Short-term Lost Productivity per Victim: Intimate Partner Violence, Sexual Violence, or Stalking

Abstract

Introduction The purpose of this study is to estimate victims’ lifetime short-term lost productivity because of intimate partner violence, sexual violence, or stalking. Methods U.S. nationally representative data from the 2012 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey were used to estimate a regression-adjusted average per victim (female and male) and total population number of cumulative short-term lost work and school days (or lost productivity) because of victimizations over victims’ lifetimes. Victims’ lost productivity was valued using a U.S. daily production estimate. Analysis was conducted in 2017. Results Non-institutionalized adults with some lifetime exposure to intimate partner violence, sexual violence, or stalking (n=6,718 respondents; survey-weighted n=130,795,789) reported nearly 741 million lost productive days because of victimizations by an average of 2.5 perpetrators per victim. The adjusted per victim average was 4.9 (95% CI=3.9, 5.9) days, controlling for victim, perpetrator, and violence type factors. The estimated societal cost of this short-term lost productivity was $730 per victim, or $110 billion across the lifetimes of all victims (2016 USD). Factors associated with victims having a higher number of lost days included a higher number of perpetrators and being female, as well as sexual violence, physical violence, or stalking victimization by an intimate partner perpetrator, stalking victimization by an acquaintance perpetrator, and sexual violence or stalking victimization by a family member perpetrator. Conclusions Short-term lost productivity represents a minimum economic valuation of the immediate negative effects of intimate partner violence, sexual violence, and stalking. Victims’ lost productivity affects family members, colleagues, and employers.

Lifetime Economic Burden of Intimate Partner Violence Among U.S. Adults

“…The short-term lost productivity estimate included lifetime stalking and sexual violence victimizations by non-intimate partners. 9 …”

“…This analysis used the societal cost perspective (i.e., all payers), a lifetime time horizon, and assumed first IPV victimization occurred at victim average age of 25 years. 9 Future costs were discounted by 3%. 10 Costs are presented as 2014 US$ unless otherwise noted, inflated using selected indices.…”

“…Comprehensive lifetime unit costs that included medical care and lost work productivity and controlled for related conditions (e.g., depression and anxiety) were prioritized. Some lifetime costs were estimated from annual costs by multiplying the annual cost over the age range of respondents in the cost reference study, bounded by this study’s average age at first victimization (25 years) 9 and current population life expectancy (79 years 45 ; Appendix Table 5, available online). Prevention costs were excluded whenever possible.…”

“…9 Average annual data from 2006–2015 National Crime Victimization Survey indicated 15.3% ( n= 137,155 survey-weighted) of IPV victimizations (rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault) included victim property loss or damage, valued at a mean $1,181 per victimization (applied in this study as per-victim cost, which is an underestimate for victims with multiple victimizations; Table 1; unpublished data, U.S. Department of Justice). Among IPV victimizations ( n= 745,946 female and n= 151,910 male, surveyed-weighted) from annual average 2006–2015 National Crime Victimization Survey data, 1.9% of female and 0% of male victimizations required treatment for nonfatal injuries in a doctor’s office, 6.6% of females and 4.6% of males required treatment in an emergency department, and 0.2% of females and 0.1% of males were admitted as inpatients (all applied as per-victim estimates in this study; Table 1; unpublished data, U.S. Department of Justice).…”

Effects of an empowerment program for survivors of sexual violence on attitudes and beliefs: evidence from the Democratic Republic of Congo

“…In the eastern DRC this can lead to survivors being perceived as having “lost their value” as women and therefore being shunned in various social settings [11]. As a result of these impairments, survivors, on average, earn lower incomes, produce less, and accumulate less human and social capital compared to women who have never experienced violence [12–14]. Additionally, children who witness violence against their mothers frequently experience psychological trauma that is detrimental to their development, and boys who witness violence are more likely to commit violence [15].…”