National Data Collection Efforts for Rape

Contents

• Introduction
• Official Criminal Justice Statistics
• Victimization Surveys
• Perpetrator Surveys
• Surveys of Service Providers
• References

Introduction

Current government efforts at counting crime include official criminal justice statistics, victimization surveys, and surveys of service providers. Others have attempted to measure crime through self-report surveys. The advantages and disadvantages of each method of counting sexual assaults are summarized in Table 1 and detailed below.

Table 1: Comparison of sexual assault data collection methods

Official Criminal Justice Statistics

Methodology

Official police statistics document how many sexual assaults have been reported to the police. In the United States, forcible rape is an index crime collected by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) through the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program and published annually in Crime in the United States. Seven crime categories - murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft – are collectively known as the Crime Index. The official purpose of tracking the Crime Index is to "measure the trend and distribution of crime in the United States" (Maguire and Pastore 1996, p. 325). However, the data are most reliable as indicators of the functioning of law enforcement.

Forcible rape is defined as, "The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Included are rapes by force and attempts or assaults to rape. Statutory offenses (no force used--victim under age of consent) are excluded" (Maguire and Pastore 1996, p. 644). This definition only includes rape as the penetration of a woman's vagina by a man's penis. Penetration of other orifices by other body parts or objects is excluded, as is penetration of a man or by a woman.

Only founded reports are counted in the UCR Program. First, a crime must come to the attention of the police by being reported or by the police seeing the crime occur. Then, the report must be considered founded. Reports not believed or considered impossible to prove by an officer are considered unfounded and will not be officially counted.

The current implementation of the UCR Program collects only aggregate data from police departments around the country. The National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) is being piloted in several states. NIBRS will provide more detailed crime incident-based data as it is phased in. Some preliminary data is available. However, Arizona is not one of the pilot states and there is no scheduled inclusion date at this time.

Data

Table 2. Offenses known to police in cities over 100,000 people in Arizona

Source: Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 1995, Tables 3.117 and 3.118.

It is estimated that 102,096 forcible rapes, 39.2 per 100,000 population, were known to the police in the United States in 1994. In 1994, Arizona ranked 25th as a state with a forcible rape rate of 36.0 per 100,000 population (Maguire and Pastore 1996, p. 336), representing 1465 forcible rapes among a population of 4,075,000 (Maguire and Pastore 1996, p. 326). Table 2 above shows the offenses known to the police in cities over 100,000 people in Arizona. In 1994, 29,791 people, or 14.3 per 100,000 population, were arrested for forcible rape in the United States (Maguire and Pastore 1996, p. 396). In Arizona, 246 people were arrested for forcible rape, or 6.3 per 100,000 population (Maguire and Pastore 1996, p. 398), in 1994. In 1994, 178 defendants were convicted of rape in U.S. District Courts (Maguire and Pastore 1996, p. 468), 87.1% of whom were sentenced to prison with an average sentence length of 68.4 months (Maguire and Pastore 1996, p. 473). As of December 31, 1994, 430 prisoners in the custody of U.S. military authorities had been convicted of rape (Maguire and Pastore 1996, p. 587). Arizona was one of seven states not responding to a 1995 national survey on sex offender housing (Maguire and Pastore 1996, p. 579).

Critical Assessment

The major advantage that using the UCR Program as a source of sexual assault surveillance data is its relatively low cost to users. The UCR program is a criminal justice program generating public data that will continue to be funded for the foreseeable future. The only financial costs incurred in accessing this data are personnel wages and telephone bills. However, the data obtained is not suitable as surveillance data. Several of the biases encountered in UCR data are enumerated below.

Most sexual assault statutes in the United States under which perpetrators can be arrested are much more general than forcible rape, including penetration of any orifice of a man or a woman by any object. Sexual assault under the Arizona Revised Statutes is defined as, "A person commits sexual assault by intentionally or knowingly engaging in sexual intercourse or oral sexual contact with any person without consent of such person," where sexual intercourse is, "penetration into the penis, vulva or anus by any part of the body or by any object or masturbatory contact with the penis or the vulva" (Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) Criminal Code Chapter 14 Section 13-1406, Sexual Assault). The numbers reported to the UCR Program for forcible rape statistics depends in part upon their staffing. Those departments with staff and resources devoted to statistical record keeping can afford to take the time to distinguish cases of forcible rape from cases of sexual assault. Others do not have as many resources and report sexual assaults as forcible rapes. Reporting sexual assaults as forcible rapes over reports the number of forcible rapes.

A similar problem occurs with rapes of children. The definition of forcible rape does not limit the age range of those victimized. However, most perpetrators whose victims are children will be prosecuted as child molesters rather than rapists. The age distribution of the victims is unknown. This reporting behavior will tend to under report the number of victims.

Although the definition of forcible rape excludes men as victims, men are included in the denominator of the official forcible rape rate calculation leading to two distinct problems. 1) Rapes of males are not officially counted, and 2) the rate of victimization appears to be half of what it is among those most at risk. Although rapes of men are rare, they do occur and should not be ignored. The standard answer I received when inquiring of police departments as to how male rape is counted was to be told to call the prisons. It is not surprising that men are much less likely to report sexual victimization when it is rare and the only place male rape is expected to occur is in a penal institution. However, despite the undercounting of victimization of men, women are much more likely to be raped. The inclusion of men in the denominator of the rape rate calculation when they are not included in the numerator diminishes the rate by 50% because approximately half of the population of the United States is male. Estimates of the rate of forcible rape as reported to the police should be twice as large as they currently are.

In addition to the internal validity concerns raised by definitional problems, the reliability of police statistics is suspect because rape is one of the most underreported of all the index crimes. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 32% of victims of rape or sexual assault reported to a law enforcement agency in 1994 and 1995 (Greenfeld 1997). The most common reason for reporting to the police is to prevent further crimes by the perpetrator. However, most victims are reluctant to report assaults to the police for a number of reasons. The most common reason for not reporting to the police is that it was considered a personal matter. Other reasons for not reporting to the police include believing that they were responsible for the assault, being afraid of the social consequences of identifying oneself as a rape victim, believing that the police will be ineffectual in investigating the crime, and not wanting to become involved in what they believe will be a long and complicated legal process. All of the above reduce the likelihood that a sexual assault will be reported to the police. A victim may also not report to the police because, although their sexual experience may fit the definition of rape, they believe that they simply had a bad sexual experience without recognizing that a crime had occurred. The number of rapes occurring in the community can easily be an order of magnitude or more larger than the number known to the police. The National Women’s Study found that 84% of rape victims do not report to law enforcement (National Victim Center and Crime Victim Research and Treatment Center 1992). In the state of Arizona, the number of calls received by rape crisis hotlines is about 10 times the number of sexual assaults known to the police.

The one year reference period of the UCR statistics do not reflect the reality that victims may delay seeking treatment and/or require treatment for a long period of time. For example, approximately 50% of the clients seeking treatment at the Tucson Rape Crisis Center are adults molested as children. The UCR statistics do not address the longitudinal nature of reporting and treating sexual assault.

Statistics on the prosecution of rape underestimate the number of rapists because prosecutions are generally classified by the most serious offense. For example, crimes involving victims that were both raped and murdered will be classified as murders. At every level of the criminal justice process, the number of sexual assaults is underestimated and the further along one goes in the legal process the larger the magnitude of the problem.

Victimization Surveys

Methodology

Victimization surveys attempts to bypass the underreporting problem by going directly to the victims. The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census in cooperation with the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the U.S. Department of Justice. The NCVS polls over 50,000 households, totaling over 100,000 individuals, in the United States annually using a multistage sample of housing units. Individuals over 12 years old in selected households are interviewed every six months for about three years. The first interview is conducted face-to-face and only used to bound the responses. Further interviews are conducted over the telephone.

Rape is the most severe personal crime measured by the NCVS (US Bureau of Justice Statistics 1991). The definition of rape used by the NCVS is "Carnal knowledge through the use of force or threat of force, including attempts. Statutory rape (without force) is excluded. Both heterosexual and homosexual rape are included" (US Bureau of Justice Statistics 1991, p.141). Rapes and sexual assaults are ascertained through three questions in the NCVS-1 Basic Screen Questionnaire. Question 41a asks, "(Other than any incident already mentioned,) has anyone attacked or threatened you in any of these ways (Exclude telephone threats) … (e) Any rape, attempted rape or other type of sexual attack." Question 42a asks, "People often don’t think of incidents committed by someone they know. (Other than any incidents already mentioned,) did you have something stolen from you OR were you attacked or threatened by (Exclude telephone threats) – (a) Someone at work or at school – (b) A neighbor or friend – (c) A relative or family member – OR (d) Any other person you’ve met or known?" Question 43a asks, "Incidents involving forced or unwanted sexual acts are often difficult to talk about. (Other than any incidents already mentioned,) have you been forced or coerced to engage in unwanted sexual activity by – (a) Someone you didn’t know before - (b) A casual acquaintance – OR (c) Someone you know well?" Followed by question 43b, "Did any incidents of this type happen to you?" and question 43c, "How many times?" In the NCVS-2 Crime Incident Report, Question 29 asks, "How were you attacked? Any other way?" Possible responses to question 29 include raped, tried to rape, and sexual assault other than rape or attempted rape. Question 31 asks, "What were the injuries you suffered, if any? Anything else?" Possible responses to question 31 include raped, attempted rape, and sexual assault other than rape or attempted rape. If the response to question 29 is raped, or the response to question 31 is raped and the response to question 29 is not raped, the field representative is instructed to ask, "Do you mean forced or coerced sexual intercourse?" Similarly, if the response to question 29 is tried to rape, or the response to question 31 is attempted rape and the response to question 29 is not tried to rape, the field representative is instructed to ask, "Do you mean attempted forced or coerced sexual intercourse?" If no is the response to either of the two preceding questions, they are to ask, "What do you mean?"

Data

Table 3 - Selected National Crime Victimization Survey Statistics

Source: Greenfeld 1997.

The redesign of the NCVS in 1992 produced sexual assault rate estimates about 4 times higher than were previously reported for rape by the NCVS (Greenfeld 1997). Table 3 summarizes more recent selected sexual assault statistics from the National Crime Victimization Survey. In 1994, the NCVS found that 433,000 rapes were experienced in the United States (Greenfeld 1997). The rape rates were 1 rape for every 270 female and 1 rape for every 5,000 male residents 12 years or older. Rape rates were highest among those 16 to 19 years of age, low-income residents, and urban residents. Rape rates did not differ significantly among racial groups. Ninety-one percent of rape victims were female. Ninety-nine percent of single-victim incidents involved male perpetrators. Approximately 32% were reported to a law enforcement agency.

In 1993, two-thirds of rapes occurred between 6 PM and 6 AM. Almost 60% of the incidents took place in the home of the victim or the home of a friend, relative, or neighbor. Over 50% occurred within one mile of the victim’s home. Ninety-one percent of rapes involved single offenders. Only 24% of incidents involved strangers. Victims reported that approximately 25% of perpetrators were under 21 years of age and 40% were 30 years of age or older.

Seventy-two percent of victims reported taking self-protective measures during the rape. Nineteen percent resisted or captured the offender. Eleven percent scared or warned the offender. Eleven percent persuaded or appeased the offender. Other self-protective measures include running away or hiding, attacking the offender, screaming, and getting help or giving alarm. A majority of those who took self-protective measures felt they helped the situation. However, about 20% felt they made the situation worse.

In 1993, rape or sexual assault victims accounted for 4% of victims of violence. Rapes accounted for 6% of the incidents in which medical assistance was obtained. Less than 10% of rape victims reported suffering an economic loss. The average reported economic loss was approximately $200. Seven percent of victims reported losing time from work.

In 1994, the ratio of people reporting rapes to the NCVS to the number of rapes known to law enforcement, .31, was approximately equal to the NCVS proportion of rape victims revealing that they reported the incident to law enforcement, .32. This indicates that individuals willing to report sexual assault to a government agency are approximately 3 times more likely to report sexual assault to NCVS interviewers than to law enforcement.

Critical Assessment

Victimization surveys have the potential for being the most accurate source of data on the incidence of sexual assault. The major advantage of victimization surveys is that they go out into the population and ask for information, not waiting for incidents to be reported to an agency. However, there is no guathat individuals will be any more willing to report sexual assaults to census workers than to the police. In addition, the quality and quantity of information obtained by a survey is very sensitive to how questions are asked.

Although the NCVS is more effective than the UCR program at uncovering the incidence of rape at the national level, it has several disadvantages. The sampling scheme of the NCVS does not allow reliable estimation of rape rates at the state or local level. Therefore, it cannot be used as a source of sexual assault incidence and service planning data within the State of Arizona. The NCVS provides a more valid and reliable definition of sexual assault by including males and females as victims and perpetrators and measuring a broader range of sexual behavior beyond sexual intercourse. However, despite recent revisions, the NCVS does not ask about rape and sexual assault explicitly. Unless the respondent asks what is meant by sexual assault, the definition of rape is solely in the mind of the respondent. In addition, the context of the interview is uncertain (Koss 1996). The interviews are conducted over the telephone and other household members may be present. The privacy needed to maximize reporting is not ensured by the interview protocol of the NCVS. Finally, questions about rape are put into a violent crime context that is not associated with the typical rape. For example, the National Women’s Study found that 70% sustained no physical injuries during rape (National Victim Center and Crime Victim Research and Treatment Center 1992).

The major disadvantage of victimization surveys is that they are extremely expensive. Rape has a relatively low incidence rate. A survey of the population is not financially feasible because a large sample is needed to reliably project statewide victim rates.

Surveys of service providers

Methodology

The sexual assault surveillance currently implemented in Arizona is a limited example of surveying service providers for sexual assault surveillance information. The data for the annual Violent and Abusive Behavior Data Report is collected by telephoning organizations that provide sexual assault services to victims. Programs funded through the Rape Prevention Education grant are contacted. These include the most active rape crisis programs in the state. In addition, efforts are made to contact other service providers as well, such as Victim Witness organizations and rape crisis programs that have not been funded.

The questions asked last year included the number of people provided rape-related counseling, the number of people attending rape prevention education, the number of law enforcement personnel trained in response to rape and sexual assault, and the number of hotline calls received.

Data

Table 4 - 1994-95 Violent and Abusive Behavior Data for Arizona

Source: Arizona Rape and Sexual Assault Surveillance Project: 1995-96 Violent and Abusive Behavior Data

Table 4 summarizes selected state sexual assault statistics. In Arizona in 1994-95, 974 women reported rape or attempted rape to law enforcement in the areas serviced by the service providers included in the report, 559 people were provided rape-related counseling, 82 law enforcement personnel were trained in response to rape and sexual assault, and 5966 rape hotline calls were received.

Critical Assessment

About half as many people as reported rapes to law enforcement were provided counseling in person, but about 6 times as many people called the rape hotlines as reported to law enforcement. This is twice as high as the approximately 3 times as many people reporting to the NCVS. Although hotline calls may be for information or referral as well as crisis, we can probably infer that more people are disclosing sexual assaults to service providers than to the NCVS or law enforcement.

Much of the 1995-96 Violent and Abusive Behavior Data Report was dedicated to pointing out the limitations of the data as it is currently collected. As a vehicle for accounting for how funds are spent, the current data-collection efforts are adequate. However, as an attempt to collect data that may help to ameliorate the problem of sexual assault, there are limitations. First, data reported by participating providers should be standardized. For example, hotline calls should be disaggregated into crisis, information, and referral calls and counseling services should be reported by type, e.g. psychological or advocacy. Second, more providers should be included. Many service providers throughout the state, including all of the tribal lands, were not included in last year’s report. A true statewide surveillance system should include as much of the population as possible geographically and socially.

Perpetrator Surveys

Methodology

Perpetrator self-report surveys use the same methodology as victimization surveys. Participants are recruited using a sampling scheme, then interviewed by telephone, written questionnaire or face-to-face. The major differences are that the respondents are perpetrators or potential perpetrators rather than victims or potential victims, and that the respondent’s behavior is the subject of inquiry rather than what has happened to the subject.

Data

Table 5 - Selected findings of perpetrator self-report surveys

Perpetrator surveys of college students have found that about 4% of males have attempted rape and about 4% have completed rape. New data from naval recruits shows a much higher incidence of completed rape at 11.3%.

Critical Assessment

Perpetrator self-report surveys have the advantage of providing another perspective to the question of the incidence of rape. However, perpetrator self-reports are sensitive to how questions are asked and the same errors in judgment and self-serving perceptions that lead to a rape can lead a perpetrator to fail to self-identify as a rapist. The legal definition of rape includes penetration, use of force, and lack of consent. The perception of two of these criteria can differ greatly between parties involved in an incident. Men and women differ in what they consider use of force. What is normal aggressive behavior to a man may be a strong use of force to a woman. It is also not unusual for men and women to disagree on whether or not consent has been given. Unfortunately, sexual signals can be ambiguous or misread.

Like victimization surveys, perpetrator surveys are extremely expensive. Conducting a perpetrator survey is not financially feasible. Furthermore, a perpetrator survey is not politically feasible because of the confidentiality issues involved in undertaking this type of survey as a government contract and because they are seen as threatening to the status quo.

References

Greenfeld, Lawrence A. February 1997. Sex Offenses and Offenders: An Analysis of Data on Rape and Sexual Assault. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. NCJ-163392.

Koss, Mary. 1992. The Measurement of Rape Victimization in Crime Surveys. Criminal Justice and Behavior 23 (1): 55-69.

Koss, Mary. 1992. The Underdetection of Rape: Methodological Choices Influence Incidence Estimates. Journal of Social Issues 48 (1): 61-75.

Koss, Mary. 1993. Detecting the Scope of Rape: A Review of Prevalence Research Methods. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 8 (2): 198-222.

Koss, Mary. August 15, 1997. Our Guys and Gals: Pre-Enlistment Sexual Assault Victimization and Perpetration Among Naval Recruits. Annual meeting of the American Psychological Association. Chicago, Illinois.

Koss, Mary, and Dinero, T. E. 1987. Predictors of sexual aggression among a national sample of male college students. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 528: 133-147.

Maguire, Kathleen, and Ann L. Pastore. 1996. Sourcebook of Criminal and Justice Statistics 1995. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Washington, D.C.: USGPO.

National Victim Center, and Crime Victim Research and Treatment Center. April 23, 1992. Rape in America: A Report to the Nation. National Victim Center.

United States. Bureau of Justice Statistics. June 1991. Criminal Victimization in the United States, 1989: A National Crime Survey Report. NCJ-129391.

Walker, William D., Rowe, Robert C., and Vernon L. Quinsey. 1993. Authoritarianism and Sexual Aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65(5): 1036-1045.