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.

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.

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.

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.

Anti-social behaviour (ASB) outcomes for disabled people in England and Wales aged 16 and over, with analysis by disability status, country, sex, age, impairment type, type of ASB. Domestic abuse and sexual assault outcomes for disabled people in England and Wales aged 16 to 59 years, with analysis by disability status, age, sex, impairment type, impairment severity, country and region. All outcomes using the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) data.

France FR: Intentional Homicides: Male: per 100,000 Male data was reported at 1.672 Ratio in 2016. This records a decrease from the previous number of 1.999 Ratio for 2015. France FR: Intentional Homicides: Male: per 100,000 Male data is updated yearly, averaging 1.836 Ratio from Dec 2015 (Median) to 2016, with 2 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 1.999 Ratio in 2015 and a record low of 1.672 Ratio in 2016. France FR: Intentional Homicides: Male: per 100,000 Male data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s France – Table FR.World Bank: Health Statistics. Intentional homicides, male are estimates of unlawful male homicides purposely inflicted as a result of domestic disputes, interpersonal violence, violent conflicts over land resources, intergang violence over turf or control, and predatory violence and killing by armed groups. Intentional homicide does not include all intentional killing; the difference is usually in the organization of the killing. Individuals or small groups usually commit homicide, whereas killing in armed conflict is usually committed by fairly cohesive groups of up to several hundred members and is thus usually excluded.; ; UN Office on Drugs and Crime's International Homicide Statistics database.; ;

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.

Financial inclusion is an area of growing global interest in women’s empowerment policy and programming. While increased economic autonomy may be expected to reduce the prevalence of intimate partner violence, the mechanisms and contexts through which this relationship manifests are not well understood. This analysis aims to assess the relationship between women’s financial inclusion and recent intimate partner violence using nationally-representative data from 112 countries worldwide. Levels of both financial inclusion and recent intimate partner violence varied substantially across countries (ranging from 2–100%, and 1–46%, respectively), and across regions. In multivariate global analyses, increased levels of women’s financial inclusion were associated with lower levels of recent intimate partner violence after accounting for asset-based enablers of economic autonomy and gender norms; this relationship was lost upon the inclusion of measures of national context (i.e., development and fragility). These results underscore that the relationship between financial inclusion and recent intimate partner violence is complex, follows many pathways, and is affected by context. In low and middle income countries, asset-based enablers of economic autonomy, gender norms and national context explained much of the relationship between financial inclusion and recent intimate partner violence. In those low and middle income countries with high levels of controlling behavior by male spouses, financial inclusion was associated with higher levels of recent intimate partner violence. These findings further suggest that initiatives that aim to prevent intimate partner violence by way of increased economic autonomy may be ineffective in the absence of broader social change and support, and indeed, as seen in countries with higher levels of men’s controlling behavior, backlash may increase the risk of violence. Efforts to improve women’s financial inclusion need to recognize that its relationship with intimate partner violence is complex, and that it requires an enabling environment supportive of women’s rights and autonomy.

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.

Portugal PT: Intentional Homicides: Female: per 100,000 Female data was reported at 0.874 Ratio in 2014. This records a decrease from the previous number of 0.941 Ratio for 2013. Portugal PT: Intentional Homicides: Female: per 100,000 Female data is updated yearly, averaging 0.705 Ratio from Dec 2000 (Median) to 2014, with 15 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 0.941 Ratio in 2013 and a record low of 0.466 Ratio in 2001. Portugal PT: Intentional Homicides: Female: per 100,000 Female data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Portugal – Table PT.World Bank: Health Statistics. Intentional homicides, female are estimates of unlawful female homicides purposely inflicted as a result of domestic disputes, interpersonal violence, violent conflicts over land resources, intergang violence over turf or control, and predatory violence and killing by armed groups. Intentional homicide does not include all intentional killing; the difference is usually in the organization of the killing. Individuals or small groups usually commit homicide, whereas killing in armed conflict is usually committed by fairly cohesive groups of up to several hundred members and is thus usually excluded.; ; UN Office on Drugs and Crime's International Homicide Statistics database.; ;

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they there received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except of the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompany readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collections and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.This study examined services and supports provided by domestic violence programs. It had four main goals:Learn more about what domestic violence survivors want when they come to programs for supportive services, the extent to which survivors have had their service expectations met, and survivors' assessment of immediate outcomes associated with the services they receive.Learn more about how survivors' experiences, needs and immediate outcomes vary across demographic and domestic violence program characteristics.Identify multi-level factors associated with survivors' positive service experiences.Develop recommendations for domestic violence programs across the country for how they might improve their services.Data were collected during a nine month period from 1,467 survivors (Survivor Survey Data) from 90 domestic violence programs in four states: Alabama, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Washington. The states were chosen to maximize geographical, population, rural/urban and economic diversity. Programs were also selected (Program Survey Data) for participation by major national culturally-specific institutes and organizations, to help ensure diversity of the survivor and program samples. In addition, 10 focus groups were conducted with a total of 73 domestic violence survivors, with a focus on marginalized groups.

How does donor domestic ideology and partisan politics shape the lives of people in aid-dependent countries? In this paper, we study the impact of the United States Mexico City Policy, which—when in place—prohibits the disbursement of United States aid funds to foreign Non-Governmental Organizations that provide information or services related to abortion care. Since its 1984 inception, every Democratic president has rescinded it, while every Republican has reinstated it. While previous global public health studies reveal how the Mexico City Policy has actually increased unwanted pregnancies and unsafe abortion rates, we argue that these unintended consequences go further than previously understood. We argue that when women lose access to abortion care, they are more likely to lose their lives and suffer life-changing injuries due to violence by their partners. Using global data on United States aid and the health burden caused by intimate partner violence against women in up to 204 countries and territories between 1993 and 2019, we show that the burden of deaths and disability attributed to intimate partner violence increases by approximately 16 percent when the Mexico City Policy is in place.

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.

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.; ;

In late March of 2020, many governments in Latin America imposed lockdowns in order to avoid the further spread of the virus SARS-CoV-2. As a result of the isolation, a steep rise of gender violence and family abuse cases was identified in several countries in the region. For instance, Mexico's domestic violence reports increased 25 percent in March 2020, in comparison to the same month of the previous year. In Argentina, a hotline for sexual violence victims received more than two thirds more phone calls in April 2020, compared to a year earlier. Argentina is one of the Latin American countries with the highest number of femicide victims.

Domestic Violence Exclusion Zone Alerts Market Outlook

As per our latest research, the global Domestic Violence Exclusion Zone Alerts market size in 2024 is valued at USD 1.35 billion, reflecting the increasing prioritization of personal safety technologies worldwide. The market is anticipated to grow at a robust CAGR of 14.2% from 2025 to 2033, driven by technological advancements and heightened public awareness, reaching a forecasted value of USD 4.27 billion by 2033. This surge is primarily attributed to the growing integration of real-time alert systems with law enforcement and social services, as well as the expanding adoption of mobile and cloud-based solutions for domestic violence prevention and response.

A significant growth factor for the Domestic Violence Exclusion Zone Alerts market is the increasing prevalence and awareness of domestic violence cases globally. Governments and non-governmental organizations are intensifying efforts to protect victims through legislative frameworks and proactive safety measures. The integration of exclusion zone alerts with wearable devices and mobile applications has enabled real-time monitoring and rapid response, thereby reducing the risk of repeat offenses. Furthermore, the rising demand for advanced safety solutions among vulnerable populations, including women, children, and the elderly, is fueling the adoption of these technologies. Public campaigns and educational initiatives are also playing a crucial role in raising awareness about the importance of exclusion zone alerts, which in turn is boosting market growth.

Technological progress is another major driver propelling the Domestic Violence Exclusion Zone Alerts market forward. The adoption of GPS-based, RFID-based, and mobile application-based alert systems has revolutionized the way exclusion zones are monitored and enforced. Innovations in geofencing, real-time location tracking, and automated notifications have significantly enhanced the efficiency and reliability of these systems. Moreover, the integration of artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms is enabling predictive analytics, which helps in identifying potential threats and proactively alerting authorities and victims. The proliferation of smartphones and IoT devices has further accelerated the deployment of exclusion zone alert solutions, making them more accessible and user-friendly for end-users.

The supportive regulatory environment and increased funding for domestic violence prevention initiatives are also contributing to market expansion. Many countries have enacted strict laws mandating the use of exclusion zone alerts for offenders, particularly in cases involving restraining orders. Government agencies are collaborating with technology providers and social service organizations to implement comprehensive safety networks. Additionally, the availability of grants and subsidies for developing and deploying these technologies is encouraging innovation and market entry by new players. These policy-driven initiatives are expected to sustain the market’s upward trajectory over the forecast period.

From a regional perspective, North America currently dominates the Domestic Violence Exclusion Zone Alerts market, accounting for the largest share in 2024, followed by Europe and Asia Pacific. The presence of robust legal frameworks, advanced technological infrastructure, and active collaboration between law enforcement and social services has positioned North America as a leader in this space. However, the Asia Pacific region is expected to witness the highest growth rate during the forecast period, driven by rising awareness, increasing smartphone penetration, and government initiatives aimed at combating domestic violence. Europe is also experiencing steady growth, supported by stringent regulations and cross-border cooperation among member states. Latin America and the Middle East & Africa are gradually catching up, with ongoing efforts to strengthen legal protections and improve access to safety technologies.

Component Analysis</h2&

Sample size of Demographic and health surveys and prevalence of intimate-partner violence across 30 Sub-Saharan African countries.

This survey shows a greater awareness of domestic violence and desire for tougher action to clamp down on it. Only 2% of Europeans are unaware of domestic violence. The survey showed that one European in four knows a woman among friends and family who is a victim of domestic violence. One in five of the EU citizens surveyed said they know someone who commits domestic violence in their circle of friends and family. 87% of those surveyed believed that the EU should be involved in the fight against domestic violence. The survey follows on from a previous Eurobarometer survey conducted in 1999 in the 15 Member States, which comprised the EU at the time, and hence for these countries offers a comparative analysis of the results of the two surveys. The survey follows on from a previous Eurobarometer survey conducted in 1999 in the 15 Member States which comprised the EU at the time (henceforth described as the EU15). The report at hand analyses the evolution of responses in the EU15 in the intervening decade, and will offer a comparative analysis of the results of the two surveys. However, it will also analyse data from the newer Member States, for which no trend comparisons are possible. #####The results by volumes are distributed as follows: * Volume A: Countries * Volume AA: Groups of countries * Volume A' (AP): Trends * Volume AA' (AAP): Trends of groups of countries * Volume B: EU/socio-demographics * Volume C: Country/socio-demographics ---- Researchers may also contact GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences: http://www.gesis.org/en/home/

The global market for domestic abuse safety apps is experiencing robust growth, projected to reach $222 million in 2025 and exhibiting a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 12.1% from 2025 to 2033. This expansion is driven by several key factors. Increasing awareness of domestic violence and its prevalence, coupled with improved access to smartphones and mobile technology, are making these apps increasingly accessible and vital for victims seeking help. Furthermore, the innovative features offered by these apps, such as GPS tracking, silent alerts, and evidence recording capabilities, provide crucial support and a sense of security for individuals in vulnerable situations. The market segmentation reveals a significant demand across both adult and child user demographics, with iOS and Android platforms catering to the diverse technological preferences. The competitive landscape is populated by a range of established and emerging players, each offering unique features and targeting specific user segments. Regional variations in market penetration are expected, with North America and Europe likely leading the adoption rate due to higher levels of technology penetration and social awareness campaigns. However, growth potential exists globally, particularly in developing regions with increasing smartphone adoption and improved internet infrastructure. The continued market expansion is expected to be fuelled by ongoing technological advancements, such as integration with smart home devices and improved AI-powered features for threat detection and response. However, challenges remain, including concerns about data privacy and security, potential for app misuse or malfunction, and the ongoing need for effective public awareness campaigns to increase app adoption among vulnerable populations. Addressing these challenges will be critical to unlocking the full potential of domestic abuse safety apps in providing essential support and promoting safety for victims worldwide. Furthermore, strategic partnerships between app developers, law enforcement agencies, and support organizations will play a vital role in enhancing the effectiveness and accessibility of these life-saving tools.