There are numerous challenges in finding relevant data, among them: difficulties in obtaining reliable survey data; the fact that much domestic violence goes unreported; inaccurate portrayals of intimate partner violence in the media; and a lack of local statistics. Those who wish to make the case for domestic violence prevention using statistics must recognize these basic shortcomings inherent in the data. We will cover each of these points briefly and then will present some practical methods for estimating local data.

SURVEY SHORTCOMINGS

The scope of domestic violence has been difficult to measure as the result of: lack of consensus about terminology; variations in survey methodology; gaps in data collection; different time frames; reluctance to report victimization; the repetitive nature of IPV; limited populations; and survey limitations. (Implications for Advocacy and Training: Costs of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in the United States, distributed by the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence (NRCDV), March 2003.)  

The survey data are often incomplete, especially regarding costs of victimization. For example, one widely used survey is the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which interviews households to get information from those who have experienced a recent criminal victimization.  According to Mark Cohen, author of Measuring the Costs and Benefits of Crime and Justice, “NCVS asks crime victims several questions about their out-of-pocket losses, including an estimate of the dollar cost of medical care, lost wages, and property loss. These estimates are periodically published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Despite their official-looking stature, NCVS crime cost estimates severely understate the tangible costs of crime to victims. First, the reference period for NCVS is crimes committed during the previous 6 months. Because the average crime will have occurred about 3 months prior to being reported, any medical costs are necessarily limited to those short-term costs. Even short-term costs are likely to be underestimated, however, because hospital bills often are sent directly to insurance companies and may arrive months after hospitalization. Second, some cost categories are  simply excluded from NCVS. For example, respondents are not asked about mental health care, despite the fact that this is a significant cost of victimization,” especially in cases of domestic violence. (Measuring the Costs and Benefits of Crime and Justice, by Mark A. Cohen. Criminal Justice 2000, Vol. 4, p. 282.)

UNREPORTED INCIDENTS OF IPV

In addition, a great deal of intimate partner or domestic violence goes unreported.  Researchers have suggested that familial violence (child abuse, elder abuse, and spousal assault) and rape are probably underreported in the National Crime Survey. (Victim Costs of Violent Crime and Resulting Injuries, by Ted R. Miller, Mark A. Cohen, and Shelli B. Rossman, Data Watch, Health Affairs, Winter 1993, p. 197.) Many victims tell no one about the abuse for various reasons including fear of stigma, fear of reprisal, fear of losing custody of children, fear of arrest, fear of losing jobs, fear of losing health coverage, and lack of knowledge regarding how to access available services. These fears are increased when the victim is an undocumented immigrant (see box below).

INACCURATE MEDIA PORTRAYAL OF IPV

At the same time, the public may not have an accurate picture of the prevalence, incidence and nature of domestic violence based on the information it receives via the media.  Although news coverage of a social problem can shape public and policy-maker opinions, only the most extreme and perhaps most sensational cases of such violence are reported, which means that the ongoing and high incidence of this violence is not made public.

As a result, public awareness of domestic violence is often limited, distorted and inaccurate. An in-depth study conducted by the Berkeley Media Studies Group, Distracted by Drama: How California Newspapers Portray Intimate Partner Violence, found that:

• Compared to other violence, IPV did not get press attention commensurate with its frequency as an arrest.

• Compared to other violence, IPV was treated less frequently as an issue.

• IPV was presented as more lethal than it is.

• IPV coverage is more murder-oriented than other violence coverage.

• IPV reporting rarely blames the victim, but does so more than other violence reporting.

• IPV reporting rarely deflects responsibility from the batterer, but does so more than other violence does. (Distracted by Drama: How California Newspapers Portray Intimate Partner Violence, by John McManus and Lori Dorfman. Berkeley Media Studies Group Issue #13, January 2003.)

As the director of this study stated, “...we need an accurate picture of the problem before we can fix it.” (Intimate Partner Violence Goes Underreported in California Newspapers, Family Violence Prevention Fund, Prevention Toolbox: Partners. http://endabuse.org/programs/display.php3?DocID=218.) The authors suggest that those who work in the domestic violence field build relationships with reporters who cover the crime beat and become trusted sources so reporters have somewhere to go for data and information. They explain that because reporters can’t put IPV in context without local data, practitioners can provide a valuable service by having fact sheets ready and being willing to talk. When this information is incorporated into daily stories, readers will have the information they need to make better decisions about prevention and intervention policy. The full report is available at: http://www.vawnet.org/DomesticViolence/Research/OtherPubs/DistractedbyDrama.pdf.