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.

7.7% of White women reported being the victim of domestic abuse in the year to March 2020, compared with 3.6% of White men.

Over the considered period, the number of recorded incidences of domestic violence in Portugal dramatically increased twice. In 2019, the number of domestic violence crimes escalated to almost 29,500, while, in 2022, it reached the highest value recorded during the period analyzed, namely almost 30,500 incidences. By 2024, the number of recorded incidences of domestic violence decreased 0.8 percent compared to the previous year.

This data set contains New York City Police Department provided incident level data for domestic violence related offenses felony assaults, felony rapes and domestic incident reports) for calendar years 2020 and 2021. The data includes: date of incident, precinct of incident, borough of incident, suspect victim relationship, victim stated relationship description, victims race, victims sex, victims reported age, suspect race, suspect sex, suspect reported age, community district of incident, community district has high poverty rate, community district has low median household income, and high rate of unemployment. The following defines domestic violence incident report, domestic violence related felony assault and felony rapes: Domestic Violence Incident Report (DIR) is a form that police must complete every time they respond to a domestic incident, whether or not an arrest is made. A DIR would be filed for any domestic violence offense, including felony assault and felony rape.

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

The FRA survey on violence against women is based on face-to-face interviews with 42,000 women across the EU. The survey was carried out between March and September 2012 and presents the most comprehensive survey worldwide on women’s experiences of violence. The survey asked women about their experiences of physical, sexual and psychological violence, including domestic violence, since the age of 15 and over the 12 months before the interview. Questions were also asked about incidents of stalking, sexual harassment, and the role played by new technologies in women’s experiences of abuse. In addition, the survey asked about respondents’ experiences of violence in childhood.

The dataset of the FRA violence against women survey is stored with the UK Data Service, which is a recognised international service that is widely used by governmental and non-governmental institutions that produce survey data. The dataset is available free of charge after registration with the service under a Special Licence in various formats. Please visit the page of the dataset on the UK Data Service website to find a description of the dataset and the accompanying documents.

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.

During 2023, around 284,203 cases of domestic violence were reported in Mexico. Mexico City reported a total of over 37,000 cases, ranking as the federal entity with the highest number of reported cases, followed by Mexico State with 28.650 cases.

The following table, produced by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) provides information on rates, trends and patterns in domestic violence incidents reported to, or detected by, the NSW Police Force for the period of 2017/18. The data has been aggregated to location following the 2018 Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS) edition of the Local Government Areas (LGAs). Domestic violence is a serious problem which impacts many NSW families. In 2012, an estimated 16.9 per cent of Australian women aged 18 years and over had experienced partner violence since the age of 15 years (ABS Personal Safety Survey 2012). Rate calculations should also be treated very cautiously for LGAs that have high visitor numbers relative to their residential population. This is because rate calculations are based on estimated residential population and no adjustment has been made for the number of people visiting each LGA per year. For the rate calculations, specialised population data were prepared and provided to BOCSAR by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). For more information please visit the BOSCAR Portal. Please note: AURIN has spatially enabled the original data. LGAs which have populations less than 3000 has been suppressed to maintain confidentiality. Original data values of "n.c." have been set to null.

The purpose of this project was to evaluate the level of domestic violence prosecution throughout the United States and to promote effective prosecution approaches through dissemination of information. The project sought to identify and connect local attorneys' needs for information with the best knowledge available on the most effective prosecution methods. In order to appraise domestic violence prosecution in the United States, the researchers mailed a survey to a nationally-representative sample of prosecutors to assess prosecution strategies in domestic violence cases (Part 1, Prosecutors' Survey Data). Smaller jurisdictions had such a low response rate to the initial survey that a modified follow-up survey (Part 2, Prosecutors' Follow-Up Data) was administered to those jurisdictions. From these surveys, the researchers identified three sites with pioneering specialized domestic violence prosecution programs: Duluth, Minnesota, King County, Washington, and San Francisco, California. In these three sites, the researchers then conducted a case file analysis of a random sample of domestic violence cases (Part 3, Case File Data). A survey of a random sample of female victims was also undertaken in King County and San Francisco (Part 4, Victim Interview Data). In addition, the researchers conducted on-site evaluations of these three specialized programs in which they interviewed staff about the scope of the domestic violence problem, domestic violence support personnel, the impact of the program on the domestic violence problem, and recommendations for the future. The qualitative data collected from these evaluations are provided only in the codebook for this collection. Parts 1 and 2, the Prosecutors' Surveys, contain variables about case management, case screening and charging, pretrial release policies, post-charge diversion, trial, sentencing options, victim support programs, and office and jurisdiction demographics. Questions cover the volume of domestic violence prosecutions, formal protocols for domestic violence prosecution, ways to deal with uncooperative victims, pro-arrest and no-drop policies, protection orders, types of evidence used, and collaboration with other organizations to prosecute domestic violence cases. In addition, Part 1 includes variables on diversion programs, victim noncompliance, substance abuse problems, victim support programs, and plea negotiations. Variables in Part 3, Case File Data, deal with reporting, initial and final charges, injuries sustained, weapons used, evidence available, protection orders issued, victim cooperation, police testimony, disposition, sentence, costs, and restitution for each domestic violence case. Part 4, Victim Interview Data, includes variables concerning victims' employment history, number of children, and substance abuse, opinions about the charges against the defendant, decision-making in the case, and prosecution strategies, and victims' participation in the case, amount of support from and contact with criminal justice agencies, safety concerns, and performance evaluations of various levels of the criminal justice system.

This data set contains count data on domestic violence homicide and intimate partner homicide incidents from the 2015 the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Supplemental Homicide Report (SHR) and population from the SHR.

This study focused on an evaluation of EVOLVE, a newly developed 26-week, 52-session skill building, culturally competent, psycho-educational curriculum-based intervention for male domestic violence offenders with female victims. The curriculum was implemented in three large urban courts that have specialized domestic violence court sessions, judicial monitoring, specialized court staff throughout the judicial process, enhanced advocacy for victims, a collaborative team approach to case processing, and collaboration with networks of involved community service providers. The comparison site (called Explore), also a large urban court, had some specialized court staff and enhanced victim advocacy, as well. It was selected as the comparison because of these court features, the use of a more traditional 26-week intervention (that met just once each week), its high volume, and the high rate of involvement of men of color, which was similar to rates found at the EVOLVE sites at the time the evaluation was proposed. The data file contains 545 cases and 872 variables.

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.

This study provides incident-based, case processing, and criminal history data on defendants charged in state courts during May 2002. The State Court Processing Statistics Program tracked the processing of about 15,000 felony defendants charged in 40 of the 75 largest counties during May 2002. The BJS study entitled Processing of Domestic Violence Cases in State Courts collected additional incident-based and case processing data on more than 5,000 felony and misdemeanor domestic violence defendants in 16 of the 40 counties.

This project provided the first large-scale examination of the police response to intimate partner violence and of the practice known as "dual arrest." The objectives of the project were: (1) to describe the prevalence and context of dual arrest in the United States, (2) to explain the variance in dual arrest rates throughout the United States, (3) to describe dual arrest within the full range of the police response to intimate partner violence, (4) to analyze the factors associated with no arrest, single arrest, and dual arrest, (5) to examine the reasons why women are arrested in intimate partner cases, and (6) to describe how the criminal justice system treats women who have been arrested for domestic violence. Data for the project were collected in two phases. In Phase I, researchers examined all assault and intimidation cases in the year 2000 National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) database (NATIONAL INCIDENT-BASED REPORTING SYSTEM, 2000 [ICPSR 3449]) to investigate the extent to which dual arrest is occurring nationwide, the relationship between incident and offender characteristics, and the effect of state laws on police handling of these cases for all relationship types. Because the NIBRS dataset contained a limited number of incident-specific variables that helped explain divergent arrest practices, in Phase II, researchers collected more detailed information on a subset of NIBRS cases from 25 police departments of varying sizes across four states. This phase of the study was restricted to intimate partner and other domestic violence cases. Additional data were collected for these cases to evaluate court case outcomes and subsequent re-offending. This phase also included an assessment of how closely department policy reflected state law in a larger sample of agencies within five states. The data in Part 1 (Phase I Data) contain 577,862 records from the NIBRS. This includes information related to domestic violence incidents such as the most serious offense against the victim, the most serious victim injury, the assault type, date of incident, and the counts of offenses, offenders, victims, and arrests for the incident. The data also include information related to the parties involved in the incident including demographics for the victim(s) and arrestee(s) and the relationship between victim(s) and arrestee(s). There is also information related to the jurisdiction in which the incident occurred such as population, urban/rural classification, and whether the jurisdiction is located in a metropolitan area. There are also variables pertaining to whether a weapon was used, the date of arrest, and the type of arrest. Also included are variables regarding the police department such as the number of male and female police officers and civilians employed. The data in Part 2 (Phase II Data) contain 4,388 cases and include all of the same variables as those in Part 1. In addition to these variables, there are variables such as whether the offender was on the scene when the police arrived, who reported the incident, the exact nature of injuries suffered by the involved parties, victim and offender substance use, offender demeanor, and presence of children. Also included are variables related to the number of people including police and civilians who were on the scene, the number of people who were questioned, whether there were warrants for the victim(s) or offender(s), whether citations were issued, whether arrests were made, whether any cases were prosecuted, the number of charges filed and against whom, and the sentences for prosecuted cases that resulted in conviction. The data in Part 3 (Police Department Policy Data) contain 282 cases and include variables regarding whether the department had a domestic violence policy, what the department's arrest policy was, whether a police report needed to be made, whether the policy addressed mutual violence, whether the policy instructed how to determine the primary aggressor, and what factors were taken into account in making a decision to arrest. There is also information related to the proportion of arrests involving intimate partners, the proportion of arrests involving other domestics, the proportion of arrests involving acquaintances, and the proportion of arrests involving strangers.

This study examined the ways in which the model of the Kings County Felony Domestic Violence Court (FDVC) changed the way cases were processed and adjudicated, the impact of this approach on outcomes, and its effects on recidivism. In order to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the FDVC, the researchers selected three samples of cases for collection of detailed data and comparisons on case characteristics, processing, and outcomes. First, felony domestic violence cases indicted from 1995 to early 1996 before the FDVC was established, and adjudicated by various parts of the state Supreme Court were studied. These pre-FDVC cases provided a comparison group for assessing differences associated with the FDVC model. Very few of these cases had felony protection order violations as the sole or top indictment charge, since they predated the implementation of the expanded criminal contempt law that went into effect in September 1996. Second, a sample of cases adjudicated by FDVC in its early period (the first half of 1997, after the model was fully implemented) and similar in indictment charges to the pre-FDVC cases was selected. These were cases that had indictment charges other than, or in addition to, felony criminal contempt charges for protection order violations. In other words, these were cases that would have been indicted and adjudicated in the state Supreme Court even without application of the September 1996 law. Third, because the September 1996 law felonizing many protection order violations (under criminal contempt statutes) broadened the types of cases handled by the Supreme Court, compared with those handled in the Supreme Court prior to this law, an additional sample of cases adjudicated by the FDVC (beginning in the first half of 1997) was selected. This was a small sample in which felony protection order violations were the only indicted felony charges. These cases would not have been indicted on felonies during the pre-FDVC period, and so would have remained in the criminal courts as misdemeanors. The inclusion of this sample allowed the researchers to assess how the protection order violation cases were different from the general population of FDVC cases, and how they might be handled differently by the Court and partner agencies. These cases were designated "CC-only" because their only felony indictment was for criminal contempt, the law under which felony protection order violations were charged. Variables in Part 1, Recidivism Data, contain information on number of appearance warrants issued, days incarcerated for predisposition, number of appearances for predisposition and post-disposition, bail conditions (i.e., batterer treatment or drug treatment), top charge at arrest, indictment, and disposition, indications of defendant's substance abuse of alcohol, marijuana, or other drugs, and psychological problems, types of disposition and probation, months of incarceration, sentence conditions, history of abuse by defendant against the victim, length of abuse in months, history of physical assault and sexual abuse, past weapon use, and medical attention needed for past domestic violence. Additional variables focus on whether an order of protection was issued before the current incident, whether the defendant was arrested for past domestic violence with this victim, total number of known victims, weapon used during incident, injury during the incident, medical attention sought, number of final orders of protection, whether the defendant was jailed throughout the pending case, number of releases during the case, number of reincarcerations after release, whether the victim lived with the defendant, whether the victim lived with children in common with the defendant, relationship between the victim and the defendant, number of months the victim had known the defendant, number of children in common with the defendant, whether the victim attempted to drop charges, whether the victim testified at trial, whether a victim advocate was assigned, total violations during pending case, predisposition violations, and number of probation violations. Demographic variables in Part 1 include defendant and victims' gender, race, victim age at defendant's arrest, defendant's income, employment status, and education. Variables in Part 2, Top Charge Data, relating to the defendant include number and types of prior arrests and convictions, top charge at arrest, severity of top charge at arrest, top charge at grand jury indictment, severity of top charge indictment, disposition details, Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) arrest indicators, child victim conviction indicator, drug conviction indicator, weapon conviction indicator, types of probation, sentence, disposition, and offenses. Demographic variables in Part 2 include sex and race of the defendant.

In 2019, a total of 24.3 thosuand women and 5.9 thousand men were victims of intimate partner violence in Ontario. Ontario recorded the highest number of victims of intimate partner violence in Canada.

Background: Domestic violence is a traumatic experience that can lead to physical consequences, mental disorders and financial damage. Over 18 cases per 100,000 inhabitants were reported in Brazil between 2013 and 2014. The ministry of health poses a mandatory notification of all cases of domestic violence, which is essential, bearing in mind its systemic relation to various social issues and the extensive regional differences and high socioeconomic inequalities present in Brazil.Aim: To analyze the characteristics of the notification rates of domestic violence and investigate the correlation of these with health and socioeconomic characteristics of large Brazilian cities.Methods: Retrospective data on notifications of domestic violence was collected from the National Information System for Notifiable Diseases for Brazil, 2017. Dependent variables were collected from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics and Ministry of Citizenship. Inclusion criteria were: cities larger than 100.000 habitants and that had at least 20 reports, totaling 68.313 reports in 259 cities. These were stratified by age, race and sex of victim, type of violence used, violence perpetrator, place of occurrence and means of aggression. Proportional number of notified cases was calculated for each city to expose different characteristics of reports. A multiple linear regression model was used to investigate the correlation between report rates and different socioeconomic and health variables.Results: The analysis showed a high proportion of repeated violence, use of body strength and over 50% were perpetrated by a partner or boyfriend. Report rates were higher for women, black individuals and children under four, highlighting subgroups of the population that were more vulnerable. Indeed, these groups were correlated differently with socioeconomic variables. Poverty, assessed as Bolsa Família investment, was correlated with domestic violence report rates across vulnerable groups.Conclusion: The study showed that black women and children are more vulnerable to domestic violence, highlighting deleterious effects of patriarchy and structural racism within Brazilian society. Altogether, we suggest that reducing poverty, patriarchy and structural racism could lead to fewer cases of domestic violence.

This study examined the implementation of a specialized domestic violence unit within the San Diego County Sheriff's Department to determine whether the creation of the new unit would lead to increased and improved reporting, and more filings for prosecution. In order to evaluate the implementation of the specialized domestic violence unit, the researchers conducted the following tasks: (1) They surveyed field deputies to assess their level of knowledge about domestic violence laws and adherence to the countywide domestic violence protocol. (2) They studied a sample from the case tracking system that reported cases of domestic violence handled by the domestic violence unit to determine changes in procedures compared to an earlier case tracking study with no specialized unit. (3) They interviewed victims of domestic violence by phone to explore the responsiveness of the field deputies and the unit detectives to the needs of the victims. Part 1 (Deputy Survey Data) contains data on unit detectives' knowledge about the laws concerning domestic violence. Information includes whether or not the person considered the primary aggressor was the person who committed the first act of aggression, if a law enforcement officer could decide whether or not to complete a domestic violence supplemental report, whether an arrest should be made if there was reasonable cause to believe that a misdemeanor offense had been committed, and whether the decision to prosecute a suspect lay within the discretion of the district or city attorney. Demographic variables include deputy's years of education and law enforcement experience. Part 2 (Case Tracking Data) includes demographic variables such as race and sex of the victim and the suspect, and the relationship between the victim and the suspect. Other information was collected on whether the victim and the suspect used alcohol and drugs prior to or during the incident, if the victim was pregnant, if children were present during the incident, highest charge on the incident report, if the reporting call was made at the same place the incident occurred, suspect actions described on the report, if a gun, knife, physical force, or verbal abuse was used in the incident, if the victim or the suspect was injured, and if medical treatment was provided to the victim. Data were also gathered on whether the suspect was arrested or booked, how the investigating officer decided whether to request that the prosecutor file charges, type of evidence collected, if a victim or witness statement was collected, if the victim had a restraining order, prior history of domestic violence, if the victim was provided with information on domestic violence law, hotline, shelter, transportation, and medical treatment, highest arrest charge, number of arrests for any drug charges, weapon charges, domestic violence charges, or other charges, case disposition, number of convictions for the charges, and number of prior arrests and convictions. Part 3 (Victim Survey Data) includes demographic variables such as victim's gender and race. Other variables include how much time the deputy spent at the scene when s/he responded to the call, number of deputies the victim interacted with at the scene, number of deputies at the scene that were male or female, if the victim used any of the information the deputy provided, if the victim used referral information for counseling, legal, shelter, and other services, how helpful the victim found the information, and the victim's rating of the performance of the deputy.