SEXUAL VIOLENCE 

DATA

Actions Needed to 

Improve Clarity and 

Address Differences 

Across Federal Data 

Collection Efforts

Report to the Ranking Member, 

Permanent Subcommittee on 

Investigations, Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs, 

U.S. Senate 

July 2016

GAO-16-546

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-16-546, a report to the

Ranking Member, Permanent Subcommittee 

on Investigations, Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. 

Senate

July 2016

SEXUAL VIOLENCE DATA

Actions Needed to Improve Clarity and 

Address Differences Across Federal Data 

Collection Efforts 

What GAO Found

Four federal agencies—the Departments of Defense, Education, Health and 

Human Services (HHS), and Justice (DOJ)—manage at least 10 efforts to collect 

data on sexual violence, which differ in target population, terminology, 

measurements, and methodology. Some of these data collection efforts focus on 

a specific population that the agency serves—for example, the incarcerated 

population—while others include information from the general population. These 

data collection efforts use 23 different terms to describe sexual violence. Data 

collection efforts also differ in how they categorize particular acts of sexual 

violence. For example, the same act of sexual violence could be categorized by 

one data collection effort as “rape,” whereas it could be categorized by other 

efforts as “assault-sexual” or “nonconsensual sexual acts,” among other terms.

In addition, five data collection efforts—overseen by Education, HHS, and DOJ—

reflect inconsistencies between their measurements and definitions of sexual 

violence. Further, these data collection efforts do not have publicly-available 

descriptions of what is included in their respective measurements to allow 

persons using the data to understand the differences, which may lead to 

confusion for data users. Publicly-available measurement information could 

enhance the clarity and transparency of sexual violence data. Data collection 

efforts also differ in terms of the context in which data are collected, data 

sources, units of measurement, and time frames. 

Differences in data collection efforts may hinder the understanding of the 

occurrence of sexual violence, and agencies’ efforts to explain and lessen 

differences have been fragmented and limited in scope. Differences across the 

data collection efforts may address specific agency interests, but collectively, the 

differences lead to varying estimates of sexual violence. For example, in 2011

(the most recent year of available data), estimates ranged from 244,190 rape or 

sexual assault victimizations to 1,929,000 victims of rape or attempted rape. 

These differences can lead to confusion for the public. Officials from federal 

agencies and entities GAO spoke with who use federal data on sexual violence 

emphasized that the differences across the data collection efforts are such that 

the results are not comparable, and entities reported using data that best suited 

their needs. Agencies have taken some steps to clarify the differences between 

the data collection efforts. For example, two DOJ entities coauthored a statement 

that describes the differences between their two efforts. In addition, agencies 

have taken some steps to harmonize the data collection efforts—that is,

coordinate practices to achieve a shared goal. However, actions to increase 

harmonization have been fragmented, generally only involving 2 of the 10 data 

collection efforts at a time, and limited in scope. The Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) through its authority to coordinate federal statistics has previously

convened interagency working groups, such as the Interagency Working Group 

for Research on Race and Ethnicity, to improve federal statistics. OMB has no 

plans to convene a working group on sexual violence data. Additional 

collaboration, facilitated by OMB, between agencies that manage data collection 

efforts about which differences help or hinder the overall understanding of sexual 

violence could help to clarify the scope of the problem of sexual violence in the 

United States. 

View GAO-16-546. For more information, 

contact Gretta L. Goodwin at (202) 512-8777 

or goodwing@gao.gov.

Why GAO Did This Study

Concerns have grown about sexual 

violence—in general, unwanted sexual 

acts—in the United States, particularly 

involving certain populations such as 

college students, incarcerated 

individuals, and military personnel. 

Data on the occurrence of sexual 

violence are critical to preventing, 

addressing, and understanding the 

consequences of these types of 

crimes. GAO was asked to identify and 

compare federal efforts to collect data 

on sexual violence. 

This report addresses two questions: 

(1) What are the federal efforts 

underway to collect data on sexual 

violence, and how, if at all, do these 

efforts differ? (2) How do any 

differences across the data collection 

efforts affect the understanding of 

sexual violence, and to what extent are 

federal agencies addressing any

challenges posed by the differences?

GAO reviewed agency documentation 

and academic literature, and 

interviewed agency officials.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that Education,

HHS, and DOJ make information that 

is included in their measurements of 

sexual violence publicly available. 

GAO also recommends that OMB 

establish a federal interagency forum 

on sexual violence data. Education, 

HHS, and DOJ agreed with the 

recommendation. OMB stated that 

convening a forum may not be the 

most effective use of resources at this 

time, in part because the data 

collection efforts are not far enough 

along in their research. However, OMB 

said it will consider convening or 

sharing information across agencies in 

the future.
Page i GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

Letter 1

Background 4

Four Federal Agencies Manage Ten Efforts to Collect Data on 

Sexual Violence, which Differ in Target Population, 

Terminology, Measurements, and Methodology 8

Differences in Data Collection Efforts May Hinder the 

Understanding of the Occurrence of Sexual Violence; Agencies 

Have Taken Steps to Explain and Lessen Differences, but 

Efforts Have Been Fragmented and Limited in Scope 25

Conclusions 33

Recommendations for Executive Action 33

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 34

Appendix I Objectives, Scope and Methodology 37

Appendix II Descriptive Tables of Federal Data Collection Efforts 41

Appendix III List of Relevant Articles and Reports 57

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Education 60

Appendix V Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services 63

Appendix VI Comments from the Department of Justice 65

Appendix VII GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 68

Tables

Table 1: Federal Efforts That GAO Identified That Include Data on 

Sexual Violence 10

Contents
Page ii GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

Table 2: Key Terms Used by Federal Data Collection Efforts to 

Describe Sexual Violence 14

Table 3: Units of Measurement Reported by Federal Data 

Collection Efforts 21

Table 4: Estimates of the Number of Rapes or Rape Victims Per 

Year, 2010-2014, across Selected Federal Data 

Collection Efforts 25

Table 5: Terminology Federal Data Collection Efforts Use to 

Characterize Specific Acts of Sexual Violence Where a 

Victim Was Penetrated 41

Table 6: Terminology Federal Data Collection Efforts Use to 

Characterize Specific Acts of Sexual Violence Where a 

Victim Was Made to Penetrate 43

Table 7: Terminology Federal Data Collection Efforts Use to 

Characterize Specific Acts of Nonpenetrative or 

Noncontact Sexual Violence 45

Table 8: Terminology Federal Data Collection Efforts Use to 

Characterize Sexual Violence When Contextual Factors of 

Consent Are Involved 47

Table 9: Terminology Federal Data Collection Efforts Use to 

Characterize Sexual Violence When Contextual Factors of 

Force Are Involved 49

Table 10: Terminology Federal Data Collection Efforts Use to 

Characterize Sexual Violence When Other Contextual 

Factors Are Involved 51

Table 11: Criminal Justice and Public Health Contexts for Federal 

Data Collection Efforts 53

Table 12: Data Sources for Federal Data Collection Efforts 54

Table 13: Time Frames Used in Federal Data Collection Efforts 

Concerning Sexual Violence 55

Abbreviations

BJS Bureau of Justice Statistics

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Clery Act data Data reported to the Department of Education under the

Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and

Campus Crime Statistics Act

CNSTAT Committee on National Statistics

DOD Department of Defense

DOJ Department of Justice

DMDC Defense Manpower Data Center
Page iii GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

DSAID Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database

Education Department of Education

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

NCS-X National Crime Statistics Exchange

NCVS National Crime Victimization Survey

NEISS-AIP National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-All Injury

Program

NIS National Inmate Survey

NISVS National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey

OCR Office for Civil Rights

OIRA Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OPSE Office of Postsecondary Education

OVC Office for Victims of Crime

OVW Office on Violence Against Women

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act

PREA Prison Rape Elimination Act 

RMWS RAND Military Workplace Study

SAPRO Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office

SSV Survey of Sexual Victimization

UCMJ Uniform Code of Military Justice

UCR-NIBRS Uniform Crime Reporting Program-National IncidentBased Reporting System

UCR-SRS Uniform Crime Reporting Program-Summary Reporting

System 

VAWA Violence Against Women Act

WGRA Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty

Members

WGRR Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Reserve

Component Members

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

July 19, 2016

The Honorable Claire McCaskill

Ranking Member

Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

Dear Senator McCaskill:

There is concern about sexual violence in the United States, particularly 

involving college students, incarcerated individuals, and military 

personnel. Research has shown that sexual violence has long-lasting 

effects on victims, including sexually-transmitted diseases, eating 

disorders, anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder.1

Further, the economic costs of rape, including medical and social 

services, loss of productivity, decreased quality of life, and law 

enforcement resources, are estimated to range from $41,247 to $150,000 

per incident.2

According to research, victims often do not report sexual violence to law 

enforcement officials due to feelings of guilt, shame, and embarrassment; 

fear of the perpetrator; or fear of not being believed, among other 

 1

For the purposes of this report, GAO uses the term “sexual violence” to refer to a range 

of unwanted sexual acts (including, for example, contact and noncontact sexual acts) on 

which federal agencies collect information. This report does not define sexual violence; 

instead, this report describes how data collection efforts refer to, define, and measure 

what we are referring to in general as “sexual violence.”

2

T. R. Miller, M. A. Cohen, and B. Wiersema, “Victim Costs and Consequences: A New 

Look,” a final summary report presented to the National Institute of Justice, January 1996; 

M. Delisi, A. Kosloski, M. Sween, E. Hachmeister, M. Moore, and A. Drury, “Murder by 

numbers: Monetary costs imposed by a sample of homicide offenders,” The Journal of 

Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, vol.21, no. 4 (2010), 501‐513; M. A. Cohen and A. R. 

Piquero, “New Evidence on the Monetary Value of Saving a High Risk Youth,” Journal of 

Quantitative Criminology, Vol. 25 (2008); and H. Fang, M. T. French, and K. E. 

McCollister, “The Cost of Crime to Society: New Crime‐Specific Estimates for Policy and 

Program Evaluation.” Drug Alcohol Dependence, Vol. 108, no.1‐2 (2010).

Letter
Page 2 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

reasons. Therefore, the occurrence of sexual violence is considered to be 

underestimated.3

Congress, state and local governments, and the public depend on data 

collected by the federal government to prioritize resources, design 

policies and programs that prevent and address crimes of sexual 

violence, and evaluate those policies and programs. Federal data on 

sexual violence are also used in crafting initiatives to mitigate the effects 

of these experiences on victims and in gauging the effectiveness of these 

initiatives.

You asked us to identify the primary sources of information on sexual 

violence collected by the federal government and to identify any 

challenges that may result from the differences across the data collection 

efforts. This report addresses the following questions: (1) What are the 

federal efforts underway to collect data on sexual violence, and how, if at 

all, do these efforts differ? (2) How do any differences across the data 

collection efforts affect the understanding of sexual violence, and to what 

extent are federal agencies addressing any challenges posed by the 

differences?

For the purpose of our analysis, we selected data collection efforts which 

focus on data that:

• provided information on the extent to which acts of sexual violence 

occur in the United States in a particular year (for example, the 

number of times an act of sexual violence occurred or the number of 

victims of sexual violence);

• were collected since 2010;

• were collected at least once every 2 years;

 3

J. Du Mont, K.Miller, and T.L. Myhr, “The Role of “Real Rape” and “Real Victim”

Stereotypes in the Police Reporting Practices of Sexually Assaulted Women,” Violence 

Against Women, Vol. 9, No. 4 (2003), 466-486; National Academy of Sciences, Estimating 

the Incidence of Rape and Sexual Assault (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 

2014), 25; and J.H. Gardella, C.A. Nichols-Hadeed, J.M. Mastrocinque, J.T. Stone, C.A. 

Coates, C.J. Sly, and C. Cerulli, “Beyond Clery Act Statistics: A Closer Look at College 

Victimization Based on Self-Report Data,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence, vol.30, no.4 

(2015), 641, 643.
Page 3 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

• were reported publicly;4 and

• were not focused primarily on minors.5

We set these criteria to focus our analysis on data collection efforts that 

provide current and regular information that is available to the public on 

sexual violence. To narrow our scope, we chose to not include data 

collection efforts that primarily focused on sexual violence against minors. 

To identify data collection efforts that met our criteria, we reviewed past 

GAO reports and a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) list of federal 

agencies that may collect crime data.6 We asked officials at those 

agencies if they had any data collection efforts that met our criteria.7 We 

also asked academic experts and officials from entities that use federal 

data on sexual violence about any additional federal data collection 

efforts they were aware of that met our selection criteria.8 We identified 

experts and officials from entities that use federal data on sexual violence 

by conducting background research and by asking those experts and 

officials that we interviewed to recommend additional experts and entities 

that use federal data on sexual violence, including victim advocacy 

groups, other special interest groups, and other federal agencies.

To identify and describe differences across the data collection efforts, we 

obtained information on the purpose, scope, and methodology of each 

 4

Federal law enforcement agencies have information on sexual violence (e.g., 

investigations and case processing) in their case management systems, but we chose not 

to include those data in our scope. We chose to focus on data that are available to the 

public, because those data are used to influence policy decisions and the public’s 

understanding of these crimes.

5

Selected data collection efforts include information on victims who are 12 and older.

6

GAO, Military Personnel: Actions Needed to Address Sexual Assaults of Male 

Servicemembers, GAO-15-284 (Washington, D.C.: Mar.19, 2015); Higher Education: 

Experts Cited a Range of Requirements as Burdensome, GAO-13-371 (Washington, D.C.: 

Apr. 10, 2013); Federal Statistical System: Agencies Can Make Greater Use of Existing 

Data, but Continued Progress is Needed on Access and Quality Issues, GAO-12-54 

(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 24, 2012); and Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, Dating 

Violence, and Stalking: National Data Collection Efforts Underway to Address Some 

Information Gaps, GAO-11-833T (Washington, D.C., Jul.13, 2011). 

7

FBI compiled the list of agencies as part of a Director’s Initiative to identify agencies that 

could report to the Uniform Crime Reporting Program.

8

For the purposes of this report, we use the term “data collection effort” to identify a 

compilation of information on sexual violence that meet our selection criteria.
Page 4 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

data collection effort. We obtained this information through a review of 

documents, such as user manuals and program descriptions. We also 

conducted interviews with senior agency officials, senior officials at 

entities that use federal data on sexual violence, and academic experts.

To identify how the differences affect understanding of sexual violence, 

we obtained and reviewed federal reports and interviewed and reviewed 

relevant documentation from agency officials, experts, and 

representatives from entities that use federal data on sexual violence. We 

also reviewed articles, conference papers, and government reports that 

discuss differences across federal sexual violence data collection efforts. 

To identify these articles, our research librarian conducted a search of 

several bibliographic databases, such as ProQuest, Embase, and 

Scopus.

To describe the extent to which federal agencies are addressing any 

challenges posed by differences across the data collection efforts, we 

interviewed senior agency officials and academic experts and obtained 

relevant agency documentation.

We conducted this performance audit from March 2015 to July 2016, in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The federal government has implemented a number of initiatives to 

address sexual violence or mitigate its effects. For example, the 

Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office on Violence Against Women 

(OVW), created in 1995 in order to help implement the Violence Against 

Women Act (VAWA), sponsors grant programs for local law enforcement 

agencies, prosecutors and judges, health care providers, and other 

organizations that assist victims of sexual violence by providing, for 

example, forensic medical services in sexual violence cases in rural areas 

and specialized counseling services for victims from underserved 

Background
Page 5 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

populations.9 Another office within DOJ, the Office for Victims of Crime 

(OVC), convened crime victim advocates and experts in 2013 as part of 

the Vision 21 Initiative and recommended in their report, among other 

things, that federal agencies collaborate and expand the collection and 

analysis of data on all forms of criminal victimization. The Department of 

Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Family Violence Prevention and 

Services Program supports two national resource centers on domestic 

violence and special-issue and culturally-specific resource centers. In 

addition, HHS’s College Sexual Assault Policy and Prevention Initiative 

was launched in 2016 and is intended to provide support for organizations 

that are implementing policies and practices at postsecondary schools to 

prevent sexual assault on their campuses. The Department of 

Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued guidance to colleges and 

universities, one in 2011 and another in 2014, concerning the 

responsibilities of those institutions under Title IX of the Education 

Amendments of 1972 with regard to addressing sexual violence against 

students. OCR’s guidance sets standards for the grievance procedures

institutions must adopt and publish to promptly and equitably resolve 

complaints brought by students alleging sex discrimination (including acts 

of sexual violence and sexual harassment), and recommends preventive 

education and training programs designed to reduce the occurrence of 

sexual violence on campus and improve institutions’ responses to sexual 

violence on campus when it does occur. In 2004, Congress passed a law 

that required the Secretary of Defense to develop, among other things, a 

comprehensive policy for the Department of Defense (DOD) on the 

prevention of sexual assaults involving servicemembers.10 In response to 

that statutory requirement, DOD established its sexual-assault prevention 

and response program in 2005, and in 2008, DOD published its first 

sexual assault prevention strategy.

 9

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994 and its subsequent 2000, 2005, and 

2013 reauthorizations sought to strengthen protections for women facing sexual and other 

forms of violence, including domestic violence. For example, VAWA enhanced federal 

domestic violence penalties, required states to honor protective orders from other states 

and provided a range of services for victims, for example by establishing the National 

Domestic Violence Hotline.

10See Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, Pub. 

L. No. 108-375, § 577 (2004).
Page 6 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

Several of the federal government’s responses to sexual violence involve 

data collection on the occurrence of sexual violence. For example, the 

Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) of 2003 directed DOJ to carry out 

studies of the incidence and effects of prison rape. The Jeanne Clery 

Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act, 

as amended by VAWA in 2013, requires that all institutions of higher 

education that participate in federal student financial assistance programs 

disclose statistics on certain crimes, including those related to sexual 

violence, to the Department of Education (Education). Since 2005, 

National Defense Authorization Acts have directed DOD to, among other 

things, collect and report information on sexual assaults against service 

members.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) is charged with improving the efficiency and effectiveness of 

federal information resources, which includes functions relating to 

statistical policy and coordination.11 Specifically, with regard to statistics, 

OMB’s responsibilities include:

• Oversight and approval of data collection: OMB reviews statistical 

information collections as part of its responsibility under the PRA to 

approve all federal agency information collections that will be 

administered to 10 or more people to ensure adherence with PRA 

standards for minimizing information collection burdens and 

maximizing the practical utility of information collected by federal 

agencies, including eliminating unnecessary duplication.

• Guidance and standards: OMB develops and oversees 

governmentwide policies, principles, standards, and guidelines for 

collecting and disseminating statistical information.

• Coordination: OMB coordinates the activities of the federal statistical 

system, including ensuring the integrity, objectivity, and utility of 

federal statistics.

• Oversight of budgets: OMB ensures that statistical agencies’ budget 

proposals are consistent with systemwide priorities for maintaining 

and improving the quality of federal statistics.

 1144 U.S.C. § 3504. 
Page 7 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

Other entities also provide guidance to agencies that conduct statistical 

work. For example, the National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on 

National Statistics (CNSTAT) publishes Principles and Practices for a

Federal Statistical Agency for newly appointed cabinet secretaries at the 

beginning of each presidential administration. Principles and Practices

outlines basic principles for statistical agencies to carry out their missions

effectively, as well as practices designed to help implement them.12

Different entities use federal data on sexual violence, including, for 

example victim advocacy groups, other special interest groups, and other 

federal agencies. Officials at victim advocacy groups we spoke with 

publish reports on topics related to sexual violence and lobby Congress 

for laws and programs designed to address the needs of victims. Other 

groups include law enforcement associations and campus safety groups 

that provide training and educational materials for law enforcement and 

campus safety personnel. Federal agencies also use data on sexual 

violence, for example to inform grant making decisions regarding 

research and program development.

 12Many of the standards included in Principles and Practices for a Federal Statistical 

Agency have been included in Statistical Policy Directive 1: Fundamental Responsibilities 

of Federal Statistical Agencies and Recognized Statistical Units. Committee on National 

Statistics, Division on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research 

Council, Principles and Practices for a Federal Statistical Agency (Washington, D.C.: 

National Academies Press, 2013). Federal Register, vol. 29, no. 231 (Dec. 2, 2014), 

71614. 
Page 8 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

Four federal agencies manage at least 10 data collection efforts that 

include data on sexual violence, among other things.13 Some of these 

data collection efforts focus on a target population that the agency serves. 

For example, Education’s Clery Act data collection effort obtains 

information on the occurrence of sexual violence at institutions of higher 

education.14 DOD’s Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database (DSAID) 

and the Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty Members 

(WGRA) include and collect data on sexual violence involving military 

 13We identified 10 data collection efforts that met our criteria, for example that data are 

collected recently (i.e., 2010 or after); are reported publicly; and do not focus primarily on 

minors. For a full description of the criteria we used in selecting data collection efforts, see 

appendix I. We asked agency officials to identify data collection efforts that met these 

criteria. It is possible that agencies have other data collection efforts that met our criteria 

and were not included in the scope of this review.

14The Clery Act data collection effort includes information on sexual violence that occurred 

on or near campuses owned or controlled by postsecondary schools that participate in 

federal student aid programs under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965. Also, 

information on sexual violence at institutions of higher education has recently been 

collected by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In 2015, BJS, along with RTI 

International, conducted the Campus Climate Survey Validation Study. The survey was 

web-based, confidential, and completed by 23,000 undergraduates (15,000 women and 

8,000 men) at 9 colleges and universities. Because the study was a one-time effort, it did 

not meet the criteria for inclusion in our analysis. 

Four Federal 

Agencies Manage 

Ten Efforts to Collect 

Data on Sexual 

Violence, which Differ 

in Target Population, 

Terminology, 

Measurements, and 

Methodology

Federal Agencies Collect 

Sexual Violence Data on 

the General Population 

and on Segments of the 

Population
Page 9 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

service members.15 Others, such as the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting 

Program (UCR) data collection efforts compile data from law enforcement 

agencies on the general population.16 Those data collection efforts that 

include information from the general population differ in terms of the ages 

of respondents or individuals from whom reports of sexual violence are 

taken. For example, the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence 

Survey (NISVS) collects data from individuals who are 18 and older while 

the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) collects data on 

household members who are 12 and older; both the Uniform Crime 

Reporting Program-Summary Reporting System (UCR-SRS) and the 

Uniform Crime Reporting Program-National Incident-Based Reporting 

System (UCR-NIBRS) include data from law enforcement agencies on 

criminal incidents involving people of all ages. Table 1 includes 

 15GAO is currently conducting a separate review of DSAID, examining, among other 

things, the extent to which DSAID has met its mandated requirements and how 

modernization efforts address known issues. Regarding the WGRA, in 2014 DOD 

contracted with RAND to conduct an independent assessment of the survey and, if 

necessary, to update its methodology and to administer the 2014 WGRA. That year RAND 

created and administered two versions of the survey. One version of the survey employed 

DOD’s prior measure of “unwanted sexual contact” to estimate the past-year prevalence 

of sexual assault in DOD. The other survey version—called the RAND Military Workplace 

Study (RMWS)—employed a new measure of sexual violence that was designed to align 

with the terminology used and corresponding categories of crimes specified in Articles 80 

and 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In its Annual Report on Sexual Assault in 

the Military for Fiscal Year 2015, DOD stated that the next WGRA will utilize the same 

methodology as developed by RAND. For the purposes of this report, we refer broadly to 

this data collection effort as the “WGRA.” DOD also administers the Workplace and 

Gender Relations Survey of Reserve Component Members (WGRR). Because WGRR 

methods align with WGRA methods, this report focuses on the Workplace and Gender 

Relations Survey of Active Duty Members.

16The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program-Summary Reporting System (UCR-SRS) 

and Uniform Crime Reporting Program-National Incident-Based Reporting System (UCRNIBRS) program are related, for example, in that NIBRS data can be summarized and 

used to populate UCR-SRS data fields. However the data collection efforts differ, for 

example in terms of measurements and definitions of sexual violence, as discussed later 

in this report. 
Page 10 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

information about each of the 10 data collections discussed in this report, 

including their respective target populations.17

Table 1: Federal Efforts That GAO Identified That Include Data on Sexual Violence

Agency Component

Data Collection 

Effort

Year 

Effort 

Began Summary

Target 

Population

Department 

of Defense

(DOD)

Sexual Assault 

Prevention and 

Response 

(SAPRO) 

Defense Sexual 

Assault Incident

Database 

(DSAID)a

2012 DSAID includes case information on 

unrestricted and restricted reports of 

allegations of sexual assault committed 

against members of the U.S. Armed 

Forces, during or prior to their service.b

Military 

populationc

Defense 

Manpower 

Data Center 

(DMDC) 

Workplace and 

Gender 

Relations 

Survey of Active 

Duty Members 

(WGRA)d

1995; 

began 

collecting 

sexual 

violence 

data in 

2006

WGRA is a survey that calculates 

prevalence data on sexual assault, sexual 

harassment, and gender discrimination 

among active duty military personnel.

Military 

population 

(active duty)

Department 

of 

Education

(Education)

Office of Post- secondary 

Education 

(OPSE)

Clery Act data 1990 Clery Act data are collected under the 

Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus 

Security Policy and Campus Crime 

Statistics Act, which requires all 

postsecondary institutions participating in 

federal student financial assistance 

programs to disclose statistics on certain 

crimes, including sexual offenses that 

occur on or near campuses that the 

institution owns or controls.

Institutions of 

higher 

education 

receiving 

federal student 

aid funds

Department 

of Health & 

Human 

Services

(HHS)

Centers for 

Disease 

Control and 

Prevention 

(CDC)

National 

Electronic Injury 

Surveillance 

System-All Injury 

Program 

(NEISS-AIP)e

2000 NEISS-AIP collects data from a nationally 

representative sample of hospital 

emergency departments in the United 

States regarding visits for injuries.

General 

population

 17This report identifies the various federal agency holdings of sexual violence data by 

referring to their commonly used names, for example, DSAID, which is the name of a 

DOD system that holds military sexual violence data, and Clery Act data, which describes 

the sexual violence data reported by institutions of higher education to the Department of 

Education under the Clery Act. The use of these names is for the purpose of identifying 

the various data collection efforts, and is not intended to describe the full extent of the 

information holdings or the use of such systems.
Page 11 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

Agency Component

Data Collection 

Effort

Year 

Effort 

Began Summary

Target 

Population

National Intimate 

Partner and 

Sexual Violence 

Survey (NISVS)

2010 NISVS is a telephone survey that collects 

information on intimate partner violence, 

sexual violence, and stalking of adults in 

the United States.

General 

population 

(non- institutionalized 

adults, age 18 

and over)

Department 

of Justice

(DOJ)

Bureau of 

Justice 

Statistics (BJS) 

National Crime 

Victimization 

Survey (NCVS)

1973 NCVS is a household survey that collects 

data from about 160,000 individuals from a 

nationally representative sample of about 

90,000 households on the frequency, 

characteristics, and consequences of 

criminal victimization in the United States.

General 

population 

(noninstitutionalized, 

age 12 and 

over)

National Inmate 

Survey (NIS)

2007 NIS falls under the Prison Rape 

Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA), which 

requires BJS to obtain data on the 

incidence and effects of prison rape from a 

sample of federal, state, county, and 

municipal correctional facilities. NIS 

collects sexual assault incident data 

directly from inmates at those facilities. 

Inmates of adult 

correctional 

facilities, 

including 

juvenilesf

Survey of 

Sexual 

Victimization 

(SSV) 

2004 SSV also falls under PREA and collects 

information from the correctional facilities 

on reported allegations of sexual 

victimization by inmates or staff.

Inmates of adult 

and juvenile 

correctional 

facilitiesf

Federal Bureau 

of Investigation

(FBI)

Uniform Crime 

Reporting

Program – Summary 

Reporting 

System (UCR- SRS)

1929 UCR-SRS consists of reported data on 

criminal offenses received from over 

18,000 city, university/college, county, 

state, tribal, and federal law enforcement 

agencies nationwide.

General 

population

Uniform Crime 

Reporting

Program –

National 

Incident-Based 

Reporting 

System (UCR- NIBRS)

1989 UCR-NIBRS collects detailed data from 

over 6,500 law enforcement agencies for 

each single incident reported to police 

where one or more criminal offenses were 

committed. 

General 

population

Source: GAO analysis of agency documentation. |  GAO-16-546

a

DSAID does not include information on child sexual abuse or sexual assault between intimate 

partners. 

b

An unrestricted report of sexual assault in the military is a report that is provided to military criminal 

investigation organizations and/or law enforcement for investigation. A restricted report of sexual 

assault in the military is a report that allows victims to confidentially access medical care and 

advocacy services without triggering an investigation. Victims may convert their restricted report to an 

unrestricted report at any time and participate in the military justice process.
Page 12 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

c

DSAID includes data on some civilians (e.g., spouses of servicemembers) who are eligible to receive 

services.

d

In 2014 DOD contracted with RAND to conduct an independent assessment of the WGRA and, if 

necessary, to update the WGRA methodology and to administer the 2014 WGRA. That year RAND 

created and administered two versions of the survey. One version of the survey employed DOD’s 

prior measure of “unwanted sexual contact” to estimate the past-year prevalence of sexual assault in 

DOD. The other survey version—called the RAND Military Workplace Study (RMWS)—employed a 

new measure of sexual violence that was designed to align with the terminology used and 

corresponding categories of crimes specified in Articles 80 and 120 of the Uniform Code of Military 

Justice. In its Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military for Fiscal Year 2015, DOD stated that 

the next WGRA will utilize the same methodology as developed by RAND. For the purposes of this 

report, we refer broadly to this data collection effort as the “WGRA.” DOD also administers the 

Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Reserve Component Members (WGRR). Because 

WGRR methods align with WGRA methods, this report focuses on the Workplace and Gender 

Relations Survey of Active Duty Members.

e

Data for NEISS-AIP is collected by the Consumer Product Safety Commission under an interagency 

agreement with HHS/CDC. 

f

NIS and SSV data cover federal, state, and local prisons and jails, as well as correctional facilities 

operated by the U.S. military and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as well as privately 

operated prisons and jails. Neither data collection effort includes court or police lockup facilities. SSV 

reports on adult (including juveniles in adult facilities) and juvenile facilities separately; NIS only 

reports on adult facilities, including juveniles in those facilities. 

Data collection efforts that are focused on target populations—such as, 

the military population, institutions of higher education, and the 

incarcerated population—provide information on the problem of sexual 

violence within those groups and thus may be helpful for informing policy 

affecting those groups. For example, Education officials told us that 

Education’s Office of Federal Student Aid administers inquiries to specific 

campuses if Clery Act data show unusually high incidences of certain 

crimes, including rape. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) reports that 

the National Inmate Survey (NIS) and the Survey of Sexual Victimization 

(SSV) data provide helpful information for understanding and addressing 

the problem of sexual violence in prisons, jails, and juvenile correctional 

facilities.18 In March 2015, we reported on the importance of using military 

data on sexual violence to inform program decisionmaking.19

The 5 data collection efforts whose target population is a segment of the 

national population are the result of specific congressional mandates, 

while the 5 data collection efforts that focus on the general population are 

 18BJS is a division of the DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs. 

19GAO-15-284.
Page 13 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

discretionary initiatives arising from broad agency missions.20 For 

example, BJS is mandated under the terms of the Prison Rape 

Elimination Act (PREA) of 2003 to collect data on sexual violence in 

prisons, jails, and other detention facilities. BJS conducts both the NIS 

and SSV in response to that mandate.21 In contrast, according to HHS’s 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officials, the agency 

launched NISVS as part of its public health mission, and with support 

from the National Institute of Justice and DOD as a result of requests 

from organizations in the field of sexual violence prevention.

The extent to which the data collection efforts focus on sexual violence 

also varies. Some of the data collection efforts collect information solely 

or primarily on the occurrence of sexual violence, such as the SSV or 

DSAID. Other data collection efforts have a larger focus. For example, the 

UCR-SRS, UCR-NIBRS, and NCVS include information on a broad 

spectrum of crimes, and the National Electronic Injury Surveillance 

System–All Injury Program (NEISS-AIP) includes information on a wide 

variety of types of injuries.

Data collection efforts use a range of terms to describe sexual violence in 

publicly-available agency documentation. Specifically, the 10 data 

collection efforts use a total of 23 different terms to describe sexual 

violence. Table 2 shows the terms that data collection efforts use to 

describe sexual violence.

 20DSAID, WGRA, Clery Act data, NIS, and SSV have target populations that represent a 

small subset of the overall population—the military, institutions of higher education 

communities, or the incarcerated. The National Electronic Injury Surveillance System–All 

Injury Program (NEISS-AIP), NISVS, NCVS, UCR-SRS and UCR-NIBRS focus on the 

general population. 

21BJS’s PREA data collection activities also include two additional data collection efforts, 

the National Former Inmate Survey and the National Survey of Youth in Custody, which 

did not meet the selection criteria for inclusion in our review. 

Data Collection Efforts 

Differ in the Terms They 

Use to Describe Sexual 

Violence, and 

Measurements and 

Definitions for Some 

Efforts are Inconsistent
Page 14 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

Table 2: Key Terms Used by Federal Data Collection Efforts to Describe Sexual Violence

DSAIDa WGRAb Clery Act data

NEISSAIP NISVS NCVS NIS SSVUCRSRSUCRNIBRS

Abusive Sexual Contact X — — — — — Xc Xd — —

Aggravated Sexual Contact X — — — — — — — — —

Assault-sexual — — — X — — — — — —

Attempted Penetrative Sexual 

Assault — X — — — — — — — —

Attempts to Commit Offenses X — — — — — — — — —

Being Made to Penetrate 

Someone Else — — — — X — — — — —

Fondling — — X — — — — — — X

Forcible Sodomy X — — — — — — — — —

Nonconsensual Sexual Acts — — — — — — X X — —

Noncontact Unwanted Sexual 

Experiences — — — — X — — — — —

Nonpenetrative Sexual Assault — X — — — — — — — —

Penetrative Sexual Assault — X — — — — — — — —

Sex Offenses — — — — — — — — X —

Rape X — X — X X — — X X

Sexual Assault X — — — — X — — — —

Sexual Assault with an Object — — — — — — — — — X

Sexual Coercion — — — — X — — — —

Sodomy — — — — — — — — — X

Staff Sexual Harassmente — — — — — — — X — —

Staff Sexual Misconduct — — — — — — X X — —

Unwanted Sexual Contact — — — — X — — — — —

Unwilling Activity — — — — — — X — — —

Willing Activity — — — — — — X — — —

Table legend: 

DSAID: Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database, Department of Defense (DOD)

WGRA: Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty Members, Department of Defense

Clery Act data: Data reported to the Department of Education under the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime 

Statistics Act

NEISS-AIP: National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-All Injury Program, Department of Health and Human Services

NISVS: National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, Department of Health and Human Services

NCVS: National Crime Victimization Survey, Department of Justice 

NIS: National Inmate Survey, Department of Justice

SSV: Survey of Sexual Victimization, Department of Justice 

UCR-SRS: Uniform Crime Reporting Program-Summary Reporting System, Department of Justice 
Page 15 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

UCR-NIBRS: Uniform Crime Reporting Program-National Incident-Based Reporting System, Department of Justice

Source: GAO analysis of agency documentation. |  GAO-16-546

a

DSAID uses the following key terms to categorize sexual violence incidents that occurred prior to 

2012 because these were the terms that were included in older versions of the Uniform Code of 

Military Justice (UCMJ): “aggravated sexual assault,” “indecent assault,” and “wrongful sexual 

contact.” However, for the purposes of this review, we only included DSAID terms that are derived 

from the current version of the UCMJ and are used for incidents occurring on or after June 28, 2012: 

“abusive sexual contact,” “aggravated sexual contact,” “attempts to commit offenses,” “forcible 

sodomy,” “rape,” and “sexual assault.”

b

In 2014 DOD contracted with RAND to conduct an independent assessment of the WGRA and, if 

necessary, to update the WGRA methodology and to administer the 2014 WGRA. That year RAND 

created and administered two versions of the survey. One version of the survey employed DOD’s 

prior measure of “unwanted sexual contact” to estimate the past-year prevalence of sexual assault in 

DOD. The other survey version—called the RAND Military Workplace Study (RMWS)—employed a 

new measure of sexual violence that was designed to align with the terminology used and 

corresponding categories of crimes specified in Articles 80 and 120 of the UCMJ. In its Annual Report 

on Sexual Assault in the Military for Fiscal Year 2015, DOD stated that the next WGRA will utilize the 

same methodology as developed by RAND. For the purposes of this report, we refer broadly to this 

data collection effort as the “WGRA” and use the measures of sexual violence developed by RAND—

”penetrative sexual assault,” “nonpenetrative sexual assault,” and “attempted penetrative sexual 

assault”—for our analysis.

c

The National Inmate Survey uses the term “abusive sexual contacts only.”

d

The Survey of Sexual Victimization uses the term “abusive sexual contacts.”

e

Agencies may collect data on certain sexual offenses, for example, sexual harassment, in other data 

collection efforts not included in this review.

Given the variation in terminology, data collection efforts may 

characterize the same sex act using different terms. For example, 

regarding sexual violence involving vaginal penetration of a victim, 6 data 

collection efforts include this act of sexual violence in their measurement 

of “rape,” 2 include it in their measurements of “nonconsensual sexual 

acts” or “staff sexual misconduct,” 2 include it in their measurements of 

“sexual assault” or “assault-sexual,” 1 includes it in its measurement of 

“sexual coercion,” 1 includes it in its measurement of “penetrative sexual 

assault,” and 1 includes it in its measurement of “sexual assault with an 

object.”22 See tables 5 through 7 in app. II for additional information on 

acts of sexual violence included in measurements of sexual violence by 

data collection effort.

It is also the case that one data collection effort may use multiple terms to 

characterize a particular act of sexual violence, depending on the 

 22Some data collection efforts include certain acts of sexual violence in their measurement 

of more than one term. For example, UCR-NIBRS includes vaginal penetration of a victim 

in its measurement of “rape” or “sexual assault with an object,” depending on the 

circumstances of the incident. 
Page 16 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

contextual factors that may be involved, such as whether the perpetrator 

used physical force. For example, if a victim is penetrated vaginally, 

NISVS may characterize that particular act as either “rape” or “sexual 

coercion,” and the decision as to which term is most appropriate is based 

on the contextual factors surrounding the act. As such, NISVS 

characterizes vaginal penetration of a victim as “rape” if the act involves 

the use of physical force or threats to physically harm the victim. On the 

other hand, NISVS characterizes this same act as “sexual coercion” if the 

act occurs after the victim is verbally pressured in a nonphysical way, for 

example if the perpetrator uses their influence or authority.

Based on our analysis, data collection efforts rarely use the same 

terminology to describe sexual violence; however, when they do, there 

are some differences in the particular acts of sexual violence and 

contextual factors that they include in their measurements of those terms. 

For example, 4 of the 6 data collection efforts that use the term “rape”

consider whether actual physical force was used and the other two do 

not. Three of the 6 that use the term “rape” consider whether the threat of 

physical force was used and the other 3 do not. See tables 8 through 10 

in app. II for additional information on contextual factors included in 

measurements of sexual violence by data collection effort.

In general, measurements of sexual violence closely relate to definitions 

of sexual violence in federal data collection efforts. For 5 of the data 

collection efforts we reviewed, the acts of sexual violence and contextual 

factors that are included in the measurements generally align with the 

acts of sexual violence and contextual factors that are included in the 

definitions.

However, for the remaining 5 data collection efforts, some of the acts of 

sexual violence or contextual factors are included in both their 

measurements and definitions and others are not. Further, these data 

collection efforts do not have publicly-available descriptions of what is 

included in their respective measurements to allow persons using the 

data to understand the differences. Specifically, Clery Act data include 

attempted rapes in its measurement of rape, but do not include attempted 

rapes in its definition of rape. NEISS-AIP includes acts of sexual violence 

involving penetration of a victim with an object and acts of sexual violence 

involving a victim being made to penetrate someone else with an object in 

its measurement of assault-sexual, but does not explicitly include these 

acts of sexual violence in its definition of assault-sexual or in the 

description of assault-sexual in the NEISS-AIP coding manual. 

Additionally, NCVS includes the contextual factors of “victim unable to 
Page 17 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

consent or refuse” and “victim alcohol/drug facilitated” in its 

measurements of rape and sexual assault, but does not include these 

contextual factors in its definitions of rape and sexual assault. Similarly, 

SSV includes attempted nonconsensual sexual acts in its measurement 

of nonconsensual sexual acts, but does not include attempts in its 

definition of nonconsensual acts. NIS includes the act of victim 

penetration with an object in its measurements of nonconsensual sexual 

acts and staff sexual misconduct, but does not include it in its definitions 

of nonconsensual sexual acts and staff sexual misconduct.

The National Academy of Sciences’ Principles and Practices for a Federal 

Statistical Agency states that data releases from a statistical program 

should include the methods and assumptions used for data collection and 

reporting. Similarly, OMB guidelines regarding the federal Information 

Quality Act call for agencies that disseminate government information to 

ensure its utility, objectivity, and integrity, which refers to information 

reproducibility and transparency. Additionally, federal internal control 

standards state that an agency’s information requirements should 

consider the expectations of both internal and external users and that 

reliable internal and external information sources should provide data that 

faithfully represent what they purport to represent.23 Education officials 

told us that they are updating The Handbook for Campus Safety and 

Security Reporting and expect to issue the updated handbook in summer 

2016. This may provide an opportunity for Education to eliminate 

discrepancies between the Clery Act’s sexual violence measurements 

and definitions.

24 Regarding NEISS-AIP, CDC officials told us that the 

definition of “assault-sexual” is intended to include the range of sexual 

assault experiences that victims presenting to the emergency department 

may report. BJS officials told us that it is not possible to enumerate every 

act of sexual violence that is included under NCVS’s terms of sexual 

violence and that data users can make their own determinations about 

what acts of sexual violence are included in the measurements. BJS 

officials also told us that the definitions included in the NIS and SSV 

 23GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 10, 2014).

24In responding to a draft of this report, Education informed us that it issued the updated 

handbook in June 2016, which provides clarification on its measurements of sexual 

violence; however, the differences between the measurements and definitions remain.
Page 18 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

summary reports are intended for the general public, and acknowledged 

that the reports present ambiguity regarding which acts of sexual violence 

and contextual factors are included in the measurements. CDC and BJS 

officials told us that researchers who are interested in descriptions of 

what is included in the measurements for NEISS-AIP, NIS, and SSV 

could access coding information, which is available at the University of 

Michigan’s National Archive of Criminal Justice Data of the Interuniversity 

Consortium for Political and Social Research. However, a layperson who 

is not a researcher may not know how to access this information.

If data users are seeking to understand what sexual acts and contextual 

factors are included in a data collection effort’s measurement of sexual 

violence, they may read the definitions of terms contained in reports of 

those data collections. If the definitions of the terms are different from 

what the data collection effort includes in its measurement of those terms, 

data users may lack clarity about what acts of sexual violence and 

contextual factors the efforts are including in their measurements of 

sexual violence.

Federal agencies generally collect data on sexual violence within one of 

two contexts—criminal justice or public health. For the purposes of this 

report, “criminal justice” describes data collection efforts that refer to acts 

of sexual violence as “crimes” or “offenses.” “Public health” describes 

data collection efforts that seek to understand the health implications of 

acts of sexual violence. Of the 10 data collection efforts within our scope, 

7 collect data primarily in a criminal justice context, and 2 collect data 

primarily in a public health context, and 1 data collection effort combines 

both contexts. Table 11 in app. II outlines which data collection efforts fall 

into each category.

According to agency officials, context can determine how each data 

collection effort is designed and how the data are collected—and context 

may inform what is included in the measurements of sexual violence in 

the data collection efforts. The data collection efforts of BJS and FBI 

Federal Sexual Violence 

Data Collection 

Methodologies Differ by 

Context, Data Source, 

Units of Measurement, 

and Time Frames

Context
Page 19 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

included in this report have a criminal justice focus, intended to collect 

information on crimes, victims, or trends. CDC officials stated that their 

data collection efforts—NEISS-AIP and NISVS—which both have a public 

health focus, are more concerned with assessing the health impacts of 

victimization and informing violence prevention efforts and are less 

concerned with categorizing incidents as crimes. In some public health 

surveys, interviewers begin by asking basic health and lifestyle questions 

to establish a rapport with the interviewee and introduce the concepts of 

public health and experiences rather than crimes and criminal events.

According to BJS and CDC officials, some studies with a focus on 

criminal justice may ask questions about sexual violence as crimes that 

have occurred, whereas some studies with a public health focus may ask 

questions about violent sexual experiences by describing specific acts of 

sexual violence while avoiding criminal terminology. For instance, NISVS 

does not use the word rape when questioning interviewees, whereas 

NCVS asks respondents if anyone has been attacked for example by 

rape, attempted rape, or other type of sexual attack. NISVS program 

documentation states that the term rape may carry a stigma or have 

different meanings to different people, so the survey poses multiple 

questions about behaviorally specific sexual acts, without using the term 

rape.

Federal sexual violence data primarily come from two sources: 

information reported to authorities and information obtained from victim 

surveys. Some data collection efforts compile information reported to 

relevant authorities. Other federal data collection efforts obtain their data 

from surveys where agencies attempt to identify victims from a larger 

population and invite them to share information about their experiences 

with sexual violence. Table 12 in app. II outlines which data collections 

fall into each category.

Information reported to authorities may originate from situations in which 

a victim or observer reports an alleged act of sexual violence to law 

enforcement, campus, or prison authorities or to military officials. Data 

collection efforts vary in how and to whom the information is submitted. 

For DSAID, restricted and unrestricted reports of sexual violence are 

reported by victims to sexual assault response coordinators or victim 

advocates who input information on the incident into DSAID. Whereas for 

Clery Act data, all institutions of higher education that receive federal 

student financial aid are required to report campus security data 

(including information on sexual violence) to the Department of 

Education.

Data Sources
Page 20 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

Some data collection efforts obtain information on sexual violence 

through surveys. Each survey uses different methods to collect data from 

their subjects. For instance, NISVS employs a random digit dialing 

telephone survey while the NCVS uses a mix of face-to-face and 

telephone interviewing.

Both types of data sources involve tradeoffs. With respect to information 

reported to authorities, according to agency documentation and a senior 

official from a law enforcement special interest group, data collection 

efforts that provide information on crimes reported to authorities are 

useful for administrative and funding decisions related to law 

enforcement. For example, the Bureau of Justice Assistance uses UCRSRS data, in part, to determine how much grant funding should be 

awarded to state, local, and tribal governments through the Edward Byrne 

Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program, which made $255.7 million 

in funding available to states, territories, and localities in fiscal year 2015. 

However, one limitation is that these data may underestimate the scope 

of the problem, since acts of sexual violence are historically 

underreported to authorities.25

As such, obtaining information through a survey may identify more 

instances of sexual violence than efforts that rely on information reported 

to authorities. However, surveys also have their limitations. Surveys are 

subject to variable response rates over time, and different surveys may 

have different response rates, which may affect the resulting estimates 

and the validity of the data. For example, response rates of the data 

collection efforts included in our review range from 24 percent for WGRA 

in 2012 to 33 percent for NISVS in 2011 to 84 percent for NCVS in 

2014.26 Survey results may also be subject to response biases, for 

example the tendency for a respondent to provide untruthful but socially 

acceptable responses or the tendency for individuals who either have or 

have not experienced the action (e.g., sexual violence) to not participate 

 25Du Mont, Miller, and Myhr, “The Role of “Real Rape,” 468; National Academies of 

Sciences, Estimating the Incidence, 40; and Gardella, Nichols-Hadeed, Mastrocinque, 

Stone, Coates, Sly, and Cerulli, “Beyond Clery Act Statistics,” 641, 643.

26The NISVS 2011 weighted cooperation rate, which reflects the proportion of persons 

contacted who agreed to participate in the survey and who were determined to be eligible, 

was 83.5 percent.
Page 21 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

in the survey (which can lead to nonresponse bias).27 Also, according to 

BJS officials, obtaining information directly from victims creates a burden 

on survey respondents and interview subjects, and research and officials 

from an entity that uses federal data on sexual violence stated that such 

surveys may face difficulties in getting people to discuss victimization 

experiences with strangers during interviews. Furthermore, administrative 

costs associated with surveys and interviews can affect the practical 

frequency of data collection.

Different federal data collection efforts measure and report different 

aspects of the occurrence of sexual violence. Some data collection efforts 

report the number of incidents that involved an act of sexual violence, 

some report the number of unique victims of sexual violence, and some 

report information about the number of times an act of sexual violence 

occurred. On the surface it may appear that the number of incidents that 

involve an act of sexual violence and the number of times an act of sexual 

violence occurred are synonymous, but that is not necessarily the case. 

Multiple offenses could occur in the same incident, and one incident could 

involve multiple victims. For example, a perpetrator could both rob and 

sexually assault someone in the same incident, or a perpetrator could 

carry out sexually violent acts against multiple victims in the same 

incident.

Table 3 outlines the units of measurement that each data collection effort 

reports.

Table 3: Units of Measurement Reported by Federal Data Collection Efforts

Data 

Collection 

Effort

Number of Incidents or 

Reports that Involve 

Sexual Violence

Number of 

Victims of Sexual 

Violence

Number of Times an 

Act of Sexual 

Violence Occurred

DSAID X X a

WGRA — X b

Clery Act X — —

NEISS-AIP X — —

NISVS — X b

 27According to DOD officials, the Defense Manpower Data Center conducts non-response 

bias studies on the WGRA to identify potential non-response bias. 

Units of Measurement
Page 22 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

Data 

Collection 

Effort

Number of Incidents or 

Reports that Involve 

Sexual Violence

Number of 

Victims of Sexual 

Violence

Number of Times an 

Act of Sexual 

Violence Occurred

NCVS c X X

NIS — X Xd

SSV X Xe —

UCR-SRS f — X

UCR-NIBRS X g X

Table legend: 

DSAID: Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database, Department of Defense (DOD)

WGRA: Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty Members, Department of Defense

Clery Act data: Data reported to the Department of Education under the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of 

Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act

NEISS-AIP: National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-All Injury Program, Department of Health 

and Human Services

NISVS: National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, Department of Health and Human 

Services

NCVS: National Crime Victimization Survey, Department of Justice 

NIS: National Inmate Survey, Department of Justice

SSV: Survey of Sexual Victimization, Department of Justice 

UCR-SRS: Uniform Crime Reporting Program-Summary Reporting System, Department of Justice 

UCR-NIBRS: Uniform Crime Reporting Program-National Incident-Based Reporting System, 

Department of Justice

Source: GAO analysis of agency documentation. |  GAO-16-546

a

In its annual report on sexual assault in the military, DOD reports the number of reports of sexual 

violence by category of offenses (for example, the total number of reports involving “rape”).

b

WGRA and NISVS collect some data about the number of times an act of sexual violence occurs 

among their respective subject populations, but do not report totals or estimates of those data.

c

NCVS collects information on the number of incidents involving sexual violence and the number of 

times an act of sexual violence occurred, but its reporting of incident counts is limited.

d

The 2013 and 2010 NIS reports presents information on the number of acts of sexual violence 

experienced in ranges (e.g., 1, 2, 3 to 5, 6 to 10), and by percent of victims that experienced a 

number of acts of sexual violence in a specific range. The 2007 NIS report also uses ranges to 

present information on the number of acts of sexual violence experienced.

e

SSV reports data on the number of victims of substantiated incidents of sexual violence.

f

UCR-SRS defines an incident as an event in which one or more criminal offenses occur. In its annual 

report, “Crime in the United States,” UCR-SRS reports information about offenses involving sexual 

violence. In its annual report, “Hate Crime Statistics,” UCR-SRS reports information on both incidents 

and offenses, including for hate crimes involving rape.

g

UCR-NIBRS reports the number of victims of sexual violence offenses but does not report a number 

of unique victims due to possible duplication.

The 4 data collection efforts that report the number of times an act of 

sexual violence occurred—NCVS, NIS, UCR-SRS, and UCR-NIBRS—

may not record the exact number of acts of sexual violence from each 

individual incident in some cases. These data collection efforts count one 
Page 23 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

act of sexual violence per victim per incident, meaning they would capture 

acts against multiple victims in a single incident but not multiple acts 

against each individual victim.

The data source each federal data collection effort uses is an important 

determinant of the units of measurement that each study uses in reporting 

its results. Data collection efforts that use information reported to 

authorities generally measure the number of incidents or reports that 

involve sexual violence. Those efforts may or may not publish a count of 

the number of acts of sexual violence that occurred. Such efforts are 

generally not set up to count the number of unique victims across 

incidents; they may report a count of victims, but have no mechanism to 

avoid the double-counting of victims who experience multiple incidents 

and are thus not measuring the same quantity that surveys that seek to 

report a number of unique victims measure. By contrast, data collection 

efforts that use information obtained from victim surveys generally 

measure and report the number of victims rather than the number of 

incidents that involved sexual violence. These efforts also collect data on 

the number of separate times each individual respondent has been a 

victim of sexual violence. However, the agencies operating those studies 

are cognizant of the challenges associated with asking respondents about 

multiple incidents, particularly with respect to the respondent’s ability to 

accurately recall multiple experiences of sexual violence. For example, a 

DOD official stated that WGRA asks questions about how many times a 

crime has been committed against the respondent, but DOD does not 

report a total number of times that an act of sexual violence occurred 

because respondents’ recall of multiple events may be subject to memory 

biases and confirming details of each act may be overly burdensome in a 

survey.28

Federal agencies collect sexual violence data for different periods of time 

and report the data at different frequencies. Table 13 in app. II outlines 

the time frames for each federal data collection effort.

 28Telescoping is an example of memory bias, where a respondent displaces the 

experiences in time, for example perceiving remote events as having occurred more 

recently. Recall bias is another example of memory bias, where a respondent may not 

remember a past event with accuracy and completeness. 

Time Frames
Page 24 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

The data collection efforts cover different intervals of time for which an act 

of sexual violence occurred. For instance, NISVS asks whether each 

respondent has experienced sexual violence during the previous 12 

months and during the respondent’s lifetime.29 NCVS asks whether each 

respondent has experienced sexual violence during the previous 6 

months. By contrast, the data collection efforts that compile reports from 

authorities may capture information at the point in time when the event 

was reported to those authorities.

Some data collection efforts release their results annually, whereas 

others do so less often. For example, NISVS collected data annually 

except in 2014 and issues reports periodically. NISVS most recently 

reported results to the public in 2014 using data collected in 2011. Most 

data collection efforts that compile reports from authorities release their 

results annually.

One expert we interviewed stated that the period of time for which data on 

sexual violence are collected and how often data are publicly reported 

affects each data collection effort’s results regarding the occurrence of 

sexual violence, an observation also found in academic literature and a 

nongovernmental report.30 For example, data on lifetime experience of 

sexual violence may yield larger numbers of rape and sexual assault than 

data on experiences of sexual violence in the last 6 or 12 months. 

According to officials from 2 entities that use federal data on sexual 

violence, data that are reported annually may be more useful for trend 

analysis than data reported less frequently.

 29NISVS also asks survey respondents about their age of first victimization. 

30R. Bachman, “Measuring Rape and Sexual Assault: Successive Approximations to 

Consensus,” Paper presented to the National Academy of Sciences, Jun.6, 2012; and 

National Academy of Sciences, Estimating the Incidence of Rape and Sexual Assault 

(Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2014).
Page 25 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

The differences across the data collection efforts may hinder 

understanding of the extent of sexual violence, and agencies have taken 

steps to clarify differences and harmonize the data collection efforts. 

However, these efforts have been fragmented and more could be done to 

increase understanding of the problem of sexual violence.

Collectively, the differences across federal data collection efforts lead to 

differing estimates of sexual violence, for example rape, in the United 

States, as shown in selected data collection efforts on the general 

population in table 4.

Table 4: Estimates of the Number of Rapes or Rape Victims Per Year, 2010-2014, across Selected Federal Data Collection 

Efforts

Estimated Number of Rapes or Victims per Yeara

Data collection effort

What crime or 

action the count 

includes Unit of Measure 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

National Intimate Partner 

and Sexual Violence 

Survey (NISVS)

Rapeb Victims 1,270,000 1,929,000 not yet 

available

not yet 

availablec data not collected

National Crime 

Victimization Survey 

(NCVS)

Rape/sexual assaultd Victimizations 268,570 244,190 346,830 300,170 284,350

Uniform Crime ReportingSummary Reporting 

System (UCR-SRS)

Forcible rape/ Rapee Offenses reported 85,593 84,175 85,141 113,695 116,645

Source: GAO analysis of agency documentation. |  GAO-16-546

a

Information in the table reflects the most current data available from selected data collection efforts.

Differences in Data 

Collection Efforts May 

Hinder the 

Understanding of the 

Occurrence of Sexual 

Violence; Agencies 

Have Taken Steps to 

Explain and Lessen 

Differences, but 

Efforts Have Been 

Fragmented and 

Limited in Scope

Differences in Data 

Collection Efforts 

Collectively May Hinder 

Understanding of the 

Extent of Sexual Violence
Page 26 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

b

The NISVS estimate includes completed and attempted rape of female victims. NISVS contains 

estimates of lifetime prevalence for male victims of rape, but the case count for male victims of rape 

does not allow the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to produce a reliable estimate 

for a 12-month prevalence rate. 

c

According to CDC officials, in 2013 pilot data on survey changes was collected.

d

In the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ annual report of NCVS data, “Criminal Victimization,” data on the 

number of sexual violence victimizations are reported as “rape/sexual assault” which includes rape or 

sexual assault. 

e

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) broadened its definition of rape for UCR-SRS in 2013 and 

removed the word “forcible” from the name of the offense. The data in this table for years prior to 

2013 use FBI’s old definition of “forcible rape;” for 2013 and 2014, the data use the revised definition.

According to research and individuals we spoke with who are familiar with 

the data, differences in federal data on sexual violence may confuse the 

public.31 A National Academy of Sciences’ Panel that studied the 

incidence of rape in the United States reported in 2014 that the data 

collection efforts’ different purposes and methodologies produce different 

results, which creates confusion for the public, law enforcement, 

policymakers, researchers, and victim advocacy groups. Additionally, 

officials from four entities that use federal data told us that they believe 

the public does not understand data from federal sources on sexual 

violence. Officials from three entities that use federal data on sexual 

violence stated that they—and the media—cite a range of sources and 

may not always, or adequately, explain the details of the data collection 

efforts. In addition, the public may not take the time to understand the 

differences among the data collection efforts. For example, an official 

from one entity told us that the entity frequently uses the results from one 

particular data collection effort to educate the public on sexual violence, 

but the official was not aware of certain methodological details and 

limitations of the data. Also, as previously discussed, some data 

collection efforts’ measurements and definitions do not align and 

information on what is included in these measurements is not publicly 

available, which may lead to confusion for data users. Further, officials 

from the federal agencies and entities we spoke with that use federal data 

on sexual violence emphasized that the differences across the data 

collection efforts are such that the results are not comparable.

 31J. Lynch, “Clarifying Divergent Estimates of Rape from Two National Surveys,” The 

Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 60, no. 3 (1996); and National Academy of Sciences, 

Estimating the Incidence, 32.
Page 27 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

Officials we spoke with who use the data stated that differences in 

measurements, definitions, and methodology across the data collection 

efforts can lead to confusion. Officials at one entity stated that they found 

challenges in using federal data on sexual violence because varying 

measurements and definitions across the data collection efforts make it 

difficult to compare data. However, even in instances where the acts of 

sexual violence and contextual factors that are included in measurements

and definitions are similar across data collection efforts, other differences 

create challenges. For example, officials at the National Center for 

Campus Public Safety stated that whereas the Clery Act data program 

and UCR-SRS use the same definition for rape, the methodologies are 

different—the Clery Act data program collects information on allegations 

made in “good faith,” whereas the UCR-SRS includes only information on 

incidents resulting in a police report—which results in different estimates 

of rape and may lead to confusion for users who try to compare the data.

Because there is wide variation in the results, entities that use federal 

data on sexual violence have a choice of which data to use, and entities 

reported using data that best suited their needs. For example, officials 

from one entity told us that they use NCVS data because it includes 

information on incidents not reported to the police and is user-friendly, 

and officials from another entity told us they use NCVS data because it 

has a larger sample size than other data collection efforts. Officials from 

another entity stated that they use NISVS because it includes the most 

expansive set of acts of sexual violence and contextual factors in its 

measurement of “rape” and estimates lifetime prevalence rates.
Page 28 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

Federal agencies have acknowledged that differences exist among data 

collection efforts, for example in terms of methodology, context, and data 

sources, which has led some agencies to take steps to identify and 

explain differences across the data collection efforts. In addition, some 

federal agencies have taken steps to lessen the differences among data 

collection efforts by focusing on harmonization—that is, coordination of 

practices to enhance data collection to achieve a shared goal. However, 

such efforts have been fragmented—that is, they are limited in scope and 

generally involve two data collection efforts at a time.32

Two ongoing efforts are intended to clarify the differences across two 

data collection efforts:

• BJS and FBI coauthored a statement describing the differences 

between UCR and NCVS. In 1995, BJS and FBI coauthored 

statements entitled “The Nation’s Two Crime Measures,” which 

describe similarities and differences between the UCR program and 

NCVS. The statement was updated in September 2014. BJS and FBI 

post similar but different versions of the statement on their websites. 

BJS’s statement provides a side-by-side description of FBI’s UCR 

program and BJS’s NCVS including, for example, information on 

historical background, data sources, and time frames for data 

collection and reporting. Both statements also include a section on 

comparing UCR and NCVS data, which describes the data collection 

efforts’ similarities (e.g., they both have somewhat similar subsets of 

serious crimes, such as rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, 

theft, and motor vehicle theft ) and key differences (e.g., definitions of 

certain crimes). The statements conclude with a description of the two 

data collection efforts’ strengths (e.g., UCR provides data on the 

number of crimes reported to law enforcement and NCVS provides 

data on the number and types of crimes not reported to law 

enforcement).

• CDC and BJS have discussed publishing a statement that 

compares sexual violence statistics in NISVS and NCVS. At a 

meeting in November 2015, CDC and BJS discussed coauthoring a 

 32According to our work, fragmentation refers to those circumstances in which more than 

one federal agency (or more than one organization within an agency) is involved in the 

same broad area of national need and opportunities exist to improve efficiency.

Agencies Have Taken 

Some Steps to Clarify 

Differences across Sexual 

Violence Data Collection 

Efforts, but Efforts to 

Harmonize the Data 

Collection Efforts Have 

Been Fragmented
Page 29 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

statement about NISVS and NCVS that would describe the 

differences and similarities of the two data collection efforts.

There are five efforts underway or recently implemented that are intended 

to increase harmonization across the data collection efforts, including:33

• Education adopted FBI’s UCR-SRS definition of rape for use in 

the Clery Act data. Education, in its 2014 rule implementing the 

VAWA 2013 reauthorization, changed the definition of rape that is 

used in the Clery Act data to match UCR-SRS’ definition. The 

definition used by both UCR-SRS and the Clery Act data is 

“Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any 

body part or object or oral penetration by a sex organ of another 

person, without the consent of the victim.” Education began collecting 

data using the new definition of rape for calendar year 2014.

• BJS sponsored the National Academy of Sciences’ CNSTAT 

Panel on Estimating the Incidence of Rape and Sexual Assault in 

BJS Household Surveys. In March 2011, BJS charged the panel to 

“assess the quality and relevance of statistics on rape and sexual 

assault from NCVS and other surveys contracted for by other federal 

agencies as well as surveys conducted by private organizations,”

examining issues such as the “legal definitions in use by the states for 

these crimes, best methods for representing the definitions in survey 

instruments so that their meaning is clear to respondents, and best 

methods for obtaining as complete reporting as possible of these 

crimes in surveys, including methods whereby respondents may 

report anonymously.” The panel, which was comprised of experts in 

research and sexual assault response, held five in-person meetings 

and issued 15 recommendations in a final report published in 2014. 

For example, the panel recommended that BJS’s definitions of sexual 

violence be expanded to include victimizations when the victim does 

not have the capacity to consent to the sexual actions of the offender 

and that this research be conducted in a coordinated manner because 

many of the issues to be investigated are interrelated. The panel also 

recommended that the survey questionnaire should have a neutral 

 33Federal agencies have a range of other efforts underway to improve individual data 

collection efforts. For example, BJS, with support from FBI, has launched the National 

Crime Statistics Exchange (NCS-X) to generate detailed national estimates of crimes 

reported to law enforcement by actively working to create a sample of 400 law 

enforcement agencies to initiate their reporting of crime data to UCR-NIBRS.
Page 30 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

context, such as a health survey.34 BJS officials told us that some of 

their current work addresses some of the panel’s recommendations. 

For example, BJS is currently conducting a methodological 

comparison of NCVS with a public health approach that includes a 

five-city comparison study and consultation with CDC. The five-city 

comparison study involves an expanded scope of sexual violence,

which includes questions regarding consent, and BJS is testing a 

range of behavior-specific questions. BJS officials told us that they are 

planning to issue a report on the progress of the project in spring 

2016.35

• BJS and FBI commissioned a National Academy of Sciences’ 

CNSTAT Panel on Modernizing the Nation’s Crime Statistics.

Commissioned in 2013, the panel will assess and make 

recommendations for the development of a modern set of crime 

measures in the United States and the best means for obtaining them. 

The review will focus, among other things, on full and accurate 

measurement of criminal victimization events and their attributes, 

considering types of crime (and their definitions), including the current 

scope of crime types covered by existing FBI and BJS data 

collections; gaps in knowledge of contemporary crime; development 

of international crime classification frameworks that should be 

considered in increasing international comparability; and the optimal 

scope of crime statistics to serve the needs of the full array of data 

users and stakeholders—-federal agencies, other law enforcement 

agencies, Congress, other actors in the justice system (such as the 

courts and corrections officials), researchers, and the general public. 

Panel membership includes academics in the field of criminal justice 

and statistics and stakeholders who use and provide the data that the 

government collects. According to the chair of the panel, as part of the 

first phase of work, the panel has developed an initial 

conceptualization for classifying all types of crime, including rape and 

sexual assault. The recommended classification and its justification 

appear in the panel’s first report, which was released in May 

 34The panel did not make recommendations on how surveys using a public health 

approach might be improved. With limited time and resources, the panel made the 

decision to focus its analysis on NCVS with the intent to make specific recommendations 

to BJS for estimates of rape and sexual assault. 

35In responding to a draft of this GAO report, BJS did not comment on the progress of this 

project.
Page 31 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

2016. The panel has also begun the second phase of its work, which 

will suggest the means for gathering data for the comprehensive 

crime classification, including information from non-BJS or FBI 

sources, and recommend how crime data collection should proceed in 

practice. The panel plans to consider possible coordination among 

agencies to produce more comprehensive reports on data, instead of 

one agency producing one report and another agency producing a 

separate but related report. The panel intends to finish its second 

phase of work in 2016 and issue a final report in early 2017.

• CDC, partnering with BJS, plans to convene a Technical Expert 

Panel to examine ways to improve NISVS. As part of OMB’s review 

of a CDC information collection proposal, OMB requested that CDC 

and BJS officials convene a panel of experts in survey methods to 

improve NISVS’s methodology, including increasing the response rate 

and minimizing non-response bias. The agencies identified and 

recruited a panel of experts and plan to meet in spring 2016.36

• CDC provided DOD with an adapted dataset from NISVS. In 2010, 

NISVS included two random samples of active duty women and wives 

of active duty men in addition to a random sample of the general U.S. 

population. Using identical survey methods, data were collected in the 

first two quarters of 2010. According to DOD officials, CDC provided a 

subset of NISVS data to DOD so that DOD received information on 

crimes that fell under military law to enable DOD to do an “apples to 

apples” comparison of CDC and DOD data. CDC officials informed us 

that they are working on a follow-up military population study in 2016.

However, these various federal efforts to clarify and harmonize sexual 

violence data have been fragmented. CNSTAT’s Principles and Practices 

for a Federal Statistical Agency (2013) calls for federal agencies that 

produce similar federal statistics, with different missions, to coordinate 

and collaborate with each other to meet current information needs and 

provide new or more useful data than a single system can provide. While 

the guidance applies primarily to the 13 federal statistical agencies, OMB 

officials stated that the report provides best practices for all federal data 

collection activities. The guidance encourages collaborative interagency 

efforts and highlights the importance of agencies developing standard 

definitions as a way to maximize the value and comparability of data. 

 36In responding to a draft of this GAO report, CDC did not comment on the progress of 

this panel.
Page 32 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

However, the coordination that has occurred across the agencies that 

collect data on sexual violence has been limited. Specifically, coordination 

has been bilateral—generally involving only 2 of the 10 data collection

efforts at a time and limited in scope. Agency officials expressed 

skepticism that broader harmonization efforts could benefit federal data 

on sexual violence, stating that each data collection effort is designed—

through target population, measurements and definitions, and 

methodology—to fulfill a certain purpose. Agency officials told us that 

changes to any of these differences may undermine the specific purpose 

of each data collection effort. However, harmonization does not 

necessarily entail making the data collection efforts identical; instead, it 

could entail agencies considering how they could make their efforts more 

complementary and, as appropriate, more alike without compromising 

their programmatic needs.

The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), among other things, established a 

process for OMB to oversee agency information collection efforts in order 

to improve the quality and use of federal information while reducing 

collection burdens, including through the coordination of federal 

statistics.37 Per its authority under the PRA, OMB has convened 

interagency working groups to assess differences across data collection 

efforts and determine which of those differences are beneficial and which 

are unnecessary. For example, OMB has convened the following 

interagency groups:

• The Interagency Working Group for Research on Race and Ethnicity 

was formed in 2014 to exchange research findings, identify 

implementation issues, and collaborate on a shared research agenda 

to improve federal statistics on race and ethnicity.

• The Interagency Working Group on Measuring Relationships in 

Federal Household Surveys, which was established in 2010, 

convenes representatives from a variety of federal agencies involved 

in the collection, dissemination, or use of household relationship data 

to address the challenges in measuring household relationships, 

including same sex couples.

• The Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics was 

formally established in 1997 to develop priorities for collecting 

 3744 USC § 3504 (c)&(e).
Page 33 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

enhanced data on children and youth, improve the reporting and 

dissemination of information on the status of children to the policy 

community and the general public, and produce more complete data 

on children at the state and local levels.

We asked OMB if there are plans to convene a similar group for 

harmonizing data on sexual violence. OMB staff stated that they did not 

have plans to form an interagency group on the topic, but instead they 

plan to invest limited resources strategically by engaging with BJS on its 

redesign of NCVS and with CDC on its information quality of NISVS. 

OMB staff also stated that their plans are to ensure that both agencies 

are taking advantage of the insights gained as each agency undergoes 

redesign and technical consultations in the next couple of years. 

However, other data collection efforts, in addition to NCVS and NISVS, 

also influence policy decisions on sexual violence. Depending upon the 

outcome of the work being conducted by BJS and CDC, OMB may 

encourage other data collection efforts to adapt or adopt insights gained 

as appropriate to their respective programmatic missions. In the absence 

of broader harmonization efforts, agency sexual violence data continue to 

be inconsistent and incomparable, leading to confusion about the data 

and lack of clarity about the scope of the problem of sexual violence in 

the United States.

Differences in data collection efforts—particularly in terms of what is 

included in measurements and definitions of sexual violence and 

methodologies—collectively can lead to confusion. Without publiclyavailable information on which acts of sexual violence and contextual 

factors are included in the measurements of sexual violence, data users 

may lack clarity about what each data collection effort’s results represent. 

Additionally, entities that use federal data may misunderstand the data 

and develop policies that may not be based on the full extent of the 

problem. In the absence of collaboration among agencies that manage 

data collection efforts, it is unclear which differences enhance and which 

impair the overall understanding of sexual violence, and as a result, policy 

makers and the public lack coordinated information by which to address 

the problem.

To enhance the clarity and transparency of sexual violence data that is 

reported to the public, we recommend that the Secretary of Education 

direct the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Postsecondary Education, 

the Secretary of Health and Human Services direct the Director of CDC, 

Conclusions

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
Page 34 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

and the Attorney General direct the Director of BJS to make information 

on the acts of sexual violence and contextual factors that are included in 

their measurements of sexual violence publicly available. This effort could 

entail revising their definitions of key terms used to describe sexual 

violence so that the definitions match the measurements of sexual 

violence.

To help lessen confusion among the public and policy makers regarding 

federal data on sexual violence, we recommend that the Director of OMB 

establish a federal interagency forum on sexual violence statistics. The 

forum should consider the broad range of differences across the data 

collection efforts to assess which differences enhance or hinder the 

overall understanding of sexual violence in the United States.

We provided a copy of our report to DOD, Education, HHS, DOJ and 

OMB for their review and comment. The agencies provided technical 

comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. Education, HHS, and 

DOJ also provided written comments, which are reprinted in appendices 

IV, V, and VI, respectively. The OMB liaison to GAO provided us with 

comments via email, which are summarized below.

DOJ, Education, and HHS agreed with our recommendation that, in order 

to enhance the clarity and transparency of sexual violence data, they 

should make information on the acts of sexual violence and contextual 

factors that are included in their measurements of sexual violence publicly 

available. In their written comments, DOJ and Education described 

actions they have recently taken or plan to take to implement the 

recommendation. DOJ stated that beginning in calendar year 2017, BJS 

will provide the exact computer code used to construct its measures of 

sexual violence as well as additional information on how sexual violence 

is defined and measured. Education stated that in June 2016, the 

department released an updated version of The Handbook for Campus 

Safety and Security Reporting, which provides additional details on what 

acts of sexual violence and contextual factors are included in the data 

collection effort’s sexual violence measurements. HHS stated that the 

department is committed to improving the quality of the data and the 

clarity of the descriptions and definitions of sexual violence.

In an email responding to our recommendation that OMB establish a 

federal interagency forum on sexual violence statistics, OMB stated that it 

did not believe convening a forum at this time was the most strategic use 

of resources. OMB stated that other interagency groups it has convened 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 35 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

were typically about statistical methods or measurement issues that 

would affect a wide swath of government and for which OMB guidance or 

a best practice working paper would be forthcoming. OMB noted that 

there are only four agencies involved in collecting sexual violence data, 

and regarded none to be conducting or far enough along in its research 

for OMB to develop guidance or identify best practices at this time. OMB 

does, however, plan to follow closely and participate in CDC’s and BJS’s 

ongoing technical work, and will consider convening or sharing 

information across agencies when that work is further along. We 

understand the importance of allowing time for a data collection effort to 

mature before providing guidance or best practices. However, considering 

that 7 of the 10 data collection efforts have been in place for more than 10 

years, and several have been in place for multiple decades, we disagree 

with OMB’s assertion that none of the data collection efforts are far 

enough along for OMB to provide guidance and best practices. DOJ and 

Education also commented on the recommendation to OMB. DOJ stated 

that BJS welcomes OMB efforts to coordinate data collection and 

reporting on sexual violence and stands ready to participate in an 

interagency forum. Education stated that efforts to “harmonize” definitions 

should not be pursued solely to achieve symmetry for its own sake, but 

that the focus should be on the needs of each individual program. We 

agree that the data collection efforts should continue to meet the needs of 

individual agencies; however, considering the number of federal data 

collection efforts, the range of differences across them, and the potential 

for causing confusion, it would be beneficial for agencies to discuss these 

differences and determine whether they are, in fact, necessary.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Director 

of OMB, the Attorney General, the Secretaries of Defense, Education, 

and Health and Human Services, and other interested parties. The report 

will also be available at no charge on the GAO web site at 

http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-8777 or goodwing@gao.gov. Contact points for 

our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 
Page 36 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to 

this report are listed in appendix VII.

Sincerely yours,

Gretta L. Goodwin, Acting Director

Homeland Security and Justice Issues
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and 

Methodology

Page 37 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

Our objectives for this report were to address the following questions:

(1) What are the federal efforts underway to collect data on sexual 

violence, and how, if at all, do these efforts differ?

(2) How do any differences across the data collection efforts affect the 

understanding of sexual violence, and to what extent are federal agencies 

addressing any challenges posed by the differences?

To address the first question, we identified federal efforts to collect data 

on sexual violence, for which the data:

• provided information on the extent to which acts of sexual violence 

occur in the United States in a particular year (for example, the 

number of times a rape or sexual assault has occurred or the number 

of victims of rape and sexual assault);

• were collected recently (i.e., 2010 or after);

• were collected periodically (i.e., at least once every 2 years);

• were reported publicly;1 and

• were not focused primarily on minors.

To identify efforts that met these criteria, we reviewed past GAO reports 

and a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) list of federal agencies that 

may collect crime data.2 We asked officials at those agencies if they had 

 1

Federal law enforcement agencies have information on sexual violence (e.g., 

investigations and case processing) in their case management systems, but we chose not 

to include those data in our scope. We chose to focus on data that are available to the 

public, because those data are used to influence policy decisions and the public’s 

understanding of these crimes.

2

FBI compiled the list of agencies as part of a Director’s Initiative to identify agencies that 

could report to the Uniform Crime Reporting Program’s Summary Reporting System.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and 

Methodology

Page 38 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

any data collection efforts that met our criteria.3 Additionally, we asked 

experts in the field (for example, academic researchers) and officials from 

victim advocacy groups and other special interest groups about any 

additional federal data collection efforts they were aware of that met our 

selection criteria.4 We initially identified experts and entities that use 

federal data on sexual violence by conducting background research. 

Then, we interviewed experts and officials from the entities identified in 

our research, and from these contacts we identified additional entities that 

use federal data on sexual violence. In all, we spoke with officials from 

three victim advocacy groups, five other special interest groups (for 

example, law enforcement associations and campus safety groups), three 

other federal agencies, and two academic experts.5 Based on this work, 

we identified 10 data collection efforts that met our criteria across four 

federal agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Education, 

Health and Human Services, and Justice.

 3

Several federal agencies have data collections that include information on sexual 

violence but are not included in this study because they did not meet our criteria. For 

example, the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Child Maltreatment 

Reports contain child abuse and neglect data collected via the National Child Abuse and 

Neglect Data System (which is administered by HHS’s Administration for Children and 

Families’ Children’s Bureau); however, because these reports focus on children they did 

not meet our criteria. Another example of a study not included in our review is the 

“Campus Sexual Assault Study” [C. P. Krebs, C. H. Lindquist, T .D. Warner, B. S. Fisher, 

S. L. Martin, The Campus Sexual Assault Study: Final Report, 2007, National Institute of 

Justice (Washington, D.C.: December 2007)] which was prepared with Department of 

Justice funds in 2007. This was a one-time study conducted prior to 2010 and thus did not 

meet our criteria of being collected periodically and recently. It is possible that agencies 

have other data collection efforts that met our criteria and were not included in the scope 

of this review.

4

For the purposes of this report, we use the term “data collection effort” to identify a 

compilation of information on sexual violence that meet our selection criteria.

5

The victim advocacy groups we spoke with included the National Alliance to End Sexual 

Violence, the National Center for Victims of Crime, and the Rape, Abuse & Incest National 

Network. The other special interest groups we spoke with included the International 

Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement 

Administrators, the National Center for Campus Public Safety, the National Sexual 

Violence Resource Center, and the Police Foundation. The other federal agencies we 

spoke with included the Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice, the Office for 

Victims of Crime, and the Office on Violence Against Women. The two academic experts 

we spoke with were Professor James Lynch and Professor Janet Lauritsen. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and 

Methodology

Page 39 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

To identify and describe differences across the data collection efforts, we 

obtained information on the purpose, scope, and methodology of each 

data collection effort. We obtained this information through a review of 

documents, such as user manuals and program descriptions. We also 

conducted interviews with senior agency officials, senior officials at 

entities that use federal data on sexual violence, and academic experts. 

Using documentary and testimonial information, we compared the 

similarities and differences of the data collection efforts with respect to 

target population; context in which data were collected; source of the 

data; unit of measurement; time frames (for example, when data are 

collected and how often data are reported by the federal agency); and 

terminology and measurements of sexual violence. To compare 

similarities and differences of terminology of sexual violence, we used 

agency documents to identify for each data collection effort the terms 

used to describe sexual violence. To identify for each data collection 

effort what acts of sexual violence and contextual factors are included in 

measurements of sexual violence, we reviewed agency documentation 

and interviewed agency officials.

To identify how the differences affect understanding of sexual violence, 

we obtained and reviewed federal reports and interviewed and reviewed 

relevant documentation from agency officials, experts, and officials from 

entities that use federal data on sexual violence. We asked these officials 

and experts whether, in their experience, any of the differences made it 

difficult for people who may use the data (e.g., Congress, policy makers, 

academics, the general public) to understand the extent to which sexual 

violence occurs in the United States. We also asked them to identify any 

difficulties or challenges, of which they were aware, that have resulted 

from the differences across federal efforts to collect data on sexual 

violence. Because these officials and experts were not selected as a 

representative sample, the information obtained from these interviews 

applies solely to this set of officials and experts, and cannot be 

generalized to others.

We also reviewed articles, conference papers, and government and 

nongovernment reports that discuss differences across federal sexual 

violence data collection efforts. To identify articles, a research librarian 

conducted a search of several bibliographic databases, such as 

ProQuest, Embase, and Scopus, using terms such as “rape data” or 

“sexual assault statistics,” among others. The search looked for peerreviewed articles, books, and conference papers published during or after 

2005. This search yielded 36 publications, 16 of which were relevant to 

our research objective on the impact of the differences across the data 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and 

Methodology

Page 40 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

collection efforts and 20 which were not. In reviewing the identified 

publications, we found and reviewed an additional 9 articles and reports 

that were pertinent. See app. III for a list of articles and reports that we 

reviewed and determined to be relevant for our analysis. The librarianassisted literature search was conducted in August 2015, and we 

reviewed literature from that search and identified additional sources from 

August 2015 to May 2016.

To describe the extent to which federal agencies are addressing any 

challenges posed by differences across the data collection efforts, we 

interviewed senior agency officials and academic experts and obtained 

relevant documentation. We asked agency officials about what, if any, 

steps their agency has taken, or planned to take, to address some of the 

difficulties or challenges that may have resulted from the differences 

across the data collection efforts. We also asked agency officials as well 

as officials from entities that use federal data on sexual violence if they 

were aware of any additional steps being taken by other federal agencies, 

state agencies, or other national entities, etc., to address some of the 

difficulties or challenges that may have resulted from the differences 

across the data collection efforts.

We conducted this performance audit from March 2015 to July 2016, in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Descriptive Tables of Federal Data Collection Efforts

Page 41 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

Tables 5 through 10 provide information on the acts of sexual violence and the contextual 

factors included in the measurements of sexual violence by federal data collection efforts 

identified by GAO. 

Table 5: Terminology Federal Data Collection Efforts Use to Characterize Specific Acts of Sexual Violence Where a Victim Was Penetrated

Table legend: 

DSAID: Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database, Department of Defense (DOD)

WGRA: Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty Members, Department of Defense

Appendix II: Descriptive Tables of Federal 

Data Collection Efforts 

Acts of 

Sexual 

Violence DSAIDa WGRAb Clery Act 

data NEISS-AIP NISVS NCVS NIS SSV UCR-SRS UCR-NIBRS

Victim was penetrated

Vaginally Rape, Sexual 

Assault

Penetrative 

Sexual Assault 

Rape AssaultSexualc Rape, Sexual 

Coercion

Rape Nonconsensual 

Sexual Acts, Staff 

Sexual Misconduct

Nonconsensual 

Sexual Acts, Staff 

Sexual 

Misconductc

Rape Rape, Sexual 

Assault With 

An Object

Anally Rape, Sexual 

Assault, 

Forcible 

Sodomy 

Penetrative 

Sexual Assault 

Rape AssaultSexualc Rape, Sexual 

Coercion

Rape Nonconsensual 

Sexual Acts, Staff 

Sexual Misconduct

Nonconsensual 

Sexual Acts, Staff 

Sexual 

Misconductc

Rape Sodomy, 

Sexual Assault 

With An Object

Orally Rape, Sexual 

Assault, 

Forcible 

Sodomy

 Penetrative 

Sexual Assault

Rape AssaultSexualc Rape, Sexual 

Coercion

Rape Nonconsensual 

Sexual Acts, Staff 

Sexual Misconduct

Nonconsensual 

Sexual Acts, Staff 

Sexual 

Misconductc

Rape Sodomy

With a body 

part

Rape, Sexual 

Assault 

Penetrative 

Sexual Assault 

Rape AssaultSexualc Rape Rapec Nonconsensual 

Sexual Acts, Staff 

Sexual Misconduct 

c

Nonconsensual 

Sexual Acts, Staff 

Sexual 

Misconductc

Rape Rape

With an 

object

Rape, Sexual 

Assault

Penetrative 

Sexual Assault 

Rape AssaultSexual

d Rape Rape Nonconsensual 

Sexual Acts, Staff 

Sexual Misconductd

Nonconsensual 

Sexual Acts, Staff 

Sexual 

Misconductc

Rape Sexual Assault 

With An Object
Appendix II: Descriptive Tables of Federal Data Collection Efforts

Page 42 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

Clery Act data: Data reported to the Department of Education under the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act

NEISS-AIP: National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-All Injury Program, Department of Health and Human Services

NISVS: National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, Department of Health and Human Services

NCVS: National Crime Victimization Survey, Department of Justice 

NIS: National Inmate Survey, Department of Justice

SSV: Survey of Sexual Victimization, Department of Justice 

UCR-SRS: Uniform Crime Reporting Program-Summary Reporting System, Department of Justice 

UCR-NIBRS: Uniform Crime Reporting Program-National Incident-Based Reporting System, Department of Justice

Source: GAO analysis of testimonial evidence and agency documentation. |  GAO-16-546

a

DSAID uses the following key terms to categorize sexual violence incidents that occurred prior to 2012 because these 

were the terms that were included in older versions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): “aggravated sexual 

assault,” “indecent assault,” and “wrongful sexual contact.” However, for the purposes of this review, we only included 

DSAID terms that are derived from the current version of the UCMJ and are used for incidents occurring on or after June 

28, 2012: “abusive sexual contact,” “aggravated sexual contact,” “attempts to commit offenses,” “forcible sodomy,” “rape,” 

and “sexual assault.” According to a DOD official, DOD's Military Criminal Investigation Organizations (MCIOs) confirm that 

the acts of sexual violence that are described in this table are included in the measurements of these terms per their 

inclusion in the UCMJ definitions. MCIOs review reports for legal sufficiency and confirm and document the factors in each 

case.

b

In 2014 DOD contracted with RAND to conduct an independent assessment of the WGRA and, if necessary, to update the 

WGRA methodology and to administer the 2014 WGRA. That year RAND created and administered two versions of the 

survey. One version of the survey employed DOD’s prior measure of “unwanted sexual contact” to estimate the past-year 

prevalence of sexual assault in DOD. The other survey version—called the RAND Military Workplace Study (RMWS)—

employed a new measure of sexual violence that was designed to align with the terminology used and corresponding 

categories of crimes specified in Articles 80 and 120 of the UCMJ. In its Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military for 

Fiscal Year 2015, DOD stated that the next WGRA will utilize the same methodology as developed by RAND. For the 

purposes of this report, we refer broadly to this data collection effort as the “WGRA” and use the measures of sexual 

violence developed by RAND—“penetrative sexual assault,” “nonpenetrative sexual assault,” and “attempted penetrative 

sexual assault”—for our analysis. 

c

Agency officials reported that the measurement of this sexual violence term includes this specific act of sexual violence, 

though reference to the act of sexual violence may be implicit rather than explicit. 

d

Agency officials reported that the measurement of this sexual violence term includes this specific act of sexual violence, 

though agency documentation neither implicitly nor explicitly supports this claim. 
Appendix II: Descriptive Tables of Federal Data Collection Efforts

Page 43 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

Table 6: Terminology Federal Data Collection Efforts Use to Characterize Specific Acts of Sexual Violence Where a Victim Was Made to Penetrate 

Acts of 

Sexual 

Violence DSAIDa WGRAb Clery Act 

data NEISS-AIP NISVS NCVS NIS SSV UCR-SRS UCR-NIBRS

Victim was made to penetrate

Vaginally — — — Assault-Sexualc Being Made 

To Penetrate 

Someone 

Else 

— Nonconsensual 

Sexual Actsc, Staff 

Sexual Misconductc

Nonconsensual 

Sexual Actsc, Staff 

Sexual Misconductc

Rapec Rapec, Sexual 

Assault With 

An Objectc

Anally Forcible 

Sodomy

— — Assault-Sexualc Being Made 

To Penetrate 

Someone 

Else

— Nonconsensual 

Sexual Actsc, Staff 

Sexual Misconductc

Nonconsensual 

Sexual Actsc, Staff 

Sexual Misconductc

Rapec Sodomyc, 

Sexual Assault 

With An 

Objectc

Orally Forcible 

Sodomy

— — Assault-Sexualc Being Made 

To Penetrate 

Someone 

Else

— Nonconsensual 

Sexual Acts, Staff

Sexual Misconductc

Nonconsensual 

Sexual Actsc, Staff 

Sexual Misconductc

Rapec Sodomyc

With a body 

part

— — — Assault-Sexualc — — Nonconsensual 

Sexual Actsc, Staff 

Sexual Misconductc

Nonconsensual 

Sexual Actsc, Staff 

Sexual Misconductc

Rapec Rapec

With an 

object

— — — Assault-Sexuald — — Nonconsensual 

Sexual Actsd, Staff 

Sexual Misconductd

Nonconsensual 

Sexual Actsc, Staff 

Sexual Misconductc

Rapec Sexual Assault 

With An 

Objectc

Table legend: 

DSAID: Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database, Department of Defense (DOD)

WGRA: Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty Members, Department of Defense

Clery Act data: Data reported to the Department of Education under the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act

NEISS-AIP: National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-All Injury Program, Department of Health and Human Services

NISVS: National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, Department of Health and Human Services

NCVS: National Crime Victimization Survey, Department of Justice 

NIS: National Inmate Survey, Department of Justice

SSV: Survey of Sexual Victimization, Department of Justice 
Appendix II: Descriptive Tables of Federal Data Collection Efforts

Page 44 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

UCR-SRS: Uniform Crime Reporting Program-Summary Reporting System, Department of Justice 

UCR-NIBRS: Uniform Crime Reporting Program-National Incident-Based Reporting System, Department of Justice

Source: GAO analysis of testimonial evidence and agency documentation. |  GAO-16-546

a

DSAID uses the following key terms to categorize sexual violence incidents that occurred prior to 2012 because these 

were the terms that were included in older versions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): “aggravated sexual 

assault,” “indecent assault,” and “wrongful sexual contact.” However, for the purposes of this review, we only included 

DSAID terms that are derived from the current version of the UCMJ and are used for incidents occurring on or after June 

28, 2012: “abusive sexual contact,” “aggravated sexual contact,” “attempts to commit offenses,” “forcible sodomy,” “rape,” 

and “sexual assault.” According to a DOD official, DOD's Military Criminal Investigation Organizations (MCIOs) confirm that 

the acts of sexual violence that are described in this table are included in the measurements of these terms per their 

inclusion in the UCMJ definitions. MCIOs review reports for legal sufficiency and confirm and document the factors in each 

case.

b

In 2014 DOD contracted with RAND to conduct an independent assessment of the WGRA and, if necessary, to update the 

WGRA methodology and to administer the 2014 WGRA. That year RAND created and administered two versions of the 

survey. One version of the survey employed DOD’s prior measure of “unwanted sexual contact” to estimate the past-year 

prevalence of sexual assault in DOD. The other survey version—called the RAND Military Workplace Study (RMWS)—

employed a new measure of sexual violence that was designed to align with the terminology used and corresponding 

categories of crimes specified in Articles 80 and 120 of the UCMJ. In its Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military for 

Fiscal Year 2015, DOD stated that the next WGRA will utilize the same methodology as developed by RAND. For the 

purposes of this report, we refer broadly to this data collection effort as the “WGRA” and use the measures of sexual 

violence developed by RAND—“penetrative sexual assault,” “nonpenetrative sexual assault,” and “attempted penetrative 

sexual assault”—for our analysis. 

c

Agency officials reported that the measurement of this sexual violence term includes this specific act of sexual violence, 

though reference to the act of sexual violence may be implicit rather than explicit. 

d

Agency officials reported that the measurement of this sexual violence term includes this specific act of sexual violence, 

though agency documentation neither implicitly nor explicitly supports this claim. 
Appendix II: Descriptive Tables of Federal Data Collection Efforts

Page 45 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

Table 7: Terminology Federal Data Collection Efforts Use to Characterize Specific Acts of Nonpenetrative or Noncontact Sexual Violence

Acts of Sexual 

Violence DSAIDa WGRAb Clery Act data NEISS-AIP NISVS NCVS NIS SSV UCR-SRS UCR-NIBRS

Nonpenetrative contact

Touching/

Fondling

Aggravated 

Sexual 

Contact, 

Abusive 

Sexual 

Contact

Nonpenetrative 

Sexual Assault 

Fondling AssaultSexualUnwanted 

Sexual Contact

Sexual 

Assault

Abusive Sexual 

Contacts Only

Abusive 

Sexual 

Contacts, Staff 

Sexual 

Misconduct 

Sex Offenses Fondling

Kissing Aggravated 

Sexual 

Contactc

, 

Abusive 

Sexual 

Contactc

Nonpenetrative

Sexual Assaultc — — Unwanted Sexual Contact

Sexual 

Assaultc — — Sex Offensesc Fondlingc

Noncompleted or noncontact sexual acts

Attempted 

Acts

Attempts To 

Commit 

Offenses

Attempted 

Penetrative 

Sexual Assault

Raped AssaultSexualRape, Being 

Made to 

Penetrate 

Someone Else

Rape, Sexual 

Assault

Abusive 

Sexual 

Contacts 

Onlyd

Nonconsensu

al Sexual 

Actsd

, Staff 

Sexual 

Misconduct

Rape, Sex 

Offenses

Rape, 

Sodomy, 

Sexual 

Assault With 

An Object, 

Fondling

Indecent 

Exposure, 

Invasion of 

Privacy, 

Voyeurism

— — — — Noncontact 

Unwanted 

Sexual 

Experiences

— — Staff Sexual 

Misconduct

Sex Offenses —

Non-Contact 

Sexual 

Violence

— — — — Noncontact 

Unwanted 

Sexual 

Experiences

— — Staff Sexual 

Harassment

— —

Table legend: 

DSAID: Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database, Department of Defense (DOD)
Appendix II: Descriptive Tables of Federal Data Collection Efforts

Page 46 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

WGRA: Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty Members, Department of Defense

Clery Act data: Data reported to the Department of Education under the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act

NEISS-AIP: National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-All Injury Program, Department of Health and Human Services

NISVS: National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, Department of Health and Human Services

NCVS: National Crime Victimization Survey, Department of Justice 

NIS: National Inmate Survey, Department of Justice

SSV: Survey of Sexual Victimization, Department of Justice 

UCR-SRS: Uniform Crime Reporting Program-Summary Reporting System, Department of Justice 

UCR-NIBRS: Uniform Crime Reporting Program-National Incident-Based Reporting System, Department of Justice

Source: GAO analysis of testimonial evidence and agency documentation. |  GAO-16-546

a

DSAID uses the following key terms to categorize sexual violence incidents that occurred prior to 2012 because these 

were the terms that were included in older versions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): “aggravated sexual 

assault,” “indecent assault,” and “wrongful sexual contact.” However, for the purposes of this review, we only included 

DSAID terms that are derived from the current version of the UCMJ and are used for incidents occurring on or after June 

28, 2012: “abusive sexual contact,” “aggravated sexual contact,” “attempts to commit offenses,” “forcible sodomy,” “rape,” 

and “sexual assault.” According to a DOD official, DOD's Military Criminal Investigation Organizations (MCIOs) confirm that 

the acts of sexual violence that are described in this table are included in the measurements of these terms per their 

inclusion in the UCMJ definitions. MCIOs review reports for legal sufficiency and confirm and document the factors in each 

case.

b

In 2014 DOD contracted with RAND to conduct an independent assessment of the WGRA and, if necessary, to update the 

WGRA methodology and to administer the 2014 WGRA. That year RAND created and administered two versions of the 

survey. One version of the survey employed DOD’s prior measure of “unwanted sexual contact” to estimate the past-year 

prevalence of sexual assault in DOD. The other survey version—called the RAND Military Workplace Study (RMWS)—

employed a new measure of sexual violence that was designed to align with the terminology used and corresponding 

categories of crimes specified in Articles 80 and 120 of the UCMJ. In its Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military for 

Fiscal Year 2015, DOD stated that the next WGRA will utilize the same methodology as developed by RAND. For the 

purposes of this report, we refer broadly to this data collection effort as the “WGRA” and use the measures of sexual 

violence developed by RAND—“penetrative sexual assault,” “nonpenetrative sexual assault,” and “attempted penetrative 

sexual assault”—for our analysis. 

c

Agency officials reported that the measurement of this sexual violence term includes this specific act of sexual violence, 

though reference to the act of sexual violence may be implicit rather than explicit. 

d

Agency officials reported that the measurement of this sexual violence term includes this specific act of sexual violence, 

though agency documentation neither implicitly nor explicitly supports this claim. 
Appendix II: Descriptive Tables of Federal Data Collection Efforts

Page 47 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

Table 8: Terminology Federal Data Collection Efforts Use to Characterize Sexual Violence When Contextual Factors of Consent Are Involved

Contextual 

Factors DSAIDa WGRAb Clery Act data NEISS-AIP NISVS NCVS NIS SSV UCR-SRS UCR-NIBRS

Consent

Lack of Consent/ 

Against Victim's 

Will 

Rape, Sexual 

Assault, 

Aggravated 

Sexual Contact, 

Abusive Sexual 

Contact, 

Forcible 

Sodomy

Penetrative 

Sexual 

Assault, 

Nonpenetrative 

Sexual Assault 

Rape, 

Fondling

AssaultSexualRape, Sexual 

Coercion, Being 

Made to 

Penetrate 

Someone Else, 

Unwanted Sexual 

Contact, Noncontact 

Unwanted Sexual 

Experiences

Rape, 

Sexual 

Assault

Nonconsensual

Sexual Acts, 

Abusive Sexual 

Contacts Only, 

Unwilling Activity, 

Staff Sexual 

Misconduct

Nonconsensual 

Sexual Acts, 

Abusive Sexual 

Contacts Only, 

Staff Sexual 

Misconduct

Rape Rape, 

Sodomy, 

Sexual 

Assault With 

An Object, 

Fondling

Victim Unable to 

Consent (or 

Refuse) 

(including 

asleep/

unconscious or 

illness/disability)

Rape, Sexual 

Assault, 

Aggravated 

Sexual Contact, 

Abusive Sexual 

Contact

Penetrative 

Sexual 

Assault, 

Nonpenetrative 

Sexual Assault 

Raped, 

Fondling

AssaultSexualRape, Being 

Made to 

Penetrate 

Someone Else

Raped, 

Sexual 

Assaultd

— Nonconsensual 

Sexual Acts, 

Abusive Sexual 

Contacts

Rape Rape, 

Sodomy, 

Sexual 

Assault With 

An Object, 

Fondling

Victim 

Alcohol/Drug 

Facilitated

Rape, Sexual 

Assault, 

Aggravated 

Sexual Contact, 

Abusive Sexual 

Contact

Penetrative 

Sexual 

Assault, 

Nonpenetrative 

Sexual Assault 

Raped, 

Fondlingc AssaultSexual

Rape, Being 

Made to 

Penetrate 

Someone Else

Raped, 

Sexual 

Assaultd

Nonconsensual 

Sexual Acts, 

Staff Sexual 

Misconduct

Nonconsensual 

Sexual Acts, 

Abusive Sexual 

Contacts

Rape Rapec, 

Sodomyc, 

Sexual 

Assault With 

An Objectc

, 

Fondlingc

Willing Sexual 

Activity

— — — — — — Willing Activity Staff Sexual 

Misconduct

— —

Table legend: 

DSAID: Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database, Department of Defense (DOD)

WGRA: Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty Members, Department of Defense

Clery Act data: Data reported to the Department of Education under the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act

NEISS-AIP: National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-All Injury Program, Department of Health and Human Services
Appendix II: Descriptive Tables of Federal Data Collection Efforts

Page 48 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

NISVS: National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, Department of Health and Human Services

NCVS: National Crime Victimization Survey, Department of Justice 

NIS: National Inmate Survey, Department of Justice

SSV: Survey of Sexual Victimization, Department of Justice 

UCR-SRS: Uniform Crime Reporting Program-Summary Reporting System, Department of Justice 

UCR-NIBRS: Uniform Crime Reporting Program-National Incident-Based Reporting System, Department of Justice

Source: GAO analysis of testimonial evidence and agency documentation. |  GAO-16-546

a

DSAID uses the following key terms to categorize sexual violence incidents that occurred prior to 2012 because these 

were the terms that were included in older versions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): “aggravated sexual 

assault,” “indecent assault,” and “wrongful sexual contact.” However, for the purposes of this review, we only included 

DSAID terms that are derived from the current version of the UCMJ and are used for incidents occurring on or after June 

28, 2012: “abusive sexual contact,” “aggravated sexual contact,” “attempts to commit offenses,” “forcible sodomy,” “rape,” 

and “sexual assault.” According to a DOD official, DOD's Military Criminal Investigation Organizations (MCIOs) confirm that 

the contextual factors that are described in this table are included in the measurements of these terms per their inclusion in 

the UCMJ definitions. MCIOs review reports for legal sufficiency and confirm and document the factors in each case.

b

In 2014 DOD contracted with RAND to conduct an independent assessment of the WGRA and, if necessary, to update the 

WGRA methodology and to administer the 2014 WGRA. That year RAND created and administered two versions of the 

survey. One version of the survey employed DOD’s prior measure of “unwanted sexual contact” to estimate the past-year 

prevalence of sexual assault in DOD. The other survey version—called the RAND Military Workplace Study (RMWS)—

employed a new measure of sexual violence that was designed to align with the terminology used and corresponding 

categories of crimes specified in Articles 80 and 120 of the UCMJ. In its Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military for 

Fiscal Year 2015, DOD stated that the next WGRA will utilize the same methodology as developed by RAND. For the 

purposes of this report, we refer broadly to this data collection effort as the “WGRA” and use the measures of sexual 

violence developed by RAND—“penetrative sexual assault,” “nonpenetrative sexual assault,” and “attempted penetrative 

sexual assault”—for our analysis. 

c

Agency officials reported that the measurement of this sexual violence term includes this specific contextual factor, though 

reference to the contextual factor may be implicit rather than explicit. 

d

Agency officials reported that the measurement of this sexual violence term includes this specific contextual factor, though 

agency documentation neither implicitly nor explicitly supports this claim. 
Appendix II: Descriptive Tables of Federal Data Collection Efforts

Page 49 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

Table 9: Terminology Federal Data Collection Efforts Use to Characterize Sexual Violence When Contextual Factors of Force Are Involved

Contextual 

Factors DSAIDa WGRAb Clery Act data NEISS-AIP NISVS NCVS NIS SSV UCR-SRS UCR-NIBRS

Force

Physical 

Force

Rape, Sexual 

Assault, 

Aggravated Sexual 

Contact, Abusive 

Sexual Contact, 

Forcible Sodomy

Penetrative 

Sexual 

Assault, 

Nonpenetrative 

Sexual Assault 

— AssaultSexualRape, Being 

Made to 

Penetrate

Someone Else

Rape, Sexual 

Assault

Nonconsensual 

Sexual Acts, Staff 

Sexual 

Misconduct

Nonconsensual 

Sexual Acts, 

Abusive Sexual 

Contacts, Staff 

Sexual 

Misconduct

— Rapec, 

Sodomyc, 

Sexual Assault 

With An 

Objectc

, 

Fondlingc

Threat of 

Physical 

Force

Rape, Sexual 

Assault, 

Aggravated Sexual 

Contact, Abusive 

Sexual Contact

Penetrative 

Sexual 

Assault, 

Nonpenetrative 

Sexual Assault 

— AssaultSexualRape, Being 

Made to 

Penetrate 

Someone Else

Rape, Sexual 

Assault

Nonconsensual 

Sexual Acts, Staff 

Sexual 

Misconduct

Nonconsensual 

Sexual Acts, 

Abusive Sexual 

Contacts

— —

Coercion Rape, Sexual 

Assault, 

Aggravated Sexual 

Contact, Abusive 

Sexual Contact

Penetrative 

Sexual 

Assault, 

Nonpenetrative 

Sexual Assault 

— AssaultSexualSexual 

Coercion

Rape Nonconsensual 

Sexual Acts, Staff 

Sexual 

Misconduct

Nonconsensual 

Sexual Acts, 

Abusive Sexual 

Contacts

— —

Table legend: 

DSAID: Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database, Department of Defense

WGRA: Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty Members, Department of Defense

Clery Act data: Data reported to the Department of Education under the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act

NEISS-AIP: National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-All Injury Program, Department of Health and Human Services

NISVS: National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, Department of Health and Human Services

NCVS: National Crime Victimization Survey, Department of Justice 

NIS: National Inmate Survey, Department of Justice

SSV: Survey of Sexual Victimization, Department of Justice 

UCR-SRS: Uniform Crime Reporting Program-Summary Reporting System, Department of Justice 

UCR-NIBRS: Uniform Crime Reporting Program-National Incident-Based Reporting System, Department of Justice

Source: GAO analysis of testimonial evidence and agency documentation. |  GAO-16-546
Appendix II: Descriptive Tables of Federal Data Collection Efforts

Page 50 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

a

DSAID uses the following key terms to categorize sexual violence incidents that occurred prior to 2012 because these 

were the terms that were included in older versions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): “aggravated sexual 

assault,” “indecent assault,” and “wrongful sexual contact.” However, for the purposes of this review, we only included 

DSAID terms that are derived from the current version of the UCMJ and are used for incidents occurring on or after June 

28, 2012: “abusive sexual contact,” “aggravated sexual contact,” “attempts to commit offenses,” “forcible sodomy,” “rape,” 

and “sexual assault.” According to a DOD official, DOD's Military Criminal Investigation Organizations (MCIOs) confirm that 

the contextual factors that are described in this table are included in the measurements of these terms per their inclusion in 

the UCMJ definitions. MCIOs review reports for legal sufficiency and confirm and document the factors in each case.

b

In 2014 DOD contracted with RAND to conduct an independent assessment of the WGRA and, if necessary, to update the 

WGRA methodology and to administer the 2014 WGRA. That year RAND created and administered two versions of the 

survey. One version of the survey employed DOD’s prior measure of “unwanted sexual contact” to estimate the past-year 

prevalence of sexual assault in DOD. The other survey version—called the RAND Military Workplace Study (RMWS)—

employed a new measure of sexual violence that was designed to align with the terminology used and corresponding 

categories of crimes specified in Articles 80 and 120 of the UCMJ. In its Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military for 

Fiscal Year 2015, DOD stated that the next WGRA will utilize the same methodology as developed by RAND. For the 

purposes of this report, we refer broadly to this data collection effort as the “WGRA” and use the measures of sexual 

violence developed by RAND—“penetrative sexual assault,” “nonpenetrative sexual assault,” and “attempted penetrative 

sexual assault”—for our analysis. 

c

Agency officials reported that the measurement of this sexual violence term includes this specific contextual factor, though 

reference to the contextual factor may be implicit rather than explicit. 
Appendix II: Descriptive Tables of Federal Data Collection Efforts

Page 51 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

Table 10: Terminology Federal Data Collection Efforts Use to Characterize Sexual Violence When Other Contextual Factors Are Involved

Contextual 

Factors DSAIDa WGRAb Clery Act data

NEISSAIP NISVS NCVS NIS SSVUCRSRS UCR-NIBRS

Other contextual factors

Influence/

Authority

c — — AssaultSexual

Sexual 

Coercion

— Nonconsensual Sexual 

Acts, Abusive Sexual 

Contact Only, Staff 

Sexual Misconduct

Staff Sexual 

Misconduct, Staff 

Sexual Harassment

— —

Fraudulent 

Representation/

Professional 

Purpose 

Sexual Assault, 

Abusive Sexual 

Contact

Penetrative 

Sexual 

Assault, 

Nonpenetrative 

Sexual Assault 

— — — — — — — Rape, 

Sodomy, 

Sexual 

Assault With 

An Object, 

Fondling

Fear Rape, Sexual 

Assault, 

Aggravated Sexual 

Contact, Abusive 

Sexual Contact

Penetrative 

Sexual 

Assault, 

Nonpenetrative 

Sexual Assault 

— — — — — — — —

Abusive/

Humiliating/

Exploitative

Rape, Sexual 

Assault, 

Aggravated Sexual 

Contact, Abusive 

Sexual Contact

Penetrative 

Sexual 

Assault, 

Nonpenetrative 

Sexual Assault 

— AssaultSexualSexual 

Coercion

— — Abusive Sexual 

Contacts, Staff Sexual 

Misconduct

— —

For Sexual 

Gratification

Rape, Sexual 

Assault, 

Aggravated Sexual 

Contact, Abusive 

Sexual Contact

Penetrative 

Sexual 

Assault, 

Nonpenetrative 

Sexual Assault 

Fondling — — — — Staff Sexual 

Misconduct

— Fondling

Non-Threat 

Pressure

— — — AssaultSexualSexual 

Coercion

— Nonconsensual Sexual 

Acts, Staff Sexual 

Misconduct

Nonconsensual 

Sexual Acts, Abusive 

Sexual Contacts

— —

Table legend: 

DSAID: Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database, Department of Defense (DOD)
Appendix II: Descriptive Tables of Federal Data Collection Efforts

Page 52 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

WGRA: Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty Members, Department of Defense

Clery Act data: Data reported to the Department of Education under the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act

NEISS-AIP: National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-All Injury Program, Department of Health and Human Services

NISVS: National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, Department of Health and Human Services

NCVS: National Crime Victimization Survey, Department of Justice 

NIS: National Inmate Survey, Department of Justice

SSV: Survey of Sexual Victimization, Department of Justice 

UCR-SRS: Uniform Crime Reporting Program-Summary Reporting System, Department of Justice 

UCR-NIBRS: Uniform Crime Reporting Program-National Incident-Based Reporting System, Department of Justice

Source: GAO analysis of testimonial evidence and agency documentation. |  GAO-16-546

a

DSAID uses the following key terms to categorize sexual violence incidents that occurred prior to 2012 because these 

were the terms that were included in older versions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): “aggravated sexual 

assault,” “indecent assault,” and “wrongful sexual contact.” However, for the purposes of this review, we only included 

DSAID terms that are derived from the current version of the UCMJ and are used for incidents occurring on or after June 

28, 2012: “abusive sexual contact,” “aggravated sexual contact,” “attempts to commit offenses,” “forcible sodomy,” “rape,” 

and “sexual assault.” According to a DOD official, DOD's Military Criminal Investigation Organizations (MCIOs) confirm that 

the contextual factors that are described in this table are included in the measurements of these terms per their inclusion in 

the UCMJ definitions. MCIOs review reports for legal sufficiency and confirm and document the factors in each case.

b

In 2014 DOD contracted with RAND to conduct an independent assessment of the WGRA and, if necessary, to update the 

WGRA methodology and to administer the 2014 WGRA. That year RAND created and administered two versions of the 

survey. One version of the survey employed DOD’s prior measure of “unwanted sexual contact” to estimate the past-year 

prevalence of sexual assault in DOD. The other survey version—called the RAND Military Workplace Study (RMWS)—

employed a new measure of sexual violence that was designed to align with the terminology used and corresponding 

categories of crimes specified in Articles 80 and 120 of the UCMJ. In its Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military for 

Fiscal Year 2015, DOD stated that the next WGRA will utilize the same methodology as developed by RAND. For the 

purposes of this report, we refer broadly to this data collection effort as the “WGRA” and use the measures of sexual 

violence developed by RAND—“penetrative sexual assault,” “nonpenetrative sexual assault,” and “attempted penetrative 

sexual assault”—for our analysis. 

c

According to DOD officials, “influence/authority” is not currently included in DSAID’s measurements of sexual violence, but 

DOD has a legislative proposal to include this contextual factor in the Uniform Code of Military Justice’s definitions of 

sexual violence. If that proposal is passed, the contextual factor of “influence/authority” would be implied in the 

measurement of sexual violence in DSAID. 
Appendix II: Descriptive Tables of Federal Data 

Collection Efforts

Page 53 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

Tables 11 through 13 provide information on the contexts, data sources, 

and time frames used by federal data collection efforts identified by GAO.

Table 11: Criminal Justice and Public Health Contexts for Federal Data Collection 

Efforts

Context

Data Collection Effort Criminal Justice Public Health

DSAID X —

WGRA X X

Clery Act data X —

NEISS-AIPa — X

NISVS — X

NCVS X —

NIS X —

SSV X —

UCR-SRS X —

UCR-NIBRS X —

Table legend: 

DSAID: Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database, Department of Defense

WGRA: Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty Members, Department of Defense

Clery Act data: Data reported to the Department of Education under the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of 

Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act

NEISS-AIP: National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-All Injury Program, Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS)

NISVS: National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, Department of Health and Human 

Services

NCVS: National Crime Victimization Survey, Department of Justice 

NIS: National Inmate Survey, Department of Justice

SSV: Survey of Sexual Victimization, Department of Justice 

UCR-SRS: Uniform Crime Reporting Program-Summary Reporting System, Department of Justice 

UCR-NIBRS: Uniform Crime Reporting Program-National Incident-Based Reporting System, 

Department of Justice

Source: GAO analysis of agency documentation. |  GAO-16-546

a

The Consumer Product Safety Commission collects NEISS-AIP data under an interagency 

agreement with HHS’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
Appendix II: Descriptive Tables of Federal Data 

Collection Efforts

Page 54 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

Table 12: Data Sources for Federal Data Collection Efforts

How Federal Agency Receives Data

Data Collection Effort

Information Reported 

to Authorities

Information Obtained 

from Victim Surveys

DSAID X —

WGRA — X

Clery Act data X —

NEISS-AIPa X —

NISVS — X

NCVS — X

NIS — X

SSV X —

UCR-SRS X —

UCR-NIBRS X —

Table legend: 

DSAID: Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database, Department of Defense

WGRA: Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty Members, Department of Defense

Clery Act data: Data reported to the Department of Education under the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of 

Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act

NEISS-AIP: National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-All Injury Program, Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS)

NISVS: National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, Department of Health and Human 

Services

NCVS: National Crime Victimization Survey, Department of Justice 

NIS: National Inmate Survey, Department of Justice

SSV: Survey of Sexual Victimization, Department of Justice 

UCR-SRS: Uniform Crime Reporting Program-Summary Reporting System, Department of Justice 

UCR-NIBRS: Uniform Crime Reporting Program-National-Incident Based Reporting System, 

Department of Justice

Source: GAO analysis of agency documentation. |  GAO-16-546

a

The Consumer Product Safety Commission collects NEISS-AIP data under an interagency 

agreement with HHS’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
Appendix II: Descriptive Tables of Federal Data 

Collection Efforts

Page 55 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

Table 13: Time Frames Used in Federal Data Collection Efforts Concerning Sexual Violence

Data Collection Effort

Period of time for which 

sexual violence took 

place

How often data are 

collected by data 

collector 

How often data are 

reported by federal 

agency

Period of time covered 

in the report

DSAID point in timea ongoing annually fiscal yearb

WGRA previous 12 months, since 

joining the military, prior to 

joining the military, lifetime

biennially biennially covers previous year

Clery Act data point in time annual submissions by 

institutions of higher 

education to Education

annually Includes data for 3 most 

recent calendar years 

(e.g., 2011 includes FY 

08,09, and 10)

NEISS-AIP point in time daily annually covers the previous 

calendar year

NISVS previous 12 months & 

lifetime

annually (except 2014)c periodically (last report 

was in 2014, with 2011 

data)

covers the previous 

calendar year

NCVS previous 6 months every 6 months from 

participating households

annually covers victimizations 

reported during the same 

calendar year

NIS previous 12 months, or 

admission to current 

facility

periodically periodically periodically

SSV annually annually annually covers the previous 

calendar year

UCR-SRS point in time ongoing by police; monthly 

submissions by authorities

to FBI

annually covers the previous 

calendar year

UCR-NIBRS point in time ongoing by police; monthly 

submissions by authorities 

to FBI

annually covers the previous

calendar year

Table legend: 

DSAID: Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database, Department of Defense (DOD)

WGRA: Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty Members, Department of Defense

Clery Act data: Data reported to the Department of Education under the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime 

Statistics Act

NEISS-AIP: National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-All Injury Program, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

NISVS: National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, Department of Health and Human Services

NCVS: National Crime Victimization Survey, Department of Justice 

NIS: National Inmate Survey, Department of Justice

SSV: Survey of Sexual Victimization, Department of Justice 

UCR-SRS: Uniform Crime Reporting Program-Summary Reporting System, Department of Justice 

UCR-NIBRS: Uniform Crime Reporting Program-National Incident-Based Reporting System, Department of Justice

Source: GAO analysis of agency documentation. |  GAO-16-546

a

DSAID contains reports of sexual violence that occurred prior to the victim’s military service.
Appendix II: Descriptive Tables of Federal Data 

Collection Efforts

Page 56 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

b

Data from DSAID is included in DOD’s annual report on sexual assault in the military.

c

According to HHS’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials, they plan to collect NISVS 

data biennially starting in 2016.
Appendix III: List of Relevant Articles and 

Reports

Page 57 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

National Academy of Sciences, Committee on National Statistics, 

Estimating the Incidence of Rape and Sexual Assault. Washington, DC, 

US: National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2014.

[Unknown]. “Overcoming Challenges Related to Data Collection and 

Measurement.” Forced Migration Review, vol. 27, no. Jan (2007): 28-29,.

Addington, L. and C. Rennison. “Rape Co-Occurrence: Do Additional 

Crimes Affect Victim Reporting and Police Clearance of Rape?” Journal 

of Quantitative Criminology, vol. 24, no. 2 (2008): 205-226.

Bachman, R. “Measuring Rape and Sexual Assault: Successive 

Approximations to Consensus.” A paper commissioned for the National 

Academy of Sciences, June 6, 2012.

Campbell, R, A. E. Adams, and D. Patterson. “Methodological Challenges 

of Collecting Evaluation Data from Traumatized Clients/Consumers - A 

Comparison of Three Methods.” American Journal of Evaluation, vol. 29, 

no. 3 (2008): 369-381.

Chen, Y. and S. E. Ullman. “Women’s Reporting of Sexual and Physical 

Assaults to Police in the National Violence Against Women Survey.”

Violence Against Women, vol. 16, no. 3 (2010): 262-79.

Clay-Warner, J. and J. McMahon-Howard. “Rape Reporting: ‘Classic 

Rape’ and the Behavior of Law.” Violence and Victims, vol. 24, no. 6 

(2009): 723-743.

Cohen, M.A. and A. R. Piquero. “New Evidence on the Monetary Value of 

Saving a High Risk Youth,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, vol. 25 

(2008).

Cohn, A. M., H. M. Zinzow, H. S. Resnick, and D. G. Kilpatrick. 

“Correlates of Reasons for Not Reporting Rape to Police: Results from a 

National Telephone Household Probability Sample of Women with 

Forcible Or Drug-Or-Alcohol Facilitated/Incapacitated Rape.” Journal of 

Interpersonal Violence, vol. 28, no. 3 (2013): 455-473.

Cook, S. L., C. A. Gidycz, M. P. Koss, and M. Murphy. “Emerging Issues 

in the Measurement of Rape Victimization.” Violence Against Women, vol. 

17, no. 2 (2011): 201-18.

Appendix III: List of Relevant Articles and 

Reports
Appendix III: List of Relevant Articles and 

Reports

Page 58 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

Delisi, M., A. Koloski, M. Sweeny, E. Hachmeister, M. Moore, A. Drury. 

“Murder by Numbers: Monetary Costs Imposed by a Sample of Homicide 

Offenders,” The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, vol.21, no. 

4 (2010).

Fang, H., M. T. French, and K. E. McCollister. “The Cost of Crime to 

Society: New Crime-Specific Estimates for Policy and Program 

Evaluation.” Drug Alcohol Dependence, vol. 108, no.1-2 (2010).

Du Mont, J., K. Miller, and T.L. Myhr, “The Role of “Real Rape” and “Real 

Victim” Stereotypes in the Police Reporting Practices of Sexually 

Assaulted Women.” Violence Against Women, vol. 9, no. 466 (2003).

Fisher, B. S. “The Effects of Survey Question Wording on Rape 

Estimates: Evidence from a Quasi-Experimental Design.” Violence 

Against Women, vol. 15, no. 2 (2009): 133-47.

Gardella, J. H., C. A. Nichols-Hadeed, J. M. Mastrocinque, J. T. Stone, C. 

A. Coates, C. J. Sly, and C. Cerulli. “Beyond Clery Act Statistics: A Closer 

Look at College Victimization Based on Self-Report Data.” Journal of 

Interpersonal Violence, vol. 30, no. 4 (2015).

Lynch, J. P. “Clarifying Divergent Estimates of Rape from Two National

Surveys.” The Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 60, no. 3 (1996) 410-430.

Lynch, J. P. and J. L. Lauritsen. “Modernizing the Nation’s Crime 

Statistics.” The Criminologist, vol. 40, no. 2 (2015).

Miller, T.R., M. A. Cohen, and B. Wiersema, “Victim Costs and 

Consequences: A New Look.” A final summary report presented to the 

National Institute of Justice, January 1996.

Murphy, S. B., K. M. Edwards, S. Bennett, S. J. Bibeau, and J. Sichelstiel. 

“Police Reporting Practices for Sexual Assault Cases in which ‘the Victim 

does Not Wish to Pursue Charges’.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 

vol. 29, no. 1 (2014): 144-156.

Palermo, T. and A. Peterman. “Undercounting, Overcounting and the 

Longevity of Flawed Estimates: Statistics on Sexual Violence in Conflict.”

Bulletin of the World Health Organization, vol. 89, no. 12 (2011): 924-925.

Saltzman, L. E., K. C. Basile, R. R. Mahendra, M. Steenkamp, E. Ingram, 

and R. Ikeda. “National Estimates of Sexual Violence Treated in 
Appendix III: List of Relevant Articles and 

Reports

Page 59 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

Emergency Departments.” Annals of Emergency Medicine, vol. 49, no. 2 

(2007): 210-7.

Simon, T. R., M. Kresnow, and R. M. Bossarte. “Self-Reports of Violent 

Victimization among U.S. Adults.” Violence and Victims, vol. 23, no. 6 

(2008): 711-726.

Violence Against Women: A Statistical Overview, Challenges and Gaps in 

Data Collection and Methodology and Approaches for Overcoming Them.

A report of the expert group meeting organized by the UN Division for the 

Advancement of Women in collaboration with the Economic Commission 

for Europe and World Health Organization, April 11-14, 2005.

Weiss, K. G. “‘You Just Don’t Report that Kind of Stuff’: Investigating 

Teens’ Ambivalence Toward Peer-Perpetrated, Unwanted Sexual 

Incidents.” Violence and Victims, vol. 28, no. 2 (2013): 288-302.

Wolitzky-Taylor, K. B., H. S. Resnick, J. L. McCauley, A. B. Amstadter, D. 

G. Kilpatrick, and K. J. Ruggiero. “Is Reporting of Rape on the Rise? A 

Comparison of Women with Reported Versus Unreported Rape 

Experiences in the National Women’s Study-Replication.” Journal of 

Interpersonal Violence, vol. 26, no. 4 (2011): 807-832.
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Education

Page 60 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of Education
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Education

Page 61 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Education

Page 62 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Health and Human Services

Page 63 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Health and Human Services
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Health and Human Services

Page 64 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department 

of Justice

Page 65 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

Appendix VI: Comments from the 

Department of Justice
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department 

of Justice

Page 66 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department 

of Justice

Page 67 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data
Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 68 GAO-16-546 Sexual Violence Data

Gretta L. Goodwin, (202) 512-8777, goodwing@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, individuals making key 

contributions to this report were Kristy Love, Assistant Director; Meghan 

Squires, Analyst-in-Charge; Tim Young; Kirsten Leikem; Janelle House; 

David Alexander; and David Plocher. Diana Maurer, Tom Jessor, Janet 

Temko-Blinder, Tovah Rom and Eric Hauswirth also provided valuable 

assistance.

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(441279)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. 

Listen to our Podcasts and read The Watchblog.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.