3, (May/June

1999): 1, 4, 13–14.

● Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes,

“Prevalence and Consequences of Male-toFemale and Female-to-Male Partner Violence as Measured by the National Violence

Against Women Survey,” Violence Against

Women, Vol. 6, No. 2 (February 2000): 

142–161.

● Patricia Tjaden, Nancy Thoennes, Christine

Allison, “Comparing Violence Over the

Lifespan in Samples of Same-Sex and

Opposite-Sex Cohabitants,” Violence and

Victims, Vol. 14, No. 4 (1999): 413–425.

National Violence Against Women Survey

Methodology Report by Patricia Tjaden,

Steve Leadbetter, John Boyle, and Robert A.

Bardwell provides a more detailed account of

the survey methods. This document is under

review at the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC).

To learn about CDC prevention activities related to family violence and intimate partner

violence, visit CDC’s National Center for

Injury Prevention and Control Web site at

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/fivpt.
vii

Acknowledgments

in completing this project. The authors also

thank Holly Johnson at Statistics Canada and

Kirk Williams at the University of Colorado’s

Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence

for their help with the survey design. Finally,

the authors thank Marcie-jo Kresnow, mathematical statistician at the Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention, for her thorough review

and helpful comments on drafts of the report.

The National Violence Against Women Survey

was supported by a grant to the Center for

Policy Research from the U.S. Department of

Justice’s National Institute of Justice and the

U.S. Department of Health and Human

Service’s Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention. The authors thank Lois Mock

at the National Institute of Justice and Linda

Saltzman at the Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention for their advice and support
ix

Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

1. Survey Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2. Survey Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Generating the Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Conducting the Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Survey Screening Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Precision of Sample Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Characteristics of the Sample and Sample Weighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Minimizing the Potential for Harming Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Limitations of Telephone Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3. Prevalence and Incidence of Rape, Physical Assault, and Stalking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Prevalence and Incidence of Rape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Prevalence and Incidence of Physical Assault . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Rates of Physical Assault Among Rape Victims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Prevalence and Incidence of Stalking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

4. Risk of Violence Among Racial Minorities and Hispanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Prevalence of Violence Among Whites and Nonwhites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Prevalence of Violence Among Specific Racial Minorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Prevalence of Violence Among Hispanics and Non-Hispanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

5. Women’s and Men’s Risk of Intimate Partner Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Prevalence and Incidence of Intimate Partner Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Comparison With Previous Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Deciphering Disparities in Survey Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

6. Violence Experienced as a Minor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Prevalence of Violence in Childhood and Adolescence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Rape Experienced as a Minor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Physical Assault by an Adult Caretaker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Stalking Before Age 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Relationship Between Victimization as a Minor and Subsequent Victimization . . . . . . . . . . . 39
x

7. Violence Experienced as an Adult . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Prevalence of Violence Experienced as an Adult . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Rape Experienced as an Adult . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Physical Assault Experienced as an Adult . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Stalking Experienced as an Adult . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Violence Against Women Is Predominantly Intimate Partner Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Violence Against Women and Men Is Predominantly Male Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

8. Physical Injury and Use of Medical Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Rates of Injury Among Rape and Physical Assault Victims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Risk Factors Associated With Violence-Related Injury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Injured Victims’ Use of Medical Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Annual Health Care Utilization Estimates for Rape and Physical Assault Victims . . . . . . . . . 56

Rates of Violence-Related Injury and Accidental Injury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

9. Policy Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
xi

Exhibits

Exhibit 1. Estimated Standard Errors Multiplied by the Z-Score (1.96) for a

95-Percent Confidence Level by Sample or Subsample Size

Exhibit 2. Comparison of Demographic Characteristics of NVAW Survey

Sample and U.S. Population

Exhibit 3. Persons Victimized in Lifetime by Type of Victimization and Victim Gender

Exhibit 4. Persons Victimized in Previous 12 Months by Type of Victimization

and Victim Gender

Exhibit 5. Estimated Number of Rape, Physical Assault, and Stalking

Victimizations Perpetrated Annually by Victim Gender

Exhibit 6. Persons Victimized in Lifetime by Type of Victimization, Victim Gender,

and White/Nonwhite Status of Victim

Exhibit 7. Persons Victimized in Lifetime by Type of Victimization, Victim

Gender, and Race

Exhibit 8. Persons Victimized in Lifetime by Type of Victimization, Victim Gender,

and Hispanic/Non-Hispanic Origin

Exhibit 9. Persons Victimized by an Intimate Partner in Lifetime and Previous

12 Months by Type of Victimization

Exhibit 10. Estimated Number of Rape, Physical Assault, and Stalking Victimizations

Perpetrated by Intimate Partners Annually by Victim Gender

Exhibit 11. Persons Physically Assaulted by an Intimate Partner in Lifetime by Type

of Assault and Victim Gender

Exhibit 12. Persons Victimized Before Age 18 by Type of Victimization and Victim Gender

Exhibit 13. Percentage Distribution of Rape Victims by Age at Time of First Rape

and Victim Gender

Exhibit 14. Percentage Distribution of Child and Adolescent Rape Victims by Victim-Perpetrator

Relationship and Victim Gender

Exhibit 15. Persons Physically Assaulted as a Child by an Adult Caretaker by

Type of Assault and Victim Gender
xii

Exhibit 16. Percentage Distribution of Stalking Victims by Age at Time of First

Stalking and Victim Gender

Exhibit 17. Percentage Distribution of Child and Adolescent Stalking Victims by

Victim-Perpetrator Relationship: Female Victims Only (n=71)

Exhibit 18. Women Raped as an Adult by Whether They Were Raped/Not

Raped as a Minor

Exhibit 19. Persons Physically Assaulted as an Adult by Whether They Were

Physically Assaulted/Not Physically Assaulted as a Minor and Victim Gender

Exhibit 20. Women Stalked as an Adult by Whether They Were Stalked/Not

Stalked as a Minor

Exhibit 21. Persons Victimized Since Age 18 by Type of Victimization and Victim Gender

Exhibit 22. Percentage Distribution of Adult Female Rape Victims by Victim-Perpetrator

Relationship (n=767)

Exhibit 23. Persons Physically Assaulted Since Age 18 by Type of Assault and Victim Gender

Exhibit 24. Percentage Distribution of Adult Physical Assault Victims by Victim-Perpetrator

Relationship and Victim Gender

Exhibit 25. Percentage Distribution of Adult Stalking Victims by Victim-Perpetrator

Relationship and Victim Gender

Exhibit 26. Percentage Distribution of Adult Victims of Violence by Victim-Perpetrator

Relationship and Victim Gender: All Types of Victimization

Exhibit 27. Percentage Distribution of Adult Rape and Physical Assault Victims by

Victim-Perpetrator Relationship and Victim Gender

Exhibit 28. Percentage Distribution of Adult Female Victims by Type of Victimization

and Perpetrator Gender

Exhibit 29. Percentage Distribution of Adult Male Victims by Type of Victimization and

Perpetrator Gender

Exhibit 30. Percentage Distribution of Adult Rape and Physical Assault Victims by

Whether Victim Was Injured and Victim Gender

Exhibit 31. Percentage of Injured Adult Rape and Physical Assault Victims Who

Sustained Specific Types of Injuries: Men and Women Combined

Exhibit 32. Rape and Physical Assault Victims Who Were Injured by Characteristics

of the Victimization and Victim Gender
xiii

Exhibit 33. Percentage Distribution of Injured Rape and Physical Assault Victims by

Type of Medical Care Received and Victim Gender

Exhibit 34. Average Number of Medical Care Visits for Rape and Physical Assault

Victims by Type of Medical Care and Victim Gender

Exhibit 35. Average Annual Injury and Medical Utilization Estimates for Adult

Rape and Physical Assault Victims by Victim Gender
1

1. Survey Background

Violence against women first came to be viewed

as a serious social problem in the early 1970s,

in part because of the re-emergence of the

women’s movement.1 In unprecedented numbers,

scholars trained in such diverse disciplines as philosophy, literature, law, and sociology examined

violence against women in the context of a feminist ideology.2

 Despite the resulting outpouring of

research on violence against women, particularly

in the areas of rape and intimate partner violence,

many gaps remain.3

Until now, for instance, empirical data on the

relationship between childhood victimization

and subsequent victimization were lacking.

Reliable information on minority women’s

experiences with violence also was limited. In

addition, reliable data on the consequences of

violence against women, including their injury

rates and use of medical services, were limited.4

To further an understanding of violence against

women, the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC) and the National Institute of

Justice (NIJ) jointly sponsored—through a grant

to the Center for Policy Research—a national

telephone survey on women’s experiences with

violence, conducted from November 1995 to

May 1996. The National Violence Against

Women (NVAW) Survey consisted of interviews

with both women and men, thus providing comparable data on women’s and men’s experiences

with violent victimization.

NVAW Survey respondents were queried about

a wide range of topics, including:

● Physical assault they experienced as children

by adult caretakers.

● Physical assault they experienced as adults by

any type of assailant.

Unique Features of the National Violence Against Women Survey

Several features of the NVAW Survey set it apart

from other victimization surveys:

● State-of-the-art techniques protected the

confidentiality of the information being gathered

and minimized the potential for retraumatizing

victims of violence and jeopardizing the safety

of respondents. In addition to lessening the possibility that respondents would be harmed as a

result of their participation in the survey, these

techniques were likely to have improved the

quality of the information being gathered.

● Information about both the prevalence (lifetime

and annual) and incidence of violence was

gathered. Victimization estimates from the

NVAW Survey can be compared with victimization estimates from many other surveys.

● Multiple, behaviorally specific questions

(rather than single, direct questions) were

used to screen respondents for rape, physical

assault, and stalking victimization. These questions were designed to leave little doubt in the

respondent’s mind as to the type of information

being sought.

● Detailed information about the characteristics

and consequences of victimization for each

type of perpetrator identified by the respondent

was gathered. Although this approach created

a very complicated dataset, it also created the

opportunity to track victimizations by the same

perpetrator (e.g., the victim’s first former

husband).
2

● Forcible rape and stalking they experienced

at any time in their life by any type of

perpetrator.

Respondents who disclosed that they had been

victimized were asked detailed questions about

the characteristics and consequences of their

victimization, including injuries they sustained

and their use of medical services.

This NIJ Research Report summarizes the survey’s

findings on the prevalence and incidence of rape,

physical assault, and stalking; the prevalence

of rape, physical assault, and stalking among

women and men of different racial backgrounds

and between women and men of Hispanic and

non-Hispanic origin; the prevalence of male-tofemale and female-to-male intimate partner violence; the relationship between victimization as

a minor and subsequent victimization; the rate of

injury among rape and physical assault victims;

and injured victims’ use of medical services.

A condensed version of this report has been

previously published and is available through

the National Institute of Justice’s Research in

Brief series. (See “Other Publications From the

National Violence Against Women Survey” in

the Executive Summary.)

Notes

1. Kennedy, L.W., in Foreword to Dangerous Domains: Violence Against Women in Canada by Holly

Johnson, Scarborough, Ontario: International Thomas Publishing, 1996.

2. Wilson, C.F., Violence Against Women: An Annotated Bibliography, Boston: G.K. Hall & Co., 1981.

3. National Research Council, Understanding Violence Against Women, Washington, DC: National

Academy Press, 1996: 40–44.

4. Ibid.
3

2. Survey Methods

The National Violence Against Women (NVAW)

Survey was conducted from November 1995 to

May 1996 by interviewers at Schulman, Ronca,

Bucuvalas, Inc. (SRBI) under the direction of

John Boyle.1 The authors of this report designed

the survey, edited the data, and conducted the

analysis.

Respondents to the survey were queried about:

● Their level of concern about their personal

safety.

● Their marital and cohabiting relationship

history.

● Their sociodemographic characteristics.

● Their use of drugs and alcohol.

● Their general state of physical and mental

health.

● Their current partner’s sociodemographic

characteristics.

● Emotional abuse by current and former

spouses and cohabiting partners.

● Physical assault by adult caretakers experienced as children.

● Physical assault by other adults experienced

as adults.

● Forcible rape and stalking by any type of

perpetrator experienced at any time in their

life.

Respondents who disclosed victimization were

asked detailed questions about the characteristics

and consequences of their victimization, including

the victim-perpetrator relationship; the frequency

and duration of the violence; the extent and nature

of injuries they sustained; their use of medical,

mental health, and criminal justice services; and

their time lost from routine activities.

Generating the Sample

The NVAW Survey sample was drawn by randomdigit dialing (RDD) from households with

a telephone in the 50 States and the District of

Columbia. The sample was administered by U.S.

Census region. Within each region, a simple

random sample of working residential “hundred

banks” of phone numbers was drawn. (A hundred bank is the first 8 digits of any 10-digit

telephone number; e.g., 301–608–38XX). A randomly generated 2-digit number was appended

to each randomly sampled hundred bank to

produce the full 10-digit, random-digit number.

Separate banks of numbers were generated for

male and female respondents. These randomdigit numbers were called by SRBI interviewers

from their central telephone facility in New York

City, where nonworking and nonresidential

numbers (e.g., businesses, institutions, churches,

halfway houses, and dormitories) were screened

out. Once a residential household was reached,

eligible adults (i.e., women and men age 18 and

older) in each household were identified. In

households with more than one eligible adult,

the adult with the most recent birthday was

selected as the designated respondent.

Conducting the Interviews

A total of 8,000 women and 8,005 men age 18

and older were interviewed using a computerassisted telephone interviewing (CATI) system.

(Five completed interviews with men were

subsequently eliminated from the sample during data editing due to an excessive amount of

missing and inconsistent data.) Interviews with

female respondents were conducted from November 1995 to May 1996, and interviews with

male respondents were conducted from February to May 1996.
4

Only female interviewers surveyed female

respondents. To test for possible interviewer

gender effects when interviewing males, a split

sample approach was used with male respondents in which half of the interviews were

conducted by male interviewers and half by

female interviewers.2 A Spanish-language

translation of the survey was administered by

bilingual interviewers for Spanish-speaking

respondents.

Completed interviews averaged 25 minutes

with female respondents and 26 minutes with

male respondents. Spanish-language interviews

were slightly longer, averaging 32 minutes with

female respondents and 33 minutes with male

respondents.

Survey Screening Questions

Rape

Rape was defined as an event that occurred

without the victim’s consent, that involved the

use or threat of force to penetrate the victim’s

vagina or anus by penis, tongue, fingers, or

object, or the victim’s mouth by penis. The

definition included both attempted and completed rape. The survey used questions adapted

from the National Women’s Study3 to screen

respondents for rape victimization:

● [Female respondents only] Has a man or boy

ever made you have sex by using force or

threatening to harm you or someone close

to you? Just so there is no mistake, by sex

we mean putting a penis in your vagina.

● Has anyone, male or female, ever made you

have oral sex by using force or threat of

force? Just so there is no mistake, by oral

sex we mean that a man or boy put his penis

in your mouth or someone, male or female,

penetrated your vagina or anus with their

mouth.

● Has anyone ever made you have anal sex by

using force or threat of harm? Just so there

is no mistake, by anal sex we mean that a

man or boy put his penis in your anus.

● Has anyone, male or female, ever put fingers

or objects in your vagina or anus against your

will or by using force or threats?

● Has anyone, male or female, ever attempted

to make you have vaginal, oral, or anal

sex against your will but intercourse or

penetration did not occur?

Household Participation Rate

The participation rate for the NVAW Survey was

calculated by dividing the number of completed

interviews (including those that were screened out

because they were ineligible) by the total number

of completed interviews, screened-out interviews,

refusals, and terminated interviews.* In the female

survey, interviews were deemed ineligible if there

was no adult female in the household. Similarly,

in the male survey, interviews were deemed ineligible if there was no adult male in the household.

Note that the inclusion of screened-out (ineligible)

interviews in the numerator and denominator of the

formula is mathematically equivalent to adjusting

the number of refusals prior to screening by the

estimated rate of noneligibility. This is necessary

because it is unknown how many refusals prior to

screening would have resulted in ineligible interviews. Using this formula, the participation rate

was 72 percent for female respondents [(8,000 +

4,829) ÷ (8,000 + 4,829 + 4,608 + 351) = 0.72]

and 69 percent for male respondents [(8,005 +

8,828) ÷ (8,005 + 8,828 + 7,552 + 62) = 0.69].

* The formula used to calculate the participation rate

is based on a study conducted by the Council for Marketing and Opinion Research; see “Refusal Rates and

Industry Image Survey: Summary of Results,” Council

of Applied Survey Research Organizations, 3 Upper

Devon, Port Jefferson, NY, 11777.
5

Physical assault

Physical assault was defined as behaviors that

threaten, attempt, or actually inflict physical

harm. This definition is similar to the description

of physical assault used in the National Family

Violence Survey4

 and the Violence Against

Women in Canada survey5

 and is roughly

equivalent to what is legally referred to as

simple and aggravated assault. A modified version of the Conflict Tactics Scale6

 (CTS) was

used to screen respondents for physical assault

they experienced as a child at the hands of an

adult caretaker and physical assault they experienced as an adult at the hands of another adult:

● [Physical assault as a child] Aside from any

incidents already mentioned, when you were a

child, did any parent, stepparent, or guardian

ever . . .

● [Physical assault as an adult] Not counting

any incidents you have already mentioned,

after you became an adult, did any other

adult, male or female, ever . . .

— Throw something at you that could hurt?

— Push, grab, or shove you?

— Pull your hair?

— Slap or hit you?

— Kick or bite you?

— Choke or attempt to drown you?

— Hit you with some object?

— Beat you up?

— Threaten you with a gun?

— Threaten you with a knife or other

weapon?

— Use a gun on you?

— Use a knife or other weapon on you?

It should be noted that the decision to use

behaviorally specific acts contained in the

CTS to screen respondents for physical assault

victimization was intended to circumvent the

imprecision and subjectivity possible when

respondents are asked about such abstractions

as “assault.” Because this approach does not take

into account the context in which these acts are

committed, it is possible some yes responses

given by respondents to questions contained in

the CTS may have involved incidents that respondents did not consider to be assaultive. To

mitigate the potential for exaggerating the prevalence and incidence of physical assaults that can

occur when a behaviorally objective instrument

such as the CTS is used, the NVAW Survey

introduced questions about physical assault by

adult caretakers sustained in childhood with

the following statement: Now, I’m going to ask

you some questions about violence you may

have experienced as a child. This introductory

statement was intended to alert respondents to

the fact the survey solicited information about

acts of malicious and purposeful harm that may

have been perpetrated by adult caretakers against

them as children, rather than harmless or even

beneficial acts. No such statement was used to

introduce questions about physical assault experienced as an adult.

Stalking

The definition of stalking used in the NVAW

Survey closely resembles the definition of

stalking used in the model antistalking code for

States developed by the National Institute of

Justice.7 The survey defines stalking as a course

of conduct directed at a specific person that involves repeated visual or physical proximity;

nonconsensual communication; verbal, written,

or implied threats; or a combination thereof that

would cause fear in a reasonable person (with

repeated meaning on two or more occasions).

As in the model antistalking code, the definition

of stalking used in the NVAW Survey does not

require stalkers to make a credible threat of violence against victims, but it does require victims

to feel a high level of fear (“fear of bodily harm”).

The survey used the following questions to

screen for stalking victimization:
6

● Not including bill collectors, telephone solicitors, or other salespeople, has anyone, male

or female, ever . . .

— Followed or spied on you?

— Sent you unsolicited letters or written

correspondence?

— Made unsolicited phone calls to you?

— Stood outside your home, school, or

workplace?

— Showed up at places you were even

though he or she had no business being

there?

— Left unwanted items for you to find?

— Tried to communicate in other ways

against your will?

— Vandalized your property or destroyed

something you loved?

Respondents who answered yes to one or more

of these questions were asked whether anyone

had ever done any of these things to them on

more than one occasion and whether they felt

frightened or feared bodily harm as a result of

these behaviors. Only respondents who reported

being victimized on more than one occasion,

and who were very frightened or feared bodily

harm were counted as stalking victims.

In addition to being asked behaviorally specific

questions about whether they had ever experienced any number of acts associated with stalking, respondents were asked direct questions

about their stalking experiences, including

whether they had ever been stalked by anyone,

and if so, how many different persons had

stalked them; whether that person was a spouse,

ex-spouse, live-in partner, boyfriend, girlfriend,

date, someone else they knew, or a stranger; and

what the person did that they considered to be

stalking. These questions, which were asked

during the introductory stage of the interview,

were designed to generate information about

the prevalence and characteristics of stalking

from the victim’s perspective rather than a legal

perspective. A comparison of victim and legal

perspectives on stalking using data from the

NVAW Survey is summarized in an article

written by the authors.8

Victim-perpetrator relationship

Respondents who responded affirmatively to

the behaviorally specific rape, physical assault,

or stalking screening questions were asked

whether their perpetrator was a current or former

spouse, a male live-in partner, a female live-in

partner, a relative, someone else they knew, or a

stranger. Respondents disclosing violence by a

former spouse or cohabiting partner were asked

to specify which spouse/partner victimized them

(e.g., first former husband or current male live-in

partner). Respondents disclosing violence by a

relative were asked to specify which relative

victimized them (e.g., father, brother, or uncle).

Finally, respondents disclosing violence by someone else they knew were asked to specify the

relationship this person had with them (e.g., date,

boyfriend, girlfriend, boss, teacher, or neighbor).

Perpetrators who were current or former spouses,

cohabiting partners, boyfriends/girlfriends, and

dates were classified as intimate partners.

Characteristics and consequences of violence

To generate information on the characteristics

and consequences of violence, respondents disclosing victimization were asked detailed questions about the most recent violent incident they

had experienced at the hands of each perpetrator

they identified. Included were questions about

the location of the incident; the victim’s and

perpetrator’s use of drugs and alcohol at the time

of the incident; the perpetrator’s use of weapons

and threats; the victim’s fear of bodily harm

or death; injuries sustained by the victim; the

victim’s use of medical, mental health, and justice system services; and the victim’s time lost

from work, school, household chores, recreational activities, and volunteer endeavors.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using SPSS Base 7.0 for

Windows software. Measures of association (e.g.,
7

Exhibit 1. Estimated Standard Errors Multiplied by the Z-Score (1.96)

for a 95-Percent Confidence Level by Sample or Subsample Size

Percentage of the Sample or Subsample Giving a Certain Response or Displaying

a Certain Characteristic for Percentages Exactly or Approximately Equal to:

Size of Sample

or Subsample 10 or 90 20 or 80 30 or 70 40 or 60 50/50

16,000 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8

12,000 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9

8,000 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1

4,000 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.5

3,000 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.8

2,000 1.3 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.2

1,500 1.5 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.5

1,300 1.6 2.2 2.5 2.7 2.7

1,200 1.7 2.3 2.6 2.8 2.8

1,100 1.8 2.4 2.7 2.9 3.0

1,000 1.9 2.5 2.8 3.0 3.1

900 2.0 2.6 3.0 3.2 3.3

800 2.1 2.8 3.2 3.4 3.5

700 2.2 3.0 3.4 3.6 3.7

600 2.4 3.2 3.7 3.9 4.0

500 2.6 3.5 4.0 4.3 4.4

400 2.9 3.9 4.5 4.8 4.9

300 3.4 4.5 5.2 5.6 5.7

200 4.2 5.6 6.4 6.8 6.9

150 4.8 6.4 7.4 7.9 8.0

100 5.9 7.9 9.0 9.7 9.8

75 6.8 9.1 10.4 11.2 11.4

50 8.4 11.2 12.8 13.7 14.0

Lambda) were calculated between nominal-level

independent and dependent variables, and the chisquare statistic and Tukey’s B were used to test

for statistically significant differences between

groups (e.g., men and women) and among groups

(e.g., whites, African-Americans, Asians/Pacific

Islanders, American Indians/Alaska Natives, and

persons of mixed race). When the analysis included interval level dependent variables (e.g.,

number of victimizations), analysis of variance

was employed to test for statistically significant

differences between groups. Only differences

with a p-value of ≤ 0.05 were considered statistically significant and are discussed in this report.

Any estimates based on fewer than five responses

were deemed unreliable and, therefore, were

not tested for statistically significant differences

between or among groups and not presented

in tables. Because estimates presented in this

report generally exclude “don’t know,” “refused,”

and other invalid responses, sample and subsample sizes (n’s) vary from table to table.

Because the number of victims sufficient to reliably calculate estimates varies depending on the

rarity of the exposure and the denominator of the

subgroup being analyzed, the relative standard

error (RSE) was calculated for each estimate
8

presented. (RSE is the ratio of the standard error

divided by the actual point estimate.) Estimates

with RSEs that exceed 30 percent were deemed

unstable and were not tested for statistically significant differences between or among groups.

These estimates have been identified in the

tables and should be viewed with caution.

Precision of Sample Estimates

The estimates generated from the NVAW Survey,

as from any survey, are subject to random sampling error. Exhibit 1 presents the estimated standard errors multiplied by the z-score (1.96) for

specified sample and subsample sizes of 16,000

or less at different response distributions of dichotomous variables (e.g., raped/not raped and

injured/not injured). These estimated standard

error by z-score combinations can be used to determine the extent to which sample estimates will

be distributed around the population parameter

(i.e., the true population distribution). As exhibit

1 shows, larger sample and subsample sizes

produce smaller estimated standard errors at the

95-percent confidence level. Thus, the estimated

95-percent confidence interval for a sample or

subsample size of 8,000 when the response distribution is a 50/50 split is 50 +/– 1.1 percent. For a

sample or subsample size of 50, the 95-percent

confidence interval is 50 +/– 14 percent.

Characteristics of the Sample and

Sample Weighting

The NVAW Survey sample consists of 8,000

women and 8,000 men who were age 18 years

or older and living in a U.S. household with a

working residential telephone at the time of the

interview. To determine the representative nature

of the sample, select demographic characteristics

of the NVAW Survey sample (e.g., age, race,

Hispanic origin, marital status, and education)

were compared with demographic characteristics

of the general population as measured by the U.S.

Census Bureau’s 1995 Current Population Survey

(CPS) of adult men and women (see exhibit 2).

Estimates from the 1995 CPS were used because

the NVAW Survey sample was generated in 1995.

As exhibit 2 shows, the demographic characteristics of the NVAW Survey sample are similar to

the general population from which it was drawn.

However, differences between point estimates

from the NVAW Survey and those from the CPS

are outside the expected margin of error (i.e., are

not included in the 95-percent confidence interval

computed from NVAW Survey estimates) for

some demographic characteristics. Specifically,

the NVAW Survey sample underrepresents older

people, African-Americans, Hispanic men, and

those with less than a high school education.

To a lesser degree, those less than age 30 are also

underrepresented. Complementary groups (e.g.,

the middle aged, whites, and the college educated) are overrepresented.

Tests were conducted to correct for possible

biases introduced by the fact that some households had multiple telephone lines and multiple

eligibles and for over- and underrepresentation

of selected demographic subgroups. Although

a few small but significant differences were

observed for some outcome measures using

weighted data, the researchers chose not

to use weighted data in the analysis of the

NVAW Survey data (see sidebar “Reasons

for Using Unweighted Data” in this chapter).

Minimizing the Potential for Harming

Respondents

Any form of research that involves contact with

live persons, particularly those who may have

been victims of violence, has the potential of

resulting in harm to them. For this reason it is

important that researchers carefully consider beforehand how their research might inadvertently

harm their research subjects.

In the NVAW Survey, numerous techniques

were used to protect the confidentiality of the

information being gathered, minimize the potential for retraumatizing victims of violence, and

minimize the potential for placing respondents

in further danger:

● The researchers selected SRBI, an external

contractor with extensive expertise conducting
9

Exhibit 2. Comparison of Demographic Characteristics

of NVAW Survey Sample and U.S. Population

Women (%) Men (%)

Demographic NVAW U.S. NVAW U.S.

Characteristic Survey Population Survey Population

Agea

18–24 9.8 11.9 11.4 13.0

25–29 9.6 9.4 10.4 10.2

30–39 24.6 21.9 25.4 23.8

40–49 22.5 18.9 24.0 20.0

50–59 14.4 12.9 13.5 13.0

60–69 9.9 10.7 8.8 10.1

70–79 6.8 8.9 5.2 7.0

80 years + 2.5 5.5 1.5 2.9

Total Casesb 7,856 7,920

Racec

White 86.6 83.7 87.4 84.8

African-American 10.5 12.0 9.0 10.9

Native American/Alaska 1.2 0.7 1.4 0.7

 Native

Asian/Pacific Islander 1.8 3.6 2.2 3.5

Total Casesb 7,453 7,353

Hispanic Origin (may be

of any race)c

Hispanic 7.9 8.5 7.3 9.4

Non-Hispanic 92.1 91.5 92.7 90.6

Total Casesb 7,945 7,916

Marital Statusd

Never married 15.4 19.4 21.1 26.8

Currently married 62.9 59.2 66.9 62.7

Divorced, separated 13.2 10.3 10.2 8.03

Widowed 8.5 11.1 1.9 2.5

Total Casesb 7,953 7,966

Education (persons 25

years or older)d

Less than high school 10.7 18.4 9.4 18.3

High school and 34.6 35.7 29.3 31.9

 equivalent

Any college 45.7 39.7 48.3 40.4

Advanced degree 9.0 6.2 13.0 9.4

Total Casesb 7,069 7,010

aU.S. Population: Wetrogan, Signe I., Projections of the Population of States by Age, Sex, and Race: 1988 to 2010, Current

Population Reports, P25–017, Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, 1988.

bDue to nonresponse, NVAW case count totals vary across characteristics.

cU.S. Population: Day, Jennifer Cheeseman, Population Projections of the United States by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic

Origin: 1998 to 2050, Current Population Reports, P25–104, Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, 1993.

dU.S. Population: U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1996 (116th edition), Washington, DC: U.S.

Census Bureau: 1996.
10

surveys on sensitive issues, to administer the

survey. Because of this experience, SRBI was

extremely cognizant of the need to protect the

privacy, safety, and well-being of persons

responding to the survey.

● Samples of working residential telephone

numbers of potential respondents were generated using random-digit dialing. Thus, only a

10-digit telephone number linked the respondent to the interviewer. The area code and

the first three digits of the telephone number

were kept for analysis purposes; the last four

digits of the number were eliminated from

the dataset.

● The samples were programmed into a CATI

system which brought up a telephone number

for the interviewer and automatically assigned

the interview an identification number linked

to the telephone number. All subsequent coding, data editing, and analysis were conducted

using only the identification numbers.

● Interviewers were required to sign a confidentiality agreement that specified they would not

reveal information about the respondents to

anyone who was not involved with the project

as an SRBI employee.

● During the introduction, respondents were

told they would be asked about their personal

experiences and opinions and that participation in the survey was completely voluntary.

● Respondents were given a toll-free number

they could call to verify the legitimacy of the

Reasons for Using Unweighted Data

Several factors entered into the decision to not

weight data for number of telephone lines, number

of eligibles, and demographic characteristics:

● The differences between weighted and

unweighted samples and outcomes were not

large enough to make weighting mandatory.

● Weighting on multiple variables would have

resulted in a few cases being heavily weighted,

given their unique combination of demographic

characteristics, telephone lines, and number of

eligible respondents. Because portions of the

NVAW Survey analysis were conducted using

relatively small subgroups, there was an increased risk that the results would have been

seriously affected by the responses of a few

heavily weighted (and atypical) cases.

● The construction of demographic weights is

complicated by the fact a “mixed race” category

is included in the race question in the NVAW

Survey but not the Census survey. Because the

proportion of respondents who identified themselves as mixed race is substantial (5.7 percent

for women and 6.0 percent for men) and decreases with age, treatment of the mixed race

respondents would have had a significant effect

on weights for race. For example, assigning

all of the mixed race respondents to a nonwhite

status would have decreased the weighting of

younger, nonwhite respondents. Therefore,

the mixed race respondents were not included

in the racial weighting. However, having a large

percentage of respondents with an indeterminate race weighting makes an analysis using

demographic weights subject to capricious

interpretations.

● Weighting would have added an additional issue to an already complex data analysis. The

NVAW Survey includes perpetrator-specific

details of multiple incidents of victimization.

This factor introduces an unusual level of complexity in the data and data analysis.

The National Violence Against Women Survey

Methodology Report describes the survey methods

and reports on sample characteristics and prevalence rates using weighted and unweighted data.

(For ordering information, see “Other Publications

From the National Violence Against Women

Survey” in the executive summary.)
11

survey or to respond to the survey at a later

date. Respondents were also told to use this

number if they needed to suddenly hang up

during the interview.

● If a respondent appeared to be in distress,

interviewers were instructed to contact a

supervisor who monitored the interview

from that point and intervened as necessary.

If necessary, the respondent was provided

with a local rape or domestic violence hotline

telephone number.

● At the end of the interview, respondents were

asked if they had anything to add regarding the

issues covered in the survey. They were also

given a toll-free number to call if they had any

further questions about the survey or wished to

speak further about their experiences.

In addition to lessening the possibility that respondents would be harmed as a result of their

participation in the survey, these techniques

were likely to have improved the quality of the

information being gathered. Some respondents,

such as those who had never previously disclosed their victimization, may have benefitted

from their participation in the survey.

Limitations of Telephone Surveys

By its nature, a telephone survey is limited to

the population living in households with telephones. Thus, the survey does not reflect the

experiences of women and men living in households without telephones, on the streets, or in

group facilities or institutions. The absence of

interviews with phoneless households results in

an underrepresentation of certain demographic

characteristics typical of such households (e.g.,

poor, headed by a single adult, located in a rural

or inner city area, and renters).9 Because approximately 94 percent of the American population lives in households with telephones,10 this

underrepresentation is relatively small.

Notes

1. SRBI is a New York City-based professional survey research firm. John Boyle, Ph.D., is senior vice

president and director of SRBI’s Government and

Social Research Division. Dr. Boyle, who specializes in public policy research in the area of health

and violence, also manages the firm’s Washington,

D.C.-area office.

2. The authors found a few small but statistically

significant interviewer gender effects; see Tjaden, P.,

N. Thoennes, and C. Allison, “Effects of Interviewer

Gender on Men’s Responses to a Telephone Survey

on Violent Victimization,” Journal of Quantitative

Criminology (forthcoming).

3. See National Victim Center and the Crime Victims

Research and Treatment Center, Rape in America:

A Report to the Nation, 211 Wilson Boulevard, Suite

300, Arlington, VA 22201, April 23, 1992: 15.

4. Straus, M.A., and R.J. Gelles, “Societal Change

and Change in Family Violence From 1975 to 1986

as Revealed by Two National Studies,” Journal of

Marriage and the Family 48 (1986): 465–479.

5. Johnson, H., Dangerous Domains: Violence

Against Women in Canada, Scarborough, Ontario:

International Thomas Publishing, 1996.

6. Straus, M.A., “Measuring Intrafamily Conflict

and Violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scale,”

Journal of Marriage and the Family 41 (February

1979): 75–88.

7. National Criminal Justice Association, Project

to Develop a Model Anti-Stalking Code for States,

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Justice, 1993, NCJ 144477.

8. Tjaden, P., N. Thoennes, and C.J. Allison,

“Comparing Stalking Victimization From Legal

and Victim Perspectives,” Violence and Victims 15

(1) (2000): 1–16.

9. Keeter, S., “Estimated Telephone Noncoverage

Bias with a Telephone Survey,” Public Opinion

Quarterly 59 (1995): 196–217.

10. Ibid., p. 197; see also Lavrakas, P. J., Telephone

Survey Methods, Second Edition, Newbury Park,

CA: Sage Publications, 1993: 9.
13

3. Prevalence and Incidence of Rape,

Physical Assault, and Stalking

This chapter examines the prevalence and incidence of rape, physical assault, and stalking

among women and men in the United States.

Prevalence refers to the number of persons

within a demographic group (e.g., female or

male) who are victimized during a specific time

period, such as a person’s lifetime or the previous 12 months. Incidence refers to the number

of separate victimizations, or incidents, perpetrated against persons within a demographic

group during a specific time period. Incidence

expressed as a victimization rate is obtained by

dividing the number of victimizations perpetrated against persons in a demographic group

by the number of persons in the demographic

group and setting the rate to a standard population base, such as 1,000 persons.1

Prevalence and Incidence of Rape

Using a definition of rape that included forced

vaginal, oral, and anal sex, the survey found that

17.6 percent of surveyed women and 3.0 percent

of surveyed men said they experienced a completed or attempted rape at some time in their

life (see exhibit 3). Thus, 1 of 6 U.S. women

and 1 of 33 U.S. men have been victims of a

completed or attempted rape.

Relatively few women and men reported they

were victims of an attempted rape only. While

14.8 percent of surveyed women said they had

experienced a completed rape, 2.8 percent said

they had experienced an attempted rape only.

Similarly, while 2.1 percent of surveyed men

said they had experienced a completed rape, 0.9

percent said they had experienced an attempted

rape only. These findings indicate that most

rapists successfully penetrate their victims.

Prior to the NVAW Survey, national information

on rape occurring over the lifetime of the victim

was limited to data on forced sex generated by

two nationwide studies—the National Health

and Social Life Survey and the National

Women’s Study. Findings from the NVAW

Survey are similar to findings from these two

previous surveys. The National Health and

Social Life Survey found that 22 percent of surveyed women and 2 percent of surveyed men

had been forced to do something sexual at some

time in their life.2

 The National Women’s Study

found that 13 percent of surveyed women had

been victims of a completed forcible rape at

some time in their life.3

The NVAW Survey also found that 0.3 percent

of women surveyed and 0.1 percent of men surveyed said they were raped in the previous 12

months.4 These findings equate to an estimated

302,091 women and 92,748 men who are forcibly raped each year in the United States (see

exhibit 4).

Because some rape victims experienced more than

one rape in the previous 12 months, the incidence

of rape (number of separate victimizations) exceeded the prevalence of rape (number of victims).

Specifically, women who were raped in the previous 12 months averaged 2.9 rapes, while men

averaged 1.2 rapes. According to survey estimates,

876,064 rapes were committed against women, and

111,298 rapes were committed against men in the

previous 12 months (see exhibit 5). These figures

equate respectively to an annual victimization rate

of 8.7 rapes per 1,000 U.S. women age 18 and

older [876,064 ÷ 100,697,000 = 0.0087 x 1,000 =

8.7] and an annual victimization rate of 1.2 rapes

per 1,000 U.S. men age 18 and older [111,298 ÷

92,748,000 = 0.0012 x 1,000 = 1.2].

Because annual rape victimization estimates are

based on responses from only 24 women and
14

Exhibit 4. Persons Victimized in Previous 12 Months by Type of Victimization and Victim Gender

Percentage Numbera

Women Men Women Men

Type of Victimization (n=8,000) (n=8,000) (100,697,000) (92,748,000)

Rape 0.3 0.1d 302,091 92,748d

Physical assaultb 1.9 3.4 1,913,243 3,153,432

Rape and/or physical assaultb 2.1 3.5 2,114,637 3,246,180

Stalkingb 1.0 0.4 1,006,970 370,992

Any of the abovec 3.0 3.9 3,020,910 3,617,172

aBased on estimates of women and men age 18 and older, U.S. Population: Wetrogan, Signe I., Projections of the Population of

States by Age, Sex, and Race: 1988 to 2010, Current Population Reports, P25–1017, Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, 1988.

bDifferences between women and men are statistically significant: χ2, p-value ≤ .001.

cDifferences between women and men are statistically significant: χ2, p-value ≤ .01.

dRelative standard error exceeds 30 percent; statistical tests not performed.

Exhibit 3. Persons Victimized in Lifetime by Type of Victimization and Victim Gender

Percentage Numbera

Women Men Women Men

Type of Victimization (n=8,000) (n=8,000) (100,697,000) (92,748,000)

Total rapeb 17.6 3.0 17,722,672 2,782,440

Completedb 14.8 2.1 14,903,156 1,947,708

Attempted onlyb 2.8 0.9 2,819,516 834,732

Total physical assaultb 51.9 66.4 52,261,743 61,584,672

Threw somethingb 14.0 22.4 14,097,580 20,775,552

Pushed, grabbed, shovedb 30.6 43.5 30,813,282 40,345,380

Pulled hair 19.0 17.9 19,132,430 16,601,892

Slapped, hitb 43.0 53.7 43,299,710 49,805,676

Kicked, bitb 8.9 15.2 8,962,033 14,097,696

Choked, tried to drownb 7.7 3.9 7,753,669 3,617,172

Hit with objectb 21.2 34.7 21,347,764 32,183,556

Beat upc 14.1 15.5 14,198,277 14,375,940

Threatened with gunb 6.2 13.1 6,243,214 12,149,988

Threatened with knifeb 5.8 16.1 5,840,426 14,932,428

Used gunb 2.6 5.1 2,618,122 4,730,148

Used knifeb 3.5 9.6 3,524,395 8,903,808

Rape and/or physical assaultb 55.0 66.8 55,383,350 61,955,664

Stalkingb 8.1 2.2 8,156,457 2,040,456

Any of the aboveb 55.9 66.9 56,289,623 62,048,412

aBased on estimates of women and men age 18 and older; U.S. Population: Wetrogan, Signe I., Projections of the Population of

States by Age, Sex, and Race: 1988 to 2010, Current Population Reports, P25–1017, Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, 1988.

bDifferences between women and men are statistically significant: χ2 , p-value ≤ .001.

cDifferences between women and men are statistically significant: χ2, p-value ≤ .01.
15

8 men who reported having been raped, they

should be viewed with caution. Also, they probably underestimate the true number of rapes committed annually in the United States because they

exclude attempted or completed rapes perpetrated

against children and adolescents, as well as rapes

perpetrated against women and men who were

homeless or living in institutions, group facilities,

or households without telephones.

NVAW Survey estimates of the number of rapes

perpetrated against women and men annually

(876,064 and 111,298, respectively) are higher

than comparable estimates from the Bureau

of Justice Statistics (BJS) National Crime

Victimization Survey (NCVS). The NCVS estimates for 1994—a year that approximates the

timeframe for the NVAW Survey—are 432,100

rapes or sexual assaults of U.S. females age 12

and older and 32,900 rapes or sexual assaults of

U.S. males age 12 and older.5

It should be noted that direct comparisons

between the two surveys are difficult to make

because they differ substantially with respect

to several methodological issues. First, the two

surveys differ substantially with respect to

sample design and survey administration. The

NVAW Survey was drawn by random-digit

dialing from a database of households with

a telephone (see chapter 2, “Survey Methods”).

Moreover, NVAW Survey interviewers used

state-of-the-art techniques to protect the confidentiality of their respondents and minimize the

potential for retraumatizing victims of violence.

In comparison, the NCVS sample consists of

housing units (e.g., addresses) selected from a

stratified multistage cluster sample. When a

sample unit is selected for inclusion in the

NCVS, U.S. Census workers interview all individuals in the household 12 years of age and

older every 6 months for 3 years. Thus, after the

first interview, respondents know the content of

the survey. This may pose a problem for victims

of family violence who may be afraid that disclosing violence by a family member may put

them in further danger. It may also pose a problem for victims who do not want other family

members to learn about their victimization. Although census interviewers document whether

others were present during the interviews, time

and budget constraints prevent them from ensuring privacy during an interview.

Exhibit 5. Estimated Number of Rape, Physical Assault, and

Stalking Victimizations Perpetrated Annually by Victim Gender

Estimated Average Number Estimated Annual Rate of

Number of of Victimizations Total Number of Victimizations

Type of Victimization Victims per Victima Victimizations per 1,000 Persons

Women

Rape 302,091 2.9b 876,064b 8.7

Physical assault 1,913,243 3.1 5,931,053 58.9

Stalking 1,006,970 1.0 1,006,970 10.0

Men

Rape 92,748b 1.2b 111,298b 1.2

Physical assault 3,153,432 2.5 7,883,580 85.0

Stalking 370,992 1.0 370,992 4.0

a The standard error of the mean is 1.4 for female rape victims, 0.2 for female physical assault victims, 0.5 for male rape victims,

and 0.2 for male physical assault victims. Because stalking by definition means repeated acts and because no victim was stalked

by more than one perpetrator in the 12 months preceding the survey, the number of stalking victimizations was imputed to be the

same as the number of stalking victims. Thus, the average number of stalking victimizations per victim is 1.0.

b Relative standard error exceeds 30 percent.
16

In addition, the NVAW Survey and the NCVS

use substantially different rape screening questions. The NVAW Survey used five questions to

screen respondents for rape victimization, while

the NCVS used two questions.6

 Although empirical data on this issue are limited, some researchers assume that increasing the number

of screening questions increases disclosure

rates.7 Furthermore, the NVAW Survey screening

questions (see “Survey Screening Questions”

in chapter 2) were more explicit than those

used by the NCVS.

Another possible reason for the difference in

NVAW Survey and NCVS findings is that published NCVS estimates count series victimizations—reports of six or more crimes within a 

6-month period for which the respondent could

not recall details of each crime—as a single victimization. Thus published NCVS estimates of

the number of rapes and sexual assaults are lower

than would be obtained by including all rapes and

sexual assaults reported to its survey interviewers.

To produce NCVS estimates for direct comparison with NVAW Survey estimates, each crime in

a series of victimizations reported to the NCVS

interviewers would have to be counted separately.

Finally, the sampling errors associated with

the estimates from the NVAW Survey and the

NCVS would have to be compared. This is

particularly important given the relatively high

margin of error associated with NVAW Survey

estimates of the average number of rapes experienced by female victims annually (see footnote

a in exhibit 5). Comparisons of sampling errors

would help determine whether the estimates

were truly different or whether apparent differences were not statistically significant.

A recent study funded by NIJ, BJS, and CDC

provides more comprehensive information about

the differences between the two surveys, including error ranges for the estimates. The study,

which calculated annual rape and physical assault victimization estimates for women using

data from the two surveys, the same counting

rules, and the same age populations, found that

the number of rape victimizations uncovered by

the NVAW Survey is significantly higher than

estimates obtained from the NCVS. Specifically,

the point estimate of the total number of rape

victimizations experienced by adult women is

larger for the NVAW Survey (876,064) compared with the NCVS (268,640). In addition,

the 95-percent confidence intervals constructed

around the point estimate for rape from the

NVAW Survey (443,772 to 1,308,356) and the

NCVS (193,110 to 344,170) do not overlap.8

Prevalence and Incidence of

Physical Assault

The NVAW Survey used a modified version of

the Conflict Tactics Scale9

 to query respondents

about a wide range of physical assaults they

may have experienced as children at the hands

of adult caretakers (e.g., parents, stepparents, or

legal guardians) and as adults at the hands of

other adults. Responses revealed that physical

assault is widespread in American society: 51.9

percent of surveyed women and 66.4 percent

of surveyed men said they were physically assaulted by an adult caretaker as a child and/or

by another adult as an adult (exhibit 3).

For both women and men the most frequently

reported physical assault was slapping and

hitting; followed by pushing, grabbing, and

shoving; and hitting with an object. Relatively

few respondents reported an adult caretaker

or other adult pulled their hair or threw something that could hurt. Still fewer reported an

adult caretaker or other adult choked or almost

drowned them, kicked or bit them, beat them

up, threatened them with a gun or knife, or used

a gun or knife on them (see exhibit 3).

The authors know of no previous study that has

examined women’s and men’s lifetime experiences

with physical assault. Thus information from the

NVAW Survey fills a serious gap in the research

literature on violent victimization.

The NVAW Survey also found that 1.9 percent

of surveyed women and 3.4 percent of surveyed
17

men said they were physically assaulted in the

previous 12 months. These estimates equate to

about 1.9 million women and about 3.2 million

men who are physically assaulted annually in

the United States (see exhibit 4). Female victims

averaged 3.1 assaults, and male victims averaged

2.5 assaults per year, which equate to approximately 5.9 million physical assaults perpetrated

against women and 7.9 million physical assaults

perpetrated against men in the previous 12

months (see exhibit 5). These figures represent

an annual victimization rate of 58.9 physical assaults per 1,000 U.S. women age 18 and older

[5,931,053 ÷ 100,697,000 = 0.0589 x 1,000 =

58.9] and an annual victimization rate of 85.0

physical assaults per 1,000 U.S. men aged 18

and older [7,883,580 ÷ 92,748,000 = 0.0850 x

1,000 = 85.0].

These estimates probably underestimate the

number of physical assaults committed against

women and men annually because the NVAW

Survey categorized victimizations involving

both rape and physical assault only as rapes

(see “Rates of Physical Assault Among Rape

Victims” in chapter 3). In addition, these estimates exclude physical assaults committed

against children and adolescents by adult caretakers and siblings, against adolescents by other

adolescents, and against women and men who

were homeless or living in institutions, group

facilities, or households without telephones.

NVAW Survey estimates of the number of physical assaults perpetrated against women and men

annually (5.9 million and 7.9 million, respectively) are higher than comparable published

NCVS estimates. The NCVS estimates for 1994

are 4.1 million simple and aggravated assaults of

women age 12 and older and 5.7 million simple

and aggravated assaults of men age 12 and

older.10 Comparisons between the NVAW Survey

and NCVS estimates of physical assault are confounded by the same methodological difference

discussed earlier and are addressed by a study

funded by NIJ, BJS, and CDC (see “Prevalence

and Incidence of Rape” in chapter 3). The study

found that the NVAW Survey and the NCVS

appear to uncover statistically comparable levels

of physical assault against adult women. While

the point estimate of the total number of physical

assault victimizations experienced by adult women

is smaller for the NVAW Survey (5,931,053)

compared with the NCVS (6,248,433), the 

95-percent confidence intervals constructed around

the point estimate for physical assault from the

NVAW Survey (5,605,801 to 6,250,565) and the

NCVS (5,948,656 to 6,548,210) overlap.11

Rates of Physical Assault Among

Rape Victims

The NVAW Survey found that rape is often accompanied by physical assault: 41.4 percent of

women and 33.9 percent of men who were raped

since age 18 were physically assaulted during

their most recent rape. The physical assaults included slapping, hitting, kicking, biting, choking, hitting with an object, beatings, and the use

of a gun or other weapon.

Based on the estimated number of rapes perpetrated against women and men annually (exhibit

5), there are 362,690 rape-related physical assaults perpetrated against U.S. women annually

[0.414 x 876,064 = 362,690] and 37,730 raperelated physical assaults perpetrated against U.S.

men annually [0.339 x 111,298 = 37,730]. If

these rape-related physical assaults are added to

the number of physical assaults occurring annually (exhibit 5), the number of physical assaults

perpetrated against U.S. women annually increases from 5,931,053 to 6,293,743 [5,931,053 +

362,690 = 6,293,743] and the number of physical

assaults perpetrated against U.S. men annually

increases from 7,883,580 to 7,921,310 [7,883,580

+ 37,730 = 7,921,310]. These combined physical

assault and rape-related physical assault estimates represent an annual victimization rate of

62.5 physical assaults per 1,000 U.S. women age

18 and older [6,293,743 ÷ 100,697,000 = 0.0625

x 1,000 = 62.5] and an annual victimization rate

of 85.4 physical assaults per 1,000 U.S. men age

18 and older [7,921,310 ÷ 92,748,000 = 0.0854

x 1,000 = 85.4]. Again, because annual rape victimization estimates are based on responses from
18

only 24 women and 8 men who reported having

been raped, these estimates should be viewed

with caution.

Prevalence and Incidence of Stalking

Although it uses a definition of stalking that

requires victims to feel a high level of fear, the

NVAW Survey found that stalking is much more

prevalent than previously thought: 8.1 percent of

surveyed women and 2.2 percent of surveyed

men said they were stalked at some time in their

life (exhibit 3). The survey also found that 1.0

percent of surveyed women and 0.4 percent of

surveyed men said they were stalked in the previous 12 months. Based on U.S. Census estimates of the number of women and men in the

country, approximately 1 million women and

371,000 men are stalked annually in the United

States (exhibit 4). Because these figures exclude

cases involving victims less than 18 years old, as

well as victims who are homeless or living in institutions, group facilities, or households without

telephones, they probably underestimate the true

number of Americans who are stalked each year.

If a less stringent definition of stalking is used—

one requiring victims to feel somewhat frightened or a little frightened by their assailant’s

behavior—stalking prevalence rates increase

dramatically for both women and men. Specifically, lifetime stalking prevalence rates increase

from 8.1 to 12.0 percent for women and 2.2 to

4.0 percent for men; annual stalking prevalence

rates increase from 1.0 to 6.0 percent for women

and 0.4 to 1.5 percent for men. Based on these

higher prevalence estimates, approximately

12.1 million women and 3.7 million men are

stalked at some time in their life, and about 6

million women and 1.4 million men are stalked

annually.

Because stalking by definition involves repeated

acts of harassment and intimidation and because

no victim was stalked by more than one perpetrator in the 12 months preceding the survey, the

incidence (number of separate victimizations) of

stalking is equal to the prevalence (number of

victims) of stalking. Thus the annual stalking

victimization rate is 10.0 stalkings per 1,000

U.S. women [1,006,970 ÷ 100,697,000 = 0.0100

x 1,000 = 10.0] and 4.0 stalkings per 1,000 U.S.

men [370,990 ÷ 92,748,000 = 0.0040 x 1,000 =

4.0] (see exhibit 5).

Prior to the NVAW Survey, information on

stalking prevalence was limited to guesses provided by forensic specialists and mental health

professionals based on their work with known

stalkers. The most frequently cited “guesstimates”

of stalking prevalence were made by forensic

psychiatrist Park Dietz, who in 1992 reported

that 5 percent of U.S. women are stalked at some

time in their life, and approximately 200,000

U.S. women are stalked each year.12 The NVAW

Survey estimate that 8.1 percent of U.S. women

have been stalked at some time in their life is

1.6 times greater than Dietz’s earlier, nonscientific estimate, and the survey’s estimate that

1,006,970 U.S. women are stalked annually is

5 times greater.

Notes

1. Koss, M.R., and M.A. Harvey, The Rape Victim:

Clinical and Community Interventions, Second Edition, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1991.

2. Michael, R.T., J.H. Gagnon, E.O. Laumann, and

G. Kolata, Sex in America: A Definitive Survey,

New York: Warner Books, 1994.

3. National Victim Center and the Crime Victims

Research and Treatment Center, Rape in America:

A Report to the Nation, 211 Wilson Boulevard,

Suite 300, Arlington, VA 22201, April 23, 1992: 15.

4. The NVAW Survey was conducted from November 1995 to May 1996. Respondents reported on

events that spanned the 12 months prior to their

interview. Thus, a person who was interviewed in

November 1995 reported on events that occurred

between November 1994 and November 1995; a

person who was interviewed in May 1996 reported

on events that occurred between May 1995 and May

1996.
19

5. Craven, D., Sex Differences in Violent Victimization, 1994, Special Report, Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics,

1997, NCJ 164508.

6. See “Survey Screening Questions,” for the five

NVAW questions on rape/sexual assault. The two

questions used in the NCVS are as follows: (1) (Other

than any incidents already mentioned), has anyone

attacked or threatened you in any of these ways . . .

(e) Any rape, attempted rape, or other type of sexual

attack? (2) (Other than any incident already mentioned), have you been forced or coerced to engage in

unwanted sexual activity by (a) someone you didn’t

know before, (b) a casual acquaintance, or (c) someone you know well?

7. For example, Koss, M.P., “Detecting the Scope of

Rape: A Review of Prevalence Research Methods,”

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 8 (2) (June 1993):

198–222.

8. Bachman, R., “A Comparison of Annual

Incidence Rates and Contextual Characteristics of

Intimate-Partner Violence Against Women From

the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)

and the National Violence Against Women Survey

(NVAWS),” Violence Against Women 6 (8) (August

2000): 839–867.

9. Straus, M.A., “Measuring Intrafamily Conflict

and Violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scale,”

Journal of Marriage and the Family 41 (February

1979): 75–88.

10. Craven, Sex Differences in Violent Victimization,

1994 (see note 5).

11. Bachman, “A Comparison of Annual Incidence

Rates” (see note 8).

12. Although testimony provided at the September

29, 1992, Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing

on the Violence Against Women bill (S. 2922) is

generally cited as the source for these estimates,

the figures first appeared in a USA Today article on

stalking. See Maria Puente, “Legislators Tackling

the Terror of Stalking: But Some Experts Say

Measures Are Vague,” USA Today, July 21, 1992.
21

4. Risk of Violence Among Racial Minorities

and Hispanics

Estimates from the Bureau of Justice Statistics

(BJS) National Crime Victimization Survey

(NCVS) consistently show that African-Americans

are at greater risk of victimization by violent

crime than are whites or persons of other racial

groupings and that Hispanics are at greater risk

of violent victimization than are non-Hispanics.

For example, the overall 1996 violent victimization rate per 1,000 persons age 12 and older reported by NCVS was 52.3 for blacks, 40.9 for

whites, and 33.2 for persons designated “other,”

while the rate was 44.0 for Hispanics and 41.6

for non-Hispanics.1

 Typically, BJS does not publish information on victimization rates for other

minorities, such as Native Americans, Asians, or

persons who consider themselves mixed race.2

To generate information on violent victimization

among women and men of diverse racial backgrounds, the NVAW Survey asked respondents

whether they would best classify themselves as

white, African-American, Asian or Pacific Islander, American Indian or Alaska Native, or

mixed race. Respondents also were asked whether

they were of Hispanic origin. The response rate

on each question was very high: 98 percent of

the women and 97 percent of the men answered

the question about race, while 99 percent of both

women and men answered the question about

Hispanic origin.

This chapter examines the lifetime prevalence

of rape, physical assault, and stalking among

women and men of different racial backgrounds

and between Hispanics and non-Hispanics. It

begins with a comparison of victimization rates

between women and men based on white/nonwhite status. This is followed by a comparison

of prevalence rates among women and men of

white, African-American, Asian/Pacific Islander,

American Indian/Alaska Native, and mixed

race backgrounds. Finally, a comparison is made

between women and men of Hispanic and 

non-Hispanic origin.

Prevalence of Violence Among Whites

and Nonwhites

When data on African-American, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian/Pacific Islander, and

mixed race women are combined, there is very

little difference between white women and nonwhite women in rape, physical assault, or stalking prevalence: 17.7 percent of white women and

19.8 percent of nonwhite women reported they

had experienced a completed or attempted rape

at some time in their life; 51.3 percent of white

women and 54 percent of nonwhite women reported they had been physically assaulted by an

adult caretaker as a child and/or by another adult

as an adult; and 8.2 percent of both white and

nonwhite women reported they had been stalked

at some time in their life (see exhibit 6).

Similarly, there were no significant differences between white men and nonwhite men with respect

to reports of rape, physical assault, and stalking

victimization (exhibit 6). These findings suggest

that racial minority women and men are not at

greater risk of violent victimization than are white

women and men; however, they tell us little about

the rate of violent victimization among women

and men of diverse racial minority backgrounds.

Prevalence of Violence Among Specific

Racial Minorities

A comparison of the prevalence of rape, physical

assault, and stalking among women and men of

specific racial groupings produced some interesting findings. First, data on victimization rates

among women of diverse racial backgrounds
22

showed that different types of minority women

reported significantly different rates of victimization. For example, American Indian/Alaska

Native women were significantly more likely

than white women or African-American women

to report they were raped. They were also significantly more likely than white women or

African-American women to report they were

stalked. In addition, mixed-race women were

significantly more likely than white women to

report they were raped. Unfortunately, the small

number of Asian/Pacific Islander women who

reported they were raped and stalked made it

impossible to test for statistically significant differences between them and women from other

racial backgrounds (see exhibit 7).

The survey also found that American Indian/

Alaska Native men reported significantly more

physical assault victimization than did Asian/

Exhibit 7. Persons Victimized in Lifetime by Type of Victimization, Victim Gender, and Race

Persons Victimized in Lifetime (%)

American

African- Asian/Pacific Indian/Alaska Mixed

 Type of Victimization Total White American Islander Native Race

Women (n=7,850) (n=6,452) (n=780) (n=133) (n=88) (n=397)

Rapea 18.2 17.7 18.8 6.8e 34.1 24.4

Physical assault 51.8 51.3 52.1 49.6 61.4 57.7

Stalkingb 8.2 8.2 6.5 4.5e 17.0 10.6

Men (n=7,759) (n=6,424) (n=659) (n=165) (n=105) (n=406)

Rape 3.0 2.8 3.3 ___d ___d 4.4

Physical assaultc 66.6 66.5 66.3 58.8 75.2 70.2

Stalkinga 2.3 2.1 2.4 ___d ___d 3.9

aDifferences between white women and American Indian/Alaska Native, between African-American women and American Indian/

Alaska Native women, and between white women and mixed-race women are statistically significant: Tukey’s B, p-value ≤ .05.

bDifferences between American Indian/Alaska Native women and white and African-American women are statistically significant:

Tukey’s B, p-value ≤ .05.

cDifferences between American Indian/Alaska Native men and Asian/Pacific Islander men are statistically significant: Tukey’s B,

p-value ≤ .05.

dEstimates have not been calculated on fewer than five victims.

eRelative standard error exceeds 30 percent; statistical tests not performed.

Exhibit 6. Persons Victimized in Lifetime by Type of Victimization,

Victim Gender, and White/Nonwhite Status of Victim

Persons Victimized in Lifetime (%)

 Type of Victimization Total White Nonwhite

Women (n=7,850) (n=6,452) (n=1,398)

Rape 18.2 17.7 19.8

Physical assault 51.8 51.3 54.0

Stalking 8.2 8.2 8.2

Men (n=7,759) (n=6,424) (n=1,335)

Rape 3.0 2.8 3.4

Physical assault 66.6 66.5 67.3

Stalking 2.3 2.1 3.0
23

Pacific Islander men. However, they did not report significantly more physical assaults than

white men or men from other minority backgrounds (exhibit 7).

These findings underscore the need for specificity when comparing victimization rates among

women and men of different racial backgrounds.

As results from the survey show, combining data

on all types of minorities may diminish differences that exist between whites and nonwhites

and at the same time obscure very large differences in prevalence rates among women and

men of specific racial backgrounds.

Findings from the NVAW Survey that show

American Indians/Alaska Natives are at greater

risk of violent victimization than are other

Americans support findings from previous

studies. A recent study by the Bureau of Justice

Statistics found that the rate of violent victimization for Native Americans was more than twice

the rate for the Nation (124 versus 50 per 1,000

persons age 12 and older).3

 A study by the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control

found that homicide rates for Native Americans

were about two times greater than U.S. national

rates.4 Another study using data from the 1985

National Family Violence Survey found that

Native American couples were significantly

more violent than their white counterparts.5

Thus, there is some empirical evidence that

Native Americans are at significantly greater

risk of violence—fatal and nonfatal—than other

Americans.

Because data on violence against American

Indians and Alaska Natives are limited, it is

difficult to explain why they report more

victimization. How much of the variance in

violent victimization that may be explained by

demographic, social, and environmental factors

remains unclear and requires further study. Moreover, there may be significant differences in the

prevalence of rape, physical assault, and stalking

victimization between American Indians and

Alaska Natives that cannot be determined from

the survey because data on these two groups

were combined. Finally, there may be significant

differences in rates of violent victimization

among women and men of diverse American

Indian tribes and Alaska Native communities.

Because of the small numbers of Asian/Pacific

Islander women and men who reported rape and

stalking victimization, it is unclear whether they

report significantly less victimization. It has been

suggested that traditional Asian values emphasizing close family ties and harmony may discourage

Asian women from disclosing violent victimization, especially by intimate partners.6

 The smaller

victimization rates found among Asian/Pacific Islander women and men may be, at least in part, an

artifact of underreporting. There also may be significant differences in victimization rates between

Asian and Pacific Islander women and men that

cannot be determined from the survey because data

on these two groups were combined. Clearly, more

research is needed on victimization among Asian

and Pacific Islander women and men and how

their victimization experiences compare with those

of women and men from other racial and ethnic

backgrounds.

Prevalence of Violence Among Hispanics

and Non-Hispanics

The NVAW Survey found that women who

identified themselves as Hispanic were significantly less likely to report they had ever been

raped than women who identified themselves as

non-Hispanic (see exhibit 8). However, Hispanic

women and non-Hispanic women were nearly

equally likely to report physical assault or

stalking victimization. Because previous studies

comparing the prevalence of violence among

Hispanic and non-Hispanic women have produced contradictory conclusions,7

 findings from

the NVAW Survey neither support nor contradict

earlier findings.

The survey found no significant differences in

rape, physical assault, or stalking victimization
24

rates between Hispanic and non-Hispanic men

(exhibit 8). These findings contradict findings

from the NCVS that show Hispanics are at

greater risk of violent victimization than nonHispanics.8

Notes

1. Ringel, C., Criminal Victimization 1996: Changes

1995–96 With Trends 1993–96, Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997, NCJ 165812.

2. The exception to this rule is a recent BJS report

that focuses on violence against Native Americans;

see Greenfeld, L.A., and S.K. Smith, American Indians and Crime, Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1999, NCJ

173386.

3. Ibid.

4. Wallace, L.J.D., A.D. Calhoun, K.E. Powell,

J. O’Neil, and S.P. James, Homicide and Suicide

Among Native Americans, 1979–1992, Violence

Surveillance Summary Series, No. 2, Atlanta, GA:

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control,

1996.

5. Bachman, R., Death and Violence on the Reservation: Homicide, Family Violence, and Suicide in

American Indian Populations, Westport, CT: Auburn

House, 1992.

6. National Research Council, Understanding

Violence Against Women, Washington, DC: National

Academy Press, 1966: 40–41.

7. See, for example, Sorenson, S.B., J.A. Stein,

J.M. Siegel, J.M. Golding, and M.A. Burnam, “The

Prevalence of Adult Sexual Assault: The Los Angeles Epidemiologic Catchment Area Project,” American Journal of Epidemiology 126 (1987): 1154–

1164; Sorenson, S.B., and C.A. Telles, “Self-Reports

of Spousal Violence in a Mexican-American and a

Non-Hispanic White Population,” Violence and

Victims 6 (1991): 3–16.

8. Ringel, Criminal Victimization 1996 (see note 1).

Exhibit 8. Persons Victimized in Lifetime by Type of Victimization,

Victim Gender, and Hispanic/Non-Hispanic Origin

Persons Victimized in Lifetime (%)

Type of Victimization Total Hispanica Non-Hispanic

Women (n=7,945) (n=628) (n=7,317)

Rapeb 18.1 14.6 18.4

Physical assault 51.9 53.2 51.8

Stalking 8.1 7.6 8.2

Men (n=7,916) (n=581) (n=7,335)

Rape 3.0 3.4 3.0

Physical assault 66.5 63.2 66.8

Stalking 2.2 3.3 2.1

aPersons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

bDifferences between Hispanics and non-Hispanics are statistically significant: p-value ≤ .05.
25

5. Women’s and Men’s Risk of Intimate 

Partner Violence

Ever since Straus reported his controversial

finding in 1977 that women are as violent as

men toward their partners,1

 social scientists have

debated the relative risk of male-to-female and

female-to-male intimate partner violence. On

one side of the debate are those who argue

women and men are equally victimized by their

intimate partners.2

 Evidence in support of this

position comes primarily from surveys of married and cohabiting couples that ask respondents

to self-report violent acts they have committed

against their partners and violent acts they have

sustained at the hands of their partners. On the

other side of the debate are those who contend

that women are at far greater risk of intimate

partner violence than are men.3

 Evidence in

support of this position comes primarily from

national crime surveys and police, hospital,

court, and clinical and shelter sample surveys

that show women are overwhelmingly the

victims of partner violence.

This chapter uses NVAW Survey data to

compare the risk of intimate partner violence

among women and men in the United States.

Intimate partner victimization estimates are

presented in terms of prevalence and incidence.

As previously noted, prevalence refers to the

number of persons within a demographic group

(e.g., female or male) who are victimized during a specific time period, such as a person’s

lifetime or the previous 12 months. Incidence

refers to the number of separate victimizations,

or incidents, perpetrated against persons within

a demographic group during a specific time

period. The definition of intimate partner includes current or former spouses, opposite-sex

cohabiting partners, same-sex cohabiting partners, boyfriends/girlfriends, and dates.

Prevalence and Incidence of Intimate

Partner Violence

The NVAW Survey found that women were significantly more likely than men to report being

victimized by an intimate partner, whether the

time period covered was the individual’s lifetime

or the previous 12 months and whether the type

of victimization considered was rape, physical

assault, or stalking.

Intimate partner rape

Using a definition of rape that includes forced

vaginal, oral, and anal sex that was completed

or attempted (see “Survey Screening Questions”

in chapter 2), the survey found that 7.7 percent

of surveyed women and 0.3 percent of surveyed

men were raped by a current or former intimate

partner at some time in their life, while 0.2 percent of surveyed women were raped by a current

or former intimate partner in the previous 12

months (see exhibit 9). Based on U.S. Census

estimates of the number of women age 18 and

older, 201,394 U.S. women are raped by an

intimate partner annually in the United States.

(The number of male rape victims (n<5) was insufficient to reliably calculate annual prevalence

estimates for men.)

Because women raped by an intimate partner

in the previous 12 months averaged 1.6 rapes,

the incidence (number of separate victimizations) of intimate partner rapes exceeded the

prevalence (number of victims) of intimate partner rape. Thus, there were an estimated 322,230

intimate partner rapes committed against U.S.

women in the 12 months preceding the survey.

This figure equates to an annual victimization

rate of 3.2 intimate partner rapes per 1,000 U.S.
26

women aged 18 years and older [322,230 ÷

100,697,000 = 0.0032 x 1,000 = 3.2] (see exhibit

10). (Because annual intimate partner rape estimates are based on responses from only 16

women who reported having been raped, they

should be viewed with caution.)

Intimate partner physical assault

Using a definition of physical assault that includes a range of behaviors, from slapping

and hitting to using a gun (“Survey Screening

Questions” in chapter 2), the survey found that

the most frequently reported intimate partner

violence by far was physical assault: 22.1 percent

of surveyed women and 7.4 percent of surveyed

men said they were physically assaulted by an

intimate partner at some time in their lifetime

(exhibit 9). Thus, 1 out of every 5 U.S. women

has been physically assaulted by an intimate partner, compared with 1 out of every 14 U.S. men.

The survey also found that 1.3 percent of surveyed women, compared with 0.9 percent of

surveyed men, were physically assaulted by a current or former intimate partner in the previous 12

months. About 1.3 million women and 835,000

men are physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States (exhibit 9).

Because women who were physically assaulted

by an intimate partner in the previous 12 months

averaged 3.4 physical assaults, there were approximately 4.5 million physical assaults committed

against U.S. women by intimate partners in the 12

months preceding the survey. This figure equates to

an annual victimization rate of 44.2 intimate partner physical assaults per 1,000 U.S. women age 18

and older [4,450,807 ÷ 100,697,000 = 0.0442 x

1,000 = 44.2] (see exhibit 10).

Exhibit 9. Persons Victimized by an Intimate Partnera in Lifetime and

Previous 12 Months by Type of Victimization

In Lifetime

Percentage Numberb

Women Men Women Men

Type of Victimization (n=8,000) (n=8,000) (100,697,000) (92,748,000)

Rapec 7.7 0.3 7,753,669 278,244

Physical assaultc 22.1 7.4 22,254,037 6,863,352

Rape and/or physical assaultc 24.8 7.6 24,972,856 7,048,848

Stalkingc 4.8 0.6 4,833,456 556,488

Total victimizedc 25.5 7.9 25,677,735 7,327,092

In Previous 12 Months

Rape 0.2 ___e 201,394 ___e

Physical assaultd 1.3 0.9 1,309,061 834,732

Rape and/or physical assaultc 1.5 0.9f 1,510,455 834,732f

Stalkingc 0.5 0.2 503,485 185,496

Total victimizedc 1.8 1.1 1,812,546 1,020,228

aIntimate partners include current and former spouses, opposite-sex and same-sex cohabiting partners, boyfriends/girlfriends,

and dates.

bBased on estimates of women and men age 18 and older, U.S. Population: Wetrogan, Signe I., Projections of the Population of

States by Age, Sex, and Race: 1988 to 2010, Current Population Reports, Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1988:

25–1017.

cDifferences between women and men are statistically significant: χ2

, p-value ≤ .001.

dDifferences between women and men are statistically significant: χ2, p-value ≤ .05.

eEstimates have not been calculated on fewer than five victims.

f Because only three men reported being raped by an intimate partner in the previous 12 months, the percentage and estimated total

number of men physically assaulted and raped and/or physically assaulted is the same.
27

The survey found that men who were physically

assaulted by an intimate partner in the previous

12 months averaged 3.5 assaults. Thus, there

were about 2.9 million physical assaults perpetrated against U.S. men by intimate partners in

the previous 12 months. This figure equates to

an annual victimization rate of 31.5 intimate

partner physical assaults per 1,000 U.S. men

age 18 and older [2,921,562 ÷ 92,748,000 =

0.0315 x 1,000 = 31.5] (exhibit 10).

Results from the survey show that most physical

assaults perpetrated against women and men

by intimate partners consist of pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping, and hitting. Although

assaults such as these may be considered relatively minor compared with other types (e.g.,

choking or being beaten up), serious injury can

occur in some circumstances. For example, a

woman or man who is pushed down the stairs

could suffer a concussion or even death, while

a woman or man who is slapped or hit could

suffer a perforated eardrum or an eye injury.

Fewer women and men reported a current or

former intimate partner threw something at them

that could hurt, pulled their hair, kicked or beat

them, or threatened them with a knife or gun

compared with those who pushed, grabbed,

shoved, slapped, or hit them. Only a negligible

number reported that an intimate partner used a

knife or gun on them (see exhibit 11).

It is important to note that differences between

women’s and men’s rates of physical assault by

an intimate partner become greater as the seriousness of the assault increases. For example,

women were two to three times more likely

than men to report that an intimate partner threw

something at them that could hurt or pushed,

grabbed, or shoved them. However, they were

7 to 14 times more likely to report that an intimate partner beat them up, choked or tried to

drown them, or threatened them with a gun

(exhibit 11).

Intimate partner stalking

Using a definition of stalking that requires

victims to feel a high level of fear, the survey

found that 4.8 percent of surveyed women and

0.6 percent of surveyed men were stalked by a

current or former intimate partner at some time

in their lifetime; 0.5 percent of surveyed women

and 0.2 percent of surveyed men were stalked

by a current or former intimate partner in the

Exhibit 10. Estimated Number of Rape, Physical Assault, and Stalking Victimizations

Perpetrated by Intimate Partners Annually by Victim Gender

Estimated Average Number Estimated Annual Rate of

Number of of Victimizations Total Number Victimization per

Victim Gender Victims per Victima of Victimizations 1,000 Persons

Women

Rape 201,394 1.6b 322,230b 3.2

Physical assault 1,309,061 3.4 4,450,807 44.2

Stalking 503,485 1.0 503,485 5.0

Men

Rapec ___ ___ ___ ___

Physical assault 834,732 3.5 2,921,562 31.5

Stalking 185,496 1.0 185,496 1.8

aThe standard error of the mean is 0.5 for female rape victims, 0.6 for female physical assault victims, and 0.6 for male physical

assault victims. Because stalking by definition means repeated acts and because no victim was stalked by more than one perpetrator

in the 12 months preceding the survey, the number of stalking victimizations was imputed to be the same as the number of stalking

victims. Thus, the average number of stalking victimizations per victim is 1.0.

b Relative standard error exceeds 30 percent.

c Estimates have not been calculated on fewer than five victims.
28

previous 12 months (exhibit 9). Based on U.S.

Census Bureau estimates of the number of

women and men in the country, 503,485 women

and 185,496 men are stalked by an intimate

partner annually in the United States.

Because stalking by definition involves repeated

acts of harassment and intimidation, the incidence

(number of separate victimizations) of intimate

partner stalking is equal to the prevalence (number of victims) of intimate partner stalking. Thus,

there were an estimated 503,485 stalking incidents perpetrated against women and 185,496

stalking incidents perpetrated against men by

intimates in the year preceding the survey.

These figures equate respectively to an annual

victimization rate of 5 intimate partner stalkings

per 1,000 U.S. women age 18 and older [503,485

÷ 100,697,000 = 0.005 x 1,000 = 5.0] and 1.8

intimate partner stalkings per 1,000 U.S. men

aged 18 years and older [185,496 ÷ 97,748,000 =

0.0018 x 1,000 = 1.8] (exhibit 10).

Comparison With Previous Research

Lifetime prevalence

Prior to the NVAW Survey, national information

on women’s and men’s lifetime experiences

with intimate partner rape was minimal. However, two community-based surveys provide

data with which NVAW Survey estimates of the

lifetime prevalence of intimate partner rape for

women can be compared. A study of 930 San

Francisco women found that 8 percent were survivors of marital rape,4

 while another study of

323 ever-married/cohabited women in Boston

found that 10 percent were survivors of spousal

or partner rape.5 The NVAW Survey finding that

7.7 percent of U.S. women have been raped by

an intimate partner at some time in their lifetime

is similar to these earlier, community-based

estimates.

Several community-based studies have examined

women’s and/or men’s lifetime experiences with

Exhibit 11. Persons Physically Assaulted by an Intimate Partnera in

Lifetime by Type of Assault and Victim Gender

Women (%) Men (%)

Type of Assaultb (n=8,000) (n=8,000)

Total Reporting Physical 22.1 7.4

Assault by Intimate Partner

Threw something that could hurt 8.1 4.4

Pushed, grabbed, shoved 18.1 5.4

Pulled hair 9.1 2.3

Slapped, hit 16.0 5.5

Kicked, bit 5.5 2.6

Choked, tried to drown 6.1 0.5

Hit with object 5.0 3.2

Beat up 8.5 0.6

Threatened with gun 3.5 0.4

Threatened with knife 2.8 1.6

Used gun 0.7 0.1c

Used knife 0.9 0.8

aIntimate partners include current and former spouses, opposite-sex and same-sex cohabiting partners, boyfriends/girlfriends,

and dates.

bWith the exception of “used gun” and “used knife,” differences between females and males are statistically significant:

χ2, p-value ≤ .001.

cRelative standard error exceeds 30 percent; statistical tests not performed.
29

physical assaults by intimates. Survey estimates

vary from 9 to 30 percent for women6

 and from

13 to 16 percent for men.7 In addition, a 1997

Gallup Poll, which surveyed a nationally representative sample of 434 U.S. women and 438

U.S. men age 18 and older by telephone, found

that 22 percent of the women and 8 percent of

the men had ever been physically abused by

their spouse or companion.8 NVAW Survey

estimates that 22.1 percent of U.S. women and

7.4 percent of U.S. men have been physically

assaulted by an intimate partner at some time in

their lifetime fall between lifetime prevalence

estimates for women and men generated by earlier community-based surveys and are nearly

identical to lifetime prevalence estimates for

women and men from the Gallup Poll.

Annual prevalence and incidence

Previous information on women’s and men’s

annual experiences with intimate partner violence

comes from two main sources: the annual Bureau

of Justice Statistics (BJS) National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) and the National Family

Violence Survey (NFVS), which was first conducted in 1975 and subsequently reconducted in

1985. Portions of the NFVS were also included

in the 1992 National Alcohol and Family Violence Survey and a special component of the

1995 National Alcohol Survey.

Annual intimate partner victimization rates

generated by the NCVS are substantially lower

than those generated by the NVAW Survey. One

study based on 1992–93 NCVS data found that

the average annual rate of rape and sexual assault by an intimate was 1.0 per 1,000 women

age 12 and older, while the combined annual

rate of simple and aggravated assault by an intimate was 7.6 per 1,000 women age 12 and older

and 1.3 per 1,000 men age 12 and older.9

 A more

recent BJS study that used 1996 NCVS and

Federal Bureau of Investigation data—which

combined data on intimate partner murder,

rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated

and simple assault—found that the annual rate

of violent victimization by an intimate was 7.5

per 1,000 women age 12 and older and 1.4 per

1,000 men age 12 and older.10 In comparison,

the NVAW Survey annual rate of forcible rape

by an intimate was 3.2 per 1,000 women age

18 and older, while the NVAW Survey annual

rate of physical assault by an intimate was

44.2 per 1,000 women age 18 and older and

31.5 per 1,000 men age 18 and older.

On the other hand, annual intimate partner

violence prevalence estimates generated by

the NFVS are substantially higher than those

generated by the NVAW Survey. The 1975 and

1985 NFVS found that 11 to 12 percent of married/cohabiting women and 12 percent of married/cohabiting men were physically assaulted

by an intimate partner annually.11 The 1992

National Alcohol and Family Violence Survey,

which included parts of the NFVS, found that

approximately 1.9 percent of married/cohabiting

women were severely assaulted by a male partner annually and approximately 4.5 percent of

married/cohabiting men were severely assaulted

by a female partner annually.12 The 1995 National Alcohol Survey, which also included parts

of the NFVS, found that 5.2 to 13.6 percent of

married/cohabiting couples experienced male-tofemale partner violence annually and 6.2 to 18.2

percent of married/cohabiting couples experienced female-to-male intimate partner violence

annually.13

In comparison, the NVAW Survey found that

only 1.3 percent of all women and 0.9 percent

of all men were physically assaulted by any type

of intimate partner annually (exhibit 9). Moreover, the NVAW Survey uncovered similarly low

rates of intimate partner violence when only responses from married/cohabiting respondents

were considered. A recent study based on NVAW

Survey data that focused specifically on physical

assaults perpetrated by marital/cohabiting partners, and is therefore more directly comparable

to NFVS findings, revealed that only 1.1 percent

of married/cohabiting U.S. women and 0.6 percent of married/cohabiting U.S. men were physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually.14
30

The disparity in NFVS and NVAW Survey

findings is particularly striking because both

surveys used behaviorally specific questions

included in the Conflict Tactics Scale to screen

respondents for physical assault victimization.

The NVAW Survey finding that women are significantly more likely than men to be victimized

by intimate partners contradicts results from the

NFVS, which found that men and women are

nearly equally likely to be physically assaulted

by spouses or partners.15 However, the NVAW

Survey supports results from studies using

NCVS data, which have consistently shown that

women are at significantly greater risk of intimate partner violence.16

Deciphering Disparities in Survey

Findings

It is difficult to explain why the NCVS, NFVS,

and NVAW Survey generated such different

annual intimate partner victimization rates or

why the NFVS produced evidence of symmetry

in women’s and men’s risk of intimate partner

violence while the NCVS and NVAW Survey

produced evidence of asymmetry. For years

researchers have attributed the low rate of intimate partner violence uncovered by the NCVS

to the fact it is administered in the context of a

crime survey. Because they reflect only violence

perpetrated by intimates that victims label as

criminal and report to interviewers, estimates

of intimate partner violence generated from the

NCVS are thought to underestimate the true

amount of intimate partner violence.17

At first glance, results from the NVAW Survey

appear to support this theory: The NVAW Survey, which was administered in the context of

a survey on personal safety and avoided legalistic phrases such as crime, rape, and physical

assault, generated intimate partner violence

victimization rates that are substantially higher

than those from the NCVS. It is possible, however, that factors other than the context in which

the two surveys were administered account for

some of the differences in their findings. As

previously noted (see chapter 3, “Prevalence and

Incidence of Rape, Physical Assault, and Stalking”), the NCVS and NVAW Survey differ

substantially with respect to sample design,

survey administration, interviewing techniques,

screening questions, counting rules, age populations, and sampling errors. To produce NCVS

estimates that are more directly comparable to

NVAW Survey estimates, these factors would

have to be controlled. A recent study funded by

NIJ, BJS, and CDC, which calculated rape and

physical assault estimates from the two surveys

using the same counting rules and the same age

populations, found that the NVAW Survey appears to uncover statistically higher levels of

rape against adult women. However, the two surveys appear to uncover statistically comparable

levels of physical assault against adult women.18

Differences between NVAW Survey and NFVS

estimates are somewhat harder to explain because

both surveys used questions from the Conflict

Tactics Scale to screen respondents for intimate

partner physical assault and similar sampling techniques. Straus has recently argued that the NVAW

Survey generated annual rates of physical assault

by an intimate partner that are substantially lower

than those generated by the NFVS because the

NVAW Survey was presented to respondents as a

survey on personal safety.19 According to Straus,

the use of the term “personal safety” led many respondents to perceive of the NVAW Survey as a

crime study and therefore to restrict their reports

to “real crimes.”

Aside from being inherently unconvincing—

the terms “crime” and “personal safety” conjure

up very different images—this theory fails to

explain why the NVAW Survey generated high

lifetime intimate partner victimization rates that

are generally consistent with findings from other

surveys or why the NVAW Survey uncovered

high rates of other forms of family violence,

such as incest and physical assault of children

by adult caretakers (see chapter 6, “Violence

Experienced as a Minor”). It is unlikely that
31

using the term “personal safety” in the introduction of the NVAW Survey would have set up a

perceptual screen for intimate partner violence

experienced in the previous 12 months but not

for intimate partner violence experienced over

the course of the respondent’s lifetime. Similarly, it is unlikely that using the term “personal

safety” in the introduction of the NVAW Survey

would have set up a perceptual screen for one

type of family violence (e.g., physical assaults

by marital/cohabiting partners) but not for other

types of family violence (e.g., incest and

physical assault by caretakers in childhood).

A more plausible explanation for the disparity

in NFVS and NVAW Survey findings is the

different ways the two surveys framed and introduced screening questions about intimate partner

violence. In the NFVS, respondents are queried

about specific acts of intimate partner violence

they may have sustained or committed against

their current partner. Published NFVS estimates

of the number of women and men who experience intimate partner violence annually count

both reports of perpetration and victimization.

In other words, if a woman reported that she

had committed an act of violence against her

husband, her report was counted as a male victimization. To produce NFVS estimates that are

directly comparable with NVAW Survey estimates, perpetrations reported to NFVS interviewers would have to be excluded. In addition,

the NFVS introduces screening questions about

intimate partner violence perpetration and victimization with an exculpatory statement that

acknowledges the pervasiveness of marital/

partner conflict. Although this approach may

seem more accepting of intimate partner violence and therefore more likely to result in disclosure of intimate partner violence, it may also

be considered leading. Finally, the NFVS frames

its screening questions in terms of how many

times in the past 12 months respondents have

committed or sustained these violent acts rather

than whether they have ever perpetrated or sustained these violent acts. This approach assumes

intimate partner violence is the norm and requires respondents who neither committed nor

sustained intimate partner violence in the past

12 months to provide an answer to the contrary.

By contrast, the NVAW Survey queries

respondents only about their experiences with

victimization, rather than victimization and

perpetration. Further, the NVAW Survey does

not use an exculpatory statement to introduce

screening questions. And rather than asking respondents how many times they have sustained

acts of intimate partner violence in the previous

12 months, the NVAW Survey asks respondents

whether they ever sustained violent acts at the

hands of any type of perpetrator, and if so,

whether their perpetrator was a current or past

intimate partner. Only respondents who report

they have ever experienced such violent acts are

asked whether these acts were perpetrated in the

previous 12 months. Although this approach

may be considered less accepting of intimate

partner violence and therefore less likely to result in disclosure, it may also be considered less

leading.

In summary, it is possible that the manner in

which screening questions are introduced and

framed has more of an effect on intimate partner

violence disclosure rates than does the overall

context in which the survey is administered.

Clearly, more research is needed to fully understand how methodological factors (such as the

overall context in which a survey is administered,

question introduction, and framing practices) affect

research findings on intimate partner violence.

The need for this type of research was emphasized at the October 1998 workshop, “Building

Data Systems for Monitoring and Responding to

Violence Against Women,” cosponsored by the

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

and the U.S. Department of Justice.20

Notes

1. Straus, M.A., “Wifebeating: How Common and

Why,” Victimology: An International Journal 2 (3/4)

(1977–78): 443–458.
32

2. See, for example, McNeely, R.L., and C.R. Mann,

“Domestic Violence Is a Human Issue,” Journal of

Interpersonal Violence 5 (1990): 129–139; McNeely,

R.L., and G. Robinson-Simpson, “The Truth About

Domestic Violence: A Falsely Framed Issue,” Social

Work 32 (1987): 485–490; Shupe, A., W.A. Stacey,

and L.R. Hazelwood, Violent Men, Violent Couples:

The Dynamics of Domestic Violence, Lexington,

MA: Lexington Books, 1987; Steinmetz, S.K.,

“The Battered Husband Syndrome,” Victimology:

An International Journal 2 (3/4) (1977–78): 499–

509; Straus, M.A., “Physical Assault by Wives: A

Major Social Problem,” in Current Controversies on

Family Violence, ed. R.J. Gelles and D.R. Loseke,

Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1993: 67–87;

Straus, M.A., and R.J. Gelles, “Societal Change and

Change in Family Violence From 1975 to 1986 as

Revealed by Two National Surveys,” Journal of

Marriage and the Family 48 (1986): 465–479.

3. See, for example, Berk, R.A., S.F. Berk, D.R.

Loseke, and D. Rauma, “Mutual Combat and Other

Family Victim Myths,” in The Dark Side of Families,

ed. D. Finkelhor, D.O. Gelles, G.T. Hotaling, and

M.A. Straus, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications,

1983: 197–212; Bograd, M., “Family Systems

Approaches to Wife Battering: A Feminist Critique,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 54

(1984): 558–568; Dobash, R.E., and R.P. Dobash,

“Wives: The Appropriate Victims of Marital Violence,” Victimology: An International Journal 2 (3/4)

(1977–78): 426–443; Dobash, R.E., R.P. Dobash, M.

Wilson, and M. Daly, “The Myth of Sexual Symmetry in Marital Violence,” Social Problems 39 (1992):

71–91; Kurz, D., “Social Science Perspectives and

Wife Abuse: Current Debates and Future Directions,”

Gender and Society 3 (1989): 501–513; Pleck, E.,

J.H. Pleck, M. Grossman, and P. Bart, “The Battered

Date Syndrome: A Comment on Steinmetz’s Article,” Victimology 4 (1977–78): 131–140; Wardell,

L., D.L. Gillespie, and A. Leffler, “Science and Violence Against Wives,” in The Dark Side of Families,

ed. D. Finkelhor, R.J. Gelles, G.T. Hotaling, and

M.A. Straus, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications,

1983: 69–84.

4. Russell, D.E.H., Rape in Marriage, Bloomington,

IN: Indiana University Press, 1990.

5. Finkelhor, D., and K. Yllo, License to Rape:

Sexual Abuse of Wives, New York: Holt, Rinehart

and Winston, 1985.

6. Nisonoff, L., and I. Bittman, “Spouse Abuse:

Incidence and Relationship to Selected Demographic

Variables,” Victimology 4 (1979): 131–140; Peterson,

R., “Social Class, Social Learning, and Wife Abuse,”

Social Service Review 50 (1980): 390–406; Schulman,

M., A Survey of Spousal Violence Against Women in

Kentucky, Study Number 792701, Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, 1979; Teske, R.H.C., and M.L.

Parker, Spouse Abuse in Texas: A Study of Women’s

Attitudes and Experiences, Newark, NJ: National

Center for Crime and Delinquency, John Cotton

Dana Library, 1983.

7. Ibid., Nisonoff and Bittman: “Spouse Abuse”;

Scanzoni, J., Sex Roles, Women’s Work, and Marital

Conflict, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1978.

8. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Bureau of Justice

Statistics Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics—

1997, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1998, NCJ 171147: 198.

9. Bachman, R., and L.E. Saltzman, Violence Against

Women: Estimates From the Redesigned Survey,

Special Report, Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1995, NCJ

154348.

10. Greenfeld, L., M.R. Rand, D. Craven, P.A.

Klaus, C.A. Perkins, C. Ringel, G. Warchol, C.

Matson, and J.A. Fox, Violence by Intimates:

Analysis of Data on Crimes by Current or Former

Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends, Bureau of

Justice Statistics Factbook, Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics,

1998, NCJ 167237.

11. Straus and Gelles, “Societal Change and Change

in Family Violence From 1975 to 1985 as Revealed

by Two National Surveys” (see note 2, last entry).
33

12. Straus, M.A., “Trends in Cultural Norms and

Rates of Partner Violence: An Update to 1992,” in

Understanding Causes, Consequences, and Solutions, Families in Focus Series, ed. M.A. Straus and

S.M. Smith, Minneapolis: National Council on Family Relations, 1995: 30–33.

13. Schaefer, J., R. Caetano, and C.L. Clark, “Rates

of Intimate Partner Violence in the United States,”

American Journal of Public Health 88 (11) (1998):

1702–1704.

14. Tjaden, P., and N. Thoennes, “Prevalence and

Consequences of Male-to-Female and Female-toMale Intimate Partner Violence as Measured by the

National Violence Against Women Survey,” Violence

Against Women 6 (2) (2000): 142–161.

15. Straus and Gelles, “Societal Change and Change

in Family Violence From 1975 to 1985 as Revealed

by Two National Surveys” (see note 2, last entry).

16. Bachman, R., Violence Against Women: A National Crime Victimization Survey Report, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1994, NCJ 145325; Bachman and

Saltzman, Violence Against Women: Estimates From

the Redesigned Survey, note 9; Gaquin, D., “Spouse

Abuse: Data from the National Crime Survey,”

Victimology 2 (1977–78): 634–643; Klaus, P., and M.

Rand, Family Violence, Special Report, Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice

Statistics, 1984, NCJ 093449.

17. See, for example, Klaus and Rand, Family

Violence (see note 16, last entry); and Straus,

M.A., “Physical Assault By Wives: A Major Social

Problem” (see note 2).

18. Bachman, R., “A Comparison of Annual

Incidence Rates and Contextual Characteristics of

Intimate-Partner Violence Against Women from

the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)

and the National Violence Against Women Survey

(NVAWS),” Violence Against Women 6 (8) (August

2000): 839–867.

19. Straus, M.A., “The Controversy over Domestic

Violence by Women: A Methodological, Theoretical,

and Sociology of Science Analysis,” in Violence in Intimate Relationships, ed. X.B. Arriaga and B. Oskamp,

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1999.

20. A report on the October 1998 workshop, “Building Data Systems for Monitoring and Responding to

Violence Against Women,” will be published by the

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

in the Recommendations and Reports series of the

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).

The MMWR is available at the CDC Web site (http://

www.cdc.gov/mmwr).
35

6. Violence Experienced as a Minor

This chapter focuses on violence women and

men experienced as children and adolescents.

It examines the extent to which women and men

were raped and stalked before age 18 by all

types of perpetrators and physically assaulted as

children by adult caretakers. It also examines the

relationship between victimization as a minor

and subsequent victimization.

Prevalence of Violence in Childhood and

Adolescence

Results from the NVAW Survey show that

violence begins at an early age for many Americans. Nine percent of surveyed women and 1.9

percent of surveyed men said they were raped

by any type of assailant before age 18. Forty

percent of surveyed women and 53.8 percent of

surveyed men said they experienced some type of

physical assault by an adult caretaker as a child.

In addition, 0.9 percent of surveyed women and

0.2 percent of surveyed men reported they were

stalked by any type of perpetrator before age 18.

Thus, about half of all respondents to the NVAW

Survey (43.4 percent of the women and 54.3

percent of the men) experienced some type of

violence as a child or adolescent (see exhibit 12).

This figure probably underestimates the extent of

violence experienced by respondents in childhood

and adolescence because it excludes physical assaults they experienced before age 18 at the hands

of strangers, acquaintances, intimates, and other

relatives.

Rape Experienced as a Minor

It has been previously reported that rape in

America is a “tragedy of youth” because the

majority of rape victims are victimized before

age 18.1 Results from the NVAW Survey support

this assertion: Of the respondents who reported

ever being raped, 21.6 percent of the women

and 48.0 percent of the men were younger than

age 12 when they experienced their first rape,

and 32.4 percent of the women and 23.0 percent

of the men were ages 12–17. Thus, more than

half (54 percent) of the female rape victims and

nearly three-quarters (71 percent) of the male

victims identified by the survey were younger

than age 18 when they experienced their first

attempted or completed rape (see exhibit 13).

Results from the NVAW Survey show that most

children and adolescents are raped by someone

they know. Only 14.3 percent of the women and

19.5 percent of the men raped before age 18

were raped by a stranger. In comparison, nearly

Exhibit 12. Persons Victimized Before Age 18 by Type of Victimization and Victim Gender

Women (%) Men (%)

Type of Victimization* (n=8,000) (n=8,000)

Rape 9.0 1.9

Physical assault by a caretaker 40.0 53.8

Stalking 0.9 0.2

Any of the above 43.4 54.3

*Differences between women and men are statistically significant for all types of victimization: χ2, p-value ≤ .001.
36

half of the women and men (46.7 and 44.2 percent, respectively) raped before age 18 were

raped by an acquaintance; about one-third

(38.8 and 30.5 percent, respectively) were raped

by a relative other than a spouse; and 15 percent

of the women and 6.5 percent of the men were

raped by a current or former intimate partner

(see exhibit 14).

Although rape is legally defined as a genderneutral crime, females are the primary victims

of rape occurring in childhood and adolescence,

and males are the primary perpetrators. Surveyed women were nearly five times more likely

than surveyed men to report they had been raped

as a child or adolescent. And the vast majority of

women and men raped as children or adolescents

(99.2 and 89.0 percent, respectively) were raped

by a male. It is unclear from the survey data

whether these male rapists were minors or

adults.

Physical Assault by an Adult Caretaker

As the National Research Council has noted,

assaults of children by their parents tend to

go unrecognized because they are socially construed as discipline rather than violence, and

Exhibit 13. Percentage Distribution of Rape Victims by

Age at Time of First Rape and Victim Gender

Exhibit 14. Percentage Distribution of Child and Adolescent Rape Victims

by Victim-Perpetrator Relationship and Victim Gender

Note: Total percentages for male victims do not total 100 because of rounding.

0

10

20

30

40

50

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Female Victims (n=1,323)

<12 12–17 18–24 ≥25

21.6

16.6

29.4

Age in Years

Male Victims (n=204)

Age in Years

48.0

12.3

16.6

23.0

<12 12–17 18–24 ≥25

32.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

0

10

20

30

40

50 Female Victims (n=722) Male Victims (n=154)

Intimate

Partnera

Relative 

Other

Than Spouse

Acquaintance Stranger Intimate

Partnera

Relative

Other

Than Spouse

Acquaintance Stranger

6.5

30.5

44.2

19.5

15.0

38.8

46.7

14.3

Victim-Perpetrator Relationship Victim-Perpetrator Relationship

a Intimate partners include current or former spouses, opposite-sex and same-sex cohabiting partners, boyfriends/girlfriends, and dates.

Note: Total percentages by victim gender exceed 100 because some victims had multiple perpetrators. 
37

current institutional systems for counting violent

victimization in the United States are particularly problematic with respect to violence

perpetrated against children by family members.2

 For example, the Bureau of Justice

Statistics (BJS) National Crime Victimization

Survey (NCVS) only interviews household

members age 12 and older and allows parents

to serve as proxy respondents for underage

children. Thus, for an assault of a child by an

adult caretaker to be counted by the NCVS,

the victim would have to be age 12 or older,

be interviewed by an NCVS interviewer, and

overcome the fear and embarrassment associated with recounting the event to an interviewer.

For such an assault to be counted in the Federal

Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Uniform Crime

Reports (UCR), the assault would require a report by a self-incriminating parent, a courageous

victim or other family member, or an institutional official.3

 At present, the primary source

of information about assaults perpetrated by parents against children is information generated

by municipal, county, or State social service or

child protective services agencies that investigate reports of suspected child maltreatment.

School, social service, and medical professionals report such suspected child maltreatment

based on physical evidence of possible physical

harm they have observed. Unfortunately, even

when such evidence is noted, the social service

agency investigating the report may have no

basis for determining whether the assault was

inflicted by a parent.4

To generate information about the prevalence

of physical assaults of children by their adult

caretakers, respondents to the survey were asked

a series of behaviorally specific questions about

a range of physical assaults they may have

experienced as children at the hands of parents,

stepparents, or other adult caretakers. To ensure

that these screening questions would elicit only

a yes response to acts that constituted potential

or actual violence rather than to accidental or

unintentional acts such as being hit with a

baseball during a game of catch, respondents

were told prior to being asked these questions

that they were going to be asked questions

about violence they experienced as children

at the hands of adult caretakers (see “Survey

Screening Questions” in chapter 2).

Nearly half of the respondents said they had

experienced at least one physical assault by an

adult caretaker as a child (see exhibit 15). Most

of these assaults consisted of pushing, grabbing,

shoving, slapping, hitting, and being hit with an

object. Fewer respondents reported that an adult

caretaker threw something at them that could

hurt, kicked or bit them, pulled their hair, choked

or tried to drown them, or beat them up. Only

a negligible number reported an adult caretaker

threatened them with a gun or knife or used a

gun or knife on them.

It is unclear from the survey data how many

of these physical assaults were executed in the

context of the caretaker administering punishment to the respondent and were therefore socially defined as discipline rather than violence

by the caretaker or child at the time of the assault. Because the screening questions were

introduced as questions about violence experienced in childhood at the hands of adult caretakers, it can be assumed that respondents who

disclosed this type of assault defined these acts

as violence at the time of the interview.

Results from the survey show that boys are at

significantly greater risk of physical assault by

an adult caretaker than are girls. Compared with

their female counterparts, surveyed men were

significantly more likely to report that an adult

caretaker threw something at them that could

hurt; pushed, grabbed, or shoved them; slapped

or hit them; kicked or bit them; hit them with an

object; beat them up; or threatened them with a

knife (exhibit 15).

The survey found that the prevalence of physical assault against children by adult caretakers

has remained fairly stable over time. Women

and men age 25 or younger at the time of the

interview were just as likely to report being
38

physically assaulted by an adult caretaker as

women and men age 50 or older at the time of

the interview.

Stalking Before Age 18

Results from the survey show that stalking is not

a crime that is commonly perpetrated against minors. Less than 1 percent of women surveyed and

0.2 percent of men surveyed reported they were

stalked before age 18 (exhibit 12). Among respondents who reported ever being stalked, 12.4 percent

of the women and 9.5 percent of the men said they

experienced their first stalking before age 18 (see

exhibit 16).

Information from the survey shows that more than

half (57.7 percent) of the women who were stalked

Exhibit 15. Persons Physically Assaulted as a Child

by an Adult Caretaker by Type of Assault and Victim Gender

Women (%) Men (%)

Type of Assault (n=8,000) (n=8,000)

Total reporting physical assault by a caretakera 40.0 53.8

Threw something that could hurta 6.1 8.5

Pushed, grabbed, shoveda 15.8 25.4

Pulled hair 11.5 12.3

Slapped, hita 33.5 44.1

Kicked, bita 3.0 3.8

Choked, tried to drown 1.5 1.2

Hit with an objecta 17.0 26.0

Beat upb 5.5 6.4

Threatened with a gun 0.9 0.8

Threatened with a knifeb 1.4 2.1

Used a gun 0.4 0.4

Used a knife 1.1 1.3

aDifferences between women and men are statistically significant: χ2, p-value ≤ .001.

bDifferences between women and men are statistically significant: χ2, p-value ≤ .05.

Exhibit 16. Percentage Distribution of Stalking Victims

by Age at Time of First Stalking and Victim Gender

Note: Total percentages for male victims exceed 100 because of rounding.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Female Victims (%) (n=628) Male Victims (%) (n=169)

11.5

15.6

<18 18–24 25–29 30–34 ≥35

30.8

17.2

29.6

9.5

<18 18–24 25–29 30–34 ≥35

Age in Years Age in Years

13.0

38.5

12.4

22.0
39

before age 18 were stalked by a current or former

date, boyfriend, husband, or cohabiting partner.

About one-fifth (19.7 percent) of these women

were stalked by strangers, 12.7 percent were

stalked by an acquaintance, and one-tenth (9.9 percent) were stalked by a relative (see exhibit 17).

There were too few male victims to generate

reliable information on the victim-perpetrator

relationship in stalkings involving child or

adolescent boys.

Relationship Between Victimization as

a Minor and Subsequent Victimization

Several authors have reported that women who

are sexually assaulted as children and adolescents are more likely to be sexually assaulted

as adults.5

 Results from the NVAW Survey

support this theory: 18.3 percent of the women

who reported being raped before age 18 also

reported being raped as an adult, compared with

only 8.7 percent of the women who did not report being raped before age 18 (see exhibit 18).

Thus, women who were raped as minors were

twice as likely to be raped as adults. The number

of male rape victims was insufficient to analyze

the relationship between victimization as a minor and subsequent victimization as an adult.

Information from the survey also indicates a

relationship between being physically assaulted

by an adult caretaker as a child and physically

assaulted by any type of assailant as an adult.

Although 46.7 percent of the women and 60.0

percent of the men who reported being physically assaulted by an adult caretaker as a child

Exhibit 17. Percentage Distribution of Child and Adolescent Stalking Victims

by Victim-Perpetrator Relationship: Female Victims Only (n=71)

Exhibit 18. Women Raped as an Adult by Whether They Were Raped/Not Raped as a Minor

Raped as Minor (%) Not Raped as a Minor(%)

(n=722) (n=7,278)

Raped as an adult*

Yes 18.3 8.7

No 81.2 91.3

*Differences between women “raped as a minor” and “not raped as a minor” are statistically significant: χ2, p-value ≤ .001.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Percent

Intimate

Partner*

Relative Other

Than Spouse

Acquaintance Stranger

*Intimate partners include current or former spouses, opposite-sex and same-sex cohabiting partners, boyfriends, and dates.

Note: Total percentages exceed 100 because some victims had multiple perpetrators.

57.7

9.9

12.7

19.7

Victim-Perpetrator Relationship
40

Exhibit 20. Women Stalked as an Adult by Whether They Were Stalked/Not Stalked as a Minor

Stalked as a Minor (%) Not Stalked as a Minor (%)

Stalked as an adult* (n=73) (n=7,927)

Yes 46.6 7.0

No 53.4 93.0

*Differences between women “stalked as a minor” and “not stalked as a minor” are statistically significant: χ2, p-value ≤ .001.

reported being physically assaulted as an adult,

only 19.8 percent of the women and 27.3 percent

of the men who did not report being physically

assaulted by an adult caretaker as a child did

so. Thus, women and men who were physically

assaulted by an adult caretaker as a child were

twice as likely to be physically assaulted as an

adult (see exhibit 19).

Finally, results from the survey indicate there is

a relationship between being stalked as a minor

and being stalked as an adult. Surveyed women

who reported being stalked before age 18 were

nearly seven times more likely to report being

stalked since age 18 than women who were not

stalked before age 18 (see exhibit 20). The number of male stalking victims was insufficient to

analyze the relationship between victimization

as a minor and subsequent victimization as

an adult.

While these findings appear to show a strong

relationship between victimization as a minor

and subsequent victimization, they should be

viewed with caution because they simply may

reflect differences among respondents’ willingness to disclose victimization rather than differences in actual victimization experiences.

Respondents who felt comfortable disclosing

violence they experienced as a minor may also

have felt more comfortable disclosing violence

they experienced as an adult, while respondents

who felt uncomfortable disclosing violence

experienced as a minor may also have felt

uncomfortable disclosing violence experienced

as an adult. Clearly, more research is needed

on the relationship between victimization as a

minor and subsequent adult victimization.

Exhibit 19. Persons Physically Assaulted as an Adult by Whether They Were

Physically Assaulted/Not Physically Assaulted as a Minor and Victim Gender

Women (%)* Men (%)*

Physically Not Physically Physically Not Physically

Assaulted Assaulted Assaulted Assaulted

Physically assaulted as as a Minor as a Minor as a Minor as a Minor

an adult (n=3,198) (n=4,802) (n=4,307) (n=3,693)

Yes 46.7 19.8 60.0 27.3

No 53.3 80.2 40.0 72.7

*Differences between women and men who were “physically assaulted as a minor” and “not physically assaulted as a minor” are

statistically significant: χ2, p-value ≤ .001.
41

Notes

1. The National Women’s Study found that 29 percent of forcible rapes of females occurred when the

victim was younger than age 11, and 32 percent occurred when the victim was between ages 11 and 17.

See National Victim Center and the Crime Victims

Research and Treatment Center, Rape in America:

A Report to the Nation, 211 Wilson Boulevard, Suite

200, Arlington, VA 22201, April 23, 1992: 15.

2. National Research Council, Understanding and

Preventing Violence, Washington, DC: National

Academy Press, 1993: 46–48.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. See, for example, Browne, A., and D. Finkelhor,

“Initial and Long-Term Effects: A Review of the

Research,” in Source Book on Child Sexual Abuse,

ed. D. Finkelhor, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1986: 158; Miller, J., D. Moeller, A. Kaufman,

P. Divasto, P. Fitzsimmons, D. Pather, and J. Christy,

“Recidivism Among Sexual Assault Victims,” American Journal of Psychiatry 135 (1978): 1103–1104;

Russell, D.E.H., The Secret Trauma: Incest in the

Lives of Girls and Women, New York: Basic Books,

1986.
43

7. Violence Experienced as an Adult

This chapter focuses on violence women and

men experienced as adults. It examines the

extent to which women and men were raped,

physically assaulted, and/or stalked since age

18 by all types of assailants.

Prevalence of Violence Experienced as

an Adult

The NVAW Survey found that violence against

adults is widespread. More than 1 in 3 surveyed

women and nearly 1 in 2 surveyed men reported

they were raped, physically assaulted, and/or

stalked since age 18. Among surveyed women,

the most frequently reported violence experienced as an adult was physical assault, followed

by rape, and then stalking. For men, the most

frequently reported violence experienced as an

adult was physical assault, followed by stalking,

and then rape (see exhibit 21).

Rape Experienced as an Adult

Nearly 10 percent of surveyed women, compared with less than 1 percent of surveyed men,

reported being raped since age 18 (exhibit 21).

Thus, U.S. women are 10 times more likely than

U.S. men to be raped as an adult.

The survey found that most women who are

raped as adults are raped by intimates. Nearly

two-thirds (61.9 percent) of the women who

reported being raped since age 18 were raped

by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, boyfriend, or date. In comparison 21.3 percent were raped by an acquaintance, 16.7 were

raped by a stranger, and 6.5 percent were raped

by a relative (see exhibit 22). The number of

male rape victims was insufficient to reliably

calculate estimates for men.

Physical Assault Experienced as an Adult

About one-third (30.6 percent) of women surveyed and nearly half (44.9 percent) of men

surveyed said they had been physically assaulted

since age 18. Thus, U.S. men are 1.5 times more

likely than U.S. women to be physically assaulted as an adult when all types of assaults

and all types of assailants are considered.

The most frequently reported types of physical

assault by both women and men were pushing,

grabbing, shoving, slapping, and hitting. Although

women were significantly more likely to report

someone had pulled their hair, choked them, or tried

to drown them since age 18, men were significantly

more likely to report every other type of physical

assault with one notable exception: Women and

men were equally likely to report that they had been

beaten since becoming an adult (see exhibit 23).

Results from the survey indicate that 1 of 9

Americans—female and male alike—has been

beaten since age 18. Results also indicate that

1 of 18 U.S. women and 1 of 8 U.S. men has

been threatened with a gun since becoming an

adult, while 1 of 43 U.S. women and 1 of 20

U.S. men has had a gun used on them.

Exhibit 21. Persons Victimized Since Age 18

by Type of Victimization and Victim Gender

Women (%) Men (%)

Type of Victimization* (n=8,000) (n=8,000)

Rape 9.6 0.8

Physical assault 30.6 44.9

Rape and/or

physical assault 33.4 45.1

Stalking 7.4 2.1

Any of the above 38.8 46.1

*Differences between women and men are statistically

significant: χ2

, p-value ≤ .001.
44

Exhibit 23. Persons Physically Assaulted Since Age 18 by Type of Assault and Victim Gender

Women (%) Men (%)

Type of Assault* (n=8,000) (n=8,000)

Total reporting physical assault since age 18 30.6 44.9

Threw something that could hurt 10.3 17.8

Pushed, grabbed, shoved 23.3 32.9

Pulled hair 11.4 8.7

Slapped, hit 21.1 28.2

Kicked, bit 6.9 12.7

Choked, tried to drown 6.8 3.0

Hit with an object 7.4 15.9

Beat up 10.7 10.9

Threatened with a gun 5.5 12.7

Threatened with a knife 4.8 15.1

Used gun 2.3 4.9

Used knife 2.7 8.9

*With the exception of “beat up,” differences between women and men are statistically significant: χ2, p-value ≤ .001.

Exhibit 22. Percentage Distribution of Adult Female Rape Victims

by Victim-Perpetrator Relationship (n=767)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

61.9

6.5

21.3

16.7

Intimate

Partnera

Relative Other

Than Spouse

Acquaintance Stranger

a

Intimate partners include current and former spouses, opposite-sex and same-sex cohabiting partners, boyfriends/girlfriends, 

and dates.

Victim-Perpetrator Relationship

Note: Total percentages exceed 100 because some victims had multiple assailants.
45

It has been previously reported that U.S. women

are most frequently assaulted by intimate partners.1

 Information from the survey supports this

assertion. Nearly three-quarters (72.1 percent)

of the women who reported being physically

assaulted as an adult were assaulted by a current

or former husband, cohabiting partner, boyfriend, or date; 11.5 percent were assaulted by

an acquaintance; 10.6 percent were assaulted by

a stranger; and 7.0 percent were assaulted by a

relative other than a spouse (see exhibit 24).

In comparison, results from the NVAW Survey

show that U.S. men are at greatest risk of being

physically assaulted by a stranger. More than half

(56.2 percent) of the men who reported being

physically assaulted since age 18 were assaulted

by a stranger; 29.9 percent were assaulted by an

acquaintance; 16.6 percent were assaulted by a

current or former wife, cohabiting partner, girlfriend, or date; and 6.3 percent were assaulted by

a relative other than a spouse (exhibit 24).

Stalking Experienced as an Adult

The survey found that 7.4 percent of surveyed

women and 2.1 percent of surveyed men reported

being stalked since age 18 (exhibit 21). Thus,

Exhibit 25. Percentage Distribution of Adult Stalking Victims

by Victim-Perpetrator Relationship and Victim Gender

Exhibit 24. Percentage Distribution of Adult Physical Assault Victims

by Victim-Perpetrator Relationship and Victim Gender

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0

10

20

30

40

50

60 56.2

29.9

6.3

16.6

11.5 10.6 7.0

Intimate

Partner*

Relative

Other

Than Spouse

Acquaintance Stranger

Victim-Perpetrator Relationship

Intimate

Partner*

Relative

Other

Than Spouse

Acquaintance Stranger

Female Victims (n=2,447) Male Victims (n=3,593)

*Intimate partners include current or former spouses, opposite-sex and same-sex cohabiting partners, boyfriends/girlfriends, and dates.

72.1

Note: Total percentages exceed 100 for female and male victims because some victims had multiple assailants.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Intimate

Partnera

Acquaintance Stranger

59.5

33.5

30.6

35.3

3.4

19.1 21.1

Intimate

Partnera

Relative

Other

Than Spouse

Acquaintance Stranger

Female Victims (n=592) Male Victims (n=170)b

Victim-Perpetrator Relationship

a Intimate partners include current and former spouses, opposite-sex and same-sex cohabiting partners, boyfriends/girlfriends, and dates.

b Estimate for relative other than spouse was not calculated because there were fewer than five victims.

Note: Total percentages exceed 100 for female victims because some victims had multiple assailants. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40
46

U.S. women are nearly four times more likely

than U.S. men to be stalked as an adult.

The survey confirms previous reports that most

victims know their stalker.2 Among respondents

who were stalked as adults, about one-fifth

(21.1 percent) of the women and one-third (35.3

percent) of the men were stalked by a stranger.

Typically, women are stalked by current or former

intimates, while men are nearly equally likely to

be stalked by current and former intimates,

acquaintances, and strangers. Very few women

and men are stalked by a relative other than a

spouse (see exhibit 25).

Violence Against Women Is Predominantly

Intimate Partner Violence

Results from the survey confirm previous reports

that violence against women is predominantly

intimate partner violence:3 64.0 percent of the

women who were raped, physically assaulted,

and/or stalked since age 18 were victimized by

a current or former husband, cohabiting partner,

boyfriend, or date; 16.4 percent were victimized

by an acquaintance; 14.6 percent were victimized

by a stranger; and 6.4 percent were victimized by

a relative other than a husband (see exhibit 26).

In comparison, results from the survey indicate

U.S. men are predominantly victimized by

strangers: 50.4 percent of the men who reported

being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked

since age 18 were victimized by a stranger;

27.2 percent were victimized by an acquaintance; 16.2 percent were victimized by a current

or former wife, cohabiting partner, girlfriend,

or date; and 4.2 percent were victimized by a

relative other than a wife (exhibit 26).

When only victims of rape and/or physical assault

are considered, the results are similar: Women are

predominantly victimized by current and former

intimate partners and men are predominantly victimized by strangers (see exhibit 27).

Violence Against Women and Men Is

Predominantly Male Violence

Results from the survey show that violence

against women is predominantly male violence:

All women who were raped since age 18 were

raped by a male. (The number of women who

were raped by a female since age 18 was too

small (<5) to reliably calculate estimates.) The

vast majority (91.9 percent) of women who were

physically assaulted since age 18 were assaulted

by a male, while only 11.8 percent were physically assaulted by a female. And nearly all (97.2

percent) women who were stalked since age 18

were stalked by a male (see exhibit 28). (The

number of women who were stalked by a female

since age 18 was too small (<5) to reliably calculate estimates.)

Exhibit 26. Percentage Distribution of Adult Victims of Violence by

Victim-Perpetrator Relationship and Victim Gender: All Types of Victimization

Intimate

Partner*

Relative

Other

Than Spouse

Acquaintance Stranger

Victim-Perpetrator Relationship

*Intimate partners include current and former spouses, opposite-sex and same-sex cohabiting partners, boyfriends/girlfriends, and dates.

Note: Total percentages by victim gender exceed 100 because some victims had multiple assailants.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Intimate

Partner*

Relative

Other

Than Spouse

Acquaintance Stranger

Female Victims (n=2,809) Male Victims (n=3,636)

4.2

16.2

14.6

6.4

64.0 50.4

27.2

16.4
47

Information from the survey shows that violence

against men is also predominantly male violence:

Most (70.1 percent) men who were raped since

age 18 were raped by a male, while 35.8 percent

were raped by a female. Similarly, most (85.8 percent) men who were physically assaulted since

age 18 were physically assaulted by a man, while

only 14.2 percent were physically assaulted

by a woman. Finally, nearly two-thirds (64.6

percent) of the men who were stalked since age

18 were stalked by a male, while 38.4 percent

were stalked by a female (see exhibit 29).

Exhibit 27. Percentage Distribution of Adult Rape and Physical Assault

Victims by Victim-Perpetrator Relationship and Victim Gender

Exhibit 28. Percentage Distribution of

Adult Female Victims by Type of Victimization

and Perpetrator Gender

Exhibit 29. Percentage Distribution of

Adult Male Victims by Type of Victimization

and Perpetrator Gender

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Intimate

Partner*

Relative

Other

Than Spouse

Acquaintance Stranger

*Intimate partners include current and former spouses, opposite-sex and same-sex cohabiting partners, boyfriends/girlfriends, 

and dates.

Note: Total percentages by victim gender exceed 100 because some victims had multiple perpetrators.

Female Victims (n=2,669) Male Victims (n=3,606)

17.9

8.6

16.8

32.3

6.8

76.0

14.1

Intimate

Partner*

Relative

Other

Than Spouse

Acquaintance Stranger

60.0

Victim-Perpetrator Relationship

0

20

40

60

80

100

Rape*

(n=763)

Stalking*

(n=597)

Rape and/or

Physical Assault

(n=2,494)

Physical

Assault

(n=2,257)

*Estimates for rape by female perpetrator and stalking by 

 female perpetrator were not calculated because there 

were fewer than five victims.

Note: Total percentages by type of victimization exceed 100 

because some victims had multiple perpetrators.

Male Perpetrator

Female Perpetrator 100

97.2

10.8

93.4

11.8

91.9

Type of Victimization

0

20

40

60

80

100

Rape

(n=67)

Stalking

(n=164)

Rape and/or

Physical Assault

(n=3,606)

Physical 

Assault

(n=3,369)

Note: Total percentages by type of victimization exceed 100 

because some victims had multiple perpetrators.

70.1

38.4

64.6

25.3

85.8 85.9

35.8

Male Perpetrator

Female Perpetrator

Type of Victimization

14.2
48

Notes

1. See National Research Council, Understanding

Violence Against Women, Washington, DC: National

Academy Press, 1996: 29–34.

2. A survey of 90 Florida law enforcement agencies

reported that in most stalking cases the victim knew

the offender. See Tucker, J.T., “The Effectiveness of

Florida Stalking Statutes Section 784,048,” Florida

Law Review 45 (4) (1993): 609–707.

3. See, for example, Bachman, R., Violence Against

Women: A National Crime Victimization Survey

Report, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1994, NCJ

145325; Bachman, R., and L.E. Saltzman, Violence

Against Women: Estimates From the Redesigned

Survey, Special Report, Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics,

1995, NCJ 154348; Gaquin, D., “Spouse Abuse:

Data from the National Crime Survey,” Victimology

2 (1977–78): 634–643; Klaus, P., and M. Rand,

Family Violence, Special Report, Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1984, NCJ 093449.
49

8. Physical Injury and Use of Medical Services

To generate information on violence-related

injuries, survey respondents who reported

being raped or physically assaulted were asked

whether they were injured during their most

recent victimization by each perpetrator they

identified. Victims disclosing they were injured

were asked to describe the nature of their injuries and whether they sought medical treatment

for them.

This chapter examines the injury rate among

rape and physical assault victims and the frequency with which they obtained specific types

of medical treatment for their injuries. Also

included in this chapter are estimates of the

number of rapes and physical assaults that result

in injury and the use of medical services annually. The injury and medical utilization estimates

presented are based on information gathered on

the most recent rape and physical assault experienced by victims since age 18. For some victims

this incident happened in the past year; for others it happened 10 or more years ago. About half

of the rapes and physical assaults included in the

analysis occurred within the past 5 years.

Rates of Injury Among Rape and

Physical Assault Victims

The survey found that women who were raped

since age 18 were nearly twice as likely as their

male counterparts to report they sustained an injury other than the rape itself during their most

recent victimization (31.5 and 16.1 percent, respectively) (see exhibit 30). Similarly, women

who were physically assaulted since age 18 were

significantly more likely than their male counterparts to report they were injured during their

most recent physical assault (39.0 and 24.8 percent, respectively). When only physical assaults

by intimates are considered, the difference between injury rates for women and men is even

greater: 41.5 percent of the women and 19.9 percent of the men who were physically assaulted

by an intimate since age 18 were injured during

their most recent victimization.1

Most of the female and male rape and physical

assault victims who reported being injured

sustained relatively minor injuries, such as

scratches, bruises, and welts. Relatively few

Exhibit 30. Percentage Distribution of Adult Rape and Physical Assault Victims

by Whether Victim Was Injured and Victim Gendera

Rape Victims (%)b Physical Assault Victims (%)b

Women Men Women Men

(n=734) (n=62) (n=1,862) (n=2,972)

Was victim injured?

Yes 31.5 16.1 39.0 24.8

No 68.5 83.9 61.0 75.2

aEstimates are based on the most recent victimization since age 18.

bDifferences between women and men are statistically significant: χ2, p-value ≤ .001.
50

sustained more serious types of injuries, such

as broken bones, dislocated joints, concussions,

lacerations, or bullet wounds (see exhibit 31).

Risk Factors Associated With 

Violence-Related Injury

Results of bivariable analyses

To identify characteristics of the victim, perpetrator, and incident that increase the risk of injury to rape and physical assault victims, a series

of bivariable analyses were conducted that compared rates of injury for victims with and without select characteristics. The specific characteristics included in the bivariable analyses were:

● Whether the victim was white or nonwhite.

● Whether the victim was younger than 30

years of age or 30 years or older.

● Whether the incident occurred in the victim’s

or perpetrator’s home or another location.

● Whether the perpetrator was a current or

former intimate partner or a nonintimate.

● Whether the perpetrator threatened to harm or

kill the victim or someone close to the victim.

● Whether the perpetrator used a weapon.

● Whether the perpetrator used drugs and/or alcohol at the time of the incident.

● Whether the victim used drugs and/or alcohol

at the time of the incident.

● [Rape victims only] Whether the rape was

completed or attempted.

In each bivariable analysis, the dependent variable was whether the victim was injured during

his or her most recent victimization since the

age of 18.

Results of the bivariable analyses show that risk

of injury increased for female rape victims if

the perpetrator was a current or former intimate

partner, if the rape occurred in the victim’s or

perpetrator’s home, if the rape was completed, if

the perpetrator threatened to harm or kill the victim or someone close to the victim, if the perpetrator used a weapon, and if the perpetrator used

drugs and/or alcohol at the time of the rape. Risk

of injury for female rape victims decreased if the

victim used drugs and/or alcohol at the time of

the incident. No relationship was found between

risk of injury for female rape victims and the

victim’s age or race (see exhibit 32).

Exhibit 31. Percentage of Injured Adult Rape and Physical Assault Victims

Who Sustained Specific Types of Injuries: Men and Women Combineda

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Scratch, bruise, welt

Sore muscle, sprain, strain

Internal injury

Chipped or broken tooth

Burnb

Knocked unconsciousb

Bullet woundb

Head, spinal cord injury

Broken bone, dislocated joints

Laceration, knife wounds

Rape Victims (n=241)

Physical Assualt Victims (n=1,463)

aEstimates are based on the most recent victimization since age 18.

bEstimates have not been calculated on fewer than five (rape) victims.

cRelative standard error exceeds 30 percent.

66.6

5.5

5.8

10.1

6.6

12.2

14.1

16.9

6.2

72.6

1.8

0.8

0.7

1.8

3.3c

0.8

5.8
51

Exhibit 32. Rape and Physical Assault Victims Who Were Injured

by Characteristics of the Victimization and Victim Gendera

Rape Victimsb Physical Assault Victims

Women Women Men

Characteristic % n % n % n

Total reporting injury 31.5 (734) 39.0 (1,862) 24.8 (2,972)

Victim’s race

White 31.1 (585) 39.0 (1,432) 24.7 (2,387)

Nonwhite 32.6 (141) 39.2 (395) 23.8 (512)

Victim’s age

Less than 30 30.7 (525) 38.0 (1,089) 25.8 (1,845)

30 and older 33.5 (209) 40.5 (773) 23.1 (1,127)

Incident location

Home of victim/perpetrator 35.0 c (472) 40.2 (1,403) 21.3 d (747)

Location other than home 26.1 (241) 35.5 (459) 25.9 (2,225)

Rape outcome

Completed 38.4 d (450) NA NA

Attempted 20.3 (276)

Victim-perpetrator relationship

Intimate 36.2c (459) 41.5d (825) 19.9d (488)

Nonintimate 23.6 (275) 31.3 (308) 26.0 (2,484)

Perpetrator threatened to harm

or kill victim

Threat 54.3c (230) 53.5d (600) 27.3d (1,297)

No threat 21.0 (491) 32.0 (1,221) 22.4 (1,601)

Perpetrator used a weapon

Weapon 57.0c (79) 42.2 (296) 27.6c (895)

No weapon 28.0 (692) 38.4 (1,562) 23.6 (2,059)

Perpetrator used drugs and/or alcohol

Used 36.9c (417) 46.0d (923) 29.0d (1,461)

Did not use 20.2 (208) 32.0 (709) 18.0 (844)

Victim used drugs and/or alcohol

Used 25.0d (144) 44.9c (205) 33.1d (953)

Did not use 33.4 (578) 38.3 (1,641) 21.9 (1,970)

aEstimates are based on the most recent victimization since the age of 18.

bThe number of male rape victims was insufficient to reliably calculate estimates.

cDifferences between victims with and without characteristic are statistically significant: χ2, p-value ≤ .05.

dDifferences between victims with and without characteristic are statistically significant: χ2, p-value ≤ .001.

Note: Numbers in parentheses indicate the size of the subgroup being analyzed. For example, the figure “(585)” in the row labeled

“Victim’s race—White” indicates there were 585 white female rape victims. The point estimate “31.1” next to this figure indicates that

31.1 percent of white female rape victims were injured during their most recent rape since the age of 18.

Results of the bivariable analyses also show that

injury risk factors for female physical assault victims were somewhat similar to those for female

rape victims in that risk of injury increased if the

perpetrator was a current or former intimate partner, if the perpetrator threatened to harm or kill

them or someone close to them, and if the perpetrator used drugs and/or alcohol at the time of the

incident. However, injury risk factors for female

physical assault victims were different from those
52

for female rape victims in that risk of injury increased if the victim used drugs and/or alcohol

at the time of the incident. No relationship was

found between risk of injury for female physical

assault victims and the location of the assault or

the victim’s age or race (exhibit 32).

Finally, results of the bivariable analyses for male

physical assault victims show that the risk of injury decreased if the perpetrator was a current or

former intimate partner. Conversely, the risk of

injury increased if the perpetrator threatened to

harm or kill them or someone close to them, if the

perpetrator used a weapon, if the perpetrator used

drugs and/or alcohol at the time of the incident,

and if the victim used drugs and/or alcohol at the

time of the incident. No relationship was found

between risk of injury for male physical assault

victims and the location of the incident or the

victim’s age or race (exhibit 32).

Results of multivariable analyses

Following the bivariable analyses, a series of

logistic regressions were conducted using a

backward stepwise procedure in which the independent variables that were found to be associated with victim injury in a series of bivariable

analyses (exhibit 32) were regressed against a

dependent variable representing victim injury.

Separate analyses were conducted for women

who reported being raped since the age of 18

(n = 600), women who reported being physically

assaulted since the age of 18 (n = 1,589), and

men who reported being physically assaulted

since the age of 18 (n = 2,241). The goals of the

multivariable analyses were to provide a measure by which the relative importance of the

independent variables could be assessed and to

determine which variables increased the odds

that a victim would be injured. Logistic regression was used because of the dichotomous and

unevenly distributed nature of the dependent

variables. In order to check for multicollinearity

among the independent variables, each variable’s

tolerance level was calculated using linear regression. Because none of the variables had a

tolerance of less than 0.600 (see sidebar “Results

of the Logistic Regressions” in this chapter),

multicollinearity was not considered a problem.

Injury risk factors during rape. Results of the

logistic regression indicate that women who were

raped as adults were significantly more likely to

incur an injury (other than the rape itself) if they

were raped by a current or former intimate partner;

if their perpetrator threatened to harm or kill them

or someone close to them at the time of the rape; if

their perpetrator used a gun, knife, or other weapon

during the rape; if the rape was completed; and if

their perpetrator used drugs and/or alcohol at the

time of the rape. The variable most likely to predict

injury among adult female rape victims was

whether the perpetrator threatened to harm or kill

the victim or someone close to the victim at the

time of the rape. Results of the logistic regression

did not show a relationship between victim injury

and the location of the rape or the victim’s use

of drugs and/or alcohol at the time of the rape

(sidebar “Results of the Logistic Regressions”).

Injury risk factors during physical assault.

Results of the logistic regression show that female

physical assault victims were more likely to be

injured if they were assaulted by a current or

former intimate partner, if their perpetrator threatened to harm or kill them or someone close to

them at the time of the assault, and if their perpetrator used drugs and/or alcohol at the time of the

assault (sidebar “Results of the Logistic Regressions”). The variable most likely to increase the

risk of injury among female physical assault victims was whether their perpetrator threatened to

harm or kill them or someone close to them at the

time of the assault. Three variables did not predict

whether a female physical assault victim was injured: the location of the assault, whether the perpetrator used a weapon, and whether the victim

used drugs and/or alcohol.

Results of the logistic regression for male physical assault victims revealed somewhat different

injury risk factors. Like their female counterparts,

male physical assault victims were significantly
53

more likely to be injured if their perpetrator

threatened to harm or kill them or someone close

to them and if their perpetrator used drugs and/

or alcohol at the time of the incident. Unlike

female victims, male victims using drugs and/

or alcohol at the time of the physical assault

were also significantly more likely to be injured

(sidebar “Results of the Logistic Regressions”).

Results of the Logistic Regressions

I. Model of the Relationship Between Independent Variables and Risk of Injury

for Female Rape Victims

Variable B S.E. Exp(b) Tolerance

Perpetrator was an intimate* .7881 .2238 2.1993 .907

Perpetrator threatened to harm or kill* 1.2773 .2086 3.5869 .840

Perpetrator used a weapon** .8315 .3308 2.2966 .870

Rape was completed* .6924 .2159 1.9986 .926

Perpetrator used drugs/alcohol** .5955 .2190 1.8139 .819

Constant* -2.7484 .2916

χ2=110.158 (p-value ≤ .0000) d.f.=5, n=600 *p-value ≤ .001 **p-value ≤ .01

II. Model of the Relationship Between Independent Variables and Risk of Injury

for Female Physical Assault Victims

Variable B S.E. Exp(b) Tolerance

Perpetrator was an intimate** .4170 .1400 1.5174 .817

Perpetrator threatened to harm or kill* .9034 .1124 2.4680 .870

Perpetrator used drugs/alcohol* .4841 .1089 1.6227 .901

Constant* -1.3406 .1470

χ2=107.806 (p-value ≤ .0000) d.f.=3, n=1,589 *p-value ≤ .001 **p-value ≤ .01

III. Model of the Relationship Between Independent Variables and Risk of Injury

for Male Physical Assault Victims

Variable B S.E. Exp(b) Tolerance

Perpetrator threatened to harm or kill*** .2267 .1092 1.2544 .814

Perpetrator used a weapon*** .2342 .1179 1.2639 .853

Victim used drugs/alcohol* .4683 .1125 1.5973 .766

Perpetrator used drugs/alcohol** .3346 .1239 1.3974 .695

Constant* -1.6745 .0995

χ2=60.192 (p-value ≤ .0000) d.f.=4, n=2,241 *p-value ≤ .001 **p-value ≤ .01 ***p-value ≤ .05

Note: The chi-square statistic (χ2) provides an indication of the overall fit of the data to the model. A significant chi-square indicates

that the variables, as a group, contribute significantly to predicting the dependent variable (risk of injury) when compared with a

model containing just the intercept. The logistic coefficients (B) and their standard errors (S.E.) can be interpreted as the change

associated with a unit change in the explanatory variable when all other variables in the model are held constant. The logistic

coefficients can be understood more easily if quoted as an odds ratio. The odds ratio [Exp (b)] provides the ratio of the odds of the p

(the probability of an event happening) in the group responding yes to the explanatory variable relative to the group responding no

to the explanatory variable while all other variables are held constant. For example, an odds ratio of 1 indicates changes in the

explanatory variable do not lead to changes in the odds of p; a ratio of less than 1 indicates the odds of p decrease as x increases;

and a ratio of greater than 1 indicates the odds of p increase as x increases. Variables are considered significant if they have a

p-value of ≤ .05. Finally, each variable’s tolerance is reported. This is a statistic that tests for multicollinearity among the independent

variables in a model. Tolerances of more than 0.600 indicate no serious problem of collinearity.
54

In summary, results of the logistic regressions

show a strong link between threats of bodily injury and actual occurrences of injury, regardless

of the type of violence being perpetrated or the

victim’s gender. These findings suggest that

threats of violence should be taken seriously and

violence prevention strategies for both women

and men should emphasize this fact. Results also

show a strong link between victim injury and

drug and alcohol use by the perpetrator. These

findings suggest that some of the inhibitors that

may prevent persons from hurting others under

ordinary circumstances are relaxed when

persons are under the influence of drugs and

alcohol.

Injured Victims’ Use of Medical Services

The survey found that about one-third (35.6

percent) of the women injured during their most

recent rape since age 18 received some type of

medical care (e.g., ambulance/paramedic services, hospitalization, and physical therapy)

(see exhibit 33). (The number of male rape victims was insufficient to reliably calculate medical utilization estimates for men.) By far the

most frequently reported medical treatment

received for a rape injury was hospitalization:

81.9 percent of the women who received medical treatment as a result of their most recent

rape were treated in a hospital. Of these women,

half were treated in a hospital emergency department, 36.8 percent received other outpatient

services and 13.2 percent spent at least one night

in the hospital on an inpatient basis. More than

half (54.8 percent) of the female rape victims

who received medical care saw a physician

outside of a hospital setting, and less than onefifth received dental care (16.9 percent), ambulance or paramedic care (19.0 percent), or

physical therapy (16.7 percent) (exhibit 33).

Exhibit 33. Percentage Distribution of Injured Rape and Physical Assault Victims

by Type of Medical Care Received and Victim Gendera

Rape Victims (%)b Physical Assault Victims (%)

Medical Care Women Women Men

Did injured victim receive medical care?c (n=236) (n=722) (n=736)

Yes 35.6 30.2 37.1

No 64.4 69.8 62.9

Type of medical care receivedd (n=84) (n=218) (n=306)

Hospital care 81.9 76.1 85.7

Physician care 54.8 52.8 42.1

Dental care 16.9 9.6 10.6

Ambulance/paramedic care 19.0 17.5 23.5

Physical therapy 16.7 9.2 12.8

Type of hospital care receivede (n=68) (n=166) (n=234)

Emergency room 50.0 61.4 66.7

Outpatient 36.8 22.3 22.6

Inpatient 13.2f 15.1 10.3

aEstimates are based on the most recent victimization since age 18.

bThe number of male rape victims was insufficient to reliably calculate medical utilization estimates.

cEstimates are based on responses from victims who were injured.

dEstimates are based on responses from victims who received medical care.

eEstimates are based on responses from victims who received hospital care.

f Relative standard error exceeds 30 percent.

Note: Total percentages for type of medical and hospital care received exceed 100 because some victims had multiple forms of

medical/hospital care.
55

Of the women injured during their most recent

physical assault, 30.2 percent said they received

some type of medical treatment for their injury

(exhibit 33). About three-quarters (76.1 percent)

of the women who received medical treatment

as a result of their most recent physical assault

were treated in a hospital, either on an outpatient

or inpatient basis. Among these women, 61.4

percent were treated in a hospital emergency department, 22.3 percent received other outpatient

services, and 15.1 percent were treated on an inpatient basis. More than half (52.8 percent) of

the medically treated female physical assault

victims received treatment from a physician outside of a hospital setting, while 17.5 percent received ambulance or paramedic care, and less

than one-tenth received dental care and/or physical therapy (exhibit 33).

Similar medical utilization patterns were found

for male victims of physical assault: About onethird (37.1 percent) of the men injured during

their most recent physical assault since age 18

received some type of medical treatment. Of

these victims, 85.7 percent went to a hospital

for treatment, while 42.1 percent saw a physician outside of a hospital setting. Of the male

victims who went to a hospital for treatment,

two-thirds (66.7 percent) were treated in an

emergency department (exhibit 33).

Some victims received more than one type of

medical treatment (e.g., hospitalization as well

as outpatient physical therapy). Others received

a type of medical treatment more than once—for

example, 3 nights in the hospital or 10 physical

therapy sessions. Hence, the annual number of

medical treatments provided to rape and physical assault victims exceeds the annual number

of rapes and physical assaults that resulted in

treatment.

Exhibit 34 provides estimates of the average

number of nights spent in the hospital and visits

made to specific medical providers by rape and

physical assault victims. These estimates are

based on responses from victims who received

the specific type of medical care considered.

For example, the estimate of the average number

of nights spent in the hospital by female rape

victims (3.6) is based only on responses by

female rape victims treated in a hospital on an

inpatient basis. Note that some of these average

frequency estimates have a relatively high margin of error (see footnotes c through f in exhibit

34) and should be viewed with caution.

Exhibit 34. Average Number of Medical Care Visits for Rape and Physical Assault Victims

by Type of Medical Care and Victim Gendera

Rape Victimsb Physical Assault Victims

Type of Medical Care Womenc Womend Mene

Emergency room visit 3.2f 1.7 1.4

Outpatient visit 2.2 5.0f 2.8

Overnight in hospital 3.6 8.5f 13.3

Physician visit 4.8 3.3 7.2

Dental visit 5.0f 3.8 5.7

Ambulance/paramedic care 1.2 1.1 1.0

Physical therapy visit 13.0f 18.5f 10.8

aEstimates are based on the most recent victimization since age 18.

bThe number of male rape victims was insufficient to reliably calculate medical utilization estimates.

cThe standard error of the mean for each estimate in this column is 1.5, 0.4, 1.0, 0.9, 2.0, 0.1, and 4.3, respectively.

dThe standard error of the mean for each estimate in this column is 0.2, 2.0, 3.4, 0.5, 1.0, 0.1, and 7.6, respectively.

eThe standard error of the mean for each estimate in this column is 0.1, 0.8, 3.0, 1.3, 1.6, 0.02, and 2.5, respectively.

f Relative standard error exceeds 30 percent.
56

Annual Health Care Utilization Estimates

for Rape and Physical Assault Victims

Exhibit 35 presents estimates of the number

of female rapes and female and male physical

assaults resulting in injuries annually and estimates of the number of specific types of medical

treatment these victimizations receive annually.

The estimates presented in exhibit 35 were

derived by applying the injury and health care

utilization estimates presented in exhibits 30,

33, and 34 to annual victimization estimates

presented in exhibit 5 (see chapter 3, “Prevalence and Incidence of Rape, Physical Assault,

and Stalking”). Because annual rape victimization estimates are based on responses from only

24 women who reported having been raped, they

should be viewed with caution.

According to estimates generated by the NVAW

Survey, hospital emergency department personnel treated approximately 1.26 million rape and

physical assault injury victimizations in the 12

months preceding the survey (128,736 female

rape victimizations, 546,902 female physical

assault victimizations, and 588,256 male

physical assault victimizations). This figure is

somewhat lower than an estimate generated

Exhibit 35. Average Annual Injury and Medical Utilization Estimates

for Adult Rape and Physical Assault Victims by Victim Gender

Estimated Number of Victimizations per Year

Rape Victimsa Physical Assault Victims

Women Women Men

Victimization 876,064b 5,931,053 7,883,580

Victimization resulting in injury 275,960b 2,313,111 1,970,895

Victimization resulting in medical care 98,242b 693,933 729,231

Victimization resulting in:

Hospital care 80,460b 527,389 627,139

Physician care 53,837b 367,784 306,277

Dental care 16,603b 69,393 80,215

Ambulance/paramedic care 18,666b 124,908 175,015

Physical therapy 16,406b 62,454 94,800

Victimization resulting in hospital care:

Emergency room visit 40,230b 321,707 420,183

Outpatient visit 29,609b 116,026 144,242

Overnight in hospital 10,621b 79,108 62,714

Total number of:

Emergency room visits 128,736b 546,902 588,256

Outpatient visits 65,140b 580,130b 403,878

Overnights in hospital 144,828b 672,418b 834,096

Physician visits 258,418b 1,213,687 2,205,194

Dental visits 83,015b 263,694 457,226

Ambulance/paramedic care 22,399b 137,399 175,015

Physical therapy visits 213,278b 1,155,399b 1,023,840

aThe number of male rape victims was insufficient to reliably calculate medical utilization estimates.

bRelative standard error exceeds 30 percent.
57

from the Study of Injured Victims of Violence

(SIVV), a hospital record-extraction study conducted for the Bureau of Justice Statistics by the

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

The SIVV found that during 1994 hospital

emergency department personnel treated an

estimated 1.4 million people for injuries from

confirmed or suspected interpersonal violence.2

Included in the SIVV estimate (but excluded

from the NVAW Survey estimate) are hospital

emergency department treatments to victims of

all ages (including children and adolescents),

victims of suspected interpersonal violence,

male rape victims, and male and female sexual

assault and robbery victims. Because these

groups were excluded from the NVAW Survey

estimate, it is not surprising that it is lower

than the SIVV estimate. The estimates from the

NVAW Survey and the SIVV are quite similar,

given that the two studies used very different research methods (i.e., victimization survey versus

a medical record extraction study).

Rates of Violence-Related Injury and

Accidental Injury

To place the injury and medical utilization

estimates generated by the NVAW Survey in

context, researchers compared the average annual injury victimization rate for women and

men in the United States generated by the survey

with the average annual rate of accidental injuries at work and the average annual rate of motor

vehicle crash injuries for women and men in the

United States. The combined average annual

rate of rape and physical assault injury for

women and men in the United States is 24 injury victimizations per 1,000 persons age 18 and

older. This figure is derived by adding the estimated number of female rape victimizations and

female and male physical assault victimizations

that resulted in the victim being injured in the

year preceding the survey, dividing this figure by

the estimated number of women and men in the

country who were age 18 and older at the time

of the survey, and setting this figure to a population base of 1,000 [275,960 + 2,313,111 +

1,970,895 = 4,559,966 ÷ 193,445,000 = 0.0236

x 1,000 = 23.6].

In comparison the average annual rate of injury

for a motor vehicle crash is 22 per 1,000 U.S.

adults, and the average annual rate of accidental

injury at work is 47 per 1,000 U.S. adults.3

 Thus

women and men in the United States are nearly

equally likely to be injured during an automobile

crash as during a rape or physical assault; however, they are nearly twice as likely to be injured

on the job than during a rape or physical assault.

Notes

1. For a more detailed discussion of injuries associated with rapes and physical assaults perpetrated

against women and men by intimate partners, see

Tjaden, P., and N. Thoennes, Extent, Nature, and

Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings From the National Violence Against Women Survey, Research Report, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 2000,

NCJ 181867.

2. Rand, M., Violence-Related Injuries Treated in

Hospital Emergency Departments, Special Report,

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997, NCJ 156921.

3. Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Highlights From 20

Years of Surveying Crime Victims,” Special Report,

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1993, NCJ 144525.
59

9. Policy Implications

The NVAW Survey provides comprehensive data

on the prevalence, incidence, and consequences

of violence against women and victims’ utilization of medical services. Information presented

in this report can help inform policy and intervention directed at violence against women.

Based on findings from the NVAW Survey, the

authors conclude the following:

1. Violence against women should be treated

as a significant social problem. The survey

findings validate opinions held by many professionals about the pervasiveness of violence

against women. More than half of the surveyed

women reported being physically assaulted by

an adult caretaker as a child and/or as an adult

by another adult, and nearly one-fifth reported

being raped at some time in their lives. Further,

2.1 percent of the surveyed women reported being raped, physically assaulted, or both in the

previous 12 months. This equates to an estimated 2.1 million U.S. women who are raped

and/or physically assaulted annually. Because

some rape and physical assault victims experience multiple victimizations per year, an estimated 876,000 rapes and 5.9 million physical

assaults, or 6.8 million rapes and physical assaults combined, are committed against U.S.

women annually. (Because annual rape victimization estimates are based on responses from

only 24 women who reported having been raped,

they should be viewed with caution.) Given

the pervasiveness of rape and physical assault

among American women, violence against

women should be treated as a major criminal

justice and public health concern.

2. Rape should be viewed as a crime

committed against youths as well as adults.

The survey confirms previous reports that most

rape victims are victimized before age 18. One

of 6 surveyed women (17.6 percent) reported

they had experienced an attempted or completed

forcible rape at some time in their life. Of these,

21.6 percent were less than age 12 when they

were first raped, while 32.4 percent were ages

12 to 17. Thus, more than one-half (54 percent)

of the female rape victims identified by the survey were raped before age 18. The survey also

found that women who reported being raped

before age 18 were significantly more likely to

report being raped as adults. Given these findings, rape prevention strategies should focus on

rapes committed against minors as well as

adults, and rape research should focus on the

long-term effects of rape occurring at an early age.

3. Physical assault of children by adult

caretakers is widespread. Using a definition

of physical assault that includes a range of behaviors from slapping and hitting to using a gun,

the survey found that 40.0 percent of surveyed

women and 53.8 percent of surveyed men reported being physically assaulted by a parent,

stepparent, or other adult caretaker as a child.

Because questions about physical assault experienced as a child at the hands of an adult caretaker

were framed in terms of violence committed by

adult caretakers, it can be assumed that respondents who disclosed this type of assault defined

these acts as violence at the time of the interview.

The survey also found that women and men who

reported they were physically assaulted by an

adult caretaker as a child were twice as likely

to report being physically assaulted as an adult.

Given these findings, future research should

focus on the link between physical assault in

childhood and physical assault in adulthood.

4. Stalking is more widespread than previously thought. Although it uses a definition of

stalking that requires victims to feel a high level
60

of fear, the survey found stalking is more widespread than previously thought: 8.1 percent of

surveyed women and 2.2 percent of surveyed

men reported being stalked at some time in their

life, and 1.0 percent of surveyed women and

0.4 percent of surveyed men reported being

stalked in the previous 12 months. Thus, an estimated 1.4 million women and men are stalked

annually in the United States. These estimates

are greater than previous nonscientific “guesstimates” of stalking prevalence. Moreover, if a

less stringent definition of stalking is used—one

requiring victims to feel somewhat frightened or

a little frightened of their assailant’s behavior—

the lifetime stalking prevalence rate increases

dramatically, from 8 to 12 percent for women

and 2 to 4 percent for men; annual stalking

prevalence rates increase from 1 to 6 percent for

women and 0.4 to 1.5 percent for men. Given

the large number of stalking victims, it is important that stalking be treated as a legitimate criminal justice problem and public health concern.

5. Studies are needed to determine why the

prevalence of rape, physical assault, and

stalking varies significantly among women

and men of different racial and ethnic backgrounds. The survey found that American Indian/

Alaska Native women reported significantly more

rape and stalking victimization than white women

or African-American women and that mixed-race

women reported significantly more rape victimization than white women. The survey also found

that Hispanic women reported significantly less

rape victimization than non-Hispanic women.

Finally, the survey found that American Indian/

Alaska Native men reported significantly more

physical assault victimization than did Asian men.

It is unclear from the survey data whether differences in prevalence rates among women and

men of different racial groups and between Hispanic and non-Hispanic women are caused by

differences in reporting practices or differences

in actual victimization experiences. It is also

unclear how social, environmental, and demographic factors intersect with race and ethnicity

to produce differences in rape, physical assault,

and stalking prevalence among women and men

of different racial and ethnic backgrounds. More

research is needed to establish the degree of

variance in prevalence among women and men

of different racial and ethnic groups and to

determine how much of the variance may be explained by differences in willingness to disclose

information to interviewers and how much by

social, environmental, and demographic factors.

Research is also needed to determine whether

differences exist in rape, physical assault, and

stalking prevalence among women and men of

diverse Asian/Pacific Islander groups, American

Indian tribes, and Alaska Native communities.

6. Women are at greater risk of intimate partner violence than men. The survey found that

women were significantly more likely than men

to report being raped, physically assaulted, and/

or stalked by a current or former intimate partner, whether the timeframe considered was the

person’s lifetime or the previous 12 months.

Specifically, 24.8 percent of surveyed women

and 7.6 percent of surveyed men said they were

raped and/or physically assaulted by a current

or former spouse, cohabiting partner, boyfriend/

girlfriend, or date in their lifetime, while 1.5

percent of surveyed women and 0.9 percent of

surveyed men were raped and/or physically

assaulted by such an assailant in the previous

12 months. In addition, 4.8 percent of surveyed

women, compared with 0.6 percent of surveyed

men, reported being stalked by an intimate

partner in their lifetime, while 0.5 percent of

surveyed women and 0.2 percent of surveyed

men were stalked by an intimate partner in the

previous 12 months. Moreover, women who

were raped or physically assaulted by a current

or former intimate partner were significantly

more likely to sustain injuries than men who

were raped or physically assaulted by a current

or former intimate partner. Given these findings,

intimate partner violence should be considered

first and foremost a crime against women.

7. Violence against women is predominantly

intimate partner violence. Data from the

survey confirm previous reports that violence
61

against women is predominantly intimate partner

violence. Of the women who reported being

raped and/or physically assaulted since age 18,

three-quarters (76 percent) were victimized by

a current or former husband, cohabiting partner,

boyfriend, or date. Of the women who were

stalked since age 18, more than half (59.5 percent ) were victimized by such a perpetrator.

Given these findings, violence against women

intervention strategies should focus on risks

posed to women by current and former husbands, cohabiting partners, boyfriends, and

dates.

8. America’s medical community should

receive comprehensive training about the

medical needs of female victims of rape and

physical assault. The injury and medical utilization data generated by the NVAW Survey provide compelling evidence of the physical and

social costs associated with violence against

women. The survey found that in about one-third

of the rapes and physical assaults perpetrated

against women, the victim sustains an injury.

Further, in about one-third of such injury victimizations, the victim receives some type of medical care (e.g., paramedic care, emergency room

treatment, dental care, or physical therapy).

Thus, of the estimated 6.8 million rapes and

physical assaults committed against U.S. women

annually, an estimated 1.5 million will result in

the victim receiving some type of medical

care. (As noted earlier, annual rape victimization

estimates are based on responses from only 24

women and should therefore be viewed with

caution.) Because many rape and physical assault victims receive multiple treatments for the

same injury victimization, medical personnel in

the United States treat literally millions of rape

and physical assault victimizations annually.

Given the high number of injury victimizations

perpetrated against women annually and the extensive nature of medical treatment to female

victims of violence, medical professionals

should receive information about the physical

consequences of violence against women and

the medical needs of female victims.
About the National Institute of Justice

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ), a component of the Office of Justice Programs, is the research agency of the U.S.

Department of Justice. Created by the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, NIJ is authorized

to support research, evaluation, and demonstration programs, development of technology, and both national and international

information dissemination. Specific mandates of the Act direct NIJ to:

• Sponsor special projects and research and development programs that will improve and strengthen the criminal justice

system and reduce or prevent crime.

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

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

• Evaluate the effectiveness of criminal justice programs and identify programs that promise to be successful if

continued or repeated.

• Recommend actions that can be taken by Federal, State, and local governments as well as by private organizations to

improve criminal justice.

• Carry out research on criminal behavior.

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

In recent years, NIJ has greatly expanded its initiatives, the result of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of

1994 (the Crime Act), partnerships with other Federal agencies and private foundations, advances in technology, and a new

international focus. Examples of these new initiatives include:

• Exploring key issues in community policing, violence against women, violence within the family, sentencing reforms,

and specialized courts such as drug courts.

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

• Establishing four regional National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Centers and a Border Research and

Technology Center.

• Strengthening NIJ’s links with the international community through participation in the United Nations network of

 criminological institutes, the U.N. Criminal Justice Information Network, UNOJUST (United Nations Online Justice

Clearinghouse), and the NIJ International Center.

• Improving the online capability of NIJ’s criminal justice information clearinghouse.

• Establishing the ADAM (Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring) program—formerly the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF)

program—to increase the number of drug-testing sites and study drug-related crime.

The Institute Director establishes the Institute’s objectives, guided by the priorities of the Office of Justice Programs, the

Department of Justice, and the needs of the criminal justice field. The Institute actively solicits the views of criminal justice

professionals and researchers in the continuing search for answers that inform public policymaking in crime and justice.

To find out more about the National Institute of Justice,

please contact:

National Criminal Justice Reference Service

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

800–851–3420

e-mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org

To obtain an electronic version of this document, access the NIJ Web site

(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij).

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