Here’s Why We Have No Clue How Often Rape Is Happening in the US

Federal agencies just can’t agree on the definition.

seb_ra/iStock

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Federal agencies don’t have a uniform definition of sexual assault, and that has led to dramatically different estimates on the frequency of sexual violence in the United States, according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office.

Because agencies have different definitions of rape, government estimates for cases of sexual assault and violence can vary widely. In 2011, for instance, different federal agency estimates ranged from 244,190 cases of rape or sexual-assault victimizations to 1.92 million victims of rape or attempted rape. The agencies also do not make it clear to the public how they define sexual assault. That’s a problem, the report notes, because data is “critical” for both policymakers and the public to understand and address these crimes.

“The bottom line is that this can all lead to confusion,” said Gretta Goodwin, acting director of the GAO. “We are just asking that there be more transparency about the data and what it means.”

Currently, four federal agencies—the Department of Justice, the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Defense—manage at least 10 efforts to collect data. The problems begin in how sexual violence is described and categorized. Agencies rarely used the same terminology to describe acts of sexual violence, the report found, and even when they did, there were differences in how they measured each act: For instance, four out of six data collection efforts that measured rape considered whether actual physical force was used, but the other two did not. This in part explains why yearly estimates of the number of rapes have ranged so widely.

 

Sen. Claire McCaskill, who requested the GAO report, said in a statement that there needs to be a way to measure instances of sexual violence that’s “standard and transparent.” “Without the ability to make apples to apples comparisons across populations—whether that’s college students, our military, or other groups—it’s difficult to measure trends over time and determine how we’re doing in terms of reducing incidents and boosting reporting,” she said.

These differences in data collection are partly due to the priorities each agency has in analyzing their data, says Janet Lauritsen, a professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. The Department of Health and Human Services emphasizes the number of victims of sexual violence in order to assess the health impact on victims, but the Department of Justice is more concerned with identifying the number of incidents of sexual violence so it can respond to cases of sexual violence more effectively, Lauritsen says. Though this data serves each agency’s specific needs, the lack of consistency in determining what constitutes rape and how it is measured makes it extremely difficult to track changes or trends over time

An additional problem, the GAO noted, is a lack of transparency: Government agencies don’t publicly make available how they measure sexual violence, which can be confusing for someone who is trying to look up these numbers. “The agencies know [their data], but when they present information, the public has no idea, or the public has limited knowledge, about what went into that,” GAO director Goodwin said.

The report concluded with a series of recommendations for addressing the problem. While the GAO acknowledged that agencies were making efforts to resolve the differences in definitions, it said that these efforts were “fragmented” and limited in scope. The GAO called for more coordination, advised the agencies to make their sexual-violence data information more readily available, and suggested that the Office of Management and Budget start a federal interagency forum that would coordinate sexual-violence data efforts. The OMB hasn’t agreed, saying that it may not be the most strategic use of its resources, according to the GAO.  

Neena Chaudhry, director of education and senior counsel at the National Women’s Law Center, a nonprofit focused on women’s rights, stressed that even if there is a wide range in the numbers on sexual assault, that doesn’t change an organization’s responsibility to address the issue. “Ultimately whether it’s 1 in 4, or 1 in 5 [people who experience sexual assault], it’s too much,” she said. “When it comes to an individual person and an individual school, the responsibility is the same, regardless of the total number.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate