R Street Institute
Analysis

October Spotlight on Criminal Justice: How to Strengthen Domestic Violence Response and Case Closure

by Jillian Snider
Oct 30, 2025
Print
issues: Criminal Justice and Civil Liberties, Policing

Every October, Domestic Violence Awareness Month reminds the nation that despite decades of advocacy, prevention efforts, and improved legal protections, domestic violence (DV) and intimate partner violence (IPV)* continue to devastate families and communities. The Bureau of Justice Statistics reported more than 1.8 million DV and IPV victimizations in 2024 alone. An average of 20 people experience physical abuse by a partner every minute, amounting to more than 10 million victims annually, most of whom do not report the crime to law enforcement. More than 40 percent of all women (and at least one out of every four men) have experienced DV or IPV in their lifetimes, facing consequences that ripple across health, safety, and economic opportunity.

The national violent crime clearance rate in 2024 was 43.8 percent, with aggravated assaults (which account for most DV and IPV offenses) only slightly higher at 49.1 percent. With more than half of all violent crime unsolved, these figures reflect both the persistence of violence and a justice system struggling to respond effectively.

The Scope and Regional Divide

State-level data are equally troubling. For example, lifetime DV among women exceeds 60 percent in Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Nevada, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. In Oklahoma, women in are killed by men at one of the nation’s highest per-capita rates; in Kentucky, almost half of all violent crime is rooted in DV.  

Nearly three out of four Americans personally know someone affected by DV, underscoring the widespread and deeply personal nature of the crisis. Yet awareness alone has not translated into improved outcomes for survivors or accountability for offenders.

Investigative Realities and Systemic Barriers

DV investigations differ sharply from other violent crime investigations. Domestic abuse most often occurs behind closed doors, with few witnesses and limited physical evidence. Police must assess chaotic, emotionally charged scenes; identify the primary aggressor; and document injuries and statements—all while navigating victims’ fear and trauma.

Inconsistent accounts are common and often misinterpreted. Victims may hesitate, change their stories, or appear confused—behaviors that often stem from trauma rather than deception. Without trauma-informed training, officers may misread these cues, thereby undermining investigations from the start.

These cases also require a delicate balance between survivor safety and evidentiary rigor. Police officers face conflicting narratives, abuser manipulation, and complex emotional dynamics. When survivors fear retaliation, economic loss, or loss of custody, many avoid or withdraw from the justice process. Surveys indicate that approximately half of DV and IPV victims never report incidents at all, citing distrust of police, stigma, economic instability, or fear of not being believed.

Even when survivors do report, attrition rates remain high. Many cases are ultimately “exceptionally cleared”—that is, closed without arrest or charging—often when victims cannot be located or recant for any reason. This creates a vicious cycle of weak evidence, low clearance rates, repeat victimization, and declining trust in the justice system.

Survivor Reluctance and Trust Deficits

Reluctance to pursue charges often stems from cumulative harms: previous negative experiences with law enforcement, language barriers, or community pressure to keep abuse private. Survivors who rely on abusers for income, housing, or child support may face impossible choices. When prosecution drags on for months, the uncertainty surrounding safety and stability pushes many to disengage.

This dynamic erodes both victim cooperation and public confidence. When DV and IPV offenders face few consequences, violence becomes cyclical and normalized. In communities where case closure is rare, victims understandably question whether seeking help is worth the risk. These trust gaps can be narrowed, but only when agencies treat DV and IPV response as a specialized public safety priority requiring training, technology, and partnership.

Economic and Social Costs

The toll of DV and IPV extends well beyond police statistics. Survivors face chronic health conditions, depression, substance abuse, and financial instability. The lifetime economic impact of DV and IPV is estimated at $103,767 for each female victim and $23,414 for each male victim—amounting to a total population burden of roughly $3.6 trillion across the 43 million U.S. adults who have experienced such victimization. Children exposed to family violence experience higher rates of trauma, homelessness, and academic failure, which perpetuates intergenerational cycles of abuse and disadvantage.

Not only is investing in prevention, survivor safety, and case closure capacity a moral imperative, it is also a fiscal one. Every uninvestigated case and unpunished offense compounds public costs in healthcare, housing, and social services.

The Role of Capacity and Coordination

The quality of DV and IPV investigations hinges on timely evidence collection and interagency collaboration. Departments with access to advanced forensic laboratories, integrated case-management systems, and coordinated victim services achieve significantly better results.

Research shows that states with strong forensic infrastructure—such as Delaware, Idaho, and Vermont—achieve clearance rates exceeding 70 percent, largely due to real-time evidence sharing and multidisciplinary response models. By contrast, many under-resourced departments still lack digital evidence platforms or dedicated victim advocates, which slows progress and compounds inequities.

These disparities also expose a broader truth: DV and IPV responses are not simply policing issues—they are societal conundrums and a system capacity problem. Without adequate laboratory resources, timely data integration, and survivor support infrastructure, even the best-trained officers are working uphill.

Policy Recommendations

DV and IPV prevention policies should focus on measurable results, cross-sector accountability, and long-term public safety gains. Some examples include:

From Awareness to Action

Domestic Violence Awareness Month cannot remain a symbolic campaign of purple ribbons and social media hashtags. Real progress demands a justice system that adapts to survivors’ realities and recognizes that every unsolved case represents a personal tragedy as well as a public failure.

For too long, low case closure rates have masked the scope of DV and IPV in America. Without stronger investigative capacity, trauma-informed training, and survivor-focused collaboration, the cycle of violence and silence will persist. But states that are modernizing their forensic and data systems, expanding court specialization, and empowering multidisciplinary response teams are already proving that measurable improvement is possible.

Building these systems is not merely about compassion, it is about accountability, deterrence, and the fundamental promise of safety. Survivors deserve a justice process that doesn’t end in attrition. They deserve closure. And communities deserve to know that violence will not go unanswered.

*DV and IPV are often used interchangeably in the criminal justice system. Law enforcement reports vary in their classifications, with most using the term DV incident. The Federal Bureau of Investigation classifies DV and IPV cases under the criminal offense of aggravated assault depending on how the reporting agency classifies the crime. This analysis uses data and research reflective of both DV and IPV statistics.

Subscribe to our policy work