Bureau of Justice Statistics
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Family Violence Statistics
Including Statistics on Strangers and Acquaintances
Reported and unreported family violence
Murder of family members
Family violence reported to police
Family violence recorded by police
State prosecution of family assault
Federal prosecution of domestic violence
Family violence offenders in prison
Family violence offenders in jail
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
810 Seventh Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20531
Alberto R. Gonzales
Attorney General
Office of Justice Programs
Partnerships for Safer Communities
Tracy Henke
Acting Assistant Attorney General
World Wide Web site:
http//www.ojp.usdoj.gov
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Lawrence A. Greenfeld
Director
World Wide Web site:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs
For information contact
National Criminal Justice Reference Service
1-800-851-3420
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Family Violence Statistics
Including Statistics on Strangers and Acquaintances
By
Matthew R. Durose
Caroline Wolf Harlow, Ph.D.
Patrick A. Langan, Ph.D.
Mark Motivans, Ph.D.
Ramona R. Rantala
Erica L. Smith
BJS Statisticians
Assisted by
Elizabeth Constantin
BJS Statistical Assistant
June 2005, NCJ 207846
Contents
ii
Family Violence Statistics
Highlights, definitions, and counting rules 1
Definitions
Sources of data on family violence
Counting rules
Reported and unreported family violence 8
About the data in this section
Offense type (table 2.1)
Offense location (table 2.2)
Victim demographics (table 2.3)
Victim injury (table 2.4)
Victim medical care (table 2.5)
Offender demographics (table 2.6)
Offender weapon use (table 2.7)
Offender drug or alcohol use (table 2.8)
Number of victims and offenders
(table 2.9)
Fatal family violence 17
About the data in this section
Victim demographics (table 3.1)
Offender demographics (table 3.2)
Offender weapon use (table 3.3)
Number of victims and offenders (table 3.4)
Family violence reported to police 22
About the data in this section
Percent of family violence reported to police (table 4.1)
Reporting rates by offense (table 4.2)
Reporting rates by victim demographics (table 4.3)
Reporting rates by whether offender had a
weapon (table 4.4)
Reasons for not reporting family violence
to police (table 4.5)
Person who reported family violence
to police (table 4.6)
Arrest rate by offense (table 4.7)
Family violence recorded by police 29
About the data in this section
Offense type (table 5.1)
Offense location (table 5.2)
Victim demographics (table 5.3)
Victim injury (table 5.4)
Offender demographics (table 5.5)
Offender weapon use (table 5.6)
Number of victims and offenders (table 5.7)
Arrests by offense (table 5.8)
Arrestee demographics (table 5.9)
Victim demographics in crimes leading
to arrest (table 5.10)
Arrest rate by offense (table 5.11)
Arrest rate by arrestee demographics (table 5.12)
Arrest rate by victim demographics (table 5.13)
Weapon possession at time of arrest (table 5.14)
Disposition of juvenile arrestees (table 5.15)
State prosecution of family assault 45
About the data in this section
Defendant demographics (table 6.1)
Prior arrests (table 6.2)
Prior felony arrests (table 6.3)
Prior convictions (table 6.4)
Prior felony convictions (table 6.5)
Criminal justice status at time of arrest (table 6.6)
Pretrial release (table 6.7)
Bail amount (table 6.8)
Time from arrest to pretrial release (table 6.9)
Time from arrest to adjudication (table 6.10)
Court outcome (table 6.11)
Time from conviction to sentencing (table 6.12)
Sentence imposed (table 6.13)
Length of prison and jail sentences imposed (table 6.14)
Federal prosecution of domestic violence 51
About the data in this section
Offense type (table 7.1)
Investigating agency (table 7.2)
Profile of convicted offenders (table 7.3)
Family violence offenders in prison 53
About the data in this section
Offense type (table 8.1)
Offense location (table 8.2)
Victim demographics (table 8.3)
Victim injury (table 8.4)
Offender demographics (table 8.5)
Offender weapon use (table 8.6)
Offender drug or alcohol use (table 8.7)
Number of victims and offenders (table 8.8)
Federal, State, and local correctional facilities
Prior sentences (table 8.9)
Family violence offenders in jail 61
About the data in this section
Offense type (table 9.1)
Offense location (table 9.2)
Victim demographics (table 9.3)
Victim injury (table 9.4)
Restraining orders among jail inmates
convicted of family violence
Offender demographics (table 9.5)
Offender weapon use (table 9.6)
Offender drug or alcohol use (table 9.7)
Number of victims and offenders (table 9.8)
Methodology 68
Reported and unreported family violence
Fatal family violence
Family violence recorded by police
State prosecution of family assault
(tables 10.1 and 10.2)
Federal prosecution of domestic violence
Family violence offenders in prison
Family violence offenders in jail
Appendix 71
Discrepant findings from two different
ways of measuring family violence
(tables 11.1 and 11.2)
Introduction
This compendium contains the most
recent family violence statistics from
these sources: surveys conducted by
the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS),
the BJS database of Federal statistics,
and two statistical databases
maintained by the FBI.
The sources provide statistical
snapshots of family violence at different
stages in the administration of justice.
First are statistics on the nature and
extent of family violence. Next are
statistics on family violence that is
reported to police, followed by statistics
on the prosecution of persons charged
with family violence. Lastly are statistics
on persons sent to prison or jail for
family violence.
The report is divided into eight sections
giving statistics on —
• Reported and unreported family
violence
• Fatal family violence
• Family violence reported to police
• Family violence recorded by police
• State prosecution of family assault
• Federal prosecution of domestic
violence
• Family violence offenders in prison
• Family violence offenders in jail.
Highlights
Trends in family violence
The rate of family violence fell between
1993 and 2002 from an estimated 5.4
victims to 2.1 victims per 1,000 U.S.
residents age 12 or older. Throughout
the period family violence accounted for
about 1 in 10 violent victimizations.
Reported and unreported family
violence
Family violence accounted for 11% of
all reported and unreported violence
between 1998 and 2002. Of these
roughly 3.5 million violent crimes
committed against family members,
49% were crimes against spouses, 11%
were sons or daughters victimized by a
parent, and 41% were crimes against
other family members.
The most frequent type of family
violence offense was simple assault.
Murder was less than half of 1% of all
family violence between 1998 and 2002.
About three-fourths of all family violence
occurred in or near the victim's
residence.
Forty percent of family violence victims
were injured during the incident. Of the
3.5 million victims of family violence
between 1998 and 2002, less than 1%
died as a result of the incident.
The majority (73%) of family violence
victims were female. Females were
84% of spouse abuse victims and 86%
of victims of abuse at the hands of a
boyfriend or girlfriend.
While about three-fourths of the victims
of family violence were female, about
three-fourths of the persons who
committed family violence were male.
Most family violence victims were white
(74%), and the majority were between
ages 25 and 54 (65.7%). Most family
violence offenders were white (79%),
and most were age 30 or older (62%).
Fatal family violence
About 22% of murders in 2002 were
family murders. Nearly 9% were
murders of a spouse, 6% were murders
of sons or daughters by a parent, and
7% were murders by other family
members.
Females were 58% of family murder
victims. Of all the murders of females in
2002, family members were responsible
for 43%.
Children under age 13 were 23% of
murder victims killed by a family
member, and just over 3% of nonfamily
murder victims.
The average age among sons or
daughters killed by a parent was 7
years, and 4 out of 5 victims killed by a
parent were under age 13.
Eight in ten murderers who killed a
family member were male. Males were
83% of spouse murderers and 75% of
murderers who killed a boyfriend or
girlfriend.
In 2002 family murders were less likely
than nonfamily murders to involve a
firearm (50% versus 68%). Parents
were the least likely family murderers
to use a firearm (28%), compared to
spouses (63%) or other family members
(51%).
Among incidents of parents killing their
children, 19% involved one parent killing
multiple victims.
Highlights, definitions, and counting rules
Family Violence Statistics
1
Family violence reported to police
Approximately 60% of family violence
victimizations were reported to police
between 1998 and 2002. The reporting
rate among female victims was not
significantly greater than the reporting
rate among male victims.
The most common reason victims of
family violence cited for not reporting
the crime to police was that the incident
was a "private/personal matter" (34%).
Another 12% of non-reporting family
violence victims did not report the crime
in order to "protect the offender."
Among the 2.1 million incidents of
family violence reported to police
between 1998 and 2002, 36% resulted
in an arrest.
Family violence recorded by police
Family violence accounted for 33% of
all violent crimes recorded by police in
18 States and the District of Columbia
in 2000. Of these more than 207,000
family violence crimes, about half (53%,
or 110,000) were crimes between
spouses.
Among crimes recorded by police, 2%
of family violence involved a firearm,
compared to 6% of nonfamily violence.
A weapon was used in 16% of family
and 21% of nonfamily violence.
About 6% of all violent crime recorded
by police in 2000 involved more than
one offender victimizing a lone victim.
The exception was stranger crime, in
which 14% of incidents involved multi-
ple offenders victimizing a lone victim.
About 49% of family violence crimes
recorded by police resulted in an arrest.
Males comprised 77% of suspected
family violence offenders arrested in
2000.
State prosecution of family assault
Of the approximately 1,500 defendants
charged with felony assault during May
2000 in the State courts of 11 large
counties, about a third were charged
with family violence.
Among felony assault defendants
charged with family violence in State
courts, 84% had at least one prior arrest
for either a felony or a misdemeanor
(not necessarily for family violence),
and 73% had been previously convicted
of some type of felony or misdemeanor
(not necessarily family violence).
Nearly half of felony assault defendants
charged with family violence were
released pending case disposition.
Among the 1,500 felony assault cases,
the probability of the case leading to
conviction (felony or misdemeanor) was
greater for family assault defendants
(71%) than nonfamily assault defen-
dants (61%).
State courts sentenced 83% of persons
convicted of assault (both family and
nonfamily) to either prison or jail.
Among felony assault defendants
convicted in State courts —
• 68% of incarceration sentences
for family assault were to jail
• 62% of incarceration sentences
for nonfamily assault were to prison
• 45% of persons sent to prison for
family assault received a sentence of
more than 2 years, compared to 77%
of nonfamily assault offenders sent to
prison.
Federal prosecution of domestic
violence
Persons suspected of domestic
violence made up 4% of the total
18,653 Federal suspects referred to
U.S. attorneys for alleged violent crimes
from 2000 to 2002.
Of the 757 suspects referred to U.S.
attorneys for domestic violence
offenses between 2000 and 2002, most
were firearm-related domestic violence
offenses rather than interstate domestic
violence offenses.
• The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives accounted
for 80% of all referrals for firearm-
related domestic violence.
• The FBI accounted for 72% of all
interstate domestic violence referrals.
Federal courts convicted 90% of defen-
dants adjudicated for an interstate
domestic violence offense.
Among defendants convicted in federal
courts —
• 79% of convictions were the product
of a guilty plea, and the remaining
21% were the product of conviction
following a trial
• most were male (96%), under age 40
(67%), white (72%), and non-Hispanic
(95%)
• 4 in 5 defendants had a prior adult
conviction.
Of 47 Federal defendants sentenced for
an interstate domestic violence offense
between 2000 and 2002, 91% received
a prison term with a median length of 60
months.
2
Family Violence Statistics
Family violence offenders in prison
Of the nearly 500,000 men and women
in State prisons for a violent crime in
1997, 15% were there for a violent
crime against a family member.
Nearly half of all the family violence
offenders in State prisons were serving
a sentence for a sex offense against a
family member. More than three-
quarters of parents convicted of a
violent crime against their son or daugh-
ter were in prison for a sex offense.
Of the crimes for which family violence
offenders were in prison —
• most were against a female (78%)
• more than half were against a child
under age 18
• more than a third were against a
child under age 13.
About 90% of offenders in State prisons
for family violence had injured their
victim:
• 50% of family violence victims were
raped or sexually assaulted
• 28% of the victims of family violence
were killed
• 50% of offenders in State prisons for
spousal abuse had killed their victims
• Of State prison inmates imprisoned
for a crime against their son or daugh-
ter, 79% had raped or sexually
assaulted the child, and another 10%
had killed the child.
Among family violence offenders in
State prisons in 1997 —
• most were male (93%)
• 6 out of 10 were white, while about a
quarter were black
• about 80% were between ages 25
and 54.
Among offenders whose incarceration
in State prisons was for family violence,
23% had used a weapon to commit
their crime. The comparable percentage
among State prisoners incarcerated for
nonfamily violence was higher— 46%.
Family violence offenders in jail
Convicted family violence offenders
made up about 22% of the nearly
86,500 convicted violent offenders in
local jails in 2002. Most (60%) of these
approximately 18,700 jail inmates incar-
cerated for family violence were in jail
for an aggravated assault.
Local jail inmates convicted of family
violence reported that —
• their victims were predominantly
female (79%)
• nearly 30% of their victims were
under age 18.
Among local jail inmates convicted of
family violence, 55% injured their victim.
Most convicted jail inmates serving time
for violence against a family member
(88%) did not use a weapon during the
crime.
Among jail inmates convicted of family
violence, 45% had been subject to a
restraining order at some point in their
life. About 18% were under an active
restraining order at the time of admis-
sion to jail.
Family Violence Statistics
3
Definitions
Violent crime
Unless indicated other-
wise, statistics on violent crime in this
report pertain to all forms of the follow-
ing crimes: criminal homicide,
completed and attempted rape, sexual
assault (including threats), robbery,
assault (including threats), kidnaping,
intimidation, illegal abortion, extortion,
cruelty towards child or wife, hit-and-run
driving with bodily injury, and miscella-
neous crimes against persons (as
opposed to crimes against property).
Family violence
Unless indicated other-
wise, family violence includes all types
of violent crime committed by an
offender who is related to the victim
either biologically or legally through
marriage or adoption. A crime is consid-
ered family violence if the victim was
the offender’s current or former spouse;
parent or adoptive parent; current or
former stepparent; legal guardian;
biological or adoptive child; current or
former stepchild; sibling; current or
former step sibling; grandchild; current
or former step- or adoptive-grandchild;
grandparent; current or former step- or
adoptive-grandparent; in-law; or other
relative (aunt, uncle, nephew).
Nonfamily violence
Unless indicated
otherwise, nonfamily violence includes
all types of violent crime between
current or former boyfriends and
girlfriends; between current or former
friends and acquaintances; and
between strangers.
Relationship of victim to offender
The
databases used in this report all contain
sufficient information to permit identifi-
cation of family violence cases.
However, the types of information that
make identification possible are not
uniform. Some provide more relation-
ship categories than others. For
example, the Supplemental Homicide
Reports provides 28 different catego-
ries of victim-offender relationship, while
the National Crime Victimization Survey
has 15 categories. Also, the databases
use different terms to describe specific
victim-offender relationships. For
example, one uses the category
“employee/employer,” while another
uses “colleague at work.”
In general, enough information was
available in each of the databases to
distinguish six categories of victim-
offender relationship: three family
categories (spouse, son or daughter,
and other family), and three nonfamily
categories (boyfriend/girlfriend, friend/
acquaintance, and stranger). Most
sections of the report present statistics
on all six categories.
Sources of data on family violence
National Crime Victimization Survey
(a BJS survey)
One data source used to document the
nature and extent of family violence in
the United States is the BJS National
Crime Victimization Survey, or NCVS,
for 1998 to 2002. The NCVS compiles
data on family and nonfamily violence
through biannual interviews with nation-
ally representative samples of U.S.
residents age 12 or older. In these inter-
views, residents are asked if they were
a recent victim of crime. Those who
were victims are then asked numerous
questions about the incident, such as
where it occurred and whether they
knew the offender. Residents are
encouraged to tell interviewers both
about crimes that were reported to
police and about unreported crimes.
Because the survey data come from
interviews with victims, the NCVS has
no information on homicide. The
survey’s scope is limited to certain
forms of nonfatal violence: rape and
sexual assault, robbery, aggravated
assault, and simple assault. Based on
interviews with the Nation’s crime
victims, estimates are formed not only
of how many of these crimes occur
each year but also of the characteristics
pertaining to the criminal incidents.
Such characteristics include the number
of victims that obtained medical care for
their injuries, the number that reported
the crime to police, and the number
whose assailant was a relative.
4
Family Violence Statistics
Data documenting the flow of family violence cases through the justice system
Crime
Crime
reported
to police
Crime
recorded
by police
Arrest
Prosecution
and
adjudication
Sentencing
Corrections
National Crime
Victimization Survey (BJS)
Supplementary
Homicide Reports (FBI)
National Incident-
Based Reporting
System (FBI)
State Court Processing
Statistics (BJS)
Federal Justice
Statistics Program (BJS)
Survey of Inmates
in State and Federal
Correctional
Facilities (BJS)
Survey of Inmates
in Local Jails (BJS)
Figure 1
Supplementary Homicide Reports
(an FBI database)
For national statistics on family
homicide for the year 2002, the source
used in this report was the FBI's
Supplementary Homicide Reports, or
SHR. The FBI compiles detailed
national data on family and nonfamily
homicide from the thousands of law
enforcement agencies across the
Nation. For each criminal homicide, the
SHR record such information as the
age and race of the offender, the
relationship of the victim to the offender,
and the type of weapon used in the
killing.
National Incident-Based Reporting
System
(an FBI database)
For statistics on family violence that
comes to police attention and for statis-
tics on arrests for family violence, the
source used in this report is the
database for the year 2000 from the
National Incident-Based Reporting
System, or NIBRS. The database,
compiled by the FBI, contains NIBRS
data from at least 1 police agency in
each of 18 States and the District of
Columbia. These jurisdictions cover
about 16% of the U.S. population and
do not include any areas with a popula-
tion of one million or more.
The NIBRS data have information on
victims, offenders, persons arrested,
and incidents of family and nonfamily
violence. For example, information on
victims includes the type of injury
sustained and the victim’s relationship
to the offender. Among the various
details available on offenders and arres-
tees are their age, race, and gender.
Offense characteristics available in the
NIBRS data include the type of weapon
used and the type of location where the
crime occurred.
State Court Processing Statistics
(a BJS data collection)
No national data in the United States
describe the processing of family
violence cases from arrest through final
disposition by a court. The available
alternative used in this report is an
extract of the BJS data collection State
Court Processing Statistics (SCPS).
The SCPS data used are entirely from
police and court records that tracked
family and nonfamily assault cases in
11 counties, from the filing of State
court charges in May of 2000 to their
final court disposition. These data
include information about persons
arrested and charged with family and
nonfamily assault: their demographic
characteristics, their prior arrest and
conviction record, and their criminal
justice status at time of arrest. The
SCPS data also contain information
about the processing of the assault
cases, such as type of pretrial release,
adjudication outcome, and type of
sentence imposed.
Federal Justice Statistics Program
(a BJS database)
Information regarding violations of
family violence-related Federal statutes
that were subsequently referred to
Federal court come from the Federal
Justice Statistics Program (FJSP), a
database maintained by the Bureau of
Justice Statistics. FJSP provides annual
data on workload, activities, and
outcomes associated with Federal
criminal cases. Data for 2000 to 2002
were acquired on all aspects of
processing in the Federal justice
system, including the number of
persons investigated, prosecuted,
convicted, and incarcerated. The FJSP
database is a BJS database,
constructed from files provided by the
U.S. Marshals Service, the Executive
Office for United States Attorneys, the
Administrative Office of the United
States Courts, the United States
Sentencing Commission, and the
Federal Bureau of Prisons.
Survey of Inmates in State and Federal
Correctional Facilities (a BJS survey)
For national statistics on persons in
prison for family violence, this report
used the BJS Survey of Inmates in
State and Federal Correctional
Facilities, conducted in 1997. The
survey involves face-to-face interviews
with a nationally representative sample
of State prisoners. Persons in prison for
either family or nonfamily violence are
included in the sample. Through inter-
views with them, information is obtained
on their victims and on numerous other
characteristics of the crime that brought
them into prison, such as whether a
weapon was used, and the location of
the offense.
Survey of Inmates in Local Jails
(a BJS survey)
For statistics on inmates who were
convicted of family violence and
sentenced to a period of incarceration
of less than 1 year, the source used in
this report is the BJS Survey of Inmates
in Local Jails. This is a periodic survey
which describes the current offenses
and offense characteristics of local jail
inmates. Most recently conducted in
2002, face-to-face interviews were
conducted with a nationally representa-
tive sample of local jail inmates to
collect systematic information on this
special correctional population.
Questions were asked regarding the
relationship of the victim to the incarcer-
ated offender, the gender, race/
Hispanic origin, and age of victims and
offenders, injury to the victim, offender
use of a weapon, offender substance
use at the time of the crime, and the
place at which the crime occurred.
Family Violence Statistics
5
Uniform counting rules
Incidents of crime vary depending on
the number of offenders, number of
offenses committed, and number of
victims. For instance, in a single
incident where two men rape and rob a
woman, there are two offenders, four
offenses (a rape and a robbery commit-
ted by each man), and a single victim.
Such an incident differs from one in
which a lone man assaults another
individual. That incident involves one
offender, one offense, and one victim.
The various databases used in this
report are not uniform in the amount of
information they contain about each
incident of crime. One of the databases
(NIBRS) contains information on virtu-
ally every offender, every victim, and
every offense in an incident. The other
databases contain less information. For
example, offender characteristics avail-
able in the prisoner database pertain
only to each individual incarcerated
offender. The incident that resulted in
that person’s incarceration may have
involved multiple offenders, but informa-
tion on co-offenders was unavailable.
To improve the comparability of statis-
tics across the databases, rules were
adopted to guide tabulations. All statis-
tics in this report — that is, statistics on
offenders, on offenses, and on victims
— follow the rule that each incident be
treated as though it involved one
offender, one offense, and one victim.
If an incident involved more than one
offender
and information (such as age,
race, and gender) was available on
more than one offender, the available
data on just one of the offenders were
tabulated. Similarly, if an incident
involved more than one
offense
and
information on the different offenses
(such as the place where each
occurred) was available, only the data
on one of the offenses were counted.
Likewise, if an incident involved more
than one
victim
and the database
contained information (such as the
victim’s age, race, and gender) on more
than one victim, victim statistics used in
the analysis were based on just one of
the victims.
Certain databases used in the report —
NCVS, SHR, and NIBRS — were
victim-based. Choosing a particular
victim to characterize an incident was
unnecessary with these databases.
Other data collections used in the report
— Survey of Inmates in State and
Federal Correctional Facilities
and
Survey of Inmates in Local Jails — were
offender-based. Choosing a particular
offender to characterize an incident was
unnecessary with these sources.
Where choices had to be made about
which offender, which offense, or which
victim characterized an incident, the
choices were guided by various hierar-
chies. Information about the hierarchies
is summarized below.
In choosing a particular
offender
to
characterize an incident, the choice was
guided by the victim’s relationship to the
offender. For example, in a single
incident in which a woman was
assaulted by her husband and a
stranger, the incident was treated as a
spouse-on-spouse assault. Offender
statistics for such an incident (such as
age, race, and gender) therefore
pertained solely to the characteristics of
the husband; characteristics of the
stranger were not tabulated.
Selecting the husband over the stranger
to characterize the incident conforms to
a rule adopted for this report that says
to select whichever offender is highest
in the following victim-to-offender
relationship hierarchy (shown in order
from highest to lowest, with column
headings in italics):
Spouse
spouse and common-law spouse
ex-spouse
Son or daughter
child
stepchild
Other family
parent and stepparent
sibling and step-sibling
grandchild
grandparent
in-laws
other relative
Boyfriend or girlfriend
boy/girlfriend
ex-boy/girlfriend
homosexual partner
Friend or acquaintance
child of girl or boyfriend
friend
neighbor
employer
employee
acquaintance
babysittee
otherwise known
Stranger
stranger
Not included in analysis
relationship unknown
6
Family Violence Statistics
When it was necessary to choose a
single
victim
to characterize an incident,
the victim-offender relationship hierar-
chy was also used. Again, the chosen
victim was the one highest in the
hierarchy.
In choosing a particular
offense
to
characterize an incident, the choice was
guided by the offense’s position in a
hierarchy of offense seriousness. The
offense highest in the hierarchy was
selected to characterize the incident.
For example, in a single incident where
the victim was raped and murdered, the
offense selected to characterize the
incident was murder because murder is
higher in the offense seriousness
hierarchy than rape. The offense
seriousness hierarchy (from most to
least serious) generally corresponds to
the offense list shown in table 5.1.
As noted earlier, each incident
tabulated in this report was treated as
having one offender, one offense, and
one victim. Each incident was also
treated as having one offense location,
one victim injury (if any), one weapon
involved (if any), one arrestee (if any),
and one arrest offense (if any). The
characteristic’s position in a hierarchy
determined which characteristic (for
example, which injury) was tabulated.
The characteristic with the highest
position was chosen.
Listed in order from highest to lowest,
the offense location hierarchy is in table
5.2; victim injury hierarchy, table 8.4;
offender weapon use hierarchy, table
5.6; and arrest offense hierarchy, table
5.8. The arrestee hierarchy is the same
as the victim-to-offender relationship
hierarchy described above.
Family Violence Statistics
7
About the data in this section
This section compares family murders
to nonfamily murders. Statistics shown
in tables 3.1 through 3.4, as well as
those summarized in the text, are all
based on police murder statistics
compiled by the FBI in the 2002 Supple-
mentary Homicide Reports (SHR). The
2002 SHR contains information on
16,204 murders and nonnegligent
manslaughters that occurred throughout
the United States in 2002. The victim’s
relationship to the offender was
recorded in 9,102 out of the 16,204
murders. All data summarized in this
section pertain to these 9,102 murder
victims whose relationship to the
offender was recorded.
One reason the relationship of the
victim to the offender was not recorded
for all 16,204 murders is that many
murder investigations fail to uncover
the identity of the perpetrator. In 2002
the murder clearance rate (a measure
of how often police solve a murder)
was 64%.
Family murder as a proportion
of all murders
Of the 9,102 murder victims (with
complete data on victim-offender
relationship) in 2002, 21.5% (1,958
victims) were killed by members of their
family (table 3.1). The 9,102 murder
victims consisted of 8.6% who were
killed by their spouse, 5.5% who were
sons and daughters killed by a parent,
7.4% who were killed by a family
member other than their spouse or
parent, 7.3% who were killed by their
boyfriend or girlfriend, 45.2% who were
killed by a friend or acquaintance, and
26% who were killed by a stranger.
Demographic characteristics of
murder victims
Gender
Females were more likely than males
to be victims of family murder. Females
were 50.9% of the U.S. population in
2002 but 57.5% of the Nation’s victims
of family murder that year (table 3.1).
Family members were responsible
for 43.1% of all the murders of females
in 2002.
Fatal family violence
Family Violence Statistics
17
a
Includes nonnegligent manslaughter.
56.943.1100Female
87.2%12.8%100%Male
78.5%21.5%100%
All murders
a
Nonfamily
member
Family
member
Total
Victim
gender
Victim was offender’s
—
Note: Murder includes nonnegligent manslaughter. Data identifying the victim's relationship to the offender were reported
for 56.2% of 16,204 murders. Of these 9,102 murders with recorded relationships, victim gender was reported for virtually
100%; race for 98.8%; and age for 97.6%. Detail may not add to total because of rounding.
Source: FBI, 2002 Supplementary Homicide Reports.
26.0%
45.2%
7.3%
78.5%
7.4%
5.5%
8.6%
21.5%
100%
Percent of all murders
2,3624,1136687,1446715007871,9589,102
Total murders
7.97.56.07.532.20.816.017.79.7
55
or
older
27.128.638.529.035.65.247.532.529.8
35 - 54
26.426.330.226.79.94.227.515.424.3
25 - 34
29.927.421.427.711.14.47.98.123.5
18 - 24
6.45.83.45.83.25.21.02.8
5.
1
13 - 17
2.34.40.43.38.080.20.023.4
7.6
Under 13
8.7%10.2%3.9%9.1%11.1%85.4%1.0%26.2%12.8%
Under 18
Age
2.41.82.62.11.43.55.63.62.4
Asian/Pacific Islander
1.11.30.81.21.70.60.10.81.1
American Indian/
Alaskan Native
3.53.13.33.33.04.15.84.43.5
Other
40.243.844.642.733.134.723.929.739.9
Black
56.3%53.1%52.0%54.1%63.9%61.2%70.3%65.9%56.6%
White
Race
13.916.671.020.836.249.281.057.528.7
Female
86.1%83.4%29.0%79.2%63.8%50.8%19.0%42.5%71.3%
Male
Gender
100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%
All murders
Stranger
Friend or
acquaintance
Boyfriend
or girlfriend
Total
Other
family
Son or
daughter
Spouse
Total
All
murders
Victim characteristic
Nonfamily member
Family member
Percent of murders in which the victim was the offender’s
—
Table 3.1. Demographic characteristics of family murder victims compared to nonfamily murder victims in 2002,
by relationship
Wives were more likely than husbands
to be killed by their spouse. Wives were
about half of all spouses in the popula-
tion in 2002 but 81% of all persons
killed by their spouse.
Girlfriends were more likely than
boyfriends to be victims of murder.
Girlfriends were about 50% of all
boyfriend-girlfriend relationships but
71% of all victims who were a boyfriend
or girlfriend of the murderer.
Sons and daughters were about equally
likely to be killed by their parents. Sons
made up about 50% of all offspring and
about 50% of all sons and daughters
killed by their parents.
In 2002 murders committed by friends
or acquaintances accounted for 4,113
of the 9,102 murders (with complete
data on victim-offender relationship)
(table 3.1). Males were more likely than
females to be victims of this type of
nonfamily murder. While males were
49.1% of the U.S. population in 2002,
they were 83.4% of murder victims
killed by a friend or acquaintance. The
victims of stranger murder were also
more likely to be male (86.1%)
.
Race
Overall, whites were less likely to be
victims of murder than blacks. In 2002,
whites (defined here as both Hispanic
and non-Hispanic) were 80.7% of the
U.S. population and 56.6% of murder
victims, while blacks (also defined as
both Hispanic and non-Hispanic) were
12.7% of the U.S. population but 39.9%
of those killed.
Of the 787 identifiable incidents of
spousal murder in 2002, whites were
70% of those killed, blacks were 24%,
and Asians (including Pacific Islanders)
made up 5.6% of victims.
In the 500 identifiable incidents of
parents’ killing their children in 2002,
whites were 61.2% of those killed,
blacks were 34.7%, and Asians were
3.5%.
Age
The percentage of children under age
13 killed by a family member was larger
than that group's percentage of the total
U.S. population. In 2002 children under
age 13 were 18.1% of the U.S. popula-
tion and 23.4% of murder victims killed
by a family member (table 3.1).
By contrast, children under 13 were a
smaller percentage — 3.3% — of
nonfamily murder victims. Looking at it
another way, among all victims of
murder who were under age 13, nearly
two-thirds were killed by a family
member. Among victims age 13 or
older, fewer than 1 in 5 were killed
by a member of their family.
An estimated 29.5% of the U.S. popula-
tion in 2002 was between ages 35 and
54, while 46.7% of the victims killed by
a spouse were within this age range.
The average age of spouse murder
victims was 41.
The average age among sons or
daughters killed by a parent was 7
years, and 4 in 5 victims killed by a
parent were under age 13.
18
Family Violence Statistics
Murder by siblings
Family members other than a spouse,
son, or daughter accounted for 7.4%
of the 9,102 murder victims in 2002.
Among these 671 murders of other
family members, 18% — 119
murders— involved a sibling victim.
The remaining 82% of these murders
were against parents, in-laws, or other
family members.
In 2002, 72% of murders by siblings
involved a brother killing a brother and
14% involved a brother killing a sister.
An additional 14% of sibling murders
involved a sister killing a brother or
sister.
a
Includes nonnegligent manslaughter.
82.317.710013 or older
34.3%65.7%100%Under 13
78.5%21.5%100%
All murders
a
Nonfamily
member
Family
member
Total
Victim age
Victim was offender’s
—
Demographic characteristics
of murderers
Gender
In 2002 nearly 9 in 10 murderers were
male (table 3.2). Males accounted for
79.2% of family murderers and 92.7%
of nonfamily murderers. Among offend-
ers who committed murder against a
spouse, 83.1% of the offenders were
male; against a boyfriend or girlfriend,
74.6%; and against a stranger, 96.7%
of the offenders were male.
Race/Hispanic origin
In about half of all murders in 2002, the
offenders were white. Sixty-five percent
of family murderers were white; an
additional 30.7% were black; and 3.9%
were some other race. Among
nonfamily murderers, 49.2% were
white, 48% were black, and 2.8% were
some other race.
Age
Fewer than 1 out of 10 murderers were
under age 18. About the same percent-
age of family murderers (5.5%) as
nonfamily murderers (6.8%) were
younger than 18.
A larger percentage of spouse murder-
ers (71.8%) were age 35 or older,
compared to 45.2% of murderers who
killed a boyfriend or girlfriend. In
addition, 28.1% of spouse murderers
were between 18 and 34, while 53.6%
of offenders who killed a boyfriend or
girlfriend were in this age range.
Family Violence Statistics
19
Note: Murder includes nonnegligent manslaughter. Data identifying the victim's relationship to the offender were
reported for 56.2% of 16,204 murders. Of these 9,102 murders with recorded relationships, offender gender was
reported for 98.9%; race for 97.6%; and age for 94%. Detail may not add to total because of rounding.
Source: FBI, 2002 Supplementary Homicide Reports.
26.0%
45.2%
7.3%
78.5%
7.4%
5.5%
8.6%
21.5%
100%
Percent of all murders
2,362
4,113
668
7,144
671
500
787
1,958
9,102
Total murders
1.2
4.0
4.1
3.1
7.6
5.7
18.3
11.4
5.0
55 or older
15.7
23.8
41.1
23.0
32.0
25.0
53.5
38.9
26.6
35 -
54
26.7
27.5
32.2
27.7
25.2
33.9
24.0
26.9
27.5
25 - 34
47.6
38.0
21.4
39.4
23.2
30.3
4.1
17.3
34.4
18 - 24
8.8
6.6
1.2
6.8
10.0
4.9
0
4.7
6.3
13 - 17
0
0.1
0
0.1
2.0
0.2
0
0.8
0.2
Under 13
8.8%
6.7%
1.2%
6.8%
12.0%
5.1%
0
%
5.5%
6.5%
Under 18
Age
1.4
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.1
2.7
4.8
3.0
1.9
Asian/Pacific Islander
0.7
1.7
0.6
1.3
2.0
0.8
0.1
1.0
1.2
American Indian/
Alaska Native
2.0
3.4
2.3
2.8
3.0
3.5
4.9
3.9
3.1
Other
50.8
46.3
48.8
48.0
34.1
34.2
25.7
30.7
44.3
Black
47.2%
50.3%
48.9%
49.2%
62.9%
62.4%
69.4%
65.3%
52.7%
White
Race
3.3
6.6
25.4
7.3
12.5
38.1
16.9
20.8
10.2
Female
96.7%
93.4%
74.6%
92.7%
87.5%
61.9%
83.1%
79.2%
89.8%
Male
Gender
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
All murders
Stranger
Friend or
acquaintance
Boyfriend
or girlfriend
Total
Other
family
Son or
daughter
Spouse
Total
All
murders
Offender characteristic
Nonfamily member
Family member
Percent of murders in which the victim was the offender’s
—
Table 3.2. Demographic characteristics of family murderers compared to nonfamily murderers
in 2002, by relationship
Weapon use and family murder
When an offender kills the victim, the
weapon is usually a firearm, knife, or
blunt object such as a club. Less
frequent are murders that result from
the offender’s use of hands, fists, or
feet. Murders can also involve the use
of items that are not typically considered
weapons, such as poisons, narcotics, or
incendiary devices.
In 2002 family murders were less likely
than nonfamily murders to involve a
firearm (50.1% versus 67.7%) (table
3.3). Parents were the least likely type
of family murderers to use a firearm
(27.8%), compared to spouses (62.6%)
or other family members (51%). The
most common way a parent killed a son
or daughter was by the use of hands,
fists, or feet (43.7%). The use of a
firearm in nonfamily murders was
highest among stranger offenders
(75.7%), compared to murders commit-
ted by friends or acquaintances (66.4%)
and by boyfriends and girlfriends
(47.2%).
Of the 9,102 murders (with complete
data on victim-offender relationship) in
2002, 207 were offenders who killed
their parents (not shown in table).
Firearms, knives, or blunt objects were
used in about three-fourths of murders
involving parent victims. Hands, fists, or
feet were used to kill 16% of parent
murder victims. The remaining 8% of
parent murder victims, including 4%
who were asphyxiated, were killed with
other weapons.
Number of victims and offenders in
family murders
About 3 out of 4 murders involved one
offender and one victim in 2002 (table
3.4). Murders in which one offender
killed one victim described 84.3% of
family murders and 73.7% of nonfamily
murders.
A single offender against a single victim
was most characteristic of spouse
murder and boyfriend/girlfriend murder.
Of the 787 identifiable incidents of
spouse murder, 90.6% involved a
spouse killing his/her spouse and no
one else. The comparable figure for the
668 identifiable incidents of boyfriend/
girlfriend murder was 92.7%.
Multiple victims of a lone offender
occurred most often in murders of sons
or daughters by a parent. In the 500
identifiable incidents of parents killing
their children, 18.8% involved one
parent killing multiple victims (for
example, his children, or his wife and
one of his children).
20
Family Violence Statistics
Family Violence Statistics
21
Note: Murder includes nonnegligent manslaughter. Data identifying the victim's relationship to the offender were reported
for 56.2% of 16,204 murders. Of these 9,102 murders with recorded relationships, offender weapon use was reported
for 96.3%. Detail may not add to total because of rounding.
Source: FBI, 2002 Supplementary Homicide Reports.
2,362
4,113
668
7,144
671
500
787
1,958
9,102
Total murders
5.9%
8.5%
9.0%
7.7%
11.8%
43.7%
5.8%
17.0%
9.6%
Hands, fists,
or
feet
0.2
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.8
4.9
0.7
1.7
0.7
Other
0.7
2.0
3.3
1.7
3.7
8.0
3.3
4.6
2.3
Asphyxiation
0
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.8
1.1
0.5
0.8
0.4
N
arc
otics
0.5
0.6
1.9
0.7
1.2
1.1
0.7
1.0
0.8
Fire/incendiary
1.5%
3.5%
6.0%
3.1%
6.5%
15.1%
5.1%
8.1%
4.2%
Other
4.6%
6.2%
5.0%
5.6%
8.1%
5.3%
5.0%
6.1%
5.7%
Blunt object
12.3%
15.3%
32.8%
15.9%
22.6%
8.0%
21.5%
18.6%
16.5%
Knife
3.1
4.3
3.1
3.8
3.1
1.8
3.5
2.9
3.6
Other/not specified
3.0
4.5
3.1
3.9
5.6
3.6
8.0
6.1
4.3
Shotgun
4.1
4.6
3.1
4.3
5.3
1.6
5.2
4.4
4.3
Rifle
10.2
13.3
9.4
11.9
14.0
6.9
16.8
13.3
12.2
Other
65.5
53.1
37.8
55.8
37.1
20.9
45.9
36.8
51.7
Handgun
75.7%
66.4%
47.2%
67.7%
51.0%
27.8%
62.6%
50.1%
64.0%
Firearm
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
All murders
Stranger
Friend or
acquaintance
Boyfriend
or girlfriend
Total
Other
family
Son or
daughter
Spouse
Total
All
murders
Weapon use
by offender
Nonfamily member
Family member
Percent of murders in which the victim was the offender’s
—
Table 3.3. Weapon use in family murder compared to nonfamily murder in 2002, by relationship
Note: Murder includes nonnegligent manslaughter. Data identifying the victim's relationship to the offender were reported
for 56.2% of 16,204 murders. The number of victims and offenders was reported for 100% of the murders with recorded relationships. Detail may
not add to total because of rounding.
Source: FBI, 2002 Supplementary Homicide Reports.
2,3624,1136687,1446715007871,9589,102
Total m
urders
3.72.90.73.000.800.22.4Multiple offenders
5.76.54.66.011.518.88.912.37.4One offender
9.4%9.4%5.4%9.0%11.5%19.6%8.9%12.5%9.8%
Multiple victims
23.716.11.917.34.06.40.53.214.3Multiple offenders
66.974.592.773.784.574.090.684.376.0One offender
90.6%90.6%94.6%91.0%88.5%80.4%91.1%87.5%90.2%
One victim
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
All murders
Stranger
Friend or
acquaintance
Boyfriend
or girlfriend
Total
Other
family
Son or
daughter
Spouse
Total
All murders
Number of victims
and offenders
Nonfamily memberFamily member
Percent of murders in which the victim was the offender’s —
Table 3.4.
Number of victims and offenders in family murder compared to nonfamily murder in 2002, by relationship
Reported and unreported family
violence
Statistics comparing reported and
unreported nonfatal family violence to
reported and unreported nonfatal
nonfamily violence come from the
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)
National Crime Victimization Survey
(NCVS) for 1998 to 2002. The statistics
are based on data gathered from
residents living throughout the United
States, including persons living in group
quarters, such as dormitories, rooming
houses, and religious group dwellings.
Crew members of merchant vessels,
Armed Forces personnel living in
military barracks, and institutionalized
persons, such as correctional facility
inmates, were not included in the scope
of this survey. Similarly, U.S. citizens
residing abroad and foreign visitors to
this country were excluded. With these
exceptions, individuals age 12 or older
living in units selected for the sample
were eligible to be interviewed.
In addition to single incidents of criminal
victimization, the NCVS records data on
series victimizations. A series victimiza-
tion is defined as six or more similar but
separate crimes which the victim is
unable to recall individually or describe
in detail to an interviewer. Survey
respondents who indicated they were
series victims were asked to provide
details for the most recent incident.
In annual BJS reports on the NCVS,
series victimizations are excluded from
the published victimization estimates.
However, because repeat victimization
is an important aspect of family
violence, series crimes were included in
these analyses, counted as "1" victimi-
zation to represent all the incidents in
the series.
NCVS data in this section are based on
a nationally representative sample of
the general population age 12 or older
who experienced a violent victimization
that occurred between January 1998
and December 2002. Data were aggre-
gated over this 5-year period to obtain
sample sizes large enough to detect
differences between family and
nonfamily violence victims, as well as to
detect differences between family and
nonfamily violent crimes based on the
characteristics of the incident.
Additional information on weighting,
along with other methodological details,
can be found in the BJS Internet-only
report
Criminal Victimization in the
United States — Statistical Tables,
2002
(NCJ 200561).
Fatal family violence
To compare family murder to nonfamily
murder, this report uses data from the
FBI's 2002 Supplementary Homicide
Reports (SHR). Murder as defined here
includes murder and nonnegligent
manslaughter which is the willful killing
of one human being by another. Not
included in the analyses are deaths
caused by negligence, suicide, or
accident; justifiable homicides; and
attempts to murder.
SHR data are based solely on police
investigation. Not all law enforcement
agencies which report offense informa-
tion to the FBI also submit supplemental
data on murder. At the time of analysis,
the most recent SHR data contained
information on 12,940 of the 16,204
murders reported in the FBI's Uniform
Crime Report. To account for the total
number of homicides, the SHR data
were weighted to match national and
State murder estimates prepared by the
FBI. All victim-based analyses are
adjusted in this manner.
While many law enforcement agencies
report supplemental data on murder,
one reason why much of the data
concerning victim-offender relationship
may not be reported is because no
suspects were identified. In 2002, SHR
data recorded information on the
relationship of the victim to the offender
for 56.2% (9,102) of the 16,204
murders committed that year.
The dataset utilized in this report was
compiled by James Alan Fox, the
Lipman Family Professor of Criminal
Justice at Northeastern University. The
dataset, along with additional details
about imputation and estimation proce-
dures, is available from the National
Archive of Criminal Justice Data
<http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD>,
please refer to ICPSR 4179. After the
analysis for this report was completed,
the SHR database was updated to
include information on an additional
2,117 murders, bringing the total
number of murders included in the
database to 15,057 of the 16,204
murders in the United States in 2002.
Family violence recorded by police
To compare family violence recorded by
police to nonfamily violence recorded by
police, this report utilizes official police
statistics reported to the Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI) in 2000. Law
enforcement agencies can report official
police statistics to the FBI's Uniform
Crime Reporting System in one of two
ways:
1. the Summary reporting system
2. the Incident-based reporting system
(NIBRS).
Under the Summary system, law
enforcement authorities aggregate the
number of incidents by offense type and
report these totals to the FBI on a
monthly basis. Under the NIBRS
system, agencies provide an individual
record for each reported crime, includ-
ing detailed information regarding the
victim(s) and offender(s) involved,
characteristics of the incident, and infor-
mation on any arrests made in connec-
tion with the incident. In this regard,
NIBRS represents a more comprehen-
sive and detailed crime reporting
Methodology
68
Family Violence Statistics
system, with the ability to capture a
wide range of information on specific
incidents.
To compare the characteristics of family
violence to nonfamily violence, only
cases with incident dates during calen-
dar year 2000 were included in the
analysis. In addition, only incidents from
law enforcement agencies officially
certified by the FBI to report NIBRS
data were included. Currently, no
agencies serving jurisdictions with
populations of one million or more are
certified to report NIBRS data. In 2000,
agencies from 18 States and the District
of Columbia submitted NIBRS data,
representing 16% of the U.S. population
and 13% of crime.
Additional methodological details can
be found on the BJS website
<http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
nibrs.htm>, as well as at the Incident-
Based Reporting Resource Center
<http://www.jrsa.org/ibrrc>.
State prosecution of family assault
To compare the prosecution of family
and nonfamily violence defendants, this
report uses data from the BJS data
collection State Court Processing
Statistics (SCPS). The most recent
SCPS study collected data for 14,877
felony cases filed during May 2000 in 40
large counties selected to represent the
estimated 54,590 felonies filed in the
Nation’s 75 most populous counties
during that month. Results of that study
and information regarding sampling and
other methodological details are avail-
able in the BJS publication
Felony
Defendants in Large Urban Counties,
2000
, NCJ 202021, December 2003.
Data from all 40 counties were not used
to compare the case processing of
family violence to nonfamily violence.
Since assault was the only crime in the
2000 SCPS data to have specific
statutes that identified family violence,
other violent crimes (such as murder,
rape, or robbery) were excluded from
the analysis. To be in this study, a
county also had to meet two criteria:
1. The county had an estimated 10 or
more assault defendants charged under
a family or domestic violence statute
(table 10.1).
2. The county had at least 17% of its
assault defendants charged with
committing family or domestic violence.
A total of 11 counties met the selection
criteria. For instance, Travis County,
Texas, had an estimated 16 family
violence cases which accounted for
25% of the 64 assault cases filed in that
county during May 2000. Within the
selected counties, a sample of 637
cases was statistically weighted to
represent 1,517 family and nonfamily
assault defendants. Although the
estimated 1,517 cases were less than
3% of the 54,428 felony cases filed in
the Nation’s 75 largest counties in May
2000, demographic characteristics of
both cohorts were similar (table 10.2).
Where family assault defendants were
compared to nonfamily assault defen-
dants in this section, sampling error was
taken into account. All differences
discussed were statistically significant
at the .05 level.
Family Violence Statistics
69
Source: BJS, 2000 State Court Processing Statistics.
1,024493420217
Total defendants
48
16
24
8
Tr
avis (TX)
76
16
38
8
Tarrant
(TX)
156
36
39
9
Harris (TX)
18
14
9
7
Franklin (OH)
144
30
72
15
Essex
(NJ)
106
30
53
15
Pinellas
(FL)
48
38
24
19
Santa
Clara
(CA)
66
54
33
27
San
Bern
a
rdino
(CA)
72
120
36
60
Riverside (CA)
264
120
66
30
Los Angeles (CA)
26
19
26
19
Cont
r
a Costa (CA)
Nonfamily Family Nonfamily FamilyCounty (State)
Weighted Unweighted
Table 10.1. Felony assault cases in the State courts of 11 counties
during May 2000, by county and type of assault
*Excludes 162 weighted cases for which the
arrest charge could not be classified.
Source: BJS, 2000 State Court Processing
Statistics.
54,428*1,517
Total
defendants
2.13.455 or older
33.232.835 - 54
30.931.525 - 34
30.830.718 - 24
2.9%1.6%Under 18
Age at arrest
2.42.0Other
22.732.6Hispanic
45.439.2Black
29.6%26.2%White
Race/Hispanic origin
19.015.3Female
81.0%84.7%Male
Gender
100%100%
Total
All cases in
the 75 largest
counties
Assault
cases in 11
counties
Felony defendants in State
courts during May 2000
Defendant
characteristic
Table 10.2. Demographic distribution
of felony defendants in the 11-county
study compared to the Nation’s 75
largest counties, 2000
Federal prosecution of domestic
violence
The source of data for statistics on
Federal prosecution of domestic
violence is the BJS Federal Justice
Statistics Program database covering
the years 2000 to 2002. The database
is presently constructed from source
files provided by the U.S. Marshals
Service, the Drug Enforcement Admin-
istration, the Executive Office for U.S.
Attorneys, the Administrative Office of
the U.S. Courts, the United States
Sentencing Commission, and the U.S.
Bureau of Prisons. A description of the
source agency data files, along with
other methodological details, can be
found in the methodology section in the
BJS Internet-only document
Compen-
dium of Federal Justice Statistics, 2002
(NCJ 205368).
Family violence offenders in prison
Information about offenders in prison for
family violence were obtained from
BJS's 1997 Survey of Inmates in State
and Federal Correctional Facilities.
From June through October, 1997, a
nationally representative sample of
inmates in State prisons were inter-
viewed about their current offense and
sentences, criminal histories, family and
personal backgrounds, gun possession
and use, prior drug and alcohol use and
treatment, educational programs, and
other services provided while in prison.
Data and documentation with additional
details are available from the National
Archive of Criminal Justice Data
<http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD>.
Please refer to ICPSR 2598.
Family violence offenders in jail
The 2002 Survey of Inmates in Local
Jails provides nationally representative
data on persons held in local jails
including those held prior to trial and
convicted offenders serving sentences
in local jails or awaiting transfer to
prison. Data in the survey include the
individual characteristics of jail inmates;
current offenses, sentences and time
served; criminal histories; jail activities,
conditions and programs; prior drug and
alcohol use and treatment; and health
care services provided while in jail. In
the last Survey, completed in 1996, a
representative sample of 6,000 inmates
were interviewed. The sample for the
2002 survey was selected from 3,365
jails housing 558017 males and 73,224
females. The dataset and documenta-
tion with additional details about the
survey will be available from the
National Archive of Criminal Justice
Data <http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/
NACJD>.
70
Family Violence Statistics
Discrepant findings from two
different ways of measuring
family violence
The extent of family violence in the
United States is measured two different
ways in this report. One way C through
the National Crime Victimization Survey
(NCVS) C is based on survey interviews
with samples of the U.S. population.
The other way C through the FBI's
National Incident-Based Reporting
System (NIBRS) C is based on statis-
tics compiled by police.
NCVS data summarized in this report
indicated that family violence makes up
11% of all violence (both reported to
police and unreported) (table 2.1), but
police statistics summarized in this
report indicated that family violence
makes up nearly 33% of all police-
recorded violence (table 5.1). No firm
explanation for this apparent discrep-
ancy is offered in the report. Presuma-
bly the discrepancy is caused by a host
of factors. The discussion that follows
identifies some of them, not necessarily
the most important ones.
One factor pertains to the willingness of
victims (and others) to report crime to
police. If family violence is more likely
than nonfamily violence to be reported
to law enforcement authorities, the
family violence percentage in police
statistics will tend to be larger than the
percentage in the statistics for all
violence (reported and unreported). To
check that possibility, reporting rates for
family and nonfamily violence were
compared. Results indicated that family
violence (59%) is more likely than
nonfamily violence (46%) to be reported
to police (table 4.1). While the differ-
ence is not large enough to fully
account for the 11%-versus-33%
discrepancy between NCVS and police
statistics, results do suggest that a
difference in reporting between family
and nonfamily violence is a contributing
factor.
A second factor pertains to the fact that
the police statistics on family violence
used here are not directly comparable
to the NCVS statistics in terms of
geographical coverage. That is, the
police statistics are based on data from
agencies reporting in 18 States and the
District of Columbia, while the NCVS
statistics are for the entire United
States. If the family violence percentage
in the 18 States and the District of
Columbia happens to be much larger
than other States, using these jurisdic-
tions to compare to the NCVS will
create the appearance of a greater
discrepancy than may actually exist.
A third factor pertains to the handling of
"series" victimizations in the analysis of
the NCVS data. The 11% family
violence percentage from NCVS data
was based on an analysis that treated
each "series" victimization (6 or more
crimes of a similar nature that the victim
is unable to recall individually) as a
single victimization. Since family
violence series victimizations comprised
17% (rather than 11%) of all violent
series victimizations, treating each
series victimization as 6 or more victimi-
zations (rather than 1) would tend to
raise the family violence percentage
above 11%. To illustrate, when the
family violence percentage was
re-computed, this time treating each
series using the actual number of
incidents (up to 20) indicated by the
victim, the percentage rose to 12.5%.
A fourth factor pertains to the possibility
that the NCVS undercounts family
violence to a greater extent than
nonfamily violence. If so, that would
make the family violence percentage
look lower than it actually is. The little
research on the undercount that has
been done C notably, a small study of
assault victims whose victimization was
reported to police in San Jose, Califor-
nia, and a national study of victims who
went to hospital emergency rooms for
their injuries — compared undercounts
between family and nonfamily violence.
Findings from both studies suggest that
the NCVS undercounts family violence
to a greater extent than nonfamily
violence. The two studies are summa-
rized below.
San Jose study of known assault
victims
In January 1971, a sample of victims of
assault was drawn from the records of
the San Jose Police Department. These
known victims were interviewed and
asked whether they had been a victim
of crime at any time in 1970. The
victims and their interviewers were not
told that the researchers wanted to
determine to what extent known assault
victims tell interviewers about recent
victimizations.
Results suggested that family assault
victims were less likely than nonfamily
assault victims to tell interviewers about
their victimization (table 11.1). While
78% of 18 family assault victims did not
mention being a victim of family
violence, the comparable percentage
for 62 nonfamily assault victims was
lower: 29%.
Appendix
Family Violence Statistics
71
Source: Adapted from U.S. Department
of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance
Administration (1972).
San Jose Methods
Test of Known Crime Victims,
Statistics
Technical Report No. 1. Washington, DC:
USGPO, June.
29
Nonfamily violence
78%
Family violence
Known assault victims
who did not tell NCVS
interviewers about their
victimization
Relationship of
victim to offender
Table 11.1. Among known assault
victims, percent who told NCVS
interviewers about the victimization
The original purpose of the San Jose
study was to determine the effects of
the passage of time on the recall of
criminal victimizations. The survey
design emphasized overall reporting
issues, not the specific reporting of
family violence. Hence, one limitation of
the study is the small sample size. Of
126 sampled victims of assault, 18
family assault victims and 62 nonfamily
assault victims were located and agreed
to participate, a 63.5% response rate.
Another limitation pertains to the fact
that the questionnaire used in the study
was more similar to the pre-1993 NCVS
questionnaire than the one in use today.
Consequently, the San Jose study
results may be more relevant to the
pre-1993 version than today’s question-
naire.
The pre-1993 version was replaced with
one that was specifically designed to
reduce undercounting of family (and
domestic) violence. There is some
evidence that the redesign may have
succeeded in reducing the undercount.
In 1991 (the last full year of interviews
using the old questionnaire), family
violence victims made up 7.3% of all
violence victims (8% if series victimiza-
tions totaling 3 are counted as 3 crimes
rather than 1; 4 counted as 4; and 5
counted as 5). In 1993 (the first full year
using the redesigned questionnaire),
the percentage was 10.2%.
Hospital emergency room study
While results of the San Jose study only
shed light on the extent to which police-
reported family violence (family violence
that was brought to police attention) is
mentioned in NCVS interviews, results
of another study may shed light on the
extent to which victims tell interviewers
about both reported and unreported
family violence of a particularly serious
nature. In this other study, two national
numbers were compared:
1. from the NCVS, the total (reported
and unreported) estimated number of
family violence victims who said they
went to a hospital emergency room for
treatment for their injuries in 1994
2. from a national survey — the Study of
Injured Victims of Violence (SIVV) —
the total (reported and unreported,
presumably) estimated number of
family violence victims whose injuries
brought them to hospital emergency
rooms for treatment in 1994.
All other things being equal, the two
numbers should be the same if injured
family violence victims tell NCVS inter-
viewers about any incidents that lead to
emergency room treatment.
In fact, SIVV recorded far more
emergency room admissions in 1994
than the NCVS, suggesting that the
NCVS undercounts victims of serious
family violence. The SIVV number of
emergency room admissions for family
violence (179,000) was found to be over
5 times the number recorded by the
NCVS (33,300) (table 11.2). By
comparison, the SIVV number of
emergency room admissions for
nonfamily violence (775,000) was 1.6
times greater than the NCVS-estimate
(471,400), suggesting that the NCVS
undercounts particularly serious types
of family violence to a greater extent
than nonfamily violence.
The relevance of the SIVV study is
limited by the fact that its findings
pertain to victims who were injured and
went to an emergency room. Such
victims are a small percentage of all
family violence victims. Furthermore,
the statistics for the NCVS-documented
victims of family violence (who went to
emergency rooms) may be unreliable
because they are based on a small
sample. Also, the SIVV study did not
document how many victims had, and
how many had not, reported the crime
to police. Presumably, the SIVV study
included some of both.
72
Family Violence Statistics
*Age 12 or older
Source: Adapted from BJS,
Violence-Related Injuries Treated in Hospital Emergency
Departments
, NCJ 156921, August 1997.
1.693.4471,40081.2775,000Nonfamily violence
5.46.633,30018.8179,000Family violence
1.9100%504,700100%954,000Total
Ratio of
SIVV/NCVSPercentNumberPercentNumberType of offense
NCVS-estimated
admissions to
hospital emergency
rooms in 1994
SIVV-recorded
admissions to
hospital emergency
rooms in 1994*
Table 11.2. Comparison of the Study of Injured Victims of Violence (SIVV)
and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), by offense and
by relationship, 1994
