Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, Dating Violence, and Stalking: National Data Collection Efforts Underway to Address Some Information Gaps
Published: 2011-07-13T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: This testimony discusses issues related to the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). In hearings conducted from 1990 through 1994, Congress noted that violence against women was a problem of national scope and that the majority of crimes associated with domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking were perpetrated against women. These hearings culminated in the enactment of VAWA in 1994 to address these issues on a national level. VAWA established grant programs within the Departments of Justice (DOJ) and Health and Human Services (HHS) for state, local, and Indian tribal governments and communities. These grants have various purposes, such as providing funding for direct services including emergency shelter, counseling, and legal services for victims of domestic violence, sexual assaults and stalking across all segments of the population. Recipients of funds from these grant programs include, among others, state agencies, tribes, shelters, rape crisis centers, organizations that provide legal services, and hotlines. In 2000, during the reauthorization of VAWA, language was added to the law to provide greater emphasis on dating violence. The 2006 reauthorization of VAWA expanded existing grant programs and added new programs addressing, among other things, young victims. In fiscal year 2011, Congress appropriated approximately $418 million for violence against women programs administered by DOJ and made an additional $133 million available for programs administered by HHS. The 2006 reauthorization of VAWA required us to study and report on data indicating the prevalence of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking among men, women, youth, and children, as well as services available to the victims. Such data could be used to inform decisions regarding investments in grant programs. In response, we issued two reports in November 2006 and July 2007 on these issues, respectively. This testimony is based on these reports and selected updates we conducted in July 2011 related to actions DOJ and HHS have taken since our prior reviews to improve the quality of recipient data. This testimony, as requested, highlights findings from those reports and discusses the extent to which (1) national data collection efforts report on the prevalence of men, women, youth, and children who are victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking, and (2) the federal government has collected data to track the types of services provided to these categories of victims and any challenges federal departments report that they and their grant recipients face in collecting and reporting demographic characteristics of victims receiving such services by type of service.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: In November 2006, we reported that since 2001, the amount of national research that has been conducted on the prevalence of domestic violence and sexual assault had been limited, and less research had been conducted on dating violence and stalking. At that time, no single, comprehensive effort existed that provided nationwide statistics on the prevalence of these four categories of crime among men, women, youth, and children. Rather, various national efforts addressed certain subsets of these crime categories among some segments of the population and were not intended to provide comprehensive estimates. For example, HHS's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Violent Death Reporting System, which collects incident-based data from multiple sources, such as coroner/medical examiner reports, gathered information on violent deaths resulting from domestic violence and sexual assaults, among other crimes. However, it did not gather information on deaths resulting from dating violence or stalking incidents. We reported in July 2007 that recipients of 11 grant programs we reviewed collected and reported data to the respective agencies on the types of services they provide, such as counseling; the total number of victims served; and in some cases, demographic information, such as the age of victims; however, data were not available on the extent to which men, women, youth, and children receive each type of service for all services. This situation occurred primarily because the statutes governing the 11 grant programs do not require the collection of demographic data by type of service, although they do require reports on program effectiveness, including number of persons served and number of persons seeking services who could not be served. Nevertheless, VAWA authorizes that a range of services can be provided to victims, and we determined that services were generally provided to men, women, youth, and children. The agencies administering these 11 grant programs--HHS and DOJ--collect some demographic data for certain services, such as emergency shelter under the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act and supervised visitation and exchange under VAWA. The quantity of information collected and reported varied greatly for the 11 programs and was extensive for some, such as those administered by DOJ's Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) under VAWA. The federal agencies use this information to help inform Congress about the known results and effectiveness of the grant programs. However, even if demographic data were available by type of service for all services, such data might not be uniform and reliable because, among other factors, (1) the authorizing statutes for these programs have different purposes and (2) recipients of grants administered by HHS and DOJ use varying data collection practices.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to discuss issues related to the  reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). In hearings  conducted from 1990 through 1994, Congress noted that violence against  women was a problem of national scope and that the majority of crimes  associated with domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking were  perpetrated against women. These hearings culminated in the enactment  of VAWA in 1994 to address these issues on a national level. VAWA  established grant programs within the Departments of Justice (DOJ) and  Health and Human Services (HHS) for state, local, and Indian tribal  governments and communities. These grants have various purposes,  such as providing funding for direct services including emergency shelter,  counseling, and legal services for victims of domestic violence, sexual  assaults and stalking across all segments of the population. Recipients of  funds from these grant programs include, among others, state agencies,  tribes, shelters, rape crisis centers, organizations that provide legal  services, and hotlines. In 2000, during the reauthorization of VAWA,  language was added to the law to provide greater emphasis on dating  violence. The 2006 reauthorization of VAWA expanded existing grant  programs and added new programs addressing, among other things,  young victims. In fiscal year 2011, Congress appropriated approximately  $418 million for violence against women programs administered by DOJ  and made an additional $133 million available for programs administered  by HHS.
The 2006 reauthorization of VAWA required us to study and report on  data indicating the prevalence of domestic violence, dating violence,  sexual assault, and stalking among men, women, youth, and children, as  well as services available to the victims. Such data could be used to  inform decisions regarding investments in grant programs. In response,  we issued two reports in November 2006 and July 2007 on these issues,  respectively. My statement today is based on these reports and selected  updates we conducted in July 2011 related to actions DOJ and HHS have  taken since our prior reviews to improve the quality of recipient data. My  statement, as requested, highlights findings from those reports and  discusses the extent to which (1) national data collection efforts report on  the prevalence of men, women, youth, and children who are victims of  domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking, and (2)  the federal government has collected data to track the types of services  provided to these categories of victims and any challenges federal  departments report that they and their grant recipients face in collecting  and reporting demographic characteristics of victims receiving such  services by type of service.
For the reports, we conducted a literature search focusing on reporting  systems and surveys from which results were issued or reported since  2001 to help identify national data collection efforts related to domestic  violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking. We also obtained  information from and interviewed officials at DOJ and HHS. Information  obtained included reports the agencies’ grant recipients are required to  complete on the use of their grant funds, among other things. In addition,  we met with 20 grant recipients that provided services, such as  emergency shelter, legal advocacy, and rape crisis counseling, to victims  within their communities as well as 3 grant recipients that provided  services to victims throughout the United States. More detailed  information on the scope and methodology from our previous work  including our selection methodology for the 23 grant recipients, can be  found within each specific report. For the updates, we met with DOJ and  HHS officials and reviewed documents such as updated forms for grant  recipients to report information on activities conducted. We conducted this  work in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards.
In summary, as we reported in November 2006, the amount of national  research that has been conducted on the prevalence of domestic violence  and sexual assault among men, women, youth, and children was limited,  and less research had been conducted on the prevalence of dating  violence and stalking. However, efforts underway by HHS and DOJ help  address some of these information gaps. Data collected for the 11 grant  programs we reviewed did not contain information on the extent to which  men, women, youth, and children receive services by type of service for  all services. Moreover, challenges exist for collecting such data, such as  concerns about victims’ confidentiality and safety, resource constraints,  burdening recipients, and technological issues.
subsections: section_title: National Data Collection Efforts on the Prevalence of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Provided Limited Data, but Efforts Underway Help Address Some Information Gaps
paragraphs: In November 2006, we reported that since 2001, the amount of national  research that has been conducted on the prevalence of domestic violence  and sexual assault had been limited, and less research had been  conducted on dating violence and stalking. At that time, no single,  comprehensive effort existed that provided nationwide statistics on the  prevalence of these four categories of crime among men, women, youth,  and children. Rather, various national efforts addressed certain subsets of  these crime categories among some segments of the population and  were not intended to provide comprehensive estimates. For example,  HHS’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National  Violent Death Reporting System, which collects incident-based data from  multiple sources, such as coroner/medical examiner reports, gathered  information on violent deaths resulting from domestic violence and sexual  assaults, among other crimes. However, it did not gather information on  deaths resulting from dating violence or stalking incidents.
In our November 2006 report, we noted that designing a single,  comprehensive data collection effort to address these four categories of  crime among all segments of the population independent of existing  efforts would be costly, given the resources required to collect such data.
Furthermore, it would be inefficient to duplicate some existing efforts that  already collect data for certain aspects of these categories of crime.  Specifically, in our November 2006 report, we identified 11 national efforts  that had reported data on certain aspects of domestic violence, sexual  assault, dating violence, and stalking. However, limited national data were  available to estimate prevalence from these 11 efforts because they (1)  largely focused on incidence rather than prevalence, (2) used varying  definitions for the types of crimes and categories of victims covered, and  (3) had varying scopes in terms of incidents and categories they  addressed.
Focus on incidence. Four of the 11 national data collection efforts  focused solely on incidence—the number of separate times a crime is  committed against individuals during a specific time period—rather than  prevalence—the unique number of individuals who were victimized during  a specific time period. As a result, information gaps related to the  prevalence of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and  stalking, particularly in the areas of dating violence among victims age 12  and older and stalking among victims under age 18 existed at the time of  our November 2006 report. Obtaining both incidence and prevalence data  is important for determining which services to provide to the four differing  categories of crime victims. HHS also noted that both types of data are  important for determining the impact of violence and strategies to prevent  it from occurring.
Although perfect data may never exist because of the sensitivity of these  crimes and the likelihood that not all occurrences will be disclosed,  agencies have taken initiatives since our report was issued to help  address some of these gaps or have efforts underway. These initiatives  are consistent with our recommendation that the Attorney General and  Secretary of Health and Human Services determine the extent to which  initiatives being planned or underway can be designed or modified to  address existing information gaps. For example, DOJ’s Office of Juvenile  Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), in collaboration with CDC,  sponsored a nationwide survey of the incidence and prevalence of  children’s (ages 17 and younger) exposure to violence across several  major crime categories, including witnessing domestic violence and peer  victimization (which includes teen dating violence). OJJDP released  incidence and prevalence measures related to children’s exposure to  violence, including teen dating violence, in 2009. Thus, Congress, agency  decision makers, practitioners, and researchers have more  comprehensive information to assist them in making decisions on grants  and other issues to help address teen dating violence. To address  information gaps related to teen dating violence and stalking victims  under the age of 18, in 2010, CDC began efforts on a teen dating  violence prevention initiative known as “Dating Matters.”  One activity of  this initiative is to identify community-level indicators that can be used to  measure both teen dating violence and stalking in high-risk urban areas.  CDC officials reported that they plan to begin implementing the first phase  of “Dating Matters” in as many as four high-risk urban areas in September  2011 and expect that the results from this phase will be completed by  2016. Thus, it is too early to tell the extent to which this effort will fully  address the information gap related to prevalence of stalking victims  under the age of 18.
Varying definitions. The national data collection efforts we reviewed  could not provide a basis for combining the results to compute valid and  reliable nationwide prevalence estimates because the efforts used  varying definitions related to the four categories of crime. For example,  CDC’s Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System’s definition of dating  violence included the intentional physical harm inflicted upon a survey  respondent by a boyfriend or girlfriend. In contrast, the Victimization of  Children and Youth Survey’s definition did not address whether the  physical harm was intentional. To address the issue of varying  definitions, we recommended that the Attorney General and the Secretary  of Health and Human Services, to the extent possible, require the use of  common definitions when conducting or providing grants for federal  research. This would provide for leveraging individual collection efforts so  that the results of such efforts could be readily combined to achieve  nationwide prevalence estimates. HHS agreed with this recommendation.  In commenting on our November 2006 draft report, DOJ expressed  concern regarding the potential costs associated with implementing this  and other recommendations we made and suggested that a cost-benefit  analysis be conducted. We agreed that performing a cost-benefit analysis  is a critical step, as acknowledged by our recommendation that DOJ and  HHS incorporate alternatives for addressing information gaps deemed  cost-effective in future budget requests. HHS agreed with this  recommendation and both HHS and DOJ have taken actions to address it  by requesting or providing additional funding for initiatives to address  information gaps, such as those on teen dating violence.
In response to our recommendation on common definitions, in August  2007, HHS reported that it continued to encourage, but not require, the  use of uniform definitions of certain forms of domestic violence and  sexual assault it established in 1999 and 2002, respectively. At the same  time, DOJ reported that it consistently used uniform definitions of intimate  partner violence in project solicitations, statements of work, and published  reports. Since then, officials from CDC reported that in October 2010, the  center convened a panel of 10 experts to revise and update its definitions  of certain forms of domestic violence and sexual assault given  advancements in this field of study. CDC is currently reviewing the results  from the panel and plans to hold a second panel in 2012, consisting of  practitioners, to review the first panel’s results and to obtain consensus  on the revised definitions. Moreover, HHS reported that it is also  encouraging the use of uniform definitions by implementing the National  Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. This initiative is using  consistent definitions and methods to collect information on women and  men’s experiences with a range of intimate partner violence, sexual  violence, and stalking victimization. Thus, by using consistent methods  over time, HHS reported that it will have comparable data at the state and  national level to inform intervention and prevention efforts and aid in the  evaluation of these efforts. In addition, according to a program specialist  from OJJDP, in 2007, OJJDP created common definitions for use in the  National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence to help collect data  and measure incidence and prevalence rates for child victimization,  including teen dating violence. While it is too early to tell the extent to  which HHS’s efforts will result in the wider use of common definitions to  assist in the combination of data collection efforts, OJJDP efforts in  developing common definitions have supported efforts to generate  national incidence and prevalence rates for child victimization. A program  specialist from OJJDP noted that OJJDP plans to focus on continuously  improving the definitions.
Varying scope. The national data collection efforts we reviewed as part  of our November 2006 report also could not provide a basis for combining  the results to compute valid and reliable nationwide prevalence estimates  because the efforts had varying scopes in terms of the incidents and  categories of victims that were included. For example, in November 2006,  we reported that CDC’s Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System  excludes youth who are not in grades 9 through 12 and those who do not  attend school; whereas the Victimization of Children and Youth Survey  was addressed to youth ages 12 and older, or those who were at least in  the sixth grade. National data collection efforts underway since our report  was issued may help to overcome this challenge. For instance, in  September 2010, HHS reported that CDC was working in collaboration  with the National Institute of Justice to develop the National Intimate  Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. Specifically, HHS reported that,  through this system, it is collecting information on women’s and men’s  experiences with a range of intimate partner violence, sexual violence,  and stalking victimization. HHS reported that it is gathering experiences  that occurred across a victim’s lifespan (including experiences that  occurred before the age of 18) and plans to generate incidence and  prevalence estimates for intimate partner violence, sexual violence,  dating violence, and stalking victimization at both the national and state  levels. The results are expected to be available in October 2011.
These agency initiatives may not fill all information gaps on the extent to  which women, men, youth, and children are victims of the four  predominant crimes VAWA addresses. However, the efforts provide  Congress with additional information it can consider on the prevalence of  these crimes as it makes future investment decisions when reauthorizing  and funding VAWA moving forward.
section_title: Data Collected by Grant Programs Did Not Contain Information on the Extent to Which Victims Receive Services and Challenges Exist for Collecting Such Data
paragraphs: We reported in July 2007 that recipients of 11 grant programs we  reviewed collected and reported data to the respective agencies on the  types of services they provide, such as counseling; the total number of  victims served; and in some cases, demographic information, such as the  age of victims; however, data were not available on the extent to which  men, women, youth, and children receive each type of service for all  services. This situation occurred primarily because the statutes  governing the 11 grant programs do not require the collection of  demographic data by type of service, although they do require reports on  program effectiveness, including number of persons served and number  of persons seeking services who could not be served. Nevertheless,  VAWA authorizes that a range of services can be provided to victims, and  we determined that services were generally provided to men, women,  youth, and children. The agencies administering these 11 grant  programs—HHS and DOJ—collect some demographic data for certain  services, such as emergency shelter under the Family Violence  Prevention and Services Act and supervised visitation and exchange  under VAWA. The quantity of information collected and reported varied  greatly for the 11 programs and was extensive for some, such as those  administered by DOJ’s Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) under  VAWA. The federal agencies use this information to help inform Congress  about the known results and effectiveness of the grant programs.  However, even if demographic data were available by type of service for  all services, such data might not be uniform and reliable because, among  other factors, (1) the authorizing statutes for these programs have  different purposes and (2) recipients of grants administered by HHS and  DOJ use varying data collection practices.
Authorizing statutes have different purposes. The authorizing statutes  for the 11 grant programs we reviewed have different purposes; therefore  the reporting requirements for the 11 grant programs must vary to be  consistent with these statutes. However, if a grant program addresses a  specific service, the demographic data collected are more likely to  address the extent to which men, women, youth, and children receive that  specific service. For example, in commenting on our July 2007 report,  officials from OVW stated that they could provide such demographic data  for 3 of its 8 grant programs we reviewed—the Transitional Housing  Assistance Grants Program, the Safe Havens: Supervised Visitation and  Safe Exchange Grant Program, and the Legal Assistance for Victims  Grant Program.
Recipients of grants administered by HHS and DOJ use varying data  collection practices. For example, some recipients request that victims  self-report data on the victim’s race, whereas other recipients rely on  visual observation of the victim to obtain these data. Since we issued our  July 2007 report, officials from HHS’s Administration for Children and  Families (ACF) and OVW told us that they modified their grant recipient  forms to improve the quality of the recipient data collected and to reflect  statutory changes to the programs and reporting requirements. Moreover,  ACF officials stated that they adjusted the demographic categories on  their forms to mirror OVW’s efforts so data would be collected  consistently across the government for these grant programs. In addition,  OVW officials stated that they have continued to provide technical  assistance and training to grant recipients on completing their forms  through a cooperative agreement with a university. As a result of these  efforts, and others, officials from both agencies reported that the quality of  the recipient data has improved resulting in fewer errors and more  complete data.
As we reported in our July 2007 report, HHS and DOJ officials stated that  they would face significant challenges in collecting and reporting data on  the demographic characteristics of victims receiving services by type of  service funded by the 11 grant programs included in our review. These  challenges included concerns about victims’ confidentiality and safety,  resource constraints, overburdening recipients, and technological issues.  For example, according to officials from ACF and OVW, requiring grant  recipients to collect this level of detail may inadvertently disclose a  victim’s identity, thus jeopardizing the victim’s safety. ACF officials also  said that some of their grant recipients do not have the resources to  devote to these data collection efforts, since their primary focus is on  service delivery. In addition, ACF officials said that being too prescriptive  in requiring demographic data could overburden some grant recipients  that may report data to multiple funding entities, such as federal, state,  and local entities and private foundations. Furthermore, HHS and DOJ  reported that some grant recipients do not have sophisticated data  collection systems in place to allow them to collect additional information.
In our July 2007 report, we did not recommend that federal departments  require their grant recipients to collect and report additional data on the  demographic characteristics of victims receiving services by type of  service because of the potential costs and difficulties associated with  addressing the challenges HHS and DOJ officials identified, relative to the  benefits that would be derived.
In conclusion, there are important issues to consider in moving forward on  the reauthorization of VAWA. Having better and more complete data on  the prevalence of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and  stalking as well as related services provided to victims of these crimes  can without doubt better inform and shape the federal programs intended  to meet the needs of these victims.  One key challenge in doing this is  weighing the relative benefits of obtaining these data with their relative  costs because of the sensitive nature of the crimes, those directly  affected, and the need for services and support.
Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley, and Members of the  Committee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to  respond to any questions you or other Members of the Committee may  have at this time.
section_title: Contacts and Acknowledgements
paragraphs: For questions about this statement, please contact Eileen R. Larence at  (202) 512-8777 or larencee@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this statement. Individuals making key contributions to this statement  include Debra B. Sebastian, Assistant Director; Aditi Archer, Frances  Cook, and Lara Miklozek. Key contributors for the previous work that this  testimony is based on are listed in each individual report.
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.