In 2018, the Liberty Juvenile United for Specialized Treatment in Florida had the highest rate of sexual victimization in the United States. That year, 26.1 percent of youth victims indicated they suffered from sexual victimization in that facility.

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) Series, previously called the National Crime Surveys (NCS), has been collecting data on personal and household victimization through an ongoing survey of a nationally-representative sample of residential addresses since 1973. The NCVS was designed with four primary objectives: (1) to develop detailed information about the victims and consequences of crime, (2) to estimate the number and types of crimes not reported to the police, (3) to provide uniform measures of selected types of crimes, and (4) to permit comparisons over time and types of areas. The survey categorizes crimes as "personal" or "property." Personal crimes include rape and sexual attack, robbery, aggravated and simple assault, and purse-snatching/pocket-picking, while property crimes include burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft, and vandalism. Each respondent is asked a series of screen questions designed to determine whether she or he was victimized during the six-month period preceding the first day of the month of the interview. A "household respondent" is also asked to report on crimes against the household as a whole (e.g., burglary, motor vehicle theft). The data include type of crime, month, time, and location of the crime, relationship between victim and offender, characteristics of the offender, self-protective actions taken by the victim during the incident and results of those actions, consequences of the victimization, type of property lost, whether the crime was reported to police and reasons for reporting or not reporting, and offender use of weapons, drugs, and alcohol. Basic demographic information such as age, race, gender, and income is also collected, to enable analysis of crime by various subpopulations. This dataset represents the concatenated version of the NCVS on a collection year basis for 1992-2013. A collection year contains records from interviews conducted in the 12 months of the given year. Under the collection year format, victimizations are counted in the year the interview is conducted, regardless of the year when the crime incident occurred. For additional information, please see the documentation for the data from the most current year of the NCVS, ICPSR Study 35164.

In 2022, the rate of violent crime victimization was 23.5 per 1,000 persons in the United States. Among the types of violent crime, this figure was highest for simple assault, at 13.7 cases per 1,000 persons. For rape and sexual assault, this rate stood at 1.9 cases per 1,000 persons in that year.

This statistic shows the rate of rape/sexual assault victimization in the United States from 2008 to 2012 distinguished by poverty level. Between 2008 and 2012, the rate of rape and sexual assault in poor households stood at 2.2 per 1,000 persons which is the highest compared to households in other poverty levels.

In 2023, ******* women were victims of rape or sexual assault in the United States, while the corresponding number of men who were raped or sexually assaulted in that year was *******.

In 2022, there were slightly more female victims of violent crime than male victims in the United States, with about ********* male victims and ********* female victims. These figures are a significant increase from the previous year, when there were ********* male victims and ********* female victims. What counts as violent crime? Violent crime in the United States includes murder, rape, sexual assault, robbery, and assault. While violent crime across all areas has been steadily falling over the past few decades, the rate of aggravated assault is still relatively high, at ***** cases per 100,000 of the population. In 2021, there were more property crimes committed in the U.S. than there were violent crimes. Keep your enemies closer It is usually said that most victims know their attacker, and the data backs this up. In 2021, very few murders were committed by strangers. The same goes for rape and sexual assault victims; the majority were perpetrated by acquaintances, intimate partners, or relatives.

This dataset contains aggregate data on violent index victimizations at the quarter level of each year (i.e., January – March, April – June, July – September, October – December), from 2001 to the present (1991 to present for Homicides), with a focus on those related to gun violence. Index crimes are 10 crime types selected by the FBI (codes 1-4) for special focus due to their seriousness and frequency. This dataset includes only those index crimes that involve bodily harm or the threat of bodily harm and are reported to the Chicago Police Department (CPD). Each row is aggregated up to victimization type, age group, sex, race, and whether the victimization was domestic-related. Aggregating at the quarter level provides large enough blocks of incidents to protect anonymity while allowing the end user to observe inter-year and intra-year variation. Any row where there were fewer than three incidents during a given quarter has been deleted to help prevent re-identification of victims. For example, if there were three domestic criminal sexual assaults during January to March 2020, all victims associated with those incidents have been removed from this dataset. Human trafficking victimizations have been aggregated separately due to the extremely small number of victimizations.

This dataset includes a " GUNSHOT_INJURY_I " column to indicate whether the victimization involved a shooting, showing either Yes ("Y"), No ("N"), or Unknown ("UKNOWN.") For homicides, injury descriptions are available dating back to 1991, so the "shooting" column will read either "Y" or "N" to indicate whether the homicide was a fatal shooting or not. For non-fatal shootings, data is only available as of 2010. As a result, for any non-fatal shootings that occurred from 2010 to the present, the shooting column will read as “Y.” Non-fatal shooting victims will not be included in this dataset prior to 2010; they will be included in the authorized dataset, but with "UNKNOWN" in the shooting column.

The dataset is refreshed daily, but excludes the most recent complete day to allow CPD time to gather the best available information. Each time the dataset is refreshed, records can change as CPD learns more about each victimization, especially those victimizations that are most recent. The data on the Mayor's Office Violence Reduction Dashboard is updated daily with an approximately 48-hour lag. As cases are passed from the initial reporting officer to the investigating detectives, some recorded data about incidents and victimizations may change once additional information arises. Regularly updated datasets on the City's public portal may change to reflect new or corrected information.

How does this dataset classify victims?

The methodology by which this dataset classifies victims of violent crime differs by victimization type:

Homicide and non-fatal shooting victims: A victimization is considered a homicide victimization or non-fatal shooting victimization depending on its presence in CPD's homicide victims data table or its shooting victims data table. A victimization is considered a homicide only if it is present in CPD's homicide data table, while a victimization is considered a non-fatal shooting only if it is present in CPD's shooting data tables and absent from CPD's homicide data table.

To determine the IUCR code of homicide and non-fatal shooting victimizations, we defer to the incident IUCR code available in CPD's Crimes, 2001-present dataset (available on the City's open data portal). If the IUCR code in CPD's Crimes dataset is inconsistent with the homicide/non-fatal shooting categorization, we defer to CPD's Victims dataset.

For a criminal homicide, the only sensible IUCR codes are 0110 (first-degree murder) or 0130 (second-degree murder). For a non-fatal shooting, a sensible IUCR code must signify a criminal sexual assault, a robbery, or, most commonly, an aggravated battery. In rare instances, the IUCR code in CPD's Crimes and Victims dataset do not align with the homicide/non-fatal shooting categorization:

1. In instances where a homicide victimization does not correspond to an IUCR code 0110 or 0130, we set the IUCR code to "01XX" to indicate that the victimization was a homicide but we do not know whether it was a first-degree murder (IUCR code = 0110) or a second-degree murder (IUCR code = 0130).
2. When a non-fatal shooting victimization does not correspond to an IUCR code that signifies a criminal sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated battery, we enter “UNK” in the IUCR column, “YES” in the GUNSHOT_I column, and “NON-FATAL” in the PRIMARY column to indicate that the victim was non-fatally shot, but the precise IUCR code is unknown.

Other violent crime victims: For other violent crime types, we refer to the IUCR classification that exists in CPD's victim table, with only one exception:

1. When there is an incident that is associated with no victim with a matching IUCR code, we assume that this is an error. Every crime should have at least 1 victim with a matching IUCR code. In these cases, we change the IUCR code to reflect the incident IUCR code because CPD's incident table is considered to be more reliable than the victim table.

Note: All businesses identified as victims in CPD data have been removed from this dataset.

Note: The definition of “homicide” (shooting or otherwise) does not include justifiable homicide or involuntary manslaughter. This dataset also excludes any cases that CPD considers to be “unfounded” or “noncriminal.”

Note: In some instances, the police department's raw incident-level data and victim-level data that were inputs into this dataset do not align on the type of crime that occurred. In those instances, this dataset attempts to correct mismatches between incident and victim specific crime types. When it is not possible to determine which victims are associated with the most recent crime determination, the dataset will show empty cells in the respective demographic fields (age, sex, race, etc.).

Note: The initial reporting officer usually asks victims to report demographic data. If victims are unable to recall, the reporting officer will use their best judgment. “Unknown” can be reported if it is truly unknown.

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), previously called the National Crime Survey (NCS), has been collecting data on personal and household victimization through an ongoing survey of a nationally-representative sample of residential addresses since 1973. The NCVS was designed with four primary objectives: (1) to develop detailed information about the victims and consequences of crime, (2) to estimate the number and types of crimes not reported to the police, (3) to provide uniform measures of selected types of crimes, and (4) to permit comparisons over time and types of areas. Beginning in 1992, the survey categorizes crimes as "personal" or "property." Personal crimes include rape and sexual assault, robbery, aggravated and simple assault, and purse-snatching/pocket-picking, while property crimes include burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft, and vandalism. Each respondent is asked a series of screen questions designed to determine whether she or he was victimized during the six-month period preceding the first day of the month of the interview. A "household respondent" is also asked to report on crimes against the household as a whole (e.g., burglary, motor vehicle theft). The data include type of crime, month, time, and location of the crime, relationship between victim and offender, characteristics of the offender, self-protective actions taken by the victim during the incident and results of those actions, consequences of the victimization, type of property lost, whether the crime was reported to police and reasons for reporting or not reporting, and offender use of weapons, drugs, and alcohol. Basic demographic information such as age, race, gender, and income is also collected, to enable analysis of crime by various subpopulations. This dataset represents the concatenated version of the NCVS on a collection year basis for 1992-2020. A collection year contains records from interviews conducted in the 12 months of the given year. Under the collection year format, victimizations are counted in the year the interview is conducted, regardless of the year when the crime incident occurred. For additional information on the dataset, please see the documentation for the data from the most current year of the NCVS, ICPSR Study 38090.

This dataset contains individual-level homicide and non-fatal shooting victimizations, including homicide data from 1991 to the present, and non-fatal shooting data from 2010 to the present (2010 is the earliest available year for shooting data). This dataset includes a "GUNSHOT_INJURY_I " column to indicate whether the victimization involved a shooting, showing either Yes ("Y"), No ("N"), or Unknown ("UKNOWN.") For homicides, injury descriptions are available dating back to 1991, so the "shooting" column will read either "Y" or "N" to indicate whether the homicide was a fatal shooting or not. For non-fatal shootings, data is only available as of 2010. As a result, for any non-fatal shootings that occurred from 2010 to the present, the shooting column will read as “Y.” Non-fatal shooting victims will not be included in this dataset prior to 2010; they will be included in the authorized-access dataset, but with "UNKNOWN" in the shooting column. Each row represents a single victimization, i.e., a unique event when an individual became the victim of a homicide or non-fatal shooting. Each row does not represent a unique victim—if someone is victimized multiple times there will be multiple rows for each of those distinct events. The dataset is refreshed daily, but excludes the most recent complete day to allow the Chicago Police Department (CPD) time to gather the best available information. Each time the dataset is refreshed, records can change as CPD learns more about each victimization, especially those victimizations that are most recent. The data on the Mayor's Office Violence Reduction Dashboard is updated daily with an approximately 48-hour lag. As cases are passed from the initial reporting officer to the investigating detectives, some recorded data about incidents and victimizations may change once additional information arises. Regularly updated datasets on the City's public portal may change to reflect new or corrected information. A version of this dataset with additional crime types is available by request. To make a request, please email dataportal@cityofchicago.org with the subject line: Violence Reduction Victims Access Request. Access will require an account on this site, which you may create at https://data.cityofchicago.org/signup. How does this dataset classify victims? The methodology by which this dataset classifies victims of violent crime differs by victimization type: Homicide and non-fatal shooting victims: A victimization is considered a homicide victimization or non-fatal shooting victimization depending on its presence in CPD's homicide victims data table or its shooting victims data table. A victimization is considered a homicide only if it is present in CPD's homicide data table, while a victimization is considered a non-fatal shooting only if it is present in CPD's shooting data tables and absent from CPD's homicide data table. To determine the IUCR code of homicide and non-fatal shooting victimizations, we defer to the incident IUCR code available in CPD's Crimes, 2001-present dataset (available on the City's open data portal). If the IUCR code in CPD's Crimes dataset is inconsistent with the homicide/non-fatal shooting categorization, we defer to CPD's Victims dataset. For a criminal homicide, the only sensible IUCR codes are 0110 (first-degree murder) or 0130 (second-degree murder). For a non-fatal shooting, a sensible IUCR code must signify a criminal sexual assault, a robbery, or, most commonly, an aggravated battery. In rare instances, the IUCR code in CPD's Crimes and Victims dataset do not align with the homicide/non-fatal shooting categorization: In instances where a homicide victimization does not correspond to an IUCR code 0110 or 0130, we set the IUCR code to "01XX" to indicate that the victimization was a homicide but we do not know whether it was a fi

In 2023, the victimization rate in Venezuela amounted to approximately 19 percent. Between 1996 and 2023, the figure dropped by around 24 percentage points, though the decline followed an uneven course rather than a steady trajectory.

The victimization rate in Uruguay was approximately 30 percent in 2023. Between 1996 and 2023, the rate rose by around 11 percentage points, though the increase followed an uneven trajectory rather than a consistent upward trend.

This study was designed to collect college student victimization data to satisfy four primary objectives: (1) to determine the prevalence and nature of campus crime, (2) to help the campus community more fully assess crime, perceived risk, fear of victimization, and security problems, (3) to aid in the development and evaluation of location-specific and campus-wide security policies and crime prevention measures, and (4) to make a contribution to the theoretical study of campus crime and security. Data for Part 1, Student-Level Data, and Part 2, Incident-Level Data, were collected from a random sample of college students in the United States using a structured telephone interview modeled after the redesigned National Crime Victimization Survey administered by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Using stratified random sampling, over 3,000 college students from 12 schools were interviewed. Researchers collected detailed information about the incident and the victimization, and demographic characteristics of victims and nonvictims, as well as data on self-protection, fear of crime, perceptions of crime on campus, and campus security measures. For Part 3, School Data, the researchers surveyed campus officials at the sampled schools and gathered official data to supplement institution-level crime prevention information obtained from the students. Mail-back surveys were sent to directors of campus security or campus police at the 12 sampled schools, addressing various aspects of campus security, crime prevention programs, and crime prevention services available on the campuses. Additionally, mail-back surveys were sent to directors of campus planning, facilities management, or related offices at the same 12 schools to obtain information on the extent and type of planning and design actions taken by the campus for crime prevention. Part 3 also contains data on the characteristics of the 12 schools obtained from PETERSON'S GUIDE TO FOUR-YEAR COLLEGES (1994). Part 4, Census Data, is comprised of 1990 Census data describing the census tracts in which the 12 schools were located and all tracts adjacent to the schools. Demographic variables in Part 1 include year of birth, sex, race, marital status, current enrollment status, employment status, residency status, and parents' education. Victimization variables include whether the student had ever been a victim of theft, burglary, robbery, motor vehicle theft, assault, sexual assault, vandalism, or harassment. Students who had been victimized were also asked the number of times victimization incidents occurred, how often the police were called, and if they knew the perpetrator. All students were asked about measures of self-protection, fear of crime, perceptions of crime on campus, and campus security measures. For Part 2, questions were asked about the location of each incident, whether the offender had a weapon, a description of the offense and the victim's response, injuries incurred, characteristics of the offender, and whether the incident was reported to the police. For Part 3, respondents were asked about how general campus security needs were met, the nature and extent of crime prevention programs and services available at the school (including when the program or service was first implemented), and recent crime prevention activities. Campus planners were asked if specific types of campus security features (e.g., emergency telephone, territorial markers, perimeter barriers, key-card access, surveillance cameras, crime safety audits, design review for safety features, trimming shrubs and underbrush to reduce hiding places, etc.) were present during the 1993-1994 academic year and if yes, how many or how often. Additionally, data were collected on total full-time enrollment, type of institution, percent of undergraduate female students enrolled, percent of African-American students enrolled, acreage, total fraternities, total sororities, crime rate of city/county where the school was located, and the school's Carnegie classification. For Part 4, Census data were compiled on percent unemployed, percent having a high school degree or higher, percent of all persons below the poverty level, and percent of the population that was Black.

Abstract (en): The purpose of this study was to investigate longitudinally the developmental antecedents of physical and sexual violence against young women, using a theoretically based multicausal model that included characteristics related to the victim, the perpetrator, and the environment. The researchers used a classic longitudinal design, replicated over two cohorts (those born in 1972 and 1973), each assessed first when 18 years old, and again when 19, 20, 21, and 22 years old. The first survey (Part 1, Female Data) collected information on the respondent's experiences of sexual assault from age 14 to the present (age 18). Other questions focused on the kind of person the respondent thought she was, how much of an influence religion had on the way she chose to spend each day, her dating behavior during high school, the number of times the respondent had used behavior such as discussing issues relatively calmly, arguing, sulking, stomping out of the room, or threatening to hit, with a romantic partner during high school, and how frequently romantic partners used these types of behavior with the respondent. Other items elicited information on the number of women the respondent knew who had been sexually victimized, whether men forced them to engage in sexual activities, the nature of the respondent's sexual experience from the time she was 14 to the present, the respondent's age when each experience occurred, if the respondent or the other person was using drugs or alcohol when it happened, if the respondent was injured, and whom the respondent told about the experience. Information was collected on sexual abuse prior to the age of 14 as well. The respondent was also asked to describe how often her parents or stepparents had administered physical blows (i.e., hitting, kicking, throwing someone down), whether someone had fondled her in a sexual way, whether a male had attempted intercourse with the respondent, the relationship between the respondent and the perpetrator, the respondent's age when the experience occurred, who the other person was, who initiated the date or paid for the food, drinks, or tickets, whether the respondent or the other person was using drugs or alcohol, the respondent's opinions about men and women in America (i.e., if the respondent agreed or disagreed that chivalrous gestures toward women on the part of men should be encouraged), whether the respondent had engaged in sexual intercourse when she did not want to because a male threatened or used some degree of physical force (twisting her arm, holding her down, etc.), and the respondent's drug and alcohol use. The subsequent surveys contained measures of sexual assault during each year of college (i.e., since the previous survey). Questions asked in subsequent surveys were similar to those in the first survey, and the responses are all included in Part 1. Questions posed to males (Part 2, Male Data) included the number of women the respondent had sexual intercourse with, how often the respondent heard talk that speculated how a particular woman would be in bed, reasons the respondent engaged in sexual activity, number of times the respondent engaged in sexual intercourse when a woman didn't want to, and questions similar to those in Part 1 with the respondent as the perpetrator. Demographic information in Part 1 and Part 2 describes the female or the male respondent's education, race, religious preference, sexual orientation, and marital or relationship status. The purpose of this study was to investigate longitudinally the developmental antecedents of physical and sexual violence against young women, using a theoretically based multicausal model that included characteristics related to the victim, the perpetrator, and the environment. The research goals of the study focused on physical violence among acquaintances, paralleling the work that had already been done on experiences with sexual coercion. The researchers were also interested in the co-occurrence of sexual and physical assault. The study fills a gap in the knowledge about violence against women by addressing the relationship between experiences of sexual and physical violence from the perspectives of victim and perpetrator. Specific goals were: (1) to explore whether and how the characteristics of the agent (perpetrator), the host (victim), and the environment (situational/contextual effects) individually and in combination affect the risk of physical victimization or its perpe...

ObjectiveTo examine determinants of the prevalence and frequency of criminal victimization (i.e. both personal and property crime victimization) in outpatients with severe mental illness.MethodsData was collected using a multisite epidemiological survey including a random sample of 956 adult outpatients with SMI. Data were collected between 2010 and 2012. Data on 12-month victimization prevalence and frequency were obtained using the victimization scale of the Dutch Crime and Victimization Survey. Demographic characteristics, clinical determinants, e.g., clinical diagnosis, psychosocial functioning, drug use and alcohol abuse over the past 12 months, co-morbid PTSD diagnosis, and victimological determinants e.g. physical abuse, physical neglect and sexual abuse in childhood, perpetration of violence over the past 12-months, and anger disposition were assessed as determinants. Univariable and multivariable hurdle regression analyses were conducted to test associations of the potential determinants with victimization prevalence and frequency.ResultsTwelve-month prevalence rates of personal and property crime were 19% and 28%, respectively. Clinical characteristics were more pronounced regarding personal crime victimization. In the multivariable model, presence of psychotic disorder, drug use, childhood physical and sexual abuse, and recent violent perpetration were associated with the 12-month prevalence or frequency rate of personal crime victimization. Native Dutch and divorced patients were more at risk as well. Next to this being employed, poor social functioning, having perpetrated a violent crime, as well as alcohol abuse and recent drug use were all significantly related to property crime prevalence or frequency rate in the multivariable model. In absolute terms, the effect sizes observed tended to be moderate to small. The multivariate models, however, explained the outcome variance moderately well (Nagelkerke’s pseudo R2 = 25.0 - 27.9%.ConclusionsClinicians should be aware of the high risk of victimization among their patients with severe mental illness. Particular attention should be devoted to people with substance use histories and perpetrators of violence, since they are also at an increased risk of being victims as well.

In October 2019, NACJD released a revised set of 1992-2016 NCVS Public-Use Files. The National Crime Victimization Survey, Concatenated File, [United States], 1992-2016: Revised Version (ICPSR 37241) data collection contains the official 1992-2016 NCVS data and replaces the previously published National Crime Victimization Survey, Concatenated File, [United States], 1992-2016 (ICPSR 36834) Public-Use Files. The initial files remain available for research purposes. The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), previously called the National Crime Survey (NCS), has been collecting data on personal and household victimization through an ongoing survey of a nationally-representative sample of residential addresses since 1973. The NCVS was designed with four primary objectives: (1) to develop detailed information about the victims and consequences of crime, (2) to estimate the number and types of crimes not reported to the police, (3) to provide uniform measures of selected types of crimes, and (4) to permit comparisons over time and types of areas. Beginning in 1992, the survey categorizes crimes as "personal" or "property." Personal crimes include rape and sexual assault, robbery, aggravated and simple assault, and purse-snatching/pocket-picking, while property crimes include burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft, and vandalism. Each respondent is asked a series of screen questions designed to determine whether she or he was victimized during the six-month period preceding the first day of the month of the interview. A "household respondent" is also asked to report on crimes against the household as a whole (e.g., burglary, motor vehicle theft). The data include type of crime, month, time, and location of the crime, relationship between victim and offender, characteristics of the offender, self-protective actions taken by the victim during the incident and results of those actions, consequences of the victimization, type of property lost, whether the crime was reported to police and reasons for reporting or not reporting, and offender use of weapons, drugs, and alcohol. Basic demographic information such as age, race, gender, and income is also collected, to enable analysis of crime by various subpopulations. This dataset represents the concatenated version of the NCVS on a collection year basis for 1992-2016. A collection year contains records from interviews conducted in the 12 months of the given year. Under the collection year format, victimizations are counted in the year the interview is conducted, regardless of the year when the crime incident occurred. For additional information on the dataset, please see the documentation for the data from the most current year of the NCVS, ICPSR Study 36828.

This study offers novel insights into mechanisms associated with sexual assault (SA) among sexual minority women (SMW). Experiences of bias and stigma contribute to lower rates of SA reporting by this population. This results in victims with unmet needs and fewer criminal prosecutions of SA perpetrators. This study used a mixed-methods approach to collect data from lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual women to instigate changes that would improve responses from law enforcement, victim services, and anti-violence programs that serve SMW. This study comprised of three parts a: baseline survey, qualitative interview, and daily survey. Self-reported baseline questionnaires included topics like lifetime victimization (childhood sexual abuse, adult sexual aggression, and assault), discrimination, distress, mental health, alcohol use, and sexual history. The qualitative interviews focused on the most recent, and when applicable, the most salient adult sexual assault (ASA) incident. Interviews began by asking the participants to describe their ASA incidents with follow-probes asking about the victimization, perpetrator characteristics (gender and relationship to participant), and context of assault (role of alcohol or drugs and setting). Participants were also asked if they discussed the assault with anyone and their reasons for disclosure or non-disclosure. As well as short and long-term coping patterns. The daily survey asked participants about their mood, alcohol use, drinking contexts, and sexual experiences (consensual and non-consensual). This study contains demographic information such as: age, race, income, education, and BMI.

In 2022, the child abuse rate for children of Hispanic origin was at 7, indicating 7 out of every 1,000 Hispanic children in the United States suffered from some sort of abuse. This rate was highest among American Indian or Alaska Native children, with 14.3 children out of every 1,000 experiencing some form of abuse. Child abuse in the U.S. The child abuse rate in the United States is highest among American Indian or Alaska Native victims, followed by African-American victims. It is most common among children between two to five years of age. While child abuse cases are fairly evenly distributed between girls and boys, more boys than girls are victims of abuse resulting in death. The most common type of maltreatment is neglect, followed by physical abuse. Risk factors Child abuse is often reported by teachers, law enforcement officers, or social service providers. In the large majority of cases, the perpetrators of abuse were a parent of the victim. Risk factors, such as teen pregnancy, violent crime, and poverty that are associated with abuse and neglect have been found to be quite high in the United States in comparison to other countries.

Despite the recognized need to address the prevention of sexual violence against adolescents in Nigeria, significant research gaps persist in understanding the patterns, determinants, and impacts of such violence, particularly regarding regional variations and the specific developmental needs of adolescents across different stages. This study provides Nigerian regional prevalence estimates disaggregated by gender, rural/urban, and in/out-of-school populations, while also identifying socio-demographic and cultural determinants related to increased vulnerability. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in South-West Nigeria with a sample of 961 adolescents, targeting in- and out-of-school adolescents aged 13–17 years. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression analyses were performed.The prevalence of any form of SV since age 12 was 69.4%, with higher rates among out-of-school adolescents and boys. Non-contact abuse (63.2%), passive contact abuse (41.9%), and active contact abuse (28.7%) were the most common forms reported. Peers were the dominant perpetrators (77.1%), followed by other adults (27.9%). Being male (OR 2.033), older (OR 1.214 per year), involved in a romantic relationship (OR 2.731), and experiencing SV before age 12 (OR 4.622) were significant risk factors. Higher household wealth (OR 0.902 per asset) and emotional support from both parents (OR 0.413) were protective factors.This study highlights the high burden of SV against adolescents in Nigeria, with concerning patterns of male victimization and peer perpetration. The findings emphasize the need for comprehensive, evidence-based strategies addressing emotional support, social norms, power dynamics, and economic vulnerabilities to prevent and respond to this problem effectively.

In 2024, the number of victims of rape in the Philippines reached about 7,422, reflecting a significant decrease from the peak value in 2022. The volume of rape cases in the country fluctuated since 2014.

Seafarers working in remote ports and onboard fishing vessels often face isolated, high-risk environments, making them vulnerable to sexual harassment, intimidation, and assault. In the United States and other countries, scientists, called fishery observers, are required by the government to be deployed alongside fishing crews for extended periods to collect essential fisheries data and report potential fishing regulation violations they witness. Although many fishery observers who experience harassment submit official report statements, the true prevalence of the problem is unknown due to nondisclosure. This study uses anonymous responses from annual surveys distributed to North Pacific groundfish and halibut fishery observers to understand barriers to disclosure and estimate disclosure rates. By adjusting the annual counts of observers who submitted official harassment statements with these estimated disclosure rates, we provide the first estimates of the true number of victimized observers (prevalence) each year in a federal fisheries monitoring program in the United States. Model selection suggested that disclosure was influenced by the type of harassment experienced and not by observer demographics or employment year. Estimated disclosure rates (victimized observers who reported annually via official statement) were lowest for sexual harassment (0.18; 95% CI 0.11-0.29); higher for intimidation, coercion and hostile work environments (0.37; 95% CI 0.28-0.47); and highest for assault (0.57; 95% CI 0.41-0.73). Overall, 45% (95% CI 39-51%) of observers who experienced victimization disclosed harassment in a given year. We estimate that 22-38% of observers were victimized annually during the 2016-2022 study period, with rates of 24-60% for females and 12-24% for males. Victimization rates computed from raw survey summary statistics suffer from self-selection bias while rates derived solely from submission of official statements suffer from bias in underreporting. Supplementing official statements with estimates of disclosure rates from anonymous survey data provides a means of mitigating for these two forms of biases to obtain estimates of victimization untangled from fluctuations in reporting tendencies. When disclosure and victimization are teased apart, the effectiveness of risk reduction strategies can be better assessed over time.