U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

BJS

Special Report

APRIL 2014 NCJ 244697

Nonfatal Domestic Violence, 

2003–2012

Jennifer L. Truman, Ph.D., and Rachel E. Morgan, Ph.D., BJS Statisticians

For the 10-year aggregate period 2003–12, domestic violence 

accounted for 21% of all violent victimizations (figure 1). 

Domestic violence includes rape, sexual assault, robbery, and 

aggravated and simple assault committed by intimate partners, 

immediate family members, or other relatives. Intimate partner 

violence (15%) accounted for a greater percentage of all violent 

victimizations, compared to violence committed by immediate 

family members (4%) or other relatives (2%). Well-known or casual 

acquaintances accounted for 32% of all violent victimizations, and 

strangers accounted for 38%. 

This report uses data from the National Crime Victimization Survey 

(NCVS) to describe the characteristics and patterns of domestic 

violence. Domestic violence includes victimizations committed 

by intimate partners (current or former spouses, boyfriends, or 

girlfriends), immediate family members (parents, children, or 

siblings), and other relatives. It details the number, percentage, 

and demographic characteristics of domestic violence victims, and 

describes victim and incident characteristics by the victim–offender 

relationship. Incident characteristics include the type of violence, 

the offender’s use of a weapon, victim injury and medical treatment, 

and whether the incident was reported to police. The report focuses 

on domestic violence, but includes estimates of violence committed 

by acquaintances and strangers to provide comparisons.

HIGHLIGHTS

This report describes domestic violence—violence committed 

by intimate partners, immediate family members, or other 

relatives—by victim and incident characteristics. Data are from 

the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). In 2003–12:

 Domestic violence accounted for 21% of all violent crime. 

 Intimate partner violence (15%) accounted for a greater 

percentage of all violent victimizations than violence 

committed by immediate family members (4%) or other 

relatives (2%).

 Current or former boyfriends or girlfriends committed most 

domestic violence.

 The majority of domestic violence was committed against 

females (76%) compared to males (24%).

 A similar percentage of violence by intimate partners and 

immediate family members was reported to police (56% 

each). An estimated 49% of violence by other relatives was 

reported to police.

 Most domestic violence (77%) occurred at or near the 

victim’s home.

 Intimate partner violence resulted in injuries more often 

than violence perpetrated by immediate family members 

and other relatives.

 A weapon was involved in a larger percentage of violence 

committed by other relatives (26%) than intimate partners 

(19%) and immediate family members (19%).

Figure 1

Violent victimization, by victim–offender 

relationship, 2003–2012

Note: In a small percentage of victimizations, the victim–offender 

relationship was unknown or the number of offenders was unknown. 

These estimates are not shown. See appendix table 1 for estimates and 

standard errors.

aIncludes current or former spouses, boyfriends, and girlfriends.

bIncludes parents, children, and siblings.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 

2003–2012.

0

10

20

30

40

Well-known/ Stranger casual 

acquaintance

Other 

relative

Immediate 

familyb Intimate partnera

Percent

Domestic violence
NONFATAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, 2003–2012 | APRIL 2014 2

The trend estimates are based on 2-year rolling averages 

centered on the most recent year. For example, estimates 

reported for 1994 represent the average estimates for 1993 

and 1994. For ease of discussion, the report refers to all 

2-year estimates by the most recent year. Rolling averages 

generally improve the reliability and stability of estimate 

comparisons over time. Other tables in this report focus 

on the most recent 10-year aggregate period from 2003 

through 2012, used throughout the report as 2003–12. Both 

approaches—using rolling averages and aggregating years—

increase the reliability and stability of estimates and facilitate 

comparisons of detailed victimization characteristics.

As with any source of information, there are limitations 

with the current data that should be recognized. Because 

the nature of the victim–offender relationship is defined by 

the victim, the characteristics of intimate partner violence 

as defined in this report may differ based on how the 

respondent perceives their relationship with the offender. 

To some victims, intimate relationships with offenders may 

be primarily restricted to current or former boyfriends or 

girlfriends. Others may describe those offenders as friends 

or acquaintances rather than boyfriends or girlfriends. 

Also, because the NCVS reflects a respondent’s marital status 

at the time of the interview, it is not possible to determine 

whether a person was separated or divorced at the time of 

the victimization or whether separation or divorce followed 

the violence. However, most intimate partner violence 

committed against those with a separated marital status was 

by a spouse or ex-spouse.

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)

The NCVS collects information on nonfatal crimes 

reported and not reported to police against persons 

age 12 or older from a nationally representative sample 

of U.S. households. It produces national rates and levels 

of violent and property victimization, information 

on the characteristics of crimes and victims, and the 

consequences of victimization. Since the NCVS is based on 

interviews with victims, it does not measure homicide.

This report examines violent crimes, which include rape 

or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple 

assault. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) classifies 

rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault as 

serious violent crimes. The survey also measures property 

crime and personal larceny. (For additional estimates 

not included in this report, see the NCVS Victimization 

Analysis Tool (NVAT) on the BJS website.)

Victimization is the basic unit of analysis used throughout 

this report. A victimization is a crime as it affects one 

person or household. For personal crimes, the number of 

victimizations is equal to the number of victims present 

during a criminal incident. The number of victimizations 

may be greater than the number of criminal incidents 

because more than one person may be victimized during 

an incident. Each crime against a household is counted 

as having a single victim, the affected household. The 

victimization rate is a measure of the occurrence of 

victimizations among a specified population group. For 

personal crimes, the victimization rate is based on the 

number of victimizations per 1,000 residents age 12 or 

older. For household crimes, the victimization rate is the 

number of incidents per 1,000 households.

The NCVS is administered to persons age 12 or older. 

Therefore, the survey excludes violence against children 

under age 12. It includes persons living in group quarters, 

such as dormitories, rooming houses, and religious group 

dwellings, but excludes persons living in military barracks 

and institutional settings, such as correctional or hospital 

facilities, and the homeless.
NONFATAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, 2003–2012 | APRIL 2014 3

Intimate partner violence accounted for 15% of all 

violent victimizations

In 2003–12, intimate partner violence accounted for 14.6% 

of all violent victimizations (table 1). Current or former 

boyfriends or girlfriends (7.8%) committed a greater 

percentage of all violent victimizations than spouses 

(4.7%) and ex-spouses (2.0%). Violence committed by 

immediate family members accounted for 4.3% of all 

violent victimizations, and other relatives accounted for 

2.4%. The percentage of total violence perpetrated by other 

relatives (2.4%) was greater than the percentage by the 

victim’s parents (1.2%), children (1.5%), or siblings (1.6%). 

These relationships were similar for serious violence and 

simple assault.

Domestic violence declined from 1994 to 2012

The rate of domestic violence declined 63%, from 

13.5 victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older in 

1994 to 5.0 per 1,000 in 2012 (appendix table 3). The overall 

pattern and size of the decline were similar to the decline in 

the overall violent crime rate. Total violence declined 67% 

from a rate of 79.8 per 1,000 to 26.1 per 1,000 (not shown).

From 1994 to 2012, violence committed by intimate partners 

declined at a faster rate than violent crime committed by 

immediate family members and other relatives. Violence 

committed by intimate partners declined 67%, from 9.8 per 

1,000 persons age 12 or older in 1994 to 3.2 per 1,000 in 

2012 (figure 2). Violence committed by immediate family 

members declined 52% during the same period, from 

2.7 to 1.3 per 1,000. Violence committed by other relatives 

decreased 49%, from 1.1 to 0.6 per 1,000.

Table 1

Violent victimization, by type of crime and victim–offender relationship, 2003–2012

All violent crime Serious violent crimea Simple assault

Victim–offender relationship

Average 

annual number Percent

Average 

annual number Percent

Average 

annual number Percent

Total 6,623,500 100% 2,194,070 100% 4,429,430 100%

Known 3,514,570 53.1% 1,072,520 48.9% 2,442,050 55.1%

Domestic 1,411,330 21.3 501,220 22.8 910,110 20.5

Intimate partnerb 967,710 14.6 343,760 15.7 623,950 14.1

Spouse 314,330 4.7 116,520 5.3 197,810 4.5

Ex-spouse 134,690 2.0 29,330 1.3 105,350 2.4

Boy/girlfriend 518,700 7.8 197,910 9.0 320,790 7.2

Immediate family 284,670 4.3 98,520 4.5 186,150 4.2

Parent 80,890 1.2 31,400 1.4 49,480 1.1

Child 97,490 1.5 32,820 1.5 64,680 1.5

Sibling 106,290 1.6 34,300 1.6 71,990 1.6

Other relative 158,950 2.4 58,940 2.7 100,010 2.3

Well-known/casual acquaintance 2,103,240 31.8 571,300 26.0 1,531,940 34.6

Stranger 2,548,860 38.5% 929,450 42.4% 1,619,410 36.6%

Unknownc 560,080 8.5% 192,100 8.8% 367,970 8.3%

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. See appendix table 2 for standard errors.

aIncludes rape or sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault.

bIncludes current or former spouses, boyfriends, and girlfriends.

cIncludes unknown victim–offender relationships and unknown number of offenders. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2012.

Rate per 1,000 persons age 12 or older

0

2

4

6

8

10

Other relative

Immediate familyb

Intimate partnera

'12'11'10'09'08'07'06'05'04'03'02'01'00'99'98'97'96'95'94

Figure 2

Rate of domestic violence, by victim–offender relationship, 

1993–2012

Note: Data are based on 2-year rolling averages beginning in 1993. See appendix 

table 3 for estimates and standard errors.

aIncludes current or former spouses, boyfriends, and girlfriends.

bIncludes parents, children, and siblings.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 

1993–2012.
NONFATAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, 2003–2012 | APRIL 2014 4

Most of the decline in domestic violence occurred in the 

first half of the period from 1994 to 2002. Rates of violent 

crime committed by intimate partners and other relatives 

continued to decline from 2003 to 2012, while violent 

crime by immediate family members fluctuated between a 

rate of 0.9 per 1,000 and 1.3 per 1,000. From 2010 to 2012, 

violence perpetrated by intimate partners and other relatives 

remained relatively stable.

Serious domestic violence (rape, sexual assault, robbery, 

and aggravated assault) declined from 1994 to 2012. 

Serious intimate partner violence declined at a faster rate 

than serious violence committed by immediate family 

members and other relatives. Rates of serious intimate 

partner violence declined by over half, from 3.6 per 1,000 

persons age 12 or older in 1994 to 1.0 per 1,000 in 2012 

(figure 3). During the same period, the rate of serious 

violence by immediate family members decreased from 

0.7 to 0.3 per 1,000, and serious violence by other relatives 

decreased from 0.4 to 0.2 per 1,000. Similar to the pattern 

in overall domestic violence, most of the decline in these 

rates occurred from 1994 to 2002. Rates of serious intimate 

partner violence continued to decline from 2003 to 2012. 

During the same time period, serious violence by immediate 

family members fluctuated between 0.3 and 0.6 per 1,000, 

and serious violence perpetrated by other relatives varied 

between 0.1 and 0.5 per 1,000.

Rates of simple assault by intimate partners, immediate 

family members, and other relatives decreased from 1994 

to 2012. The rate of simple assault by intimate partners 

declined from 6.2 to 2.2 per 1,000 (figure 4). The rate of 

simple assault by immediate family members decreased from 

1.9 to 1.0 per 1,000, while the rate for other relatives declined 

from 0.7 to 0.4 per 1,000. As in overall domestic violence, 

the majority of the decline in these rates occurred from 

1994 to 2002. Simple assaults by intimate partners remained 

relatively stable from 2003 to 2012, fluctuating from 2.1 

per 1,000 to 3.0 per 1,000. Simple assaults perpetrated 

by immediate family members varied from a rate of 0.6 

per 1,000 to 1.0 per 1,000, and the rate for other relatives 

fluctuated from 0.3 per 1,000 to 0.5 per 1,000 during the 

same time period.

Rate per 1,000 persons age 12 or older

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Other relative

Immediate familyb

Intimate partnera

'12'11'10'09'08'07'06'05'04'03'02'01'00'99'98'97'96'95'94

Figure 3

Rate of serious domestic violence, by victim–offender 

relationship, 1993–2012

Note: Serious violent crime includes rape or sexual assault, robbery, and 

aggravated assault. Data are based on 2-year rolling averages beginning in 1993. 

See appendix table 4 for estimates and standard errors.

aIncludes current or former spouses, boyfriends, and girlfriends.

bIncludes parents, children, and siblings.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 

1993–2012.

Rate per 1,000 persons age 12 or older

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Other relative

Immediate familyb

Intimate partnera

'12'11'10'09'08'07'06'05'04'03'02'01'00'99'98'97'96'95'94

Figure 4

Rate of simple assault domestic violence, by victim–offender 

relationship, 1993–2012

Note: Data are based on 2-year rolling averages beginning in 1993. See appendix 

table 5 for estimates and standard errors.

aIncludes current or former spouses, boyfriends, and girlfriends.

bIncludes parents, children, and siblings.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 

1993–2012.
NONFATAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, 2003–2012 | APRIL 2014 5

The rate of intimate partner violence was greater than 

the rate of violence by immediate family members and 

other relatives

The rates of violence committed by acquaintances 

(8.4 victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older) and 

strangers (10.2 per 1,000) were greater than the rate of 

domestic violence (5.6 per 1,000) in 2003–12. This was 

true for both serious violence and simple assault. For total 

violent crime and serious violent crime, the rate of violence 

committed by strangers was greater than the rate of violence 

by acquaintances.

In 2003–12, the rate of intimate partner violence (3.9 per 

1,000) was greater than the rate of violence by immediate 

family members (1.1 per 1,000) and other relatives 

(0.6 per 1,000) (table 2). The rate of intimate partner 

violence by boyfriends or girlfriends (2.1 per 1,000) was 

higher than violence perpetrated by spouses (1.3 per 1,000) 

and ex-spouses (0.5 per 1,000). These patterns were similar 

for both serious violence and simple assault. The rate of 

violence committed by siblings (0.4 per 1,000) was greater 

than the rate by parents (0.3 per 1,000), while the rate of 

violence perpetrated by parents and children were similar.

Domestic violence accounted for a greater percentage 

of serious violent crime against females than males

In 2003–12, a greater percentage of serious violent crime 

against females was committed by someone the victim knew 

(65%) than by a stranger (29%) (table 3). In comparison, 

more serious violent crime against males was committed 

by a stranger (55%) than by someone the victim knew 

(34%). A larger percentage of females (37%) were victims of 

serious domestic violence than males (10%). Both male and 

female victims were more likely to experience violence by 

an intimate partner than a family member or other relative. 

This was also true for simple assault.

Table 2

Rate of violent victimization, by victim–offender 

relationship, 2003–2012

Victim–offender relationship

Total 

violent crime

Serious 

violent crimea Simple assault

Domestic 5.6 2.0 3.6

Intimate partnerb 3.9 1.4 2.5

Spouse 1.3 0.5 0.8

Ex-spouse 0.5 0.1 0.4

Boy/girlfriend 2.1 0.8 1.3

Immediate family 1.1 0.4 0.7

Parent 0.3 0.1 0.2

Child 0.4 0.1 0.3

Sibling 0.4 0.1 0.3

Other relative 0.6 0.2 0.4

Well-known/casual acquaintance 8.4 2.3 6.1

Stranger 10.2 3.7 6.5

Note: Victimization rates are per 1,000 persons age 12 or older. In a small 

percentage of victimizations, the victim–offender relationship was unknown 

or the number of offenders was unknown. These estimates are not shown. See 

appendix table 6 for standard errors.

aIncludes rape or sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault.

bIncludes current or former spouses, boyfriends, and girlfriends.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 

2003–2012.

Table 3

Percent of violent victimization, by victim–offender 

relationship and victim’s sex, 2003–2012

Serious violent crimea Simple assault

Victim–offender relationship Male Female Male Female

Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

Known 34.3% 65.0% 43.5% 68.7%

Domestic 10.0 37.0 9.4 33.6

Intimate partnerb 5.8 26.6 4.5 25.3

Immediate family 2.7 6.5 3.2 5.4

Other relative 1.5 4.0 1.7 3.0

Well-known/casual 

 acquaintance 24.3 28.0 34.1 35.1

Stranger 54.8% 28.6% 46.1% 25.4%

Average annual violent

 victimizations 1,151,980 1,042,090 2,382,070 2,047,370

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. In a small percentage of 

victimizations, the victim–offender relationship was unknown or the number of 

offenders was unknown. These estimates are not shown. See appendix table 7 for 

standard errors.

aIncludes rape or sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault.

bIncludes current or former spouses, boyfriends, and girlfriends. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 

2003–2012.
NONFATAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, 2003–2012 | APRIL 2014 6

More domestic violence against victims age 18 or 

older was committed by intimate partners than by 

immediate family members and other relatives

In 2003–12, a greater percentage of serious violent crime 

against victims ages 12 to 17 was committed by someone 

the victim knew (55%) than by a stranger (37%) (table 4). 

This pattern held for simple assault. For persons ages 18 to 

49, more than 45% of serious violent victimizations were 

committed by a known offender and more than 43% by 

a stranger. A larger percentage of simple assault against 

persons ages 18 to 49 was committed by a known offender 

(more than 50%) than a stranger (about 40%).

Victims ages 12 to 17 and victims age 50 or older 

experienced more serious violent victimizations and simple 

assaults involving well-known or casual acquaintances than 

intimate partners and family members. For victims ages 

12 to 17, the percentage of serious violence perpetrated 

by a family member (7%) was slightly greater than serious 

violence perpetrated by an intimate partner (5%). A similar 

pattern was evident for simple assault. Persons age 18 or 

older experienced more serious domestic violence and 

simple assault perpetrated by intimate partners than by 

immediate family members and other relatives.

The majority of domestic violence was committed 

against females compared to males

Among domestic violent victimizations, most were 

committed against females (76%) compared to males (24%), 

although the proportions varied by family relationship 

(figure 5). The majority of intimate partner violence was 

committed against females (82%), compared to males (18%). 

However, the proportion of violence against males and 

females was more evenly distributed for domestic violence 

perpetrated by immediate family members or other relatives.

About 60% of violence by immediate family members and 

other relatives was committed against females, compared to 

about 40% of violence committed against males.

Table 4

Percent of violent victimization, by victim–offender relationship and victim’s age, 2003–2012

Serious violent crimea Simple assault

Victim–offender releationship 12–17 18–24 25–49 50 or older 12–17 18–24 25–49 50 or older

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Known 55.4% 46.9% 45.9% 47.3% 63.5% 54.8% 51.9% 53.5%

Domestic 16.7 22.3 25.2 17.2 6.8 24.2 25.6 20.0

Intimate partnerb 4.7 17.2 21.0 9.2 1.1 17.7 20.1 9.5

Immediate family 7.0 2.8 2.3 4.9 4.3 4.0 3.2 7.3

Other relative 5.0 2.3 1.9 3.1 1.4 2.4 2.3 3.2

Well-known/casual acquaintance 38.8 24.7 20.7 30.1 56.7 30.7 26.3 33.4

Stranger 37.4% 43.5% 43.8% 41.6% 25.9% 37.9% 40.1% 39.4%

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. In a small percentage of victimizations, the victim–offender relationship was unknown or the number of offenders 

was unknown. These estimates are not shown. See appendix table 8 for standard errors.

aIncludes rape or sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault.

bIncludes current or former spouses, boyfriends, and girlfriends.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2012.

Percent

0

20

40

60

80

100

Male

Other 

relative

Immediate 

familyc Intimate 

partnerb All domestic violencea

Female

Figure 5

Victim–offender relationships in domestic violence 

victimizations, by victim’s sex, 2003–2012

Note: See appendix table 9 for estimates and standard errors.

aIncludes intimate partners, immediate family members, and other relatives.

bIncludes current or former spouses, boyfriends, and girlfriends.

cIncludes parents, children, and siblings.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 

2003–2012.
NONFATAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, 2003–2012 | APRIL 2014 7

Most domestic violence was committed by the victim’s 

current or former boyfriend or girlfriend

In 2003–12, most domestic violence against females was 

committed by the victim’s current or former boyfriend 

or girlfriend (39%) or spouse (25%) (figure 6). Similarly, 

most domestic violence against males was committed 

by the victim’s current or former boyfriend or girlfriend 

(30%). Males experienced somewhat similar percentages of 

domestic violence perpetrated by a spouse (13%), sibling 

(14%), or other relative (17%).

Simple assault made up the majority of domestic 

violence

In 2003–12, the majority of domestic violence was 

simple assault (64%), compared to serious violence 

(36%) (table 5). This pattern held for all victim–offender 

relationship categories. The majority of violence committed 

by acquaintances (73%) and strangers (64%) was also 

simple assault.

Violence committed by intimate partners (36%), immediate 

family members (35%), and other relatives (37%) had similar 

percentages of serious violence. Current spouses (37%) and 

current or former boyfriends or girlfriends (38%) committed 

a higher percentage of serious intimate partner violence than 

former spouses (22%).

Table 5

Average annual number and percent of violent victimizations, by victim–offender relationship, 2003–2012

Victim–offender relationship

Average annual number 

of violent victimizations Total violent crime Serious violent crimea Simple assault

Domestic 1,411,330 100% 35.5% 64.5%

Intimate partnerb 967,710 100% 35.5 64.5

Spouse 314,330 100% 37.1 62.9

Ex-spouse 134,690 100% 21.8 78.2

Boy/girlfriend 518,700 100% 38.2 61.8

Immediate family 284,670 100% 34.6 65.4

Parent 80,890 100% 38.8 61.2

Child 97,490 100% 33.7 66.3

Sibling 106,290 100% 32.3 67.7

Other relative 158,950 100% 37.1 62.9

Well-known/casual acquaintance 2,103,240 100% 27.2% 72.8%

Stranger 2,548,860 100% 36.5% 63.5%

Note: In a small percentage of victimizations, the victim–offender relationship was unknown or the number of offenders was unknown. These estimates are not shown. 

See appendix table 11 for standard errors.

aIncludes rape or sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault.

bIncludes current or former spouses, boyfriends, and girlfriends.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2012.

Percent

0

10

20

30

40

Male

Other 

relative Boy/ Parent Child Sibling girlfriend Spouse Ex-spouse

Female

Intimate partner Immediate family

Figure 6

Composition of victim–offender relationships in domestic 

violence victimizations, by victim’s sex, 2003–2012

Note: See appendix table 10 for estimates and standard errors.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 

2003–2012. 
NONFATAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, 2003–2012 | APRIL 2014 8

Intimate partner violence resulted in injuries more 

often than other types of domestic violence

In 2003–12, about 45% of domestic violence resulted in 

injury. Violence perpetrated by intimate partners (48%) 

resulted in injuries more often than violence perpetrated by 

immediate family (37%) and other relatives (36%) (table 6). 

For all domestic violence categories, the majority of physical 

injuries were bruises or cuts. An estimated 43% of intimate 

partner violence, 32% of violence by immediate family 

members, and 31% of violence by other relatives resulted 

in bruises and cuts. Victims of intimate partner violence 

(11%) were more likely to suffer serious injuries (i.e., sexual 

violence injuries, gunshots, knife wounds, internal injuries, 

unconciousness, and broken bones) than those victimized 

by immediate family members or other relatives (4% each). 

Comparatively, more than 21% of violence committed by 

acquaintances and strangers involved injuries and about 

4% involved serious injury. As with domestic violence, 

when injuries were involved in violence committed by 

acquaintances or strangers, the majority of these injuries 

were bruises or cuts.

Of the intimate partner violence victims who were injured, 

34% received some type of medical care, which was slightly 

less than the percentage of victims injured by immediate 

family members (41%) and other relatives (50%). An 

estimated 49% of intimate partner violence victims and 54% 

of victims of violence by immediate family members who 

were injured and sought treatment received care in a hospital 

or medical office. Of the victims who were injured by other 

relatives and received care, a greater percentage received 

care in a hospital or medical office (76%) than at the scene, 

someone’s home, or another location (24%).

In comparison, 37% of victims who were injured by 

acquaintances received some type of medical care, with the 

majority receiving that care in a hospital or medical office 

(61%). A greater percentage of victims who were injured by 

strangers received medical treatment, compared to victims 

of intimate partner violence. An estimated 47% of victims 

who were injured by strangers received treatment. Of those 

who received treatment, an estimated 61% received care in a 

hospital or medical office.

Table 6

Violent victimization resulting in injury and medical treatment, by victim–offender relationship, 2003–2012

Domestic violence

Type of injury and treatment Total

Intimate 

partnera Immediate familyb

Other 

relative

Well-known/casual 

acquaintance Stranger

Injury 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Not injured 55.4 51.9 62.6 63.5 78.3 78.7

Injured 44.6 48.1 37.4 36.5 21.7 21.3

Serious injuriesc 8.9 11.1 4.1 4.2 3.8 4.4

Bruises or cuts 39.6 43.2 32.1 31.3 17.3 17.7

Other injuries 4.1 3.3 7.3 3.1 3.1 2.5

Treatment for injuryd 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

No treatment 63.4 66.1 59.1 49.5 63.0 52.6

Any treatment 36.6 33.9 40.6 50.5 37.0 47.4

Treatment settinge 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

At the scene/home of victim, neighbor, or friend/other location 47.0 51.4 46.2 24.3 38.5 39.1

In doctor’s office/hospital emergency room/overnight at hospital 53.0 48.6 53.8 75.7 61.5 60.9

Average annual violent victimizations 1,411,330 967,710 284,670 158,950 2,103,240 2,548,860

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. In a small percentage of victimizations, the victim–offender relationship was unknown or the number of offenders 

was unknown. These estimates are not shown. See appendix table 12 for standard errors.

aIncludes current or former spouses, boyfriends, and girlfriends.

bIncludes parents, children, and siblings. 

cIncludes sexual violence injuries, gunshot wounds, knife wounds, internal injuries, unconsciousness, and broken bones.

dIncludes only victims who were injured.

eIncludes only victims who were injured and received treatment.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2012.
NONFATAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, 2003–2012 | APRIL 2014 9

A similar percentage of violence committed by 

intimate partners and immediate family members 

involved weapons (19% each)

In 2003–12, most domestic violence did not involve a 

weapon (77%) (table 7). A weapon was involved in a larger 

percentage of violence committed by other relatives (26%) 

than intimate partners (19%) and immediate family members 

(19%). However, there were more intimate partner violence 

victimizations (about 967,700 annually) than victimizations 

by other relatives (158,900 annually). Annually, about 184,800 

intimate partner violent victimizations and about 41,800 

victimizations by other relatives involved a weapon.

When weapons were involved, firearms made up a smaller 

percentage than knives and other weapons of domestic 

violence overall and of intimate partner violence. An 

equal percentage of domestic violence by other relatives 

involved firearms and knives (10% each). Although a lower 

percentage of intimate partner violence (3%) involved 

a firearm compared to violence by other relatives, the 

average annual number of intimate partner violence 

firearm victimizations was greater due to the larger annual 

average size.

As with domestic violence, most violence committed by 

acquaintances (77%) and strangers (63%) did not involve a 

weapon. When weapons were involved, a larger percentage 

of violence committed by acquaintances involved other 

weapons (7%), compared to firearms (4%) or knives (5%). 

Strangers used firearms in about 10% of violent crimes, 

which was similar to the percentage used by other relatives.

About half of all domestic violence was reported to 

police

In 2003–12, about 55% of domestic violence was reported 

to police (table 8). A similar percentage of intimate partner 

violence and violence committed by immediate family 

members was reported to police (56% each). An estimated 

49% of violence by other relatives was reported to police. 

For each category of domestic violence, the percentages 

reported to police were similar for both serious violence and 

simple assault. A smaller percentage of violence committed 

by acquaintances (39%) and strangers (49%) was reported to 

police, compared to intimate partner violence and violence 

by immediate family members.

Table 8

Violent victimization reported to police, by victim–offender relationship, 2003–2012

Domestic violence

Type of crime Total Intimate partnera Immediate familyb Other relative Well-known/casual acquaintance Stranger

All violent crime 54.9% 55.7% 55.8% 48.7% 39.4% 48.9%

Serious violent crimec 56.5 57.1 59.2 49.1 50.2 58.9

Simple assault 54.0 54.9 53.9 48.5 35.3 43.2

Note: In a small percentage of victimizations, the victim–offender relationship was unknown or the number of offenders was unknown. These estimates are not shown. 

See appendix table 14 for standard errors.

aIncludes current or former spouses, boyfriends, and girlfriends.

bIncludes parents, children, and siblings. 

cIncludes rape or sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2012.

Table 7

Violent victimization involving a weapon, by victim–offender relationship, 2003–2012

Domestic violence

Type of weapon Total Intimate partnera Immediate familyb Other relative Well-known/casual acquaintance Stranger

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

No weapon 77.1% 77.2% 80.1% 70.8% 77.2% 62.9%

Weapon 19.9% 19.1% 18.9% 26.3% 17.7% 26.4%

Firearm 3.7 3.4 0.9 ! 10.2 4.3 10.4

Knife 7.8 7.2 8.6 10.0 5.0 6.6

Other 6.3 6.0 8.5 4.6 7.2 8.0

Type unknown 2.0 2.5 1.0 ! 1.4 ! 1.1 1.3

Don’t know 3.1% 3.7% 1.0%! 2.9% 5.1% 10.8%

Average annual violent victimizations 1,411,330 967,710 284,670 158,950 2,103,240 2,548,860

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. In a small percentage of victimizations, the victim–offender relationship was unknown or the number of offenders 

was unknown. These estimates are not shown. See appendix table 13 for standard errors.

! Interpret with caution. Estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or coefficient of variation is greater than 50%.

aIncludes current or former spouses, boyfriends, and girlfriends.

bIncludes parents, children, and siblings. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2012.
NONFATAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, 2003–2012 | APRIL 2014 10

Victims of intimate partner violence received more 

assistance from victim service agencies than victims 

of violence by immediate family members and other 

relatives

Victim service agencies are publicly or privately funded 

organizations that provide victims with support and services 

to aid their physical and emotional recovery, offer protection 

from future victimizations, guide victims through the 

criminal justice system process, and assist them in obtaining 

restitution. In 2003–12, a greater percentage of victims 

of intimate partner violence (24%) received assistance 

from a victim service agency than victims of violence by 

immediate family members (18%), other relatives (9%), 

acquaintances (9%), or strangers (4%) (table 9). Victims 

of serious intimate partner violence (28%) received more 

assistance than victims of simple assault by an intimate 

partner (22%). Similarly, victims of serious violence 

committed by acquaintances (12%) and strangers (5%) 

received more assistance than victims of simple assault 

by acquaintances (8%) and strangers (4%). However, the 

proportions of assistance received by victims of violence 

committed by immediate family members or other relatives 

were not statistically different for either serious violence or 

simple assault.

Most domestic violence occurred at or near the victim’s 

home

In 2003–12, 77% of domestic violence occurred at or 

near the victim’s home (table 10). Violence by intimate 

partners (79%) and immediate family members (78%) 

was more likely to occur at or near the victim’s home than 

violence committed by other relatives (66%). An estimated 

23% of domestic violence occurred in other locations, 

including a relative’s home, a commercial area, or on public 

transportation. Unlike domestic violence, most violence 

committed by acquaintances (61%) and strangers (75%) 

occurred in other locations, such as commercial places, 

parking lots or garages, school, or open areas.

Table 9

Violent crime victims who received assistance from a victim service agency, by victim–offender relationship, 2003–2012

Domestic violence

Type of crime Total Intimate partnera Immediate familyb Other relative Well-known/casual acquaintance Stranger

All violent crime 21.1% 24.1% 17.7% 8.9% 8.7% 4.3%

Serious violent crimec 24.2 28.0 20.3 8.5 11.6 5.4

Simple assault 19.4 21.9 16.4 9.1 7.6 3.6

Note: In a small percentage of victimizations, the victim–offender relationship was unknown or the number of offenders was unknown. These estimates are not shown. 

See appendix table 15 for standard errors.

aIncludes current or former spouses, boyfriends, and girlfriends.

bIncludes parents, children, and siblings. 

cIncludes rape or sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2012.

Table 10

Location of violent victimization, by victim–offender relationship, 2003–2012

Domestic violence

Location of crime Total Intimate partnera Immediate familyb Other relative Well-known/casual acquaintance Stranger

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

At or near victim’s home 77.0 78.6 77.7 66.0 29.5 19.7

At or near friend, neighbor, or relative’s home 10.7 8.3 16.2 15.4 9.5 5.3

Other locationc 12.3 13.1 6.2 18.6 61.0 75.0

Average annual violent victimizations 1,411,330 967,710 284,670 158,950 2,103,240 2,548,860

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. In a small percentage of victimizations, the victim–offender relationship was unknown or the number of offenders 

was unknown. These estimates are not shown. See appendix table 16 for standard errors.

aIncludes current or former spouses, boyfriends, and girlfriends.

bIncludes parents, children, and siblings. 

cIncludes commercial places, parking lots or garages, schools, open areas, public transportation, and other locations.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2012.
NONFATAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, 2003–2012 | APRIL 2014 11

Females had higher rates of domestic violence than 

males

In 2003–12, females (6.2 per 1,000) had a higher rate 

of intimate partner violence than males (1.4 per 1,000) 

(table 11). The rates of violence committed by immediate 

family members and other relatives were also higher for 

females than for males, although males had higher rates of 

violence by strangers and acquaintances.

As with overall violence, rates of domestic violence were 

highest for persons ages 18 to 24 and lowest for persons 

age 65 or older. In 2003–12, persons ages 18 to 24 had the 

highest rates of intimate partner violence (8.7 per 1,000), 

and persons ages 12 to 17 had the highest rates of violence 

by immediate family members (2.6 per 1,000). Persons ages 

12 to 17 (1.2 per 1,000) and 18 to 24 (1.2 per 1,000) had the 

highest rates of violence by other relatives. Persons age 65 or 

older had the lowest rates of violence perpetrated by intimate 

partners (0.2 per 1,000), immediate family members (0.2 per 

1,000), and other relatives (0.1 per 1,000).

These patterns held for violence by strangers and 

acquaintances. Persons ages 12 to 17 had the highest rates 

of violence committed by acquaintances (26.9 per 1,000), 

and persons ages 18 to 24 had the highest rate of stranger 

violence (19.9 per 1,000). Persons age 65 or older had 

the lowest rates of violence perpetrated by acquaintances 

(1.3 per 1,000) and strangers (1.6 per 1,000).

In 2003–12, non-Hispanic blacks (4.7 per 1,000) and 

non-Hispanic persons of two or more races (16.5 per 

1,000) had the highest rates of intimate partner violence, 

compared to non-Hispanic whites (3.9 per 1,000), Hispanics 

(2.8 per 1,000), and non-Hispanic persons of other races 

(2.3 per 1,000). Persons of two or more races had the highest 

rate of violence committed by immediate family members 

(4.4 per 1,000). Whites (1.2 per 1,000) experienced more 

violence committed by immediate family members than 

blacks (0.7 per 1,000) and Hispanics (0.6 per 1,000). Blacks 

(1.2 per 1,000) experienced more violence perpetrated 

by other relatives than whites (0.6 per 1,000), Hispanics 

(0.6 per 1,000), and persons of other races (0.2 per 1,000). 

In 2003–12, blacks and persons of two or more races had the 

highest rates of violence committed by acquaintances and 

strangers, compared to whites and persons of other races.

Table 11

Rate of violent victimization, by victim characteristics and victim–offender relationship, 2003–2012

Demographic 

characteristic

Domestic violence Well-known/casual 

Total Intimate partner acquaintance Stranger a Immediate familyb Other relative

Total 5.6 3.9 1.1 0.6 8.4 10.2

Sex

Male 2.8 1.4 0.9 0.5 8.9 14.2

Female 8.4 6.2 1.4 0.8 7.9 6.4

Age

12–17 5.0 1.1 2.6 1.2 26.9 15.2

18–24 11.6 8.7 1.8 1.2 14.0 19.9

25–34 8.7 7.3 0.7 0.7 7.5 14.5

35–49 6.4 4.7 1.2 0.5 6.4 9.7

50–64 2.9 1.5 1.0 0.5 4.8 5.9

65 or older 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.1 1.3 1.6

Race/Hispanic origin

Whitec 5.7 3.9 1.2 0.6 8.6 9.7

Blackc 6.7 4.7 0.7 1.2 10.1 12.3

Hispanic/Latino 4.0 2.8 0.6 0.6 6.3 10.4

Other racec,d 3.7 2.3 1.3 0.2 ! 4.6 8.4

Two or more racesc 22.5 16.5 4.4 1.6 24.6 26.7

Marital status

Never married 7.0 4.4 1.7 0.9 15.6 17.1

Married 2.0 1.0 0.6 0.4 3.7 5.9

Widowed 2.3 0.6 1.5 0.2 ! 2.2 2.3

Divorced 13.8 11.4 1.5 0.9 11.4 12.9

Separated 49.1 44.7 2.8 1.6 13.9 16.0

Note: Victimization rates are per 1,000 persons age 12 or older. In a small percentage of victimizations, the victim–offender relationship was unknown or the number of 

offenders was unknown. These estimates are not shown. See appendix table 17 for standard errors. 

! Interpret with caution. Estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or coefficient of variation is greater than 50%.

aIncludes current or former spouses, boyfriends, and girlfriends.

bIncludes parents, children, and siblings. 

cExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.

dIncludes American Indian, Alaska Native, Hawaiian, Asian, and other Pacific Islander. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2012.
NONFATAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, 2003–2012 | APRIL 2014 12

The NCVS collects information on a respondent’s marital 

status at the time of the interview, but does not obtain 

marital status at the time of the incident or whether a 

change in marital status occurred after the incident. Rates of 

intimate partner violence were greater for those persons who 

were separated (44.7 per 1,000) or divorced (11.4 per 1,000), 

compared to those who were never married (4.4 per 

1,000), married (1.0 per 1,000), or widowed (0.6 per 1,000). 

Persons who were married or widowed had lower rates 

of intimate partner violence than those who were never 

married. Persons who were separated (2.8 per 1,000) also 

experienced more violence committed by immediate family 

members than persons in other marital statuses. Persons 

who were married had lower rates of violence committed 

by immediate family members (0.6 per 1,000) and other 

relatives (0.4 per 1,000) than those who were never married, 

divorced, or separated. Unlike patterns in domestic violence, 

persons who were never married and separated had higher 

rates of violence perpetrated by acquaintances and strangers 

than persons who were married, widowed, or divorced.

Violence by immediate family members was highest in 

rural areas

In 2003–12, the rate of intimate partner violence against 

urban residents (5.1 per 1,000) was higher than the rate of 

violence against suburban (3.0 per 1,000) and rural (4.3 per 

1,000) residents (table 12). Rural residents had higher rates 

of violence perpetrated by immediate family members (1.6 

per 1,000) than urban (1.2 per 1,000) and suburban (1.0 per 

1,000) residents. Rates of intimate partner violence were 

higher than rates of violence committed by immediate family 

and other relatives for residents in all areas. The rate of 

violence committed by acquaintances was higher for victims 

living in urban (8.8 per 1,000) and rural (9.5 per 1,000) areas 

than in suburban areas (7.8 per 1,000). Urban areas had the 

highest rate of stranger violence (14.2 per 1,000).

Table 12

Rate of violent victimization, by household location and victim–offender relationship, 2003–2012

Location of residence

Domestic violence Well-known/casual 

Total Intimate partner acquaintance Stranger a Immediate familyb Other relative

Urban 6.9 5.1 1.2 0.6 8.8 14.2

Suburban 4.5 3.0 1.0 0.6 7.8 8.8

Rural 6.7 4.3 1.6 0.8 9.5 7.2

Note: Victimization rates are per 1,000 persons age 12 or older. In a small percentage of victimizations the victim–offender relationship was unknown or the number of 

offenders was unknown. These estimates are not shown. See appendix table 18 for standard errors.

aIncludes current or former spouses, boyfriends, and girlfriends.

bIncludes parents, children, and siblings. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2012.
NONFATAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, 2003–2012 | APRIL 2014 13

Methodology

Survey coverage

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is an 

annual data collection conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau 

for the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The NCVS is a 

self-report survey in which interviewed persons are asked 

about the number and characteristics of victimizations 

experienced during the prior 6 months. The NCVS collects 

information on nonfatal personal crimes (rape or sexual 

assault, robbery, aggravated and simple assault, and personal 

larceny) and household property crimes (burglary, motor 

vehicle theft, and other theft) both reported and not 

reported to police. In addition to providing annual level and 

change estimates on criminal victimization, the NCVS is 

the primary source of information on the nature of criminal 

victimization incidents.

Survey respondents provide information about themselves 

(e.g., age, sex, race and Hispanic origin, marital status, 

education level, and income) and whether they experienced 

a victimization. The NCVS collects information for each 

victimization incident about the offender (e.g., age, race 

and Hispanic origin, sex, and victim–offender relationship), 

characteristics of the crime (including time and place of 

occurrence, use of weapons, nature of injury, and economic 

consequences), whether the crime was reported to police, 

reasons the crime was or was not reported, and victim 

experiences with the criminal justice system.

The NCVS is administered to persons age 12 or older from 

a nationally representative sample of households in the 

United States. The NCVS defines a household as a group of 

members who all reside at a sampled address. Persons are 

considered household members when the sampled address is 

their usual place of residence at the time of the interview and 

when they have no usual place of residence elsewhere. Once 

selected, households remain in the sample for 3 years, and 

eligible persons in these households are interviewed every 

6 months either in person or over the phone for a total of 

seven interviews.

Generally, all first interviews are conducted in person. New 

households rotate into the sample on an ongoing basis to 

replace outgoing households that have been in sample for the 

3-year period. The sample includes persons living in group 

quarters, such as dormitories, rooming houses, and religious 

group dwellings, and excludes persons living in military 

barracks and institutional settings, such as correctional or 

hospital facilities, and the homeless.

Nonresponse and weighting adjustments

In 2012, 92,390 households and 162,940 persons age 12 

or older were interviewed for the NCVS. Each household 

was interviewed twice during the year. The response rate 

was 87% for households and 87% for eligible persons. 

Victimizations that occurred outside of the United States 

were excluded from this report. In 2012, less than 1% of the 

unweighted victimizations occurred outside of the United 

States and were excluded from the analyses.

Estimates in this report use data from the 1993 to 2012 

NCVS data files, weighted to produce annual estimates 

of victimization for persons age 12 or older living in U.S. 

households. Since the NCVS relies on a sample rather than 

a census of the entire U.S. population, weights are designed 

to inflate sample point estimates to known population totals 

and to compensate for survey nonresponse and other aspects 

of the sample design.

The NCVS data files include both person and household 

weights. Person weights provide an estimate of the 

population represented by each person in the sample. 

Household weights provide an estimate of the U.S. 

household population represented by each household in the 

sample. After proper adjustment, both household and person 

weights are also typically used to form the denominator in 

calculations of crime rates.

Victimization weights used in this analysis account for the 

number of persons present during an incident and for highfrequency repeat victimizations (or series victimizations). 

Series victimizations are similar in type but occur with such 

frequency that a victim is unable to recall each individual 

event or describe each event in detail. Survey procedures 

allow NCVS interviewers to identify and classify these 

similar victimizations as series victimizations and to collect 

detailed information on only the most recent incident in 

the series.

The weight counts series incidents as the actual number of 

incidents reported by the victim, up to a maximum of 10 

incidents. Including series victimizations in national rates 

results in large increases in the level of violent victimization; 

however, trends in violence are generally similar regardless 

of whether series victimizations are included.

In 2012, series incidents accounted for about 1% of 

all victimizations and 4% of all violent victimizations. 

Weighting series incidents as the number of incidents up to 

a maximum of 10 incidents produces more reliable estimates 

of crime levels, while the cap at 10 minimizes the effect of 

extreme outliers on the rates. Additional information on 

the series enumeration is detailed in the report Methods 

for Counting High Frequency Repeat Victimizations in the 

National Crime Victimization Survey, NCJ 237308, BJS web, 

April 2012.
NONFATAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, 2003–2012 | APRIL 2014 14

Standard error computations

When national estimates are derived from a sample, as with 

the NCVS, it is important to use caution when comparing 

one estimate to another estimate or when comparing 

estimates over time. Although one estimate may be larger 

than another, estimates based on a sample have some degree 

of sampling error. The sampling error of an estimate depends 

on several factors, including the amount of variation in the 

responses and the size of the sample. When the sampling 

error around an estimate is taken into account, the estimates 

that appear different may not be statistically different.

One measure of the sampling error associated with an 

estimate is the standard error. The standard error can vary 

from one estimate to the next. Generally, an estimate with a 

small standard error provides a more reliable approximation 

of the true value than an estimate with a large standard error. 

Estimates with relatively large standard errors are associated 

with less precision and reliability and should be interpreted 

with caution.

In order to generate standard errors around numbers and 

estimates from the NCVS, the Census Bureau produced 

generalized variance function (GVF) parameters for BJS. 

The GVFs take into account aspects of the NCVS complex 

sample design and represent the curve fitted to a selection of 

individual standard errors based on the Jackknife Repeated 

Replication technique. The GVF parameters were used to 

generate standard errors for each point estimate (such as 

counts, percentages, and rates) in this report.

BJS conducted tests to determine whether differences in 

estimated numbers and percentages in this report were 

statistically significant once sampling error was taken into 

account. Using statistical programs developed specifically 

for the NCVS, all comparisons in the text were tested 

for significance. The Student’s t-statistic was the primary 

test procedure, which tests the difference between two 

sample estimates.

Data users can use the estimates and the standard errors of 

the estimates provided in this report to generate a confidence 

interval around the estimate as a measure of the margin of 

error. The following example illustrates how standard errors 

can be used to generate confidence intervals:

In 2003–12, according to the NCVS, 21.3% of all violent 

victimization was domestic violence (see table 1). 

Using the GVFs, it was determined that the estimated 

percentage has a standard error of 0.5 (see appendix 

table 2). A confidence interval around the estimate 

was generated by multiplying the standard errors by 

±1.96 (the t-score of a normal, two- tailed distribution 

that excludes 2.5% at either end of the distribution). 

Therefore, the 95% confidence interval around the 

21.3% estimate from 2012 is 21.3 ± (0.5 X 1.96) or 

(20.3 to 22.3). In others words, if different samples using 

the same procedures were taken from the U.S. population 

in 2003–12, 95% of the time domestic violence would 

account for 20.3% to 22.3% of all violent victimizations.

In this report, BJS also calculated a coefficient of variation 

(CV) for all estimates, representing the ratio of the standard 

error to the estimate. CVs provide a measure of reliability and 

a means to compare the precision of estimates across measures 

with differing levels or metrics. In cases where the CV was 

greater than 50%, or the unweighted sample had 10 or fewer 

cases, the estimate was noted with a “!” symbol (Interpret data 

with caution. Estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or 

the coefficient of variation is greater than 50%).

Domestic violence

The NCVS defines domestic violence as rape or sexual assault, 

robbery, aggravated assault, or simple assault committed by 

an offender who is the victim’s current or former spouse, 

boyfriend, girlfriend, parent, child, sibling, or other relative. 

Intimate partner violence is violence committed by the 

victim’s current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend. 

Because the nature of the victim–offender relationship is 

defined by the victim, the characteristics of intimate partner 

violence as defined in this report may differ based on how 

the respondent perceives their relationship with the offender. 

To some victims, intimate relationships with offenders may 

be primarily restricted to current or former boyfriends or 

girlfriends. Others may describe those offenders as friends 

or acquaintances rather than boyfriends or girlfriends. 

This report examines intimate partner violence, violence 

committed by immediate family members (parents, children, 

or siblings), and violence committed by all other relatives.

Methodological changes to the NCVS in 2006

Methodological changes implemented in 2006 may have 

affected the crime estimates for that year to such an extent 

that they are not comparable to estimates from other years. 

Evaluation of 2007 and later data from the NCVS conducted 

by BJS and the Census Bureau found a high degree of 

confidence that estimates for 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 

and 2012 are consistent with and comparable to estimates for 

2005 and previous years. The reports, Criminal Victimization, 

2006, NCJ 219413, December 2007; Criminal Victimization, 

2007, NCJ 224390, December 2008; Criminal Victimization, 

2008, NCJ 227777, September 2009; Criminal Victimization, 

2009, NCJ 231327, October 2010; Criminal Victimization, 

2010, NCJ 235508, September 2011; Criminal Victimization, 

2011, NCJ 239437, October 2012; and Criminal Victimization, 

2012, NCJ 243389, October 2013 are available on the BJS 

website. Although caution is warranted when comparing 

data from 2006 to other years, the combination of 2-year 

rolling averages and 10 years of aggregated data in this report 

diminishes the potential variation between 2006 and later 

years. In general, findings do not change significantly if the 

year 2006 is excluded from the analysis. 
Appendix table 1

Estimates and standard errors for figure 1: Violent 

victimization, by victim–offender relationship, 2003–2012

Victim-offender relationship Percent Standard error

Domestic violence 21% 0.5%

Intimate partner 15 0.4

Immediate family 4 0.2

Other relative 2 0.2

Well-known/casual acquaintance 32% 0.6%

Stranger 38% 0.7%

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 

2003–2012.

Appendix table 2

Standard errors for table 1: Violent victimization, by type of crime and victim–offender relationship, 2003–2012

Violent crime Serious violent crime Simple assault

Victim–offender relationship

Average 

annual number Percent

Average 

annual number Percent

Average 

annual number Percent

Total 272,397 ~ 134,372 ~ 196,749 ~

Known 180,974 0.7% 86,463 1.1% 134,709 0.8%

Domestic 102,222 0.5 54,965 0.8 73,399 0.6

Intimate partner 81,251 0.4 44,164 0.7 58,606 0.5

Spouse 41,951 0.2 24,029 0.4 30,236 0.3

Ex-spouse 26,031 0.1 11,428 0.2 21,311 0.2

Boy/girlfriend 56,079 0.3 32,265 0.5 39,786 0.3

Immediate family 39,640 0.2 21,914 0.4 29,222 0.2

Parent 19,678 0.1 11,848 0.2 14,148 0.1

Child 21,789 0.1 12,127 0.2 16,340 0.1

Sibling 22,845 0.1 12,414 0.2 17,316 0.1

Other relative 28,539 0.2 16,580 0.3 20,711 0.2

Well-known/casual acquaintance 130,867 0.6 59,353 0.9 100,777 0.7

Stranger 147,630 0.7% 79,299 1.0% 104,287 0.7%

Unknown 58,664 0.3% 31,729 0.5% 43,054 0.4%

~ Not applicable.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2012.

Appendix table 3

Estimates and standard errors for figure 2: Rate of domestic violence, by victim–offender relationship, 1993–2012

Rate per 1,000 persons age 12 or older Standard error

Total domestic 

violence

Intimate 

partner

Immediate 

family

Other 

relative

Total domestic 

violence

Intimate 

partner

Immediate 

family

Other 

relative

1994 13.5 9.8 2.7 1.1 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1

1995 13.3 9.6 2.5 1.1 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.1

1996 11.9 8.9 1.8 1.2 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1

1997 11.3 8.4 1.8 1.2 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1

1998 11.0 7.7 2.1 1.2 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1

1999 9.6 6.6 1.9 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1

2000 7.1 5.1 1.5 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1

2001 6.2 4.4 1.3 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1

2002 6.1 4.4 1.2 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1

2003 5.9 4.2 0.9 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1

2004 6.1 4.3 1.0 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1

2005 5.5 3.8 1.1 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1

2006 6.3 4.3 1.4 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1

2007 6.6 4.4 1.2 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1

2008 5.9 4.0 1.2 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1

2009 5.8 4.2 1.2 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.1

2010 4.9 3.6 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1

2011 4.8 3.2 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1

2012 5.0 3.2 1.3 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1

Note: Data are based on 2-year rolling averages beginning in 1993.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993–2012.
NONFATAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, 2003–2012 | APRIL 2014 16

Appendix table 4

Estimates and standard errors for figure 3: Rate of serious domestic violence, by victim–offender relationship, 1993–2012

Rate per 1,000 persons age 12 or older Standard error

Total domestic 

violence

Intimate 

partner

Immediate 

family

Other 

relative

Total domestic 

violence

Intimate 

partner

Immediate 

family

Other 

relative

1994 4.7 3.6 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1

1995 4.0 2.9 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1

1996 3.6 2.6 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1

1997 3.9 2.8 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1

1998 3.6 2.5 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1

1999 3.1 2.1 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1

2000 2.3 1.6 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 --

2001 1.9 1.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 --

2002 2.0 1.5 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 -- --

2003 2.3 1.7 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.1 -- 0.1

2004 2.3 1.7 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1

2005 1.8 1.3 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 --

2006 2.5 1.7 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 --

2007 2.8 1.7 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1

2008 2.3 1.4 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1

2009 1.8 1.3 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1

2010 1.4 1.0 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 --

2011 1.5 1.0 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 --

2012 1.5 1.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 -- --

Note: Serious violent crime includes rape or sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. Data are based on 2-year rolling averages beginning in 1993.

--Less than 0.05.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993–2012.

Appendix table 5

Estimates and standard errors for figure 4: Rate of simple assault domestic violence, by victim–offender relationship, 

1993–2012

Rate per 1,000 persons age 12 or older Standard error

Total domestic 

violence

Intimate 

partner

Immediate 

family

Other 

relative

Total domestic 

violence

Intimate 

partner

Immediate 

family

Other 

relative

1994 8.8 6.2 1.9 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1

1995 9.2 6.7 1.7 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1

1996 8.3 6.3 1.2 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1

1997 7.4 5.6 1.2 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1

1998 7.4 5.3 1.5 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1

1999 6.4 4.5 1.2 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1

2000 4.9 3.5 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1

2001 4.3 3.0 1.0 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1

2002 4.1 2.9 0.9 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1

2003 3.6 2.5 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1

2004 3.7 2.6 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1

2005 3.7 2.5 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1

2006 3.8 2.6 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1

2007 3.8 2.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1

2008 3.6 2.6 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1

2009 4.0 3.0 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1

2010 3.5 2.5 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1

2011 3.4 2.1 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1

2012 3.5 2.2 1.0 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 --

-- Less than 0.05.

Note: Data are based on 2-year rolling averages beginning in 1993.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993–2012.
NONFATAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, 2003–2012 | APRIL 2014 17

Appendix table 6

Standard errors for table 2: Rate of violent victimization, by 

victim–offender relationship, 2003–2012

Victim–offender relationship

Total 

violent crime

Serious 

violent crime

Simple 

assault

Domestic 0.18 0.09 0.13

Intimate partner 0.14 0.07 0.10

Spouse 0.07 0.04 0.05

Ex-spouse 0.04 0.02 0.03

Boy/girlfriend 0.09 0.05 0.06

Immediate family 0.06 0.03 0.05

Parent 0.03 0.02 0.02

Child 0.03 0.02 0.02

Sibling 0.03 0.02 0.03

Other relative 0.04 0.02 0.03

Well-known/casual acquaintance 0.23 0.10 0.18

Stranger 0.27 0.14 0.18

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 

2003–2012.

Appendix table 7

Standard errors for table 3: Percent of violent victimization, 

victim–offender relationship and victim’s sex, 2003–2012

Serious violent crime Simple assault

Victim–offender relationship Male Female Male Female

Known 1.2% 1.3% 0.9% 1.0%

Domestic 0.7 1.3 0.5 0.9

Intimate partner 0.5 1.2 0.3 0.8

Immediate family 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.4

Other relative 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.3

Well-known/casual 

 acquaintance 1.1 1.2 0.9 0.9

Stranger 1.3% 1.2% 1.0% 0.8%

Unknown 0.7% 0.6% 0.5% 0.4%

Average annual violent 

victimizations 90,297 84,969 132,620 120,628

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 

2003–2012.

Appendix table 8

Standard errors for table 4: Percent of violent victimization, by victim–offender relationship and victim’s age, 2003–2012

Serious violent crime Simple assault

Victim–offender relationship 12–17 18–24 25–49 50 or older 12–17 18–24 25–49 50 or older

Known 2.1% 1.7% 1.4% 2.3% 1.3% 1.4% 1.0% 1.6%

Domestic 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.6 0.6 1.1 0.8 1.2

Intimate partner 0.8 1.2 1.1 1.2 0.2 1.0 0.8 0.8

Immediate family 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.7

Other relative 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.5

Well-known/casual acquaintance 2.0 1.4 1.1 2.0 1.3 1.2 0.9 1.4

Stranger 2.0% 1.7% 1.4% 2.2% 1.1% 1.3% 1.0% 1.5%

Unknown 1.0% 0.9% 0.7% 1.3% 0.7% 0.6% 0.5% 0.7%

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2012.
NONFATAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, 2003–2012 | APRIL 2014 18

Appendix table 9

Estimates and standard errors for figure 5: Victim–offender 

relationships in domestic violence victimizations, by victim’s 

sex, 2003–2012

Estimate Standard error

Victim–offender relationship Male Female Male Female

All domestic violence 23.9% 76.1% 1.0% 1.1%

Intimate partner 17.9 82.1 1.0 1.1

Immediate family 37.7 62.3 2.2 2.3

Other relative 35.9 64.1 2.8 2.9

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 

2003–2012.

Appendix table 10

Estimates and standard errors for figure 6: Composition 

of victim–offender relationships in domestic violence 

victimizations, by victim’s sex, 2003–2012

Estimate Standard error

Victim–offender relationship Male Female Male Female

Intimate partner

Spouse 13.4% 25.1% 1.4% 1.1%

Ex-spouse 8.3 9.9 1.1 0.7

Boy/girlfriend 29.6 39.0 1.9 1.3

Immediate family

Parent 10.2% 4.3% 1.2% 0.5%

Child 7.1 6.9 1.0 0.6

Sibling 14.4 5.4 1.4 0.5

Other relative 16.9% 9.5% 1.5% 0.7%

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 

2003–2012.

Appendix table 11

Standard errors for table 5: Average annual number and 

percent of violent victimizations, by victim–offender 

relationship, 2003–2012

Victim–offender relationship

Average annual 

number of violent 

victimizations

Serious 

violent 

crime

Simple 

assault

Domestic 102,222 1.1% 1.1%

Intimate partner 81,251 1.3 1.3

Spouse 41,951 2.1 2.0

Ex-spouse 26,031 2.5 2.5

Boy/girlfriend 56,079 1.7 1.7

Immediate family 39,640 2.1 2.1

Parent 19,678 3.8 3.6

Child 21,789 3.4 3.3

Sibling 22,845 3.2 3.1

Other relative 28,539 2.8 2.7

Well-known/casual acquaintance 130,867 0.9% 0.9%

Stranger 147,630 0.9% 0.9%

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 

2003–2012.

Appendix table 12

Standard errors for table 6: Violent victimization resulting in injury and medical treatment, by victim–offender relationship, 

2003–2012

Domestic violence

Type of injury and treatment Total

Intimate 

partner

Immediate 

family

Other 

relative

Well-known/casual 

acquaintance Stranger

Injury ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Not injured 1.2% 1.4% 2.3% 2.9% 0.9% 0.9%

Injured 1.2 1.4 2.2 2.8 0.8 0.8

Serious injuries 0.6 0.8 0.8 1.1 0.3 0.3

Bruises or cuts 1.2 1.4 2.1 2.7 0.7 0.7

Other injuries 0.4 0.4 1.1 0.9 0.3 0.2

Treatment for injury ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

No treatment 1.6% 1.8% 3.5% 4.6% 1.9% 1.8%

Any treatment 1.6 1.7 3.4 4.6 1.8 1.8

Treatment setting ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

At the scene/home of victim, neighbor, or friend/other location 2.5% 3.0% 5.2% 5.3% 2.8% 2.3%

In doctor’s office/hospital emergency room/overnight at hospital 2.5 2.9 5.2 5.4 2.8 2.4

Average annual violent victimizations 102,222 81,251 39,640 28,539 130,867 147,630

~Not applicable.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2012.
NONFATAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, 2003–2012 | APRIL 2014 19

Appendix table 13

Standard errors for table 7: Violent victimization involving a weapon, by victim–offender relationship, 2003–2012

Domestic violence

Type of weapon Total Intimate partner Immediate family Other relative Well-known/casual acquaintance Stranger

No weapon 1.1% 1.2% 1.9% 2.7% 0.9% 1.0%

Weapon 0.9% 1.0% 1.7% 2.5% 0.7% 0.8%

Firearm 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.7 0.4 0.5

Knife 0.6 0.6 1.2 1.7 0.4 0.4

Other 0.5 0.6 1.2 1.1 0.5 0.5

Type unknown 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.2

Don’t know 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.9% 0.4% 0.5%

Average annual violent victimizations 102,222 81,251 39,640 28,539 130,867 147,630

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2012.

Appendix table 14

Standard errors for table 8: Violent victimization reported to police, by victim–offender relationship, 2003–2012

Domestic violence

Type of crime Total Intimate partner Immediate family Other relative Well-known/casual acquaintance Stranger

All violent crime 1.2% 1.4% 2.3% 2.9% 1.0% 1.0%

Serious violent crime 1.8 2.1 3.6 4.6 1.7 1.4

Simple assault 1.4 1.6 2.6 3.4 1.0 1.1

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2012.

Appendix table 15

Standard errors for table 9: Violent crime victims who received assistance from a victim service agency, by victim–offender 

relationship, 2003–2012

Domestic violence

Type of crime Total Intimate partner Immediate family Other relative Well-known/casual acquaintance Stranger

All violent crime 0.9% 1.2% 1.7% 1.6% 0.5% 0.3%

Serious violent crime 1.5 1.9 2.9 2.4 1.0 0.6

Simple assault 1.0 1.2 1.8 1.8 0.5 0.3

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2012.

Appendix table 16

Standard errors for table 10: Location of violent victimization, by victim–offender relationship, 2003–2012

Domestic violence

Location of crime Total Intimate partner Immediate family Other relative Well-known/casual acquaintance Stranger

At or near victim’s home 1.1% 1.2% 2.0% 2.8% 0.9% 0.7%

At or near friend, neighbor, or relative’s home 0.7 0.7 1.6 2.0 0.5 0.4

Other location 0.7 0.9 1.0 2.2 1.1 0.9

Average annual violent victimizations 102,222 81,251 39,640 28,539 130,867 147,630

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2012.
NONFATAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, 2003–2012 | APRIL 2014 20

Appendix table 17

Standard errors for table 11: Rate of violent victimization, by victim characteristics and victim–offender relationship, 

2003–2012

Demographic 

characteristic

Domestic violence Well-known/casual 

Total Intimate partner Immediate family Other relative acquaintance Stranger

Total 0.2 0.1 0.1 -- 0.2 0.3

Sex

Male 0.1 0.1 0.1 -- 0.3 0.4

Female 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2

Age

12–17 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.2 1.1 0.7

18–24 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.8

25–34 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.6

35–49 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4

50–64 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3

65 or older 0.1 0.1 -- -- 0.1 0.2

Race/Hispanic origin

White 0.2 0.2 0.1 -- 0.3 0.3

Black 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.6

Hispanic/Latino 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.5

Other race 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.7

Two or more races 2.3 2.0 0.9 0.5 2.4 2.6

Marital status

Never married 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.5

Married 0.1 0.1 0.1 -- 0.2 0.2

Widowed 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3

Divorced 0.7 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.7

Separated 2.7 2.6 0.5 0.4 1.3 1.4

--Less than 0.05.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2012.

Appendix table 18

Standard errors for table 12: Rate of violent victimization, by household location and victim–offender relationship, 2003–2012

Domestic violence Well-known/casual 

Location of residence Total Intimate partner Immediate family Other relative acquaintance Stranger

Urban 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.5

Suburban 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3

Rural 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.4

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2012.
Office of Justice Programs

Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods

www.ojp.usdoj.gov

The Bureau of Justice Statistics, located in the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. 

Department of Justice, collects, analyzes, and disseminates statistical information 

on crime, criminal offenders, victims of crime, and the operation of justice 

systems at all levels of government. William J. Sabol is acting director. 

This report was written by Jennifer Truman and Rachel Morgan. Erika Harrell 

verified the report.

Vanessa Curto and Jill Thomas edited the report, and Barbara Quinn produced 

the report.

April 2014, NCJ 244697