MENU TITLE: Domestic and Sexual Violence Data.
Collection
Series: NIJ Research Report
Published: July 1996
51 pages
100,944 bytes
------------------------------------------------
Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection
A Report to Congress under the
Violence Against Women Act
by the
Justice Research and Statistics Association
NCJ 161405
A Joint Publication of the National Institute of
Justice and the Bureau of Justice Statistics
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
National Institute of Justice
Jeremy Travis, J.D.
Director
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Jan Chaiken, Ph.D.
Director
Bernard Auchter
Project Monitor
National Institute of Justice
------------------------------------------------
The studies reported here were mandated by Sections
40292 and 40509 of Title IV, the Violence Against
Women Act, of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994. The enabling legislation
is as follows:
SUBTITLE B--SAFE HOMES FOR WOMEN, DATA AND
RESEARCH
SEC. 40292. STATE DATA BASES.
(a) IN GENERAL.--The Attorney General shall study
and report to the States and to Congress on how the
States may collect centralized data bases on the
incidence of sexual and domestic violence offenses
within a State.
(b) CONSULTATION.--In conducting its study, the
Attorney General shall consult persons expert in
the collection of criminal justice data, State
statistical administrators, law enforcement
personnel, and nonprofit nongovernmental agencies
that provide direct services to victims of domestic
violence. The final report shall set forth the
views of the persons consulted on the
recommendations.
(c) REPORT.--The Attorney General shall ensure that
no later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
this Act, the study required under subsection (a)
is completed and a report describing the findings
made is submitted to the Committees on the
Judiciary of the Senate and the House of
Representatives.
SUBTITLE E--VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT
IMPROVEMENTS
SEC. 40509. REPORT ON RECORDKEEPING RELATING TO
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Attorney General shall complete a
study of, and shall submit to Congress a report and
recommendations on problems of recordkeeping of
criminal complaints involving domestic violence.
The study and report shall examine--
(1) the efforts that have been made by the
Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, to collect statistics on domestic
violence; and
(2) the feasibility of requiring that the
relationship between an offender and victim be
reported in Federal records of crimes of aggravated
assault, rape, and other violent crimes.
The National Institute of Justice was charged with
carrying out the study of domestic and sexual
violence data collection by the States mandated by
Section 40292. The Bureau of Justice Statistics
(BJS) was given the responsibility of responding to
Section 40509. Because national data collections
originate at the State level, BJS joined the
Federal study to the State study.
------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
This report was prepared by the Justice Research
and Statistics Association (JRSA) under the
direction of Joan C. Weiss, executive director. The
primary author of this report is James Zepp,
director of the JRSA National Computer Center. JRSA
appreciates the invaluable contributions and
support provided by the representatives of the
National Institute of Justice, the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation as well as the other U.S. Department
of Justice officials who participated in this
effort. JRSA also is indebted to the members of the
Panel to Assess State and Federal Data on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault for their commitment to
addressing the issues of domestic and sexual
violence and to this project, and to the directors
of the State Statistical Analysis Centers around
the country who took the time to respond to the
survey on State data collection efforts.
This project was supported under grant number 95-
IJ-CX-0010 to the Justice Research and Statistics
Association by the National Institute of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of
Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed in
this document are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the official position of the
U.S. Department of Justice.
-----------------------------------------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword
Executive Summary
- Key Findings
- About This Report
Purpose and Background
Findings and Recommendations
- Increasing or Improving State and Local Reporting
- Recognizing the Need for Multiple Indicators To
Fully Capture the Extent of the Problem
- Identifying Existing Commonalities in Data
Definitions and Reporting Methods Across States
Data Collection Issues
- Multidimensional Aspects of Domestic and Sexual
Violence Offenses ----Offense type--domestic and
sexual violence
----Service domains--criminal justice, health, and
social services ----Criminal justice domains--law
enforcement, prosecution, courts (criminal and
civil), and corrections
----Intergovernmental--Federal, State, and local
governmental coordination
----Multijurisdictional--multiple State and local
agencies
----Definitional aspects of domestic violence
- Alternative Approaches to Data Collection
----Single focus (domestic or sexual violence) law
enforcement reporting systems
----Uniform crime reporting
----Crime victimization surveys
----Other criminal justice domains
----Multiservice domain data links
----Special studies
- Concerns About Reporting Alternatives
----Incomplete coverage of all cases
----Possible duplication across data systems
----Incomplete reporting
----Definitional issues
- Summary
Appendixes
Appendix A: List of Project Participants
Appendix B: State Survey Form*
Appendix C: List of Respondents to JRSA Survey of
States and Territories
Appendix D: State Survey Results*
Appendix E: FBI NIBRS Status Report as of
06/02/95**
Appendix F: A Note on Terminology for Crime
Statistics
*Appendixes B and D are not included in this ASCII
text file and three tables are not available in this
ASCII file. To view this information, access the
Acrobat file available online or
order the print copy of this publication by calling
the National Criminal Justice Reference Service
(NCJRS) at 800-851-3420.
**Appendix E is also not included in this ASCII text
file. Its information is being updated on a regular
basis. For updates, contact the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington,
DC 20531, or access the Web site at
http://www.nibrs.search.org. You can also obtain a
print copy of this publication by calling NCJRS at
800-851-3420.
---------------------------------------------------
Foreword
The Violence Against Women Act provides for a
fundamental change in our criminal justice system's
response to violent crimes committed against women.
This legislation reflects the recognition that
violence against women is a crime with far-
reaching, harmful consequences for families,
children, and society. It recognizes the
seriousness of the problem of violence against
women and offers direction for a new, collaborative
approach to preventing violence and protecting
victims.
As we seize the opportunity to make a difference in
the lives of women and children victimized by
violence, we want to be sure to proceed on the
basis of knowledge. We need sound data to guide our
policymaking. The Congress recognized this need by
calling for a study to learn how the States could
centralize data collection on the incidence of
sexual and domestic violence offenses and to
examine statistical recordkeeping at the Federal
level for domestic violence-related criminal
complaints.
This report, supported by the National Institute of
Justice and the Bureau of Justice Statistics,
represents an important first step in analyzing
what needs to be done to ensure reliable estimates
of the extent and nature of violent crimes
committed against women. The study found that the
Federal Government and the majority of States
currently are collecting some statistics annually
on these crimes: 35 States collect data on domestic
violence, 30 gather statistics on sexual violence.
Some of these existing State programs can serve as
working models for States that currently do not
collect data on these crimes.
For the future, the study identifies a need to
grapple with two issues. One is the variation
across States--in definitions, in types of victims
included in reporting requirements, and in other
elements--that make it difficult to compare or
aggregate data at a national level. A second is the
need to include not only law enforcement statistics
but data from other parts of the criminal justice
system. The study emphasizes the need for
collaborative data collection within the criminal
justice system and from other key sources such as
health care providers, employers, and schools--in
order to develop a more detailed picture of
domestic and sexual violence. This study itself is
evidence of the importance of collaboration: in
this case, between researchers and policymakers at
the Federal, State, and local levels.
Research on violence against women is gaining
unprecedented momentum. We look forward to
continued partnership in using the tools of
research and statistics to improve the way we deal
with violence against women and treat women victims
of violent crime.
Bonnie J. Campbell
Director
Violence Against Women Office
U.S. Department of Justice
Jeremy Travis
Director
National Institute of Justice
U.S. Department of Justice
Jan M. Chaiken
Director
Bureau of Justice Statistics
U.S. Department of Justice
---------------------------------------------------
Executive Summary
The objectives of the Project to Assess State and
Federal Data on Domestic Violence and Sexual
Assault were twofold: to identify ways that States
could centralize the collection of information on
the incidence of domestic and sexual violence
offenses and to examine the problems of statistical
recordkeeping at the Federal level for domestic
violence-related criminal complaints.
To meet the first objective--State data collection-
-the researchers focused on the current status of
reporting in the States, which could serve as a
starting point for future data collection
improvement efforts. The project concentrated
primarily on law enforcement-based indicators of
domestic and sexual violence offenses. Because of
the complex nature of domestic violence as a
community problem and the
legislation's citation of centralized State data
bases, consideration was given to information
sources outside of the criminal justice system.
A panel of experts representing backgrounds in
criminal justice statistics, law enforcement, and
victim services as well as other related concerns
met twice to provide comments and suggestions to
the project staff. Information from States and
Territories on their data collection programs and
issues was sought through a survey, to which 47
responded, and followup interviews.
Information on Federal statistical recordkeeping
was obtained from a wide range of Federal, State,
and local agencies involved in domestic violence.
The project primarily focused on the efforts of the
U.S. Department of Justice--specifically the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)--to collect
domestic violence incident data. The two major
programs reviewed were the FBI's transition from
the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) system to the
National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS)
and the recent BJS modifications to the National
Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS).
Key Findings
The most significant finding was that the Federal
Government and a majority of States (35 for
domestic violence; 30 for sexual violence) are
currently collecting some statistics annually on
these offenses. On closer inspection, however,
there was a wide variation in how each State
defines these offenses, determines what is counted,
and measures or reports incidents. The variability
also applies to the types of victims included in
reports. Since some States have adopted family
violence as opposed to domestic violence statutes,
their statistics may include child victims along
with adults. In addition, some State statutes apply
regardless of the gender of the victims and the
offenders, while others are not as inclusive of all
possible relationships and living situations. This
results in State statistics that may not be
comparable or suitable for aggregation at the
national level for estimates of prevalence and
severity. The reasons for these disparities include
differences in State criminal codes, the
characteristics of existing State information
systems, and the relative attention to the concerns
of domestic and sexual violence given by individual
States.
Issues about accuracy and completeness of coverage
also were raised about the FBI's and BJS's data
sets and collection methodologies:
o The FBI's summary UCR system, which is currently
the main source of national criminal offense data,
does not provide the detailed information needed to
document the full extent of domestic violence-
related events known to law enforcement agencies.
o NIBRS, which is intended to replace the UCR
system, would provide much needed detailed data for
domestic violence-related offenses. The progress of
law enforcement agencies toward complying with the
NIBRS data standard, however, has been slower than
originally anticipated when the standard was
developed in the late 1980s. Further, while the
NIBRS standard includes a major data element
related to domestic violence (i.e., victim-offender
relationship), it is not precisely tailored for
measuring domestic violence as it now stands.
Relying on local incident-based reporting systems
that contain relevant information for measuring
domestic violence but do not fully meet the current
NIBRS data standard raises considerable practical
difficulties at the Federal level.
o The NCVS recently has been modified by BJS as a
result of discussions and studies over the past 20
years about the problem of underreporting of
domestic and sexual violence incidents. The revised
survey instrument and procedures were fully
implemented for the data set covering the 1993
calendar year, and the first data from the revised
survey became available in late 1994. The first
analyses based on this information were published
as this report was being written. Because of the
short time that these revisions have been in
effect, they should continue to be evaluated for
their effectiveness.
About This Report
This report discusses data collection issues raised
by panel members, Federal, State, and local
agencies, and survey responses. It suggests further
actions for improving and expanding data collection
and reporting at the State and national levels. The
seriousness of domestic and sexual violence crimes
is increasingly recognized, and the need for better
measures to inform policy and planning decisions is
clearly evident. Although no data system will be
able to avoid all possible sources of error,
efforts are being made by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Bureau of Justice Statistics, and
State agencies to improve the reporting content of
their respective statistical systems. Achieving the
goal of improved reporting and more comprehensive
statistics for domestic and sexual violence,
however, will require cooperation and coordination
of many Federal, State, and local governments and
agencies. Both organizational and technical
solutions are needed.
---------------------------------------------------
Purpose and Background
Section 40292 of Title IV--the Violence Against
Women Act--of the 1994 Crime Act specifies that a
study shall be conducted on "how the States may
collect centralized data bases on the incidence of
sexual and domestic violence offenses within a
State." The National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
asked the Justice Research and Statistics
Association (JRSA) to undertake a study of domestic
and sexual violence incident data collection by the
States.
Section 40509 of the Violence Against Women Act
authorizes that a study be conducted on the
"problems of recordkeeping of criminal complaints
involving domestic violence." It specifies that
this study include an examination of:
o The efforts that have been made by the U.S.
Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, to collect statistics on domestic
violence.
o The feasibility of requiring that the
relationship between an offender and victim be
reported in Federal records of crimes of aggravated
assault, rape, and other violent crimes.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) was
designated by the Office of the Attorney General
with the responsibility of responding to this
statutory requirement. Because national data
collections originate at the local level, BJS
joined the Federal study to the State study.
The availability of comprehensive and reliable
statistical data on domestic and sexual violence is
a critical imperative because decisionmakers at
State and local levels are confronting questions
concerning appropriate policies and effective
procedures for addressing this problem, and they
need more information to guide their thinking.
Since most laws and policies that deal directly
with domestic and sexual violence offenses are
passed by the States, it is appropriate that
information systems are created or enhanced at this
level of government.
A project panel of domestic and sexual violence and
criminal justice experts generally agreed that
because these problems are complex issues involving
many types of offenders and behaviors, statistical
data are needed that can better inform policy
decisions. The mixed results reported in studies on
mandatory arrest policies for domestic violence
offenders were cited as indicative of the possible
unknown dimensions on which more information may
help to provide answers or explain inconsistent
policy outcomes.1
Depending on what information is collected, these
data can help address questions such as:
o What are the characteristics of offenders and
victims? This could help agencies direct resources
toward subpopulations particularly affected by
these problems.
o Are there different behavior patterns evident
among various offender subgroups? As policymakers
and agency managers wrestle with finding
appropriate strategies for dealing with domestic
and sexual violence, the documentation of any
behavioral differences may help to explain the
relative effectiveness of various approaches.
o Are there differences in these offenses across
communities? Unmet needs for crime prevention and
treatment services could be identified for better
planning and allocation of resources.
o What trends are occurring in domestic violence?
Do patterns vary over time by type of offender,
victim, or offense?
Much of this project's efforts concentrated on how
the States and other key agencies define and
measure these offenses. Because several States had
established incident-based crime reporting systems
long before the Federal Government began its
efforts to implement a national system, and because
many have been involved in addressing domestic and
sexual violence issues, it is appropriate to study
how other States can learn from this experience and
be encouraged to collect data where questions
remain about the prevalence and severity of these
problems.
For the purposes of this project, the legislation
was broadly interpreted to mean an examination of
crime statistics related to domestic and sexual
violence. This may include measures of crime
incidents, offenses, offenders, and victims. (See
appendix F, which explains various terms used for
crime statistics. Care in the use of terms for
indicating what is being measured is important when
discussing specific data sets.)
Because of the wide scope of the study's topics and
the limited time and resources available to conduct
it, the project could only characterize issues and
methods of data collection in general terms.
Subsequent investigation would be needed to
identify concerns such as specific differences
among individual Federal, State, and agency data
elements; statutory or administrative powers; and
legal definitions of domestic and sexual violence.
This project gathered input from two major sources:
1) a panel of experts representing a variety of
backgrounds in domestic and sexual violence
research and services, criminal justice statistics,
and law enforcement, and 2) a survey of the States.
The purpose of these efforts was to elicit
information on the current status of data
reporting, concerns about the quality of the data
collected, and strategies for improving reporting
on these offenses.
The 1994 Violence Against Women Act specified that
this project seek input from experts with
backgrounds in law enforcement, criminal justice
statistics, and victims' services. In fulfillment
of this mandate, a panel of individuals
representing these diverse interests was recruited.
To further broaden the perspectives reflected in
the discussions and in recognition of other related
research activities, additional participants from
other segments of the criminal justice system and
health research also were invited. Although the
focus was on data collection at the State
government level, it was important to consider
relevant Federal data collection efforts in this
subject area. States often adopt Federal data
standards for compliance with funding or reporting
requirements, comparability with other States, and
ease of adoption since no development time is
required. Since the majority of information
generated on domestic and sexual violence incidents
is from local agencies, and they generally have the
primary role in implementing criminal justice
policies, their perspective on reporting concerns
was important for this study. For this reason,
participation by representatives from Federal and
local governments was sought.
Project activities included two meetings of the
Panel to Assess State and Federal Data on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault (April 10-11 and June
29, 1995; see appendix A for a list of
participants). Information relevant to Federal data
collection efforts on domestic and sexual violence
was presented by representatives of BJS and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime
Reporting Program Office. In addition,
representatives from other Federal agencies
contributed their expertise, including the Bureau
of Justice Assistance, National Institute of
Justice, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, and the Department of Justice's
Violence Against Women Office.
Because of the complementary nature of Federal,
State, and local goals, comments on the Federal
statistical efforts also were received from non-
Federal criminal justice professionals, including
representatives from the International Association
of Chiefs of Police (IACP), National Center for
State Courts, six State Statistical Analysis
Centers (Alabama, Connecticut, Colorado, Iowa,
Massachusetts, and Michigan), and three local
government agencies (the Washington Metropolitan
Police Department; the Alexandria, Virginia, Police
Department; and the Baltimore, Maryland, Mayor's
Coordinating Council on Criminal Justice).
Representatives from several domestic violence
victims' advocacy/service organizations--e.g.,
National Resource Center on Domestic Violence,
Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence,
and the House of Ruth--also participated in these
discussions.
During the first project panel meeting on April
10-11, 1995, in Washington, D.C., the Statistical
Analysis Center (SAC) directors from Alabama,
Connecticut, Colorado, Massachusetts, and Michigan
provided descriptions of domestic and sexual
violence data collection efforts in their
respective States. Representatives from domestic
and sexual violence agencies discussed data
collection systems to which they contribute
information, concerns about existing statistics on
these problems, and issues involving data sharing
among service providers and criminal justice
agencies. Law enforcement and other criminal
justice representatives cited some of the problems
and limitations that domestic violence incidents
present for the classification and processing of
cases. Additional approaches to estimating domestic
and sexual violence incidents were described by a
researcher from the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. Staff from the Bureau of Justice
Statistics and the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) provided information on current Federal data
collection systems and recent efforts to improve
these data sets.
The panel members reviewed a draft survey
instrument developed by JRSA project staff to
obtain information from the States and Territories
on existing domestic and sexual violence data
reporting systems and on problems and solutions
they have experienced. Based on suggestions offered
during the panel meeting and on a field test
conducted in four States, the survey instrument was
revised. In May the final version (see appendix B)
was mailed to each State's or Territory's SAC
director; this official was considered most likely
to have experience with the broad range of data
sources on which information was sought. If a State
did not have a SAC, the respective State Uniform
Crime Reporting Program Office received the survey
as the next most appropriate agency.
A total of 47 responded--42 by the initial June 5,
1995, deadline, and 5 after reminder phone calls
were made and additional copies of the survey were
sent to nonrespondents. (See appendix C for a
listing of responding jurisdictions. A summary of
the survey responses is included in appendix D.)
The panel reconvened on June 29, 1995, in
Washington, D.C., to review the State survey
results. In addition, Bonnie Campbell, the newly
appointed director of the Violence Against Women
Office, U.S. Department of Justice, spoke to the
panel on the need for reliable crime data on
domestic and sexual violence. She indicated that as
national policies are being decided on these
issues, more data would help to inform these
discussions. Additional comments were made by
representatives from the National Institute of
Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Bureau of
Justice Assistance, National Academy of Sciences,
and the National Center for State Courts. The FBI
representative also briefed the panel on the FBI
Criminal Information Systems Advisory Committee's
recent decision to review that agency's position on
the National Incident-Based Reporting System. The
comments and
suggestions from panel members were used in
preparation of this project report.
---------------------------------------------------
Findings and Recommendations
The major finding is that many States are already
collecting or are implementing systems to collect
data on domestic and sexual violence offenses.
According to the State survey results, 35 of 47
responding States and Territories collect domestic
violence statistics annually, and 30 respondents
gather sexual violence statistics. But there is
wide variation among States that have systems in
place or nearing completion with regard to what
information is collected and how it is gathered.
The variability reflects differences in how States
have approached these two issues and the existing
structures for collecting general crime incident
data. For example, some States have passed specific
domestic or family violence statutes that clearly
define this as an offense and may even have
statewide reporting requirements. Other States have
not designated domestic violence as a separate
offense but have instituted reporting systems for
cases that can be characterized as such. If a State
already had an incident-based crime reporting
system, then it may have simply added or derived
domestic violence crime statistics from this.
Lacking this capability, other States have had to
create domestic violence-specific reporting
systems.
Since law enforcement agencies are the primary
point of first contact with the criminal justice
system and are responsible for enforcing protection
orders, their data are a major source for
estimating the overall prevalence and severity of
domestic and sexual violence problems known to the
criminal justice system. Every State and Territory
provides Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) data; there
are about 16,000 agencies contributing information
to this statistical data set. Discussions at both
panel meetings focused on the National Incident-
Based Reporting System, one of the major
developments in law enforcement statistics in the
past 10 years. (See "Incident-based data" under
"Uniform Crime Reporting," which describes the
issues raised about this data system's future.)
Information from prosecutors, courts, and
corrections can provide important insights into the
processing and subsequent dispositions of cases.
However, comprehensive statewide statistical data
bases from these sources are less frequently
available than are law enforcement data sets.
This may be due to the fact that most of
these systems originally were created for
operational information needs, such as case or
agency management, and not necessarily for the
production of statistical reports. Unless these
capabilities were included in their initial system
design or subsequently added, data on the
characteristics of victims, offenders, offenses,
and other related information may not be readily
available.
Although most States collect data on domestic and
sexual violence, the State survey indicates that
few draw on noncriminal justice information sources.
As noted in the previous discussion
of criminal justice data bases, unless specific
statistical reporting capabilities have been built
into these information systems, data may not be
easily obtainable for research and policy analysis
purposes.
Despite data collection difficulties cited in the
project panel discussions and the State survey
responses, the importance of having reliable and
comprehensive indicators for domestic violence was
repeatedly highlighted. Data are needed for basic
research on the problems of domestic and sexual
violence, for resolving debates over proposed
legislation and budgets, for guiding administrative
or managerial decisions over program policies and
resources, and for informing the public about the
seriousness and extent of these problems in their
communities.
The following suggestions for future work on
improving and expanding domestic and sexual
violence data collection emerged from the panel
discussions and survey responses.
Increasing or Improving State and Local Reporting
Although the majority of States are collecting some
form of information on domestic and sexual violence
offenses, there is still a significant number that
do not. In addition, there are substantial
disparities in the types and quantity of data
collected. If the availability of reliable
indicators for domestic and sexual violence is
considered an important goal, then several
strategies can be employed to improve and expand
this reporting effort.
To encourage States to improve or establish a data
reporting program for domestic and/or sexual
violence offenses, various educational activities
could be provided to increase State officials'
awareness of successful efforts by other States.
Through publications or meetings, exemplary
programs could be highlighted as working models for
other States to adopt.
An important factor in maintaining ongoing data
collection programs is showing that information
gathered is used for analyses or is worthwhile for
decisionmaking. Such feedback can be a strong
motivating influence to the staff who are
generating data. By providing examples of analyses
and applications based on these data, policymakers
may be more willing to allocate the authority and
resources necessary to establish or continue
collecting information on these concerns. These may
be analytic approaches to policy alternatives,
crime analysis systems for police, or planning
tools for agencies to direct staff and other
resources.
Recognizing the Need for Multiple Indicators To
Fully Capture the Extent of the Problem
It was evident from this study that domestic and
sexual violence offenders are not single
populations; there are a number of subgroups that
have distinct behaviors and motivations. Although
the reporting of aggregate statistical figures can
provide some rough estimates of prevalence,
important differences may be lost that could be
significant for policy and planning decisions.
Therefore, consideration should be given to
identifying indicators that could inform these
discussions. Special studies could help to provide
detailed information beyond general statistical
data sets. This includes methods for estimating
offender or victim characteristics not captured in
general statistical reports and examining
individual histories for patterns of recidivism
among offender subpopulations.
Identifying Existing Commonalities in Data
Definitions and Reporting Methods Across States
A more indepth analysis of State reporting systems
could be conducted to identify existing
commonalities in definitions, forms, and practices
across States. Although this study received
materials from many of the States in response to
the survey, not all States responded or provided
all of the referenced items. The constraints of
this project did not allow for a systematic
comparison of individual data elements, procedures,
and definitions across jurisdictions and agencies,
but a review was done of the available materials
that looked for examples and general trends among
the respondents.
A State-by-State analysis could serve as a good
starting point for any national reporting standards
or help in compiling multi-State data on domestic
and sexual violence incidents. By disseminating
this analysis to the States, some may be persuaded
to modify their current practices to increase data
comparability across States.
---------------------------------------------------
Data Collection Issues
The following pages present issues and concerns
raised during the two panel meetings, during
discussions with individuals involved with domestic
and sexual violence problems or statistical
information systems, and from the responses to the
State survey. Any data collection efforts by the
States will have to address many of these concerns
in order to implement or expand their systems.
Multidimensional Aspects of Domestic and Sexual
Violence Offenses
The many aspects related to domestic and sexual
violence include possible data sources, point-of-
case involvement or intervention, and definitional
criteria that can determine what information may be
collected and some of the resulting limitations.
Recognizing these multiple dimensions is important
to ensure that the resulting data sets respond to
policy and other informational needs. Because both
domestic and sexual violence are complex issues
involving many social and psychological forces,
reliance on a single statistical indicator does not
present a complete picture of either problem.
Offense type--domestic and sexual violence
The legislation mandated that this project study
data collection alternatives for both domestic and
sexual violence offenses. These are separate crimes
that usually have their own respective statutory
definitions and reporting mechanisms. Although the
concept of sexual violence has been expanded over
time in many States to include a broader range of
victimizations, its acceptance as a major criminal
offense was well established. Recognition of
domestic violence as a serious criminal offense is
a more recent phenomenon.
One indication of the difference between these
crimes is that forcible rape was included in the
State data compiled in the Federal Uniform Crime
Reporting (UCR) system at its inception in 1930,
while estimates of domestic violence-related
incidents can only be inferred from UCR statistics
for murder and manslaughter. Victim-offender
relationship information is not collected for other
crime categories, so no domestic violence estimates
can be derived from these counts. The data
standards published in 1988 for the National
Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), which is
intended to replace the UCR system, broaden the
definition of forcible rape and increase the sexual
violence-related offense categories, but they still
do not list domestic violence as an offense
category or provide any other means for explicitly
identifying these incidents.2 It is possible to
infer domestic violence incidents from NIBRS
information by using the victim-offender
relationship data. However, this could be
challenged as including incidents that are not
necessarily part of a violent relationship.
A further distinction between sexual and domestic
violence incidents is their defining
characteristics. Sexual violence is a crime that is
generally determined by specifically prohibited
sexually related acts taken by a perpetrator
against another person. On the other hand, domestic
violence-related incidents not only require a
criminal act but also must occur between
individuals with an existing or prior close
relationship. Because any violent act may be
considered domestic violence related if a legally
accepted relationship exists between the offender
and victim--and the definitions used vary from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction--it is extremely
difficult to collect consistent and reliable
statistics for this offense. Furthermore, as with
hate crimes, a distinguishing characteristic for
domestic violence incidents may be the offender's
intent in committing an act such as intimidation of
the victim. In this instance, a relatively minor
offense like vandalism of property may have a much
greater significance when considered in the context
of a violent domestic relationship.
Consequently, the approaches for collecting data on
domestic violence are different from those for
sexual violence. In general, domestic violence
requires more data elements and greater detail to
derive statistical estimates and to differentiate
the severity or nature of cases. While personnel
generating incident reports need training to ensure
accurate reporting for both offenses, domestic
violence appears to present more difficulties for
staff in the field to properly identify these
cases. Other concerns that can affect accurate data
reporting will be discussed in later sections.
Service domains--criminal justice, health, and
social services
A truly comprehensive data collection effort for
domestic and sexual violence incidents would
involve multiple service domains. Because of the
strong psychological and social impact that
domestic and sexual violence can have on victims,
awareness and treatment of cases often may not
originate in or involve the criminal justice
system. Data from health and social service
providers can be used to supplement prevalence
estimates based on criminal justice sources.
Interest in integrating or sharing information
across service domains to promote coordination of
efforts has led the Bureau of Justice Assistance to
fund three demonstration projects (in Baltimore,
Maryland; Santa Clara, California; and the
Commonwealth of Virginia). The experience from the
Baltimore domestic violence demonstration project
indicated that definitional differences as well as
the varying responsibilities across agencies can
create significant problems for data collection and
integration. Concerns about client confidentiality
also may prevent health and social service
providers from sharing information on specific
individuals with the criminal justice system. Even
with individual case information, it may be
impossible or extremely expensive to link data
across agencies and service domains in order to
avoid duplicate counting of incidents or persons.
Further, the disparate sources of data and uses for
which they are intended may argue against their
close integration.
A practical concern is that few States indicated in
their survey responses that there were noncriminal
justice data bases available for analyses. For this
and the previously cited reasons, the active
integration of criminal justice, health, and social
services information systems may not be feasible or
desirable. Among the alternatives raised in the
panel discussions were special studies that could
incorporate information across service domains and
may provide some insights into the overall
prevalence and handling of domestic violence cases.
Limited tracking of cross-service domain
interactions also may provide some estimates of
this phenomenon without requiring an elaborate
coordination of separate information systems.
Examples of this are the New York State Domestic
Incident Report form, which includes information on
whether an officer made a referral to a protective
or victim services agency, and the Wisconsin
Domestic Abuse Report form, which tracks a case
through sentencing and includes various forms of
counseling/treatment as sentencing options and
information on whether medical treatment was
required. Since many States have mandatory referral
laws for health and social service providers,
report forms used for these referrals could provide
some information on cases originating from
noncriminal justice sources.
Criminal justice domains--law enforcement,
prosecution, courts (criminal and civil), and
corrections
Within the criminal justice system, data collection
is complicated by the division of responsibilities
across many independent entities--law enforcement
agencies, prosecutors, courts, and corrections.
Although some local jurisdictions have established
integrated criminal justice information systems,
most criminal justice data are fragmented along
operational boundaries. The continued difficulties
in obtaining complete and accurate criminal history
records were cited as one indicator of the
inability to track individuals as they move through
the criminal justice system or recidivate for
subsequent crimes.
Improving this situation requires surmounting
technical, procedural, and organizational obstacles
across many agencies. Although this can be done, it
is a lengthy, resource-intensive process that
requires coordination and cooperation at all levels
of the participating organizations. Factors that
work against achieving this goal and other forms of
information systems integration are changing
governmental priorities for information, short-term
budget horizons, frequent personnel changes, the
absence of or conflicting data standards across
information sources, and rapidly shifting
technologies. Any major data collection effort
should consider these issues as part of its
planning.
Intergovernmental--Federal, State, and local
governmental coordination
Even with a State-centered data collection effort,
both the Federal and local levels of government
need to be considered. Federal systems often
influence the ways State agencies design or
implement their data systems. As previously noted,
the Federal Government has several major
statistical data and records systems (UCR/NIBRS,
NCIC 2000 the Project, National Crime Victimization
Survey, and National Criminal History Improvement
Program) that provide data standards, funding, and
national data-sharing capabilities.
Although many States have developed their own
information systems independent of any Federal
effort, when feasible, planning for future data
systems should try to maximize their usefulness and
potential for piggybacking onto other reporting
systems to avoid repetitive data collection or
incompatible information systems. In addition to
the obstacles cited in "Criminal justice domains--
law enforcement, prosecution, courts (criminal and
civil), and corrections," there can be wide
variations in offense classifications and
procedures from State to State because each State
sets its own criminal code. This situation often
requires a translation of State-generated
information, such as offense codes, into a national
coding scheme. The result may sometimes be a
grouping of otherwise dissimilar cases. For
example, in Louisiana an assault may be simply a
verbal threat, while other States require physical
contact or injury by an assailant. Consequently,
Louisiana may appear to have a greater problem with
assaults than other States when national
compilations of State crime data are reviewed.
Although automated criminal records systems can be
programmed to perform many of these report
translations, some cases may require human judgment
to interpret the circumstances.
In these situations, State agencies frequently find
themselves between Federal data standards and the
applicable State and local practices. Even though
States generally determine criminal statutes,
health and social service regulations, and many
public services, it is local agencies that often
implement or enforce these policies and programs.
Consequently, local personnel are usually
responsible for collecting information from victims
and offenders and must process the reports for
submission to State agencies. Given these
circumstances, most statewide data collection
programs will involve substantial intergovernmental
coordination and cooperation among a large number
of agencies.
In the area of crime data, some of the larger
States must collect and process data from 500 to
nearly 1,000 different agencies. Gathering complete
and accurate data across all of these entities in a
timely manner can be a challenging task that
requires careful planning, adequate resources
(particularly training of local staff in reporting
procedures), and good communications at all levels
of participation.
Multijurisdictional--multiple State and local
agencies
Because of victim and offender mobility, agencies
increasingly must be able to share information
across State and local boundaries. There are
several Federal and regional efforts under way to
either provide mechanisms to do this or to
encourage the development of these systems.
Achieving this goal will take time, however, and
many technical and organizational obstacles will
have to be overcome.
One situation where this has been identified as a
serious problem is with court protection orders
because officials outside of the originating
jurisdictions generally do not have ready access to
the information required for enforcement. In
addition, policies and standards for issuing court
protection orders can vary from area to area,
making enforcement across jurisdictional boundaries
a complex issue for local authorities.
Definitional aspects of domestic violence
Because the recognition of domestic violence as a
serious criminal offense is a relatively recent
phenomena for many communities, understanding of
the problem continues to evolve. Hence, the legal
definitions and procedures for this offense can
vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The
following discussion of two aspects of this problem
explains some of the differences in how domestic
violence incidents are treated.
Domestic abuse as a continuum of violent actions.
Domestic violence often does not consist of a
single incident; it is instead a continual state of
victimization.3 Therefore, recognizing and counting
domestic violence incidents can be somewhat
different from other types of crimes, which are
generally limited in time and do not often involve
repeated offender victimization of the same person.
In the National Crime Victimization Survey, this
circumstance is acknowledged by the use of a
"series crime incident" designation for situations
in which the respondent cannot identify details for
discrete victimization events, and more than five
victimizations occurred in the previous 6 months.
Because intimidation also may be part of the
behavior exhibited by abusers, offenses that
otherwise would not be considered violent may be
characterized as part of an overall behavior
pattern. This further complicates the recording of
criminal events since it involves judging an
offender's motivation.
With this concept of domestic violence as a
continuum of behaviors rather than a discrete
event, it is understandable why domestic violence
statistics may include many different criminal
actions that vary from relatively minor offenses to
extremely serious ones. This situation particularly
applies as the definition of domestic violence is
made more inclusive of the range of abusive
behaviors. Some of these may or may not be part of
the governing statutes for any given State, which
may make comparing data across States exceedingly
difficult.
It also becomes a measurement issue because
thresholds along this continuum must be established
to determine whether and how any given event or
action is counted. These decisions have obvious
implications for resulting statistical figures and
observations.
A range of relationships from spouses to intimate
acquaintances and nonrelatives. Some States are
inclusive in their definition of domestic violence
as far as the range of victim-offender
relationships allows, while others require either a
spousal relationship or a child in common for a
criminal act to be considered domestic violence.4
As legal definitions of domestic violence expand to
include more informal relationships such as current
or ex-boyfriends/girlfriends, roommates, and
cohabitants, the reporting systems must be modified
to reflect these broader perspectives and to
differentiate the characteristics of these
victim/offender subgroups within the general
population. Otherwise, important details may be
lost in working with aggregate statistics, which
could blur the diversity among domestic violence
victims and offenders.
Alternative Approaches to Data Collection
In both the panel discussions and State survey
responses, it was evident that the States have
adopted a wide variety of approaches to collecting
data on domestic and sexual violence incidents.5
This is largely explained by differences in
statutory legal definitions and procedures,
individual agency authority, and existing data and
reporting systems.
For example, the State of Connecticut uses a
separate form to collect family violence offense
data since it does not have an operational general
crime incident-based reporting system. This data
collection program is mandated by a statute that
also specifies many of the data items to be
gathered. The State intends to incorporate this
information into NIBRS, which it is currently
implementing.
Single focus (domestic or sexual violence) law
enforcement reporting systems
Information specific to domestic and sexual
violence offenses often has not been included in
general criminal justice reporting systems. Because
some State statutes call for reporting on these
concerns, one approach used by several States has
been the development of a special report form for
either domestic violence or sexual violence
incidents.6
In some instances this is a supplement to a State's
Uniform Crime Reporting form (Kansas, Michigan, and
Puerto Rico), while in others it is a completely
separate reporting system (Connecticut,
Massachusetts, New York, and Wisconsin). As States
move from the aggregate data reporting system (UCR)
to incident-based, NIBRS-type systems, many States
operating separate reporting systems for domestic
and sexual violence offenses (e.g., Connecticut)
are planning to merge them into the general data
collection program.
One advantage of a single-focus approach to data
collection is that it allows gathering of offense-
specific information that may be more difficult to
include in a general form intended for all possible
crimes. The trade-off is that specialized forms may
be more difficult to implement on a statewide basis
and may be considered an additional reporting
burden.
Uniform crime reporting
Since 1930 the Uniform Crime Reporting system has
been the major national statistical series for
crimes known to law enforcement agencies. All
States contribute data to this program in some
manner. This system, however, only reports
aggregate totals for crimes, which limits any
analyses to indicating general trends in crime and
not much more. In the 1980s the FBI conducted
studies that led to the decision to replace the
summary UCR system with NIBRS. The following
discussion highlights some of the issues related to
UCR and NIBRS and the implementation status of
these data systems.
Aggregate crime data. The summary UCR program
provides only aggregate or total data on eight
major crimes and on arrestee age, sex, and
racial/ethnic characteristics for all offenses.
Known as the Part I Offenses, the eight offense
categories are:
o Criminal homicide (murder and nonnegligent
manslaughter).
o Forcible rape (rape by force and attempts to
commit forcible rape).
o Robbery (theft using a firearm, knife or cutting
instrument, other dangerous weapon, or strong-arm
method to force or threaten a victim).
o Aggravated assault (an unlawful attack on a
victim using a firearm; knife or cutting
instrument; other dangerous weapon; or hands,
fists, and feet).
o Burglary (includes forcible entry; unlawful,
nonforcible entry; and attempted forcible entry of
a structure to commit a felony or a theft).
o Larceny theft (the unlawful taking, carrying,
leading, or riding away of property from the
possession or constructive possession of another
person, except for a motor vehicle).
o Motor vehicle theft (theft or attempted theft of
an auto, truck, bus, or other vehicle that is self-
propelled and runs on land surface and not on
rails).
o Arson (willful or malicious burning of or attempt
to burn a structure, vehicle, or other property,
with or without intent to defraud).7
About 16,000 law enforcement agencies participate
in the FBI's UCR system, and almost every State has
a functioning UCR Program Office. With its long
history and stability, UCR statistics are the most
frequently cited data for national, State, and
local crime trends in this country. Unfortunately,
the weaknesses of the UCR are generally
acknowledged, and its value for policy and planning
decisions is extremely limited.
At this time the majority of States still produce
only UCR data reports. Although most States are
working toward implementing a statewide incident-
based reporting system, only a few have fully
operational programs. Even among States with
operational systems, the data reported may reflect
only a small proportion of the jurisdictions or
crimes in that State.8
Although it would be technically feasible to add
domestic violence to the offenses reported as
aggregate statistics, there potentially would be
some confusion with other offenses. Since domestic
violence can be any criminal act between persons
having a legally recognized relationship for this
purpose, in an aggregate statistical reporting
system that includes domestic violence as a
category, it would be impossible to tell how many
domestic violence incidents were murders, how many
were assaults, or even how many were acts of
intimidation that did not involve physical harm.
Conversely, in an aggregate reporting system, the
proportion of assaults that were related to
domestic violence incidents could not be determined
because only a single figure is given for each
offense category.
Recognizing the dual nature of domestic violence,
incidents could be counted for both domestic
violence and other appropriate offense categories.
This practice, however, would result in possibly
double-counting crime incidents with no way to
clearly determine the extent of overlap between
domestic violence and other offense categories.
More complete estimates of sexual violence from
aggregate data systems could be derived by
expanding the number of sexual violence offenses to
include more than just forcible rape. These
statistics would have the same limitations as other
aggregate information. However, because of the
complexity of domestic and sexual violence as
interpersonal events and as crimes, aggregate
statistics would be of minimal value for policy and
planning decisions.
One solution to the problem of lack of detail in
aggregate statistics is exemplified by a study
conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), which reviewed individual
nonfatal incident reports from the Atlanta Police
Department to identify how many involved family or
intimate assaults.9 Even though the department does
not specifically record family or domestic violence
as an offense, CDC staff determined from a sample
of cases reported in 1984 which ones could be
classified as such. Based on the proportion of
family and domestic violence incidents found in
this sample, estimates by known offense category
could then be calculated for the total reported
crimes. Assuming that the rates found in this study
are transferable to other jurisdictions and time
periods, this approach could be used to estimate
domestic violence incidents occurring in other
areas. Similar studies could be conducted to assess
the validity of these estimators for other
jurisdictions and time periods.
Incident-based data. With local agencies
increasingly automating their records systems, more
will have the ability to generate electronic data
files that can be used for a variety of reports and
analyses, and they will be able to develop greater
capabilities to conduct incident-based analyses.
Although each agency may be able to electronically
access individual records, the information
identified may not be consistent across agencies
because of a lack of State data standards,
differences in software used, or local operational
characteristics. Therefore, although automation may
improve the likelihood that States can obtain data
from local agencies, it will not guarantee ready
input for centralized data bases.
In 1988 the FBI published its NIBRS data standards.
This system is the most prominent national effort
to have States collect crime incident data and
represents the most likely source of reasonably
comparable State statistics on reported domestic
and sexual violence incidents. The NIBRS data
standard is a substantial departure from the
summary UCR system. Instead of aggregate data for 8
crimes, NIBRS specifies 52 data elements (one more
data element was subsequently added for
identifying hate crimes) to be reported for every
crime incident known to law enforcement.10
Reporting NIBRS information is even more complex
than it appears from the previous statement because
NIBRS data elements are divided into six groups or
segments--Administrative Data, Offense, Property,
Victim, Offender, and Arrestee. Except for
Administrative Data, all of the segments may need
to be addressed for the same incident depending on
the circumstances. For example, a criminal kills a
security guard while robbing a bank. In reporting
this incident, two Offense Segments would be
entered--one for murder and one for robbery. Two
Victim Segments also would be submitted--one for
the murdered guard and one for the bank robbed.
Depending on what actually was taken or damaged by
the robber, one or more Property Segments also may
be required. The UCR system used a hierarchy rule,
which allowed for the reporting of only the most
serious offense committed during an incident; and
it had much more limited, if any, related
information about the crimes being committed.
Because most automated information systems must
allow for the largest possible data record, NIBRS
data files can be quite large relative to the
amount of data being reported.
NIBRS also increases the number of crime categories
about which offense and arrestee data are collected
from 8 to 22. Group A includes the following
crimes:
- Arson
- Gambling offenses
- Assault offenses
- Homicide offenses
- Bribery
- Kidnaping/abduction
- Burglary/breaking and entering
- Larceny/theft offenses
- Motor vehicle theft
- Counterfeiting/forgery
- Pornography/obscene material
- Destruction/damage/vandalism of property
- Prostitution offenses
- Robbery
- Drug/narcotic offenses
- Sex offenses, forcible
- Embezzlement
- Sex offenses, nonforcible
- Extortion/blackmail
- Stolen property offenses
- Fraud offenses
- Weapon law violations
Arrestee data only are collected for 11 additional
offenses, which are referred to as Group B
offenses:
- Bad checks
- Liquor law violations
- Curfew/loitering/vagrancy violations
- Peeping Tom
- Runaway
- Disorderly conduct
- Drunkenness
- Family offenses, nonviolent
- Trespass of real property
- All other offenses
Although NIBRS does not include a specific domestic
violence offense code, it is possible to estimate
domestic violence incidents from NIBRS data because
victim-offender relationships are reported for
crimes against persons and robbery. Using this data
element, domestic violence estimates can be
calculated for any offense category.
The absence of a national definition of domestic
violence causes irregularities in the
inclusion/exclusion of more informal relationships
such as current or ex-boyfriends/girlfriends,
roommates, and cohabitants. Some States define
domestic violence in terms of a wide range of
victim-offender relationships, while others require
either a spousal relationship or a child in common
for a criminal act to be considered domestic
violence.11 The exclusion of informal relationships
obscures the distinctions between the
characteristics of these victim/offender subgroups
and the general population and minimizes the
aggregate national estimate.
During the April 10-11 meeting of the project
panel, FBI representatives indicated that adding to
the allowable codes for a specific NIBRS data
element would be much easier to implement than
expanding the number of data elements. For example,
codes for indicating "ex-boyfriend/girlfriend,"
"child in common," and "shared domicile" could be
introduced for the victim-offender relationship
data element, which would reflect expanded
definitions for domestic violence that are used by
some States. Similarly, domestic violence could be
added to the list of NIBRS offense codes. Adding a
separate domestic violence data element (such as
Michigan and Kansas have done to their incident-
based reporting data standard), however, would
create significant problems for Federal, State, and
local governments because they would have to
reprogram software and reprint manuals and forms to
accommodate this change.
Including victim-offender relationship data in the
national statistical data standard does have one
important benefit. Because the definitions for
domestic and sexual violence can vary widely across
States regarding which types of relationships and
offenses are included, national estimates based on
State-reported statistics for these crimes would
not be uniformly consistent. Calculating prevalence
estimates using selected offense categories and
victim-offender relationship data would produce
more reasonably consistent national statistics
since these figures would be less affected by
differences in State domestic/sexual violence
definitions.
Another major difference between the NIBRS and UCR
systems is that the NIBRS record links original
incident reports to subsequent arrestees. This
feature will allow further analysis of crime
characteristics related to the eventual capture of
a suspect. For domestic violence incidents, this
would provide some indication of how frequently
arrests are made in these cases and for various
related offenses or types of offenders.
As long as a State can produce a data file that
complies with the FBI's standards, it is permitted
to expand the incident-based data elements
collected from law enforcement agencies within its
jurisdiction. One reason for doing so is to
increase the utility of the data for resource
allocation studies, crime analysis, and other
applications that need information on crime
patterns. Because NIBRS was originally designed as
a statistical data base, it intentionally lacks
certain information items that help agencies with
their operational needs. For example, some States
include geocodes to map crime data and offender
physical characteristics, such as scars, marks, and
tattoos, to identify specific criminals and to link
previously unknown cases to particular suspects.
The variability across States in their incident-
based reporting standards has created some
difficulties for automated information systems
vendors and agency data processing managers. It
generally increases the amount of computer software
customization that is required for each agency
before it is able to produce NIBRS-compliant data
files. Consequently, reporting agencies have
experienced difficulties either in locating records
management software that complies with the NIBRS
data standard as well as their own State standard
or in obtaining the resources necessary to revise
their existing reporting systems.
Because of these and other concerns, NIBRS
implementation across the States has been slow, and
many State and local agencies have complained about
the additional reporting burden placed on them.
Since participation in UCR and NIBRS is voluntary,
almost any expansion of these reporting
requirements can be a significant resource issue
for many agencies that are already coping with
difficult budgetary choices.
According to the FBI UCR Program Office, as of June
2, 1995, 8 States had been approved as capable of
producing NIBRS-compliant data, and 20 States were
testing for NIBRS compliance. Only 7 States do not
have plans or have not indicated interest in NIBRS
participation.12 The survey on State domestic and
sexual violence data collection conducted by JRSA
also indicated that a majority of the States (38,
or 81 percent) have or plan to have an incident-
based reporting system in the next 2 years.13
Although only a few States are currently producing
NIBRS-compliant data, most are moving in the
direction of implementing some level of incident-
based reporting capability statewide. Even some of
the States with no intention of meeting the FBI's
data standards either had or were considering an
incident-based reporting system. Consequently,
there will probably be a subset of States for which
crime incident data can be aggregated for national-
level analyses, and there even may be certain data
elements for which some additional States can
provide information to further expand data
coverage. Attaining the goal of a crime incident-
based reporting system that is national in scope
and contains uniform data elements, however, may
take substantially more time than originally
envisioned and may never be fully achieved without
a significant commitment of Federal resources.
State survey responses also revealed that States
have adopted various reporting methods for
collecting domestic violence data. For example,
Michigan and Kansas have added a box on their crime
incident report forms that officers must mark to
indicate whether an incident was domestic violence
related. Other States (e.g., Connecticut, New York,
and Wisconsin) have separate forms for reporting
domestic violence. The special domestic violence
report form enables States to collect offense-
specific information that may be more difficult to
include in a general crime incident report form.
Use of a separate form, however, does carry the
physical and psychological burden of additional
paperwork, which increases the likelihood that
officers will fail to complete or submit a report.
Finally, it should be noted that any incident-based
reporting system also will be subject to the
underreporting concerns that have been raised about
the summary UCR system. Law enforcement agencies
cannot be expected to provide data on crimes of
which they are not aware. Consequently, additional
sources may be consulted to estimate the degree to
which the problem of underreporting affects the
crime statistics gathered by law enforcement
agencies--such as a major Federal statistical data
base, which is discussed in the next section.
Crime victimization surveys
Crime victimization surveys supplement crime
statistics generated by law enforcement agencies.
Their purpose is to provide data about crimes that
may not be reported by victims to police and to
obtain detailed information that may not be
collected in traditional police reports. State
survey responses showed that only a few States (10,
or 21 percent) conduct such surveys, and only half
of these collect domestic or sexual violence
data.14 Among the possible reasons for the low
number of States that do these studies are the
costs involved, controversies that can arise over
survey questions or methods, and resistance by
government agencies to burden citizens with more
information requests.
National Crime Victimization Survey. At the
national level, the Bureau of Justice Statistics
operates the National Crime Victimization Survey
(NCVS). The survey itself is administered by the
Bureau of the Census through a cooperative
agreement. It collects information on the following
completed and attempted crimes: rapes, robberies,
assaults, larcenies, burglaries, and motor vehicle
thefts. The survey's purpose is to gather
information on unreported crimes as well as on
aspects of reported crimes that may not be
collected through police-generated crime
statistics.
The data consists of interviews from approximately
50,000 housing units and 100,000 persons. All
members of a selected household are interviewed
every 6 months for a period of 3 years. The first
and fifth interviews are conducted in person; the
remainder are done over the phone.15 To encourage
cooperation in relating what may be very personal
or potentially embarrassing information,
interviewees are assured that their responses will
be kept confidential. Interviewers receive special
training to address those portions of the survey
instrument requiring greater sensitivity.
Past NCVS-based family violence statistics have
been substantially lower than those from specific
family violence surveys and studies. In order to
address specific concerns about the NCVS's ability
to accurately reflect the incidence of domestic and
sexual violence, several revisions in the survey's
questions and procedures have recently been
implemented. These changes in the NCVS should bring
its estimates closer to those from other
information sources, but some differences will
remain due to NCVS's purpose, which is to measure
potential criminal behavior, as opposed to other
studies' orientation toward family or domestic
relations. The 1993 statistics are the first data
set to fully incorporate these changes. The actual
data became available in late 1994, and the first
analyses of this data were published in August
1995.16
One important distinction is that the questions on
the NCVS instrument are intentionally phrased to
elicit information about respondents' experiences
during the previous 6 months regardless of whether
or not they could be considered crimes. This
approach is taken to avoid underreporting due to
interviewee misconceptions, which may be either
culturally based or personal perceptions concerning
what constitutes criminal behavior. Therefore, in
addition to those crimes not reported to police for
reasons of inconvenience or fear of involving
authorities, these statistics include events that
respondents may not consider to be crimes and would
probably not have reported, even if the other
barriers did not exist.
From this perspective, responses to the NCVS
questions "are not crime-specific; rather, they are
behavior specific."17 Some may argue that this
effort to be more inclusive or comprehensive in
coverage may lead to an overestimation of crime
because it counts events that are not truly
criminal behavior. For domestic violence in
particular, this can be a difficult issue since the
public's and the criminal justice system's concept
of this crime continues to evolve. Consequently,
keeping statistical measurement methods consistent
and relevant under such circumstances can be
challenging.
By their very nature, victimization survey-based
crime estimates will be higher than law
enforcement-generated crime statistics. Concerns
have been raised as to how many of the
discrepancies between the two sets of figures are
attributable to measurement methods as opposed to
the actual incidence of crimes. The Bureau of
Justice Statistics has conducted and sponsored many
studies to assess the possible impact of various
survey methodologies and procedures on reporting
results.18
Although some measurement concerns can be addressed
by rephrasing questions or making changes in the
administration of the survey instrument, other
errors may be more difficult to control for. This
fact was acknowledged in comments by BJS staff in
describing the NCVS's recent revisions:
This redesign project is only one step in the
evolution of our thinking about issues of rape and
family violence. Research, however, including the
NCVS, cannot be divorced from the social context in
which it is conducted. Existing attitudes and
stereotypes regarding these victimizations are
linked inextricably to our ability, as researchers,
to quantify the problem. Unfortunately, research
indicates the persistence of impediments that
prevent many women from reporting these
victimizations.19
Other criminal justice domains
In addition to law enforcement and victimization
data, information from prosecutors, courts, and
corrections can show charging practices, conviction
rates, and sentencing patterns for these offenses.
Further analysis of these data sources would go
somewhat beyond the original scope of this project,
which was to study how data on the incidence of
domestic and sexual violence offenses could be
collected. Obtaining information from these
additional sources would expand knowledge about
case dispositions, possible treatment outcomes, and
recidivism among types of offenders.
Many of the data collection problems cited for
police information also apply to these segments of
the criminal justice system, i.e., lack of uniform
data definitions and standards, incompatible
computer hardware and software, and other
organizational barriers. Another problem is that
many of the records systems on which any
statistical information is based were developed for
internal processing of individuals or cases.
Consequently, they may lack summary reporting
capabilities. Finally, data quality also may be a
concern, particularly for data items that are not
required for the originating agency's information
needs and, therefore, may not be thoroughly checked
or verified before submission.
Multiservice domain data links
Although such an information system would present
valuable data on victims and offenders, it would
need to overcome substantial technical and
organizational obstacles and probably would require
greater funding resources than are currently
available. Concerns such as client confidentiality
also would prevent tracking individuals through
multiple service systems.
Special studies
With the diversity of victim-offender
subpopulations for both domestic and sexual
violence offenses, no general data reporting system
will be able to capture sufficiently detailed
information for all possible analyses. Therefore,
special studies that focus on specific victim-
offender groups or behavior patterns may be a more
reasonable solution for obtaining answers to policy
questions that general statistical data sets may
not be able to address. If properly planned, such
special studies can supplement what is known from
general crime statistical data and could be used to
estimate specific characteristics that may be lost
in larger data categories or groupings.
Concerns About Reporting Alternatives
Unfortunately, no single data reporting system will
be able to find all instances of domestic or sexual
violence. Each has weaknesses in definitional
detail or implementation that can lead to
uncertainties about possible under- or
overreporting in the resulting statistics. The
following sections explore some of these concerns.
Incomplete coverage of all cases
No data source will be able to capture all possible
instances of domestic and sexual violence. Victims'
refusal to report crimes to or cooperate with
public officials will contribute to underreporting
problems. Any failures by police, prosecutors, and
service providers to recognize or accurately record
domestic and sexual violence offenses also will
result in underestimates of prevalence in agency-
generated statistics. Surveys and victims' self-
reports may suffer from errors stemming from how
the survey questions are phrased or administered or
from the respondents' unwillingness or inability to
answer accurately.
Prevalence estimates, which may be based on samples
or indirectly derived from crime statistics, may be
affected by these and other measurement errors.
Unfortunately, because of the realities imposed by
data collection resources and methods and the
nature of the crimes being studied, it is not
always possible to eliminate or control for all of
these concerns. Consequently, any analyses of these
statistics must simply acknowledge these
limitations and, when available, use alternative
measures that may provide additional support for
these indicators.
Possible duplication across data systems
Individual victims and offenders may come into
contact with several different criminal justice,
health, and social service agencies. Within an
agency, the same person also may be involved in
multiple incidents or service events. Without a
universal personal identifier for victims and
offenders, it is extremely difficult and expensive
to track individuals across records that are
usually organized around cases or incidents. The
task is even harder when multiple agencies are
involved, since records systems may not be
compatible. Given that domestic abuse and sexual
violence are behaviorally motivated crimes, there
is a tendency for these offenders to recidivate.
This may result in the duplication of individuals
in statistical figures based on agency records.
Depending on the nature of the analysis, this may
or may not be important. For example, research
related to mandatory arrest policies require
specific followup information on known abusers to
identify intervention points and subsequent
behaviors. Studies looking at other aspects of
victim-offender characteristics may not be so
dependent on the elimination of duplicate records.
Incomplete reporting
Failures to provide complete and accurate data
plague most information-gathering efforts. Criminal offense
reporting may be affected by factors such as victim
noncooperation and agency failures to collect data
or properly implement procedures. The level of
difficulty these problems create for statewide data
collection was indicated in the State survey.
Because domestic and sexual violence victims can
face possible reprisals by the offenders, a heavy
burden of embarrassment, and other repercussions,
obtaining their cooperation can be extremely
difficult for law enforcement and other agencies.
The act of reporting domestic violence and some
sexual violence incidents may be considered by
victims as a last resort or as a way to make an
irreparable break in a relationship. Consequently,
the victims may perceive reporting as an admission
of personal failure that they cannot face or
believe is avoidable.
Additionally, the problem of adequate training of
personnel in handling these cases often was cited
in the project panel discussions and survey
responses. As many jurisdictions are recognizing
the seriousness of these offenses, new laws and
policies are being adopted, which in turn may
require time to train all relevant staff in new
procedures and to fully implement them.
For all the above reasons, underreporting of
domestic and sexual violence can be more of a
problem than for other types of offenses. Although
efforts can be made to overcome some of the factors
hindering accurate reporting, some barriers may
never be completely surmounted given the nature of
these crimes and the social and behavioral issues
involved.
Definitional issues
With any statistical data set, it is important to
be aware of what definitions are used to determine
what cases or persons are being included or
excluded. Both domestic and sexual violence can be
viewed from different perspectives, such as the
frequency of abuse, level of abuse, categories of
victims, or types of offenders. Obviously, what is
counted will affect the resulting statistical
figures. This situation should be recognized in any
discussion of the prevalence of these social
problems.
The panel members and the State survey responders
indicated many definitions for both domestic and
sexual violence. This is due in part to statutory
differences across the States, but it also reflects
an evolving understanding of domestic and sexual
violence that is occurring in society in general,
which is reflected in the policies and practices of
various agencies around the country. Because
domestic and sexual violence are being treated as
much more serious criminal offenses than in the
past, these differences can result from some
jurisdictions adopting more aggressive or
comprehensive approaches than others.
Unfortunately, this situation makes collecting
uniform and consistent data across jurisdictions
much more difficult. During the second panel
meeting, the representative from the Washington
Metropolitan Police Department announced that a new
sexual assault law had been recently passed by his
government. This announcement highlighted the
challenge of trying to implement statistical
measures for events about which relevant criminal
laws may be rapidly changing.
Because identifying domestic violence crimes may
involve consideration of a criminal act, the
relationship between the victim and offender, and
the offender's motive for committing the act,
properly classifying cases can be more difficult
than for other types of offenses. For example, a
crime incident that would normally be considered a
property crime (e.g., a burglary, motor vehicle
theft, larceny, or vandalism) could be classified
as a domestic violence incident if the
perpetrator's intent is to harass or intimidate the
victim. This may require the investigating officers
to go beyond the facts initially presented for a
complaint to its possible underlying circumstances.
An additional complication for data reporting is
that some States have not mandated a specific
domestic violence offense with which to charge an
offender. In these instances, the offender is
charged with another offense, but his case may be
flagged as a domestic violence case for reporting
purposes. Other States have broader family violence
statutes that include domestic violence.
Summary
In summary, different definitions, legal
procedures, and records management systems that are
used to identify domestic violence and sexual
assault complicate data collection efforts.
Jurisdictional and agency differences can
contribute to problems that prevent the compilation
of reliable and uniform national estimates for
these offenses. Definitional differences between
service domains such as law enforcement agencies
and victim services providers, along with
incomplete sharing of information, speak to the
importance of using multiple sources of data to
develop a comprehensive understanding of the
problem.
----------------------------------------
Notes
1. Blumstein, Alfred, and Joan Petersilia, "NIJ and
Its Research Program," 25 Years of Criminal Justice
Research: The National Institute of Justice,
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, December 1994.
Limited copies of this document are available from
the National Criminal Justice Reference Service,
800-851-3420. Ask for NCJ 151287. Or you can view
the document online at http://www.ncjrs.org.
2. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime
Reporting: National Incident-Based Reporting
System--Volume I: Data Collection
Guidelines, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, July 1,
1988:5-16.
3. Wiersema, B., "The Impact of Series Incidents on
Estimates of Violent Victimization," paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American
Society of Criminology, Phoenix, 1993.
4. See appendix D, question 38.
5. See appendix D, questions 19, 20, 21, and 22.
6. See appendix D, questions 21d and 22d.
7. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime
Reporting Handbook, Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, 1984:5-32.
8. See appendix D, questions 4 and 5.
9. Saltzman, Linda E., James A. Mercy et al.,
"Identification of Nonfatal Family and Intimate
Assault Incidents in Police Data," American Journal
of Public Health, 62, No. 7 (July 1992):1018-1020.
10. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime
Reporting Handbook--NIBRS Edition, Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, 1992.
11. See appendix D, questions 37 and 38.
12. See appendix C.
13. See appendix C, question 1.
14. See appendix D, questions 7, 8, and 9.
15. Bachman, Ronet, and Bruce M. Taylor, "The
Measurement of Family Violence and Rape by the
Redesigned National Crime
Victimization Survey," Justice Quarterly, 11, No. 3
(September 1994).
16. Bachman, Ronet, and Linda E. Saltzman, Violence
Against Women Estimates from the Redesigned Survey,
Special Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (NCJ
154348), August 1995.
17. Bachman, Ronet, and Bruce M. Taylor, "The
Measurement of Family Violence and Rape by the
Redesigned National Crime
Victimization Survey," Justice Quarterly, 11, No. 3
(September 1994):509-510.
18. Bureau of Justice Statistics, The National
Crime Survey: Working Papers, Volume I: Current and
Historical Perspectives and Volume II:
Methodological Studies, Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, December 1981.
19. Bachman, Ronet, and Bruce M. Taylor, "The
Measurement of Family Violence and Rape by the
Redesigned National Crime
Victimization Survey," Justice Quarterly, 11, No. 3
(September 1994):511.
---------------------------------------------------
Appendix A: List of Project Participants
Panel to Assess State and Federal Data on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault
Yoshio Akiyama, Ph.D.
Chief Statistician
Program Support Section
Criminal Justice Information
Services Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation
10th and Pennsylvania, N.W.
Washington, DC 20535
Fax: 202-324-2258
Bernard V. Auchter
Program Manager
National Institute of Justice
U.S. Department of Justice
633 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Room 842
Washington, DC 20531
Fax: 202-307-9907
No�l Brennan
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Office of Justice Programs
U.S. Department of Justice
633 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Room 1300
Washington, DC 20531
Fax: 202-514-7805
Debra Bright
Project Coordinator
Mayor's Coordinating Council on
Criminal Justice
10 South Street, Suite 400
Baltimore, MD 21202
Fax: 410-625-2107
Timothy Bynum, Ph.D.
Michigan Justice Statistics Center
School of Criminal Justice
Michigan State University
560 Baker Hall
East Lansing, MI 48824
Fax: 517-432-1787
Bonnie J. Campbell
Director
Violence Against Women
U.S. Department of Justice
10th and Constitution, N.W., Room 5302
Washington, DC 20531
Fax: 202-307-3911
Nancy Crowell, Research Associate
Commission on Behavior and Social
Science and Education
National Academy of Sciences
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Suite HA156H
Washington, DC 20418
Fax: 202-334-3829
Kim English
Director
Office of Research & Statistics
Colorado Division of Criminal Justice
700 Kipling Street, Suite 3000
Denver, CO 80403
Fax: 303-239-4491
Mai Fernandez
Special Assistant to the Deputy
Assistant Attorney General
Office of Justice Programs
U.S. Department of Justice
633 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Room 1300
Washington, DC 20531
Fax: 202-514-7805
John Firman
Director of Research
International Association of Chiefs
of Police
515 North Washington Street, 4th Floor
Alexandria, VA 22314
Fax: 703-836-4543
Therese Ford
Director
Alabama Criminal Justice Information
Center
770 Washington Avenue, Suite 350
Montgomery, AL 36130
Fax: 334-242-0577
Gilford Gee
Survey Statistician
Programs Support Section
Criminal Justice Information
Services Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation
10th and Pennsylvania, N.W.
Washington, DC 20535
Fax: 202-324-2258
Sgt. Scott Gibson
Patrol Division
Alexandria Police Department
2003 Mill Road
Alexandria, VA 22314
Fax: 703-838-6309
Adele Harrell, Ph.D.
Director
Program on Law and Behavior
The Urban Institute
2100 M Street, N.W., Suite 500
Washington, DC 20037
Fax: 202-659-8985
Barbara Hart
Legal Director, Pennsylvania Coalition
Against Domestic Violence, and
Associate Director, Battered Women's
Justice Project
6400 Flank Drive, Suite 1300
Harrisburg, PA 17112
Fax: 717-545-9456
Gwen Holden
Executive Vice President
National Criminal Justice Association
444 North Capitol Street, N.W.,
Suite 618
Washington, DC 20001
Fax: 202-508-3859
William Holmes, Ph.D.
Director
Statistical Analysis Center
Executive Office of Public Safety
Division of Programs
100 Cambridge Street, Room 2100
Boston, MA 02202
Fax: 617-727-5356
Jann Jackson
Associate Director
House of Ruth
2201 Argonne Drive
Baltimore, MD 21218
Fax: 410-889-9347
Neal Kauder
Research Associate
National Center for State Courts
300 Newport Avenue
Williamsburg, VA 23187-8798
Fax: 804-220-0449
Susan Keilitz
Senior Research Associate
National Center for State Courts
300 Newport Avenue
Williamsburg, VA 23187-8798
Fax: 804-220-0449
Jackie McCann
Program Specialist
Office for Victims of Crime
U.S. Department of Justice
633 Indiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20531
Fax: 202-514-6383
Patti Dobbs Medaris
Branch Chief
Violence Against Women
Bureau of Justice Assistance
U.S. Department of Justice
633 Indiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20531
Fax: 202-307-2019
Ann Menard
Director
National Resource Center on Domestic
Violence
6400 Flank Drive, Suite 1300
Harrisburg, PA 17112
Fax: 717-545-9456
Richard Moore
Administrator
Statistical Analysis Center
Criminal & Juvenile Justice Planning
Lucas State Office Building
Des Moines, IA 50319
Fax: 515-242-6119
Lisa Doyle Moran
Associate Director for Legal Affairs
National Criminal Justice Association
444 North Capitol Street, N.W.,
Suite 618
Washington, DC 20001
Fax: 202-508-3859
Mary Morgan
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Office of Policy Development
U.S. Department of Justice
10th and Constitution, N.W., Room 4242
Washington, DC 20530
Fax: 202-514-5715
Ashley Oliver
Presidential Management Intern
Office for Victims of Crime
U.S. Department of Justice
633 Indiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20531
Fax: 202-514-6383
Carol Petrie
Director
Planning and Management Division
National Institute of Justice
U.S. Department of Justice
633 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Room 854
Washington, DC 20531
Fax: 202-514-6212
Cathy Poston
Senior Counsel
Office of Policy Development
U.S. Department of Justice
10th and Constitution, N.W., Room 4242
Washington, DC 20530
Fax: 202-514-5715
Dolly Reed
Director
Office of Policy and Management
80 Washington Street
Hartford, CT 06106
Fax: 203-566-1589
Benjamin H. Renshaw, III
Deputy Director
Bureau of Justice Statistics
U.S. Department of Justice
633 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Room 1144
Washington, DC 20531
Fax: 202-307-5846
Stephen Rickman
Director
Crime Bill Support Division
Bureau of Justice Assistance
U.S. Department of Justice
633 Indiana Avenue, N.W., 4th Floor
Washington, DC 20531
Fax: 202-307-2019
Emanuel Ross, Jr., Ph.D.
Operations Research Analyst
Metropolitan Police Department
300 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Room 3142
Washington, DC 20001
Fax: 202-727-0826
Elisabeth Sachs
Senior Counsel
Office of Policy Development
U.S. Department of Justice
10th and Constitution, N.W., Room 4242
Washington, DC 20530
Fax: 202-514-5715
Linda Saltzman, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
Family and Intimate Violence
Prevention Team
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention
Mail Stop K60, 4770 Buford Highway
Atlanta, GA 30341-3724
Fax: 404-488-4349
Kathy Schwartz
Administrator
Violence Against Women Program
U.S. Department of Justice
633 Indiana Avenue, N.W., 4th Floor
Washington, DC 20531
Fax: 202-307-2019
Edwin Zedlewski, Ph.D.
Director
Office of Criminal Justice Research
National Institute of Justice
633 Indiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20531
Fax: 202-307-6394
------ JRSA Staff ------
Justice Research & Statistics Association
444 North Capitol Street, N.W.,
Suite 445
Washington, DC 20001
Fax: 202-624-5269
Joan C. Weiss
Executive Director
Jim Zepp
Computer Center Director
Karen Maline
Assistant Director for Information Services
---------------------------------------------------
Appendix B: State Survey Form
(Not included in this ASCII text file. See Table
of Contents for more information.)
---------------------------------------------------
Appendix C: List of Respondents to JRSA Survey of
States and Territories
States and Territories Responding to JRSA Survey on
Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection
Alabama Montana
Alaska Nebraska
Arizona Nevada
Arkansas New Hampshire
California New Jersey
Colorado New York
Connecticut North Carolina
Delaware North Dakota
District of Columbia
Florida Northern Mariana Islands
Georgia Ohio
Hawaii Oklahoma
Idaho Pennsylvania
Illinois Puerto Rico
Indiana Rhode Island
Iowa South Dakota
Kansas Tennessee
Louisiana Texas
Maine Utah
Maryland Virgin Islands
Massachusetts Washington
Michigan West Virginia
Minnesota Wisconsin
Missouri Wyoming
---------------------------------------------------
Appendix D: State Survey Results
(Appendix D is not included in this ASCII text
file. See Table of Contents for more information.)
-------------------------------------------------
Appendix E: FBI NIBRS Status Report as of 06/02/95*
(Appendix E is not included in this ASCII text
file.)
* For updates, contact the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington,
DC 20531, or access the Web site at
http://www.nibrs.search.org.
-------------------------------------------------
Appendix F: A Note on Terminology for Crime
Statistics
A Note on Terminology for Crime Statistics
In any discussion of domestic and sexual violence
crime statistics, it is important to be precise in
the terminology used to describe the crime data
being collected and analyzed. Otherwise, what
appear to be conflicts between various prevalence
or severity indicators may be actually due to the
use of different units of measure.
A distinction should be made between the terms
"incident" and "offense." According to the FBI's
National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS)
data standards,
An "incident" is defined for NIBRS
reporting purposes as one or more
offenses committed by the same offender,
or group of offenders acting in concert,
at the same time and place.1
From this definition, certain relationships are
evident among the terms used, e.g., an incident is
a single event during which multiple offenses or
crimes may be committed and with which several
victims and offenders may be associated.
Consequently, a jurisdiction's statistics for
offenses, victims, and offenders may be greater
than its number of reported incidents.
The number of offenses, victims, and offenders also
may be different from one another since each is an
independent phenomenon. In other words, a single
offender may have multiple victims or may commit
multiple offenses against a single victim, or
multiple offenders may attack a single victim.
A further refinement is that most crime incident
data sets rarely have the ability to distinguish
between first-time offenders and recidivists. This
would require examining criminal history records to
determine whether someone is a repeat offender when
reporting every crime incident. Since the offender
is often unknown when a crime is first reported,
this information would have to be retroactively
added when a case is cleared. Additionally, since
the crime is reported at arrest, subsequent
prosecutorial or judicial actions may invalidate
the assignment of a crime to an individual.
Tracking these decisions and updating personal
records and higher level statistical data sets
require more of a resource commitment than most
jurisdictions are willing to make. As a result, the
number of offenders reported in incident-based data
sets may be greater than the actual criminal
population. This would be particularly true for
offenses such as domestic and sexual violence that
are behaviorally motivated crimes and where
offenders may have a greater tendency to
recidivate.
All of this means that the use of specific
statistical figures in discussing prevalence or
severity of domestic and sexual violence problems
should be done with a full awareness of what they
represent. In addition to concerns about under- or
overreporting problems, there may be legitimate
reasons for discrepancies across various data sets
because of differences in definitions and
procedures for data collection employed in each.
--------------------
Note
1. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime
Reporting: National Incident-Based Reporting
System--Volume I: Data Collection Guidelines,
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
Federal Bureau of Investigation, July 1, 1988:17.
-----------------------------------------------
For more information on the National Institute of
Justice, please contact:
National Criminal Justice Reference Service
Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
1-800-851-3420
e-mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org
The National Institute of Justice is a component of
the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes
the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims
of Crime.