In 2023, Texas had the highest number of forcible rape cases in the United States, with 15,097 reported rapes. Delaware had the lowest number of reported forcible rape cases at 194. Number vs. rate It is perhaps unsurprising that Texas and California reported the highest number of rapes, as these states have the highest population of states in the U.S. When looking at the rape rate, or the number of rapes per 100,000 of the population, a very different picture is painted: Alaska was the state with the highest rape rate in the country in 2023, with California ranking as 30th in the nation. The prevalence of rape Rape and sexual assault are notorious for being underreported crimes, which means that the prevalence of sex crimes is likely much higher than what is reported. Additionally, more than a third of women worry about being sexually assaulted, and most sexual assaults are perpetrated by someone the victim knew.

This dataset includes all valid felony, misdemeanor, and violation crimes reported to the New York City Police Department (NYPD) for all complete quarters so far this year (2016). For additional details, please see the attached data dictionary in the ‘About’ section.

This study had four key goals. The first goal was to identify how many women in the United States and in college settings have ever been raped or sexually assaulted during their lifetime and within the past year. The next goal was to identify key case characteristics of drug-facilitated and forcible rapes. The third goal was to examine factors that affect the willingness of women to report rape to law enforcement or seek help from their support network. The last goal was to make comparisons between the different types of rape. Part 1 (General Population) data consisted of a national telephone household sample of 3,001 United States women, whereas Part 2 (College Population) data consisted of 2,000 college women selected from a reasonably representative national list of women attending four year colleges and universities. Both data parts contain the same 399 variables. Interviews were completed between January 23 and June 26, 2006. Respondents were asked questions regarding risk perception, fear of violence, and accommodation behavior. The women were also asked their opinions and attitudes about reporting rape to the authorities and disclosing rape to family members, peers, or other individuals. This includes questions about barriers to reporting and experiences that women have had being the recipient of a disclosure from a friend, relative, or other individual. The respondents were asked a series of questions about rape, including different types of forcible, drug- or alcohol-facilitated, and incapacitated rape. For women who endorsed one or more rape experiences, a wide range of rape characteristics were assessed including characteristics around the nature of the event, perpetrator-victim relationship, occurrence of injury, involvement of drugs or alcohol, receipt of medical care, and whether the rape was reported to the authorities. The respondents were also asked a series of questions regarding substance use, including prescription and illegal drugs and alcohol. Additionally, a series of questions related to post-traumatic stress disorder and depression were asked. Finally, the women were asked to provide basic demographic information such as age, race, ethnicity, and income.

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 1992-2023. 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 38962.

The purpose of this study was to use data from the National Crime Survey (NCS) and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) to explore whether the likelihood of police notification by rape victims had increased between 1973-2000. To avoid the ambiguities that could arise in analyses across the two survey periods, the researchers analyzed the NCS (1973-1991) and NCVS data (1992-2000) separately. They focused on incidents that involved a female victim and one or more male offenders. The sample for 1973-1991 included 1,609 rapes and the corresponding sample for 1992-2000 contained 636 rapes. In their analyses, the researchers controlled for changes in forms of interviewing used in the NCS and NCVS. Logistic regression was used to estimate effects on the measures of police notification. The analyses incorporated the currently best available methods of accounting for design effects in the NCS and NCVS. Police notification served as the dependent variable in the study and was measured in two ways. First, the analysis included a polytomous dependent variable that contrasted victim reported incidents and third-party reported incidents, respectively, with nonreported incidents. Second, a binary dependent variable, police notified, also was included. The primary independent variables in the analysis were the year of occurrence of the incident reported by the victim and the relationship between the victim and the offender. The regression models estimated included several control variables, including measures of respondents' socioeconomic status, as well as other victim, offender, and incident characteristics that may be related both to the nature of rape and to the likelihood that victims notify the police.

This study was an evidence-based review of sexual assault preventive intervention (SAPI) programs. A total of 67 publications including articles, government reports, and book chapters (excluding dissertations) representing 59 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the data abstraction process. In order to be included in the review, the resource had to be an English-language publication, published between 1990 and June 2003, of a SAPI evaluation of a primary or secondary preventive intervention program that targeted people who were adolescent-age or older, and which included outcome measures and a pre-test/post-test or between-group differences design. The findings for the article reviews are presented in evidence tables, for the general population in Part 1 and the evidence tables for individuals with disabilities in Part 2.

Context

Introduction: The dataset used for this experiment is real and authentic. The dataset is acquired from UCI machine learning repository website [13]. The title of the dataset is ‘Crime and Communities’. It is prepared using real data from socio-economic data from 1990 US Census, law enforcement data from the 1990 US LEMAS survey, and crimedata from the 1995 FBI UCR [13]. This dataset contains a total number of 147 attributes and 2216 instances.

The per capita crimes variables were calculated using population values included in the 1995 FBI data (which differ from the 1990 Census values).

Content

The variables included in the dataset involve the community, such as the percent of the population considered urban, and the median family income, and involving law enforcement, such as per capita number of police officers, and percent of officers assigned to drug units. The crime attributes (N=18) that could be predicted are the 8 crimes considered 'Index Crimes' by the FBI)(Murders, Rape, Robbery, .... ), per capita (actually per 100,000 population) versions of each, and Per Capita Violent Crimes and Per Capita Nonviolent Crimes)

predictive variables : 125 non-predictive variables : 4 potential goal/response variables : 18

Acknowledgements

http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/Communities%20and%20Crime%20Unnormalized

U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census Of Population And Housing 1990 United States: Summary Tape File 1a & 3a (Computer Files),

U.S. Department Of Commerce, Bureau Of The Census Producer, Washington, DC and Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research Ann Arbor, Michigan. (1992)

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Law Enforcement Management And Administrative Statistics (Computer File) U.S. Department Of Commerce, Bureau Of The Census Producer, Washington, DC and Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research Ann Arbor, Michigan. (1992)

U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States (Computer File) (1995)

Inspiration

Your data will be in front of the world's largest data science community. What questions do you want to see answered?

Data available in the dataset may not act as a complete source of information for identifying factors that contribute to more violent and non-violent crimes as many relevant factors may still be missing.

However, I would like to try and answer the following questions answered.

1. Analyze if number of vacant and occupied houses and the period of time the houses were vacant had contributed to any significant change in violent and non-violent crime rates in communities

2. How has unemployment changed crime rate(violent and non-violent) in the communities?

3. Were people from a particular age group more vulnerable to crime?

4. Does ethnicity play a role in crime rate?

5. Has education played a role in bringing down the crime rate?

Crime in the United States, by Region, Geographic Division, and State, 2015–2016

The FBI collects these data through the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program.

FBI link

Important note about rape data

In 2013, the FBI UCR Program initiated the collection of rape data under a revised definition and removed the term “forcible” from the offense name. The UCR Program now defines rape as follows:

Rape (revised definition): Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim. (This includes the offenses of rape, sodomy, and sexual assault with an object as converted from data submitted via the National Incident-Based Reporting System [NIBRS].)

Rape (legacy definition): The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.

General comments

• This table provides the estimated number of offenses and the rate (per 100,000 inhabitants) of crime in each region, geographic division, and state in 2015 and 2016, and the 2-year percent change in each.
• Violent crime includes the offenses of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape (revised definition), robbery, and aggravated assault. Property crime includes the offenses of burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft.
• The UCR Program does not have sufficient data to estimate for arson.

Caution against ranking

Any comparisons of crime among different locales should take into consideration relevant factors in addition to the area’s crime statistics. UCR Statistics: Their Proper Use provides more details concerning the proper use of UCR statistics.

Methodology

• The data used in creating this table were from all law enforcement agencies in the UCR Program (including those submitting less than 12 months of data).
• Crime statistics include estimated offense totals (except arson) for agencies submitting less than 12 months of offense reports for each year.
• The FBI derives state totals by estimating for nonreporting and partially reporting agencies within each state. The UCR Program aggregates a state total using the state’s individual agency estimates.

Offense estimation

These tables contain statistics for the entire United States. Because not all law enforcement agencies provide data for complete reporting periods, the FBI includes estimated crime numbers in these presentations. The FBI computes estimates for participating agencies not providing 12 months of complete data. For agencies supplying 3 to 11 months of data, the national UCR Program estimates for the missing data by following a standard estimation procedure using the data provided by the agency. If an agency has supplied less than 3 months of data, the FBI computes estimates by using the known crime figures of similar areas within a state and assigning the same proportion of crime volumes to nonreporting agencies. The estimation process considers the following: population size covered by the agency; type of jurisdiction, e.g., police department versus sheriff’s office; and geographic location.

In response to various circumstances, the FBI has estimated offense totals for some states. For example, problems at the state level (e.g., noncompliance with UCR guidelines, technological difficulties) have, at times, resulted in data that cannot be used for publication, and estimation was necessary. Also, efforts by an agency to convert to NIBRS have contributed to the need for unique estimation procedures.

A summary of state-specific and offense-specific estimation procedures is available in the “Estimation of state-level data” section of the Methodology.

Rape estimation

This table contains estimates based on both the legacy and revised definitions of rape. Agencies submit data based on only one of these definitions. Within each population group size, the proportion of female rape victims was calculated from all NIBRS reports of rape, sodomy, and sexual assault with an object. For agencies that reported using the revised definition, the actual number of reported rapes was decreased by the calculated proportion to arrive at an estimate for the number of rapes using the legacy definition. Conversely, for agencies that reported using the legacy definition, the actual number of reported rapes was increased by the inverse of the proportion to arrive at an estimate for the number of rapes using the revised definition.

Population estimation

For the 2016 population estimates used in this table, the FBI computed individual rates of growth from one year to the next for every city/town and county using 2010 decennial population counts and 2011 through 2015 population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau. Each agency’s rates of growth were averaged; that average was then applied and added to its 2015 Census population estimate to derive the agency’s 2016 population estimate.

The purpose of this study was to provide an in-depth look at rapes and attempted rapes in the United States. Part 1 of the collection offers data on rape victims and contains variables regarding the characteristics of the crime, such as the setting, the relationship between the victim and offender, the likelihood of injury, and the reasons why rape is not reported to police. Part 2 contains data on a control group of females who were victims of no crime or of crimes other than rape. The information contained is similar to that found in Part 1.

Despite the fact that most states enacted rape reform legislation by the mid-1980s, empirical research on the effect of these laws was conducted in only four states and for a limited time span following the reform. The purpose of this study was to provide both increased breadth and depth of information about the effect of the rape law changes and the legal issues that surround them. Statistical data on all rape cases between 1970 and 1985 in Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit, Houston, Philadelphia, and Washington, DC, were collected from court records. Monthly time-series analyses were used to assess the impact of the reforms on rape reporting, indictments, convictions, incarcerations, and sentences. The study also sought to determine if particular changes, or particular combinations of changes, affected the case processing and disposition of sexual assault cases and whether the effect of the reforms varied with the comprehensiveness of the changes. In each jurisdiction, data were collected on all forcible rape cases for which an indictment or information was filed. In addition to forcible rape, other felony sexual assaults that did not involve children were included. The names and definitions of these crimes varied from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. To compare the pattern of rape reports with general crime trends, reports of robbery and felony assaults during the same general time period were also obtained from the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) from the Federal Bureau of Investigation when available. For the adjudicated case data (Parts 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11), variables include month and year of offense, indictment, disposition, four most serious offenses charged, total number of charges indicted, four most serious conviction charges, total number of conviction charges, type of disposition, type of sentence, and maximum jail or prison sentence. The time series data (Parts 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12) provide year and month of indictment, total indictments for rape only and for all sex offenses, total convictions and incarcerations for all rape cases in the month, for those on the original rape charge, for all sex offenses in the month, and for those on the original sex offense charge, percents for each indictment, conviction, and incarceration category, the average maximum sentence for each incarceration category, and total police reports of forcible rape in the month. Interviews were also conducted in each site with judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys, and this information is presented in Part 13. These interviewees were asked to rate the importance of various types of evidence in sexual assault cases and to respond to a series of six hypothetical cases in which evidence of the victim's past sexual history was at issue. Respondents were also presented with a hypothetical case for which some factors were varied to create 12 different scenarios, and they were asked to make a set of judgments about each. Interview data also include respondent's title, sex, race, age, number of years in office, and whether the respondent was in office before and/or after the reform.

Context

The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program has been the starting place for law enforcement executives, students of criminal justice, researchers, members of the media, and the public at large seeking information on crime in the nation. The program was conceived in 1929 by the International Association of Chiefs of Police to meet the need for reliable uniform crime statistics for the nation. In 1930, the FBI was tasked with collecting, publishing, and archiving those statistics.

Today, four annual publications, Crime in the United States, National Incident-Based Reporting System, Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, and Hate Crime Statistics are produced from data received from over 18,000 city, university/college, county, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement agencies voluntarily participating in the program. The crime data are submitted either through a state UCR Program or directly to the FBI’s UCR Program.

This dataset focuses on the crime rates and law enforcement employment data in the state of California.

Content

Crime and law enforcement employment rates are separated into individual files, focusing on offenses by enforcement agency, college/university campus, county, and city. Categories of crimes reported include violent crime, murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, property crime, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle damage, and arson. In the case of rape, data is collected for both revised and legacy definitions. In some cases, a small number of enforcement agencies switched definition collection sometime within the same year.

Acknowledgements

This dataset originates from the FBI UCR project, and the complete dataset for all 2015 crime reports can be found here.

Inspiration

• What are the most common types of crimes in California? Are there certain crimes that are more common in a particular place category, such as a college/university campus, compared to the rest of the state?
• How does the number of law enforcement officers compare to the crime rates of a particular area? Is the ratio similar throughout the state, or do certain campuses, counties, or cities have a differing rate?
• How does the legacy vs. refined definition of rape differ, and how do the rape counts compare? If you pulled the same data from FBI datasets for previous years, can you see a difference in rape rates over time?

To further the understanding of violence against women, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), jointly sponsored the National Violence Against Women (NVAW) Survey. To provide a context in which to place women's experiences, the NVAW Survey sampled both women and men. Completed interviews were obtained from 8,000 women and 8,005 men who were 18 years of age or older residing in households throughout the United States. The female version of the survey was fielded from November 1995 to May 1996. The male version of the survey was fielded during February to May 1996. Spanish versions of both the male and female surveys were fielded from April to May 1996. Respondents to the NVAW Survey were queried about (1) their general fear of violence and the ways in which they managed their fears, (2) emotional abuse they had experienced by marital and cohabitating partners, (3) physical assault they had experienced as children by adult caretakers, (4) physical assault they had experienced as adults by any type of perpetrator, (5) forcible rape or stalking they had experienced by any type of perpetrator, and (6) incidents of threatened violence they had experienced by any type of perpetrator. Respondents disclosing victimization were asked detailed questions about the characteristics and consequences of victimization as they experienced it, including injuries sustained and use of medical services. Incidents were recorded that had occurred at any time during the respondent's lifetime and also those that occurred within the 12 months prior to the interview. Data were gathered on both male-to-female and female-to-male intimate partner victimization as well as abuse by same-sex partners. Due to the sensitive nature of the survey, female respondents were interviewed by female interviewers. In order to test for possible bias caused by the gender of the interviewers when speaking to men, a split sample was used so that half of the male respondents had female interviewers and the other half had male interviewers. The questionnaires contained 14 sections, each covering a different topic, as follows. Section A: Respondents' fears of different types of violence, and behaviors they had adopted to accommodate those fears. Section B: Respondent demographics and household characteristics. Section C: The number of current and past marital and opposite-sex and same-sex cohabitating relationships of the respondent. Section D: Characteristics of the respondent's current relationship and the demographics and other characteristics of their spouse and/or partner. Section E: Power, control, and emotional abuse by each spouse or partner. Sections F through I: Screening for incidents of rape, physical assault, stalking, and threat victimization, respectively. Sections J through M: Detailed information on each incident of rape, physical assault, stalking, and threat victimization, respectively, reported by the respondent for each type of perpetrator identified in the victimization screening section. Section N: Violence in the respondent's current relationship, including steps taken because of violence in the relationship and whether the violent behavior had stopped. The section concluded with items to assess if the respondent had symptoms associated with post-traumatic stress disorder. Other variables in the data include interviewer gender, respondent gender, number of adult women and adult men in the household, number of different telephones in the household, and region code.

This collection contains electronic versions of the Uniform Crime Reports publications for the early years of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program in the United States. The reports, which were published monthly from 1930 to 1931, quarterly from 1932 to 1940, and annually from 1941 to 1959, consist of tables showing the number of offenses known to the police as reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation by contributing police departments. The term "offenses known to the police" includes those crimes designated as Part I classes of the Uniform Classification code occurring within the police jurisdiction, whether they became known to the police through reports of police officers, citizens, prosecuting or court officials, or otherwise. They were confined to the following group of seven classes of grave offenses, historically those offenses most often and most completely reported to the police: felonious homicide, including murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, and manslaughter by negligence, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary -- breaking and entering, and larceny -- theft (including thefts $50 and over, and thefts under $50, and auto theft). The figures also included the number of attempted crimes in the designated classes excepting attempted murders classed as aggravated assaults. In other words, an attempted burglary or robbery, for example, was reported in the same manner as if the crimes had been completed. "Offenses known to the police" included, therefore, all of the above offenses, including attempts, which were reported by the police departments and not merely arrests or cleared cases.

This dataset contains the tweet ids of 4,416,666 tweets, including tweets between October 17, 2017 and December 31, 2017. This collection is a subset of the Schlesinger Library #metoo Digital Media Collection.These tweets were licensed from Twitter's Historical PowerTrack and received through GNIP.Please note that there will be no updates to this datasetBecause of the size of the files, the list of identifiers are split in 5 files containing 1,000,000 ids each.Per Twitter’s Developer Policy, tweet ids may be publicly shared for academic purposes; tweets may not. Therefore, this dataset only contains tweet ids. In order to retrieve tweets still available (not deleted by users) tools like Hydrator are availableThere are similar subsets related to the Schlesinger Library #metoo Digital Media Collection available in this dataverse

These data provide information on the number of arrests reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program each year by police agencies in the United States. These arrest reports provide data on 43 offenses including violent crime, drug use, gambling, and larceny. The data received by ICPSR were structured as a hierarchical file containing (per reporting police agency) an agency header record, 1 to 12 monthly header records, and 1 to 43 detail offense records containing the counts of arrests by age, sex, and race for a particular offense. ICPSR restructured the original data to a rectangular format. Arrests reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reporting program. Smallest Geographic Unit: states, counties, and cities Datasets: DS1: Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data [United States]: Arrests by Age, Sex, and Race, 1980 mail questionnaire; on-site questionnaire

This dataset contains the tweet ids of 1,482,343 tweets with the hashtag #believesurvivors. This collection is a subset of the Schlesinger Library #metoo Digital Media Collection, and contains tweets published between October 15, 2017 and March 31, 2020.Tweets between October 15, 2017 and December 10, 2018 were licensed from Twitter's Historical PowerTrack and received through GNIP. Tweets after December 10, 2018 were collected weekly from the Twitter API through Social Feed Manager using the POST statuses/filter method of the Twitter Stream API.Please note that this is VERSION 1 of the dataset. New versions with updated data will be submitted at the end of each quarter.Because of the size of the files, the list of identifiers are split in 2 files containing 1,000,000 ids each.Per Twitter’s Developer Policy, tweet ids may be publicly shared for academic purposes; tweets may not. Therefore, this dataset only contains tweet ids. In order to retrieve tweets still available (not deleted by users) tools like Hydrator are availableThere are similar subsets related to the Schlesinger Library #metoo Digital Media Collection available in this dataverse

This dataset contains the tweet ids of 651,270 tweets, including tweets between April 1, 2022 and June 30, 2022. This collection is a subset of the Schlesinger Library #metoo Digital Media Collection.These tweets were collected weekly from the Twitter API through Social Feed Manager using the POST statuses/filter method of the Twitter Stream API.Please note that there will be no updates to this dataset.The following list of terms includes the hashtags used to collect data for this dataset: #metoo, #timesup, #metoostem, #sciencetoo, #metoophd, #shittymediamen, #churchtoo, #ustoo, #metooMVMT, #ARmetoo, #TimesUpAR, #metooSociology, #metooSexScience, #timesupAcademia, and #metooMedicine.Be aware that previous quarters (up to the first quarter of 2020) only include one hashtag: #metoo.Per Twitter's Developer Policy, tweet ids may be publicly shared for academic purposes; tweets may not. Therefore, this dataset only contains tweet ids. In order to retrieve tweets that are still available (not deleted by users) tools like Hydrator are available.There are similar subsets related to the Schlesinger Library #metoo Digital Media Collection available by quarter, as well as a full dataset with a larger corpus of hashtags.

This dataset includes all valid felony, misdemeanor, and violation crimes reported to the New York City Police Department (NYPD) for all complete quarters so far this year (2016). For additional details, please see the attached data dictionary in the ‘About’ section.

This dataset contains the tweet ids of 6,007,686 tweets, including tweets between July 1, 2018 and September 31, 2018. This collection is a subset of the Schlesinger Library #metoo Digital Media Collection.These tweets were licensed from Twitter's Historical PowerTrack and received through GNIP.Please note that there will be no updates to this datasetBecause of the size of the files, the list of identifiers are split in 7 files containing 1,000,000 ids each.Per Twitter’s Developer Policy, tweet ids may be publicly shared for academic purposes; tweets may not. Therefore, this dataset only contains tweet ids. In order to retrieve tweets still available (not deleted by users) tools like Hydrator are availableThere are similar subsets related to the Schlesinger Library #metoo Digital Media Collection available in this dataverse

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