In 2023, almost one out of three ever-partnered Turkish women had experienced domestic violence. In comparison, only 12 percent of women living in Switzerland had experienced domestic violence in their lifetime.

As of 2024, Timor-Leste had the highest prevalence of domestic violence against women in the Asia-Pacific region, with ** percent of women having experienced physical or sexual violence in a partnership before. In contrast, approximately *** percent of women in Singapore had experienced domestic violence as of 2024.

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) is an ongoing, nationally representative survey to assess experiences of intimate partner violence, sexual violence and stalking among adults in the United States. It measures lifetime victimization for these types of violence as well as in the previous 12 months. In 2010, a total of 18,049 interviews from the general population sample were conducted. Raw data are currently unavailable. State report tables are available in pdf format. Other key statistics are included in the summary and full reports.

Domestic abuse numbers, prevalence, types and victim characteristics, based upon findings from the Crime Survey for England and Wales and police recorded crime.

In 2024, gender-based violence remained a global issue. However, some populations appeared to be more at risk than others. For instance, around *** percent of women with high income aged between 30 and 34 had been subjected to physical or sexual violence in the past year. On the other hand, for women the same age but with low income, the percentage reached ****.

An interactive Excel-based data tool for domestic abuse statistics. It allows users to explore data for their police force area in more detail and compare with other areas.

The study was designed to create a portrait of domestic violence courts across America, specifically courtroom policies, procedures and goals were examined as described by court employees and prosecutors that work with the domestic violence courts. Geographic information on 338 courts was collected and organized in a national compendium of domestic violence courts. From this compendium a sample of 129 domestic violence courts was surveyed along with 74 prosecutors offices.

BackgroundViolence against women by an intimate partner (DV) is a serious public health and human rights issue. Attitudes justifying DV strongly predict its perpetration and victimisation. This paper presents gendered ecological analyses of the societal acceptance of DV in 49 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) across geographical regions.Methods and findingsWe utilised data from 49 Demographic and Health Surveys conducted between 2005 and 2017, United Nations Statistics and topic-specific meta-databases. DV acceptance was measured as the justification of ‘wife-beating’ in at least one of five circumstances, and by the summative scale. Stepwise multiple linear regression examined country-level social, economic and political empowerment predictors of societal acceptance of DV amongst women, men, and the aggregate gender difference. Women were more likely than men to justify DV in Sub-Saharan Africa and South (east) Asia with societal acceptance of DV being more widespread in these regions compared with Latin America, the Caribbean, Central/West Asia and Europe. Political conflict and limited economic rights for women were associated with higher levels of DV acceptance amongst women and men. Men in more democratic countries were less likely to justify DV. Amongst women, higher national female literacy rates predicted lower levels of justification. There were higher levels of DV acceptance amongst women and a wider aggregate gender difference in countries with a larger representation of women in national parliament.ConclusionJustification of DV is widespread amongst women and men in LMICs with acceptance rates varying across countries and regions. Gender differences in the impact of contextual factors on DV acceptance supports a gendered approach to national-level interventions. Our findings highlight the need for tailored interventions targeting DV acceptance in conflict-impacted societies. The emphasis of inter(national) policies on the ‘empowerment’ domains of widely-used gender (in)equality indices need to be coupled with strategies tackling discriminatory gender norms.

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) is an ongoing nationally representative survey that assessed experiences of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence among adult women and men in the United States and for each individual state. The survey focused exclusively on violence and collected information about: Sexual violence by any perpetrator, including information related to rape, being made to penetrate someone else, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and non-contact unwanted sexual experiences Stalking, including the use of newer technologies such as text messages, emails, monitoring devices (e.g., cameras and GPS, or global positioning system devices), by perpetrators known and unknown to the victim Physical violence by an intimate partner Psychological aggression by an intimate partner, including information on expressive forms of aggression and coercive control Control of reproductive or sexual health by an intimate partner The NISVS project and data collection was overseen by the Centers for Disease and Prevention (CDC). The overall cost of the NISVS project was shared between the CDC, the Department of Defense (DoD) and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). ICPSR has multiple versions of NISVS data that you can access by clicking on the links provided below.

National IPV/SV Survey

Examining Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence in the United States

By Health [source]

About this dataset

This NISVS Intimate and Sexual Violence Survey dataset captures detailed information on intimate partner violence (IPV) and sexual violence experiences among U.S. adults aged 18 years or older. It contains statistics on the prevalence of lifetime IPV, as well as additional data on the types of intimate partner violence (psychological aggression, physical assault, sexual assault), and details more recent IPV experience; including experiencing sexual coercion or being forced to do sexual acts against one's will. Additionally, it records measures of the frequency of experiencing different forms psychological abuse; such as feeling scared by a partner's use or threat of force and feeling like one had no power over important issues in their life due to an abusive partner. Further characteristics such as respondent demographics are also included in the dataset to further explore disparities around incidence of IPV and SVP experience across various populations. With a better understanding about these trends, policy makers can take targeted action towards creating responsible legislation that addresses this pervasive problem in our society today

More Datasets

For more datasets, click here.

Featured Notebooks

• 🚨 Your notebook can be here! 🚨!

How to use the dataset

This dataset provides data from the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS), which collects information about intimate partner violence (IPV) and sexual violence (SV). The survey was conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from 2010-2012. This dataset includes key statistics from the surveys, with an emphasis on IPV, SV, and other types of intimate partner violence.

To get started with this dataset, take a look at the variables included in it. There are several types of variables – demographic characteristics like age; report tables that include numbers associated with different forms of IPV or SV; summary charts that show percentages associated with certain activities or events; and full reports detailing information on various topics related to IPV/SV.

For more detailed analysis, you can explore specific characteristics in different subsets of this data. For example, you might look at patterns by gender, race/ethnicity or geography. Or you could compare the frequency of certain forms of abuse over time across different groups who participated in the survey. You could also use visualizations like line graphs or scatter plots to reveal patterns between variables that were not immediately obvious when looking at only raw numbers or percentages in tables.

When analyzing results using this dataset you’ll want to be sure to take into account any potential limitations due to sampling methods used when collecting this data as well as any issues caused by variations across states’ reporting standards depending on their understanding of specific terms included in their formulation of reporting questions for participation in this survey project. It is important to keep these potential sources for variations alive when creating research questions and hypothesis associated with your own analyses related to choosing appropriate indicators as partof developing effective measuresfor comparison purposesacross differentpartici-pants participatinginthisdataset environment .

Ultimately though we hope that this dataset serves as a helpful resource when evaluating trends surrounding IPV/SV both nationally among all states included alongwith representativelocally relevantpopu- lation groups in order to promote awareness needed around monitoring preventative measures which deter people from engaginginbehaviors leading toparticularoutcomes identified through aninterpretationofthisdataset source material available via Kaggle platform interface provided hereinby subjectexpertiseand resources available within academic literature used foranalyzingdata captured within NISVS Inti/Sexualviolence Surv collection according prescribed analytical protocols suggested here- within forthiguidebooklet offeredtosupportsuchinquiries related

Research Ideas

• Examining county-level variations of national intimate partner and sexual violence incidents over time.
• Analyzing the demographics of individuals affected by such violence to better understand marginalized identities and communities at risk.
• Investigating how intimate partner and sexual violence intersects with other risk factors, including income, location, age, gender identity, race/ethnicity etc., in order to identify potential disparities in service a...

This statistic presents the share of people who think in selected European countries who think domestic abuse is one of the top three issues facing women as of 2019. According to data published by Ipsos, Serbia had the highest share of people who thought that domestic abuse was one of the most important issues at ** percent of respondents.

San Marino Legislation Exists on Domestic Violence: 1=Yes; 0=No data was reported at 1.000 NA in 2017. This stayed constant from the previous number of 1.000 NA for 2015. San Marino Legislation Exists on Domestic Violence: 1=Yes; 0=No data is updated yearly, averaging 1.000 NA from Dec 2015 (Median) to 2017, with 2 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 1.000 NA in 2017 and a record low of 1.000 NA in 2017. San Marino Legislation Exists on Domestic Violence: 1=Yes; 0=No data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s San Marino – Table SM.World Bank: Policy and Institutions. Legislation exists on domestic violence is whether there is legislation addressing domestic violence: violence between spouses, within the family or members of the same household, or in interpersonal relationships, including intimate partner violence that is subject to criminal sanctions or provides for protection orders for domestic violence, or the legislation addresses “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” or “harassment” that clearly affects physical or mental health, and it is implied that such behavior is considered domestic violence.; ; World Bank: Women, Business and the Law.; ;

A collection of resources on combating domestic violence, including awareness-raising campaigns, support services and trainings in the area of combating domestic violence at a national, EU and International level.

Turkey TR: Legislation Exists on Domestic Violence: 1=Yes; 0=No data was reported at 1.000 NA in 2017. This stayed constant from the previous number of 1.000 NA for 2015. Turkey TR: Legislation Exists on Domestic Violence: 1=Yes; 0=No data is updated yearly, averaging 1.000 NA from Dec 2013 (Median) to 2017, with 3 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 1.000 NA in 2017 and a record low of 1.000 NA in 2017. Turkey TR: Legislation Exists on Domestic Violence: 1=Yes; 0=No data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Turkey – Table TR.World Bank.WDI: Policy and Institutions. Legislation exists on domestic violence is whether there is legislation addressing domestic violence: violence between spouses, within the family or members of the same household, or in interpersonal relationships, including intimate partner violence that is subject to criminal sanctions or provides for protection orders for domestic violence, or the legislation addresses “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” or “harassment” that clearly affects physical or mental health, and it is implied that such behavior is considered domestic violence.; ; World Bank: Women, Business and the Law.; ;

The main purpose of the EU survey on gender-based violence against women and other forms of inter-personal violence (EU-GBV) is to assess the prevalence of violence in order to address the requirements of the Istanbul Convention. The survey covers psychological, physical and sexual violence by intimate partner, physical and sexual violence by non-partner, sexual harassment at work, violence experienced in childhood and stalking by any perpetrator.

The data collection for the first wave (year 2021) was conducted in voluntary bases and took place between September 2020 and March 2024 in the EU countries, based on their national timetables. Eurostat coordinated data collection in 18 Member States (BE, BG, DK, EE, EL, ES, FR, HR, LV, LT, MT, NL, AT, PL, PT, SI, SK, FI). Additionally, Italy agreed to share data from their national survey on violence against women, but the implementation of the survey was postponed from 2022 to 2024 due to administrative difficulties. The indicators disseminated for Italy are based on the last national survey conducted in 2014, given that the prevalence of gender-based violence is not expected to differ significantly over time, specifically for prevalence of lifetime violence, and the indicators will be updated when 2024 survey results will be available. Moreover, indicators on sexual harassment at work disseminated for Italy are based on the national victimisation survey of 2022-2023. To cover the full EU, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) and the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) launched a joint data collection in the eight Member States not covered by Eurostat (CZ, DE, IE, CY, LU, HU, RO, SE) following the EU-GBV manual. Accordingly, data disseminated for wave 2021 and estimated EU-average is based on a joint data collection by Eurostat, FRA and EIGE.

The disseminated indicators focus on violence by perpetrator, disaggregated by type of violence, by time of occurrence, by age and by personal characteristics of the respondent; and on frequency, severity, seriousness and reporting of the experienced violence.

However, it is necessary to point out that survey data might only be a close proxy to real prevalence as survey data depends on the willingness of the respondent to disclose any violence experienced. Therefore, to understand the prevalence of violence and disclosure rates by survey respondents, it is important to take into account the extent to which violence is tolerated in the wider community. For example, in cultures where people are ready to talk about their painful experiences, their answers may reflect more accurately their own experiences rather than community norms. To provide some background on country specific context, few indicators on commonness and awareness of support services are disseminated.

It is essential to avoid using sensitive terms that could cause anxiety or concern when introducing the survey. Accordingly, the general recommendation was that the survey name should be neutral when contacting the respondents. The aim was to avoid alerting any perpetrators of domestic violence to the nature of the survey or frightening off any victims of violence, in order to minimise non-response, as some respondents might be discouraged from taking part if the name of the survey included terms like ‘assault’, ‘sexual violence’, or ‘gender-based violence’.

Majority of countries have followed this recommendation and the title of the survey was translated as survey on health, safety or security and well-being or living conditions; quality of life or relationship survey. Only few countries (BG, SK) used gender-based violence in the title of the survey during data collection and explained that this decision was taken as no issue appeared during testing the survey using the word “violence”, or the word "violence" was used in order to avoid misunderstanding regarding the aim of the survey and to reduce non-response due to the fact that respondents were not aware of the real theme of the survey.

However, the pilot survey results indicate that respondents understood the rationale for the choice of neutral survey name once they had been given an explanation, and agreed that it was right. Due to the sensitivity of the topic, the participating countries were strongly encouraged to include experts on violence against women and/or gender-based violence as well as psychologists and psychotherapists in every step of the survey - from the preparation, through the field work to the data dissemination.

Majority of countries included experts on the topic in the project team: gender statisticians, gender-based violence or violence against women researchers, policy experts, psychologists, social workers, experts working on victim support or NGOs, experts on victimization surveys. External experts were included in the preparation of the survey, training of the interviewers and in order to provide support to the interviewers.

Few countries (MT, FI) established the focus group or expert group consisting of different experts in the field and providing the support to the survey during all phases.

The main purpose of the EU survey on gender-based violence against women and other forms of inter-personal violence (EU-GBV) is to assess the prevalence of violence in order to address the requirements of the Istanbul Convention. The survey covers psychological, physical and sexual violence by intimate partner, physical and sexual violence by non-partner, sexual harassment at work, violence experienced in childhood and stalking by any perpetrator.

The data collection for the first wave (year 2021) was conducted in voluntary bases and took place between September 2020 and March 2024 in the EU countries, based on their national timetables. Eurostat coordinated data collection in 18 Member States (BE, BG, DK, EE, EL, ES, FR, HR, LV, LT, MT, NL, AT, PL, PT, SI, SK, FI). Additionally, Italy agreed to share data from their national survey on violence against women, but the implementation of the survey was postponed from 2022 to 2024 due to administrative difficulties. The indicators disseminated for Italy are based on the last national survey conducted in 2014, given that the prevalence of gender-based violence is not expected to differ significantly over time, specifically for prevalence of lifetime violence, and the indicators will be updated when 2024 survey results will be available. Moreover, indicators on sexual harassment at work disseminated for Italy are based on the national victimisation survey of 2022-2023. To cover the full EU, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) and the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) launched a joint data collection in the eight Member States not covered by Eurostat (CZ, DE, IE, CY, LU, HU, RO, SE) following the EU-GBV manual. Accordingly, data disseminated for wave 2021 and estimated EU-average is based on a joint data collection by Eurostat, FRA and EIGE.

The disseminated indicators focus on violence by perpetrator, disaggregated by type of violence, by time of occurrence, by age and by personal characteristics of the respondent; and on frequency, severity, seriousness and reporting of the experienced violence.

However, it is necessary to point out that survey data might only be a close proxy to real prevalence as survey data depends on the willingness of the respondent to disclose any violence experienced. Therefore, to understand the prevalence of violence and disclosure rates by survey respondents, it is important to take into account the extent to which violence is tolerated in the wider community. For example, in cultures where people are ready to talk about their painful experiences, their answers may reflect more accurately their own experiences rather than community norms. To provide some background on country specific context, few indicators on commonness and awareness of support services are disseminated.

It is essential to avoid using sensitive terms that could cause anxiety or concern when introducing the survey. Accordingly, the general recommendation was that the survey name should be neutral when contacting the respondents. The aim was to avoid alerting any perpetrators of domestic violence to the nature of the survey or frightening off any victims of violence, in order to minimise non-response, as some respondents might be discouraged from taking part if the name of the survey included terms like ‘assault’, ‘sexual violence’, or ‘gender-based violence’.

Majority of countries have followed this recommendation and the title of the survey was translated as survey on health, safety or security and well-being or living conditions; quality of life or relationship survey. Only few countries (BG, SK) used gender-based violence in the title of the survey during data collection and explained that this decision was taken as no issue appeared during testing the survey using the word “violence”, or the word "violence" was used in order to avoid misunderstanding regarding the aim of the survey and to reduce non-response due to the fact that respondents were not aware of the real theme of the survey.

However, the pilot survey results indicate that respondents understood the rationale for the choice of neutral survey name once they had been given an explanation, and agreed that it was right. Due to the sensitivity of the topic, the participating countries were strongly encouraged to include experts on violence against women and/or gender-based violence as well as psychologists and psychotherapists in every step of the survey - from the preparation, through the field work to the data dissemination.

Majority of countries included experts on the topic in the project team: gender statisticians, gender-based violence or violence against women researchers, policy experts, psychologists, social workers, experts working on victim support or NGOs, experts on victimization surveys. External experts were included in the preparation of the survey, training of the interviewers and in order to provide support to the interviewers.

Few countries (MT, FI) established the focus group or expert group consisting of different experts in the field and providing the support to the survey during all phases.

In 2019, the highest percentage of females who suffered from intimate partner violence in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region was in Iraq at about **** percent of the females. Within the region, Syria, Libya and Iraq have been suffering from conflict and humanitarian crises.

Yemen YE: Legislation Exists on Domestic Violence: 1=Yes; 0=No data was reported at 0.000 NA in 2017. This stayed constant from the previous number of 0.000 NA for 2015. Yemen YE: Legislation Exists on Domestic Violence: 1=Yes; 0=No data is updated yearly, averaging 0.000 NA from Dec 2013 (Median) to 2017, with 3 observations. Yemen YE: Legislation Exists on Domestic Violence: 1=Yes; 0=No data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Yemen – Table YE.World Bank.WDI: Policy and Institutions. Legislation exists on domestic violence is whether there is legislation addressing domestic violence: violence between spouses, within the family or members of the same household, or in interpersonal relationships, including intimate partner violence that is subject to criminal sanctions or provides for protection orders for domestic violence, or the legislation addresses “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” or “harassment” that clearly affects physical or mental health, and it is implied that such behavior is considered domestic violence.; ; World Bank: Women, Business and the Law.; ;

Jordan JO: Legislation Exists on Domestic Violence: 1=Yes; 0=No data was reported at 1.000 NA in 2017. This stayed constant from the previous number of 1.000 NA for 2015. Jordan JO: Legislation Exists on Domestic Violence: 1=Yes; 0=No data is updated yearly, averaging 1.000 NA from Dec 2013 (Median) to 2017, with 3 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 1.000 NA in 2017 and a record low of 1.000 NA in 2017. Jordan JO: Legislation Exists on Domestic Violence: 1=Yes; 0=No data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Jordan – Table JO.World Bank: Policy and Institutions. Legislation exists on domestic violence is whether there is legislation addressing domestic violence: violence between spouses, within the family or members of the same household, or in interpersonal relationships, including intimate partner violence that is subject to criminal sanctions or provides for protection orders for domestic violence, or the legislation addresses “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” or “harassment” that clearly affects physical or mental health, and it is implied that such behavior is considered domestic violence.; ; World Bank: Women, Business and the Law.; ;

Data from across the government on responses to and outcomes of domestic abuse cases in the criminal justice system.