> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.vitalcitynyc.org/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Shine a Light on Domestic Violence Gun Deaths
- URL: https://www.vitalcitynyc.org/domestic-violence-gun-deaths-incomplete-picture/
- Published: 2026-09-30T16:00:36.000Z
- Updated: 2026-09-30T16:00:35.000Z
- Description: America is likely getting an incomplete picture of intimate partner firearm violence, and that has dangerous consequences.
- Author: Lyra Monroe
- Tags: #women-and-guns, Gun Violence, When Guns Harm Women

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) is the premier tool for tracking intimate partner violence (IPV) fatalities in the United States. By linking death certificates with other data sources,[ NVDRS combines crucial information](https://www.cdc.gov/nvdrs/about/index.html?ref=vitalcitynyc.org) about violent deaths from frontline investigators, including law enforcement, coroners and medical examiners, and these data are combined systematically to provide a complete picture in one deidentified, confidential database.

Yet, across the country, incomplete or missing data at local levels leave many homicides not identified as being associated with IPV, and subsequently, this information is lost. Researchers use the word [“missingness”](http://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9838333/pdf/10896%5F2022%5FArticle%5F487.pdf?ref=vitalcitynyc.org) to describe this type of data issue in NVDRS.

Additionally,[ ](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12172374/?ref=vitalcitynyc.org)while 47 states have statewide participation in NVDRS, [three states only collect data from a subset of counties](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12172374/?ref=vitalcitynyc.org) (35 California counties, 32 Florida counties and 13 Texas counties) and therefore do not have statewide participation, leading to undercounts. Specifically, it is estimated that for at least 30% of California’s violent deaths, no data [beyond standard death certificate information](https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DCDIC/SACB/CDPH%20Document%20Library/CA%20Violent%20Death%20Reporting%20System%20%28CalVDRS%29/CalVDRS%5FWhitePaper2023.pdf?utm%5Fsource=chatgpt.com) are captured (i.e., only victim demographics and cause of death). It is imperative for these states to move toward full statewide participation to attain accurate data totals.

Effective prevention of IPV fatalities depends on accurate fatality data, moving beyond the raw number of homicides in any given area. To fully understand and address lethal IPV, we must be able to analyze complete data to direct prevention and intervention resources to the most heavily impacted communities.

IPV homicide represents a severe public health crisis across the United States, disproportionately[ ](https://hopeandhealfund.org/dvro-faq/?ref=vitalcitynyc.org)affecting [women and communities of color](https://hopeandhealfund.org/dvro-faq/?ref=vitalcitynyc.org). Crucially, the presence of a firearm elevates the risk of homicide[ by 5 times](https://hub.jhu.edu/2024/06/28/3-questions-jacquelyn-campbell-intimate-partner-violence/?ref=vitalcitynyc.org#:~:text=Campbell's%20research%20found%20that%20an,the%20decision%20for%20U.S.%20v.), and firearms were used in [73.8% of homicides](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/ss/ss6809a1.htm?ref=vitalcitynyc.org) where IPV was a known circumstance. IPV-related homicides extend beyond intimate partners themselves: In all,[ 12% of child firearm homicides](https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/152/6/e2023063004/194702/Firearm-Homicides-of-US-Children-Precipitated-by?autologincheck=redirected&ref=vitalcitynyc.org) are linked to IPV, and study findings show that in[ 68.2% of mass shootings](https://injepijournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40621-021-00330-0?ref=vitalcitynyc.org) between 2014 and 2019, perpetrators possessed a history of domestic abuse or targeted family members and intimate partners.

### California as an illustrative case

While NVDRS is a national mechanism to capture violence data, it’s essentially made up of 50 states and two U.S. territories that maintain their own tracking systems. To get a better sense of the data shortcomings nationally, it’s important to understand each state’s efforts. While this state-by-state analysis has not yet been done, Hope and Heal Fund set out to look at the most populous state, California, and its CalVDRS tracking system administered by the California Department of Public Health.

A[ Hope and Heal Fund](https://hopeandhealfund.org/?ref=vitalcitynyc.org) and[ Battered Women’s Justice Project](https://bwjp.org/?ref=vitalcitynyc.org) white paper,[ “Gender Inequities: The Erasure of Women’s Lives Through the Absence of Data,”](https://hopeandhealfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/IPGV-White-Paper-July-2025.pdf?ref=vitalcitynyc.org) highlights California’s IPV data gaps and offers recommendations to improve state IPV firearm death tracking, potentially serving as a national blueprint.

California has a strong commitment to preventing firearm violence and has implemented comprehensive gun safety laws. However, [a recent report](https://hopeandhealfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/IPGV-White-Paper-July-2025.pdf?ref=vitalcitynyc.org) identified gaps in data related to IPV. Among the 35 California counties reporting to CalVDRS, only Orange County and Sacramento County documented homicides where IPV was recognized as a contributing factor, reporting results consistent with [national averages](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2804677?ref=vitalcitynyc.org) [indicating that](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/74/ss/ss7405a1.htm?ref=vitalcitynyc.org#T5%5Fdown) 9.5% to 15% of all U.S. homicides involve IPV. Deaths related to IPV encompass not only those resulting from conflicts between current or former partners but also incidents where individuals connected to the relationship are killed (such as a former boyfriend killing an ex-partner’s new boyfriend or coworkers). Consequently, 33 out of the 35 participating counties are providing figures that are below these averages.

The undercounting of IPV data from counties can reinforce the misconception that firearm homicides are mainly urban “street violence.” Consequently, IPV fatalities are undercounted or overlooked, diverting critical funding from domestic violence interventions and devaluing the lives of women and children. While California’s local data gaps are problematic, they also reflect an opportunity to attain better data across the country as detailed below.

California may be the tip of the iceberg for the rest of the country. There’s far too much we don’t know about the contours and depth of the problem at the national level and in states across the country. Researchers who study the intersection of IPV-related fatalities have confirmed that the issue of missingness of data is not just a California problem. It’s time to conduct similar assessments across other states to determine what gaps exist and what can be done to address them.

### How data challenges make it harder to track intimate partner homicides

While recognizing that NVDRS is a solid infrastructure, what are the challenges that need to be dealt with, and what can be done to better understand trends related to firearm homicides that arise from intimate partner or domestic violence?

As mentioned, undercounting of homicides with an IPV-related circumstance is one challenge that must be met. Identifying the patterns and circumstances associated with IPV-related homicides is crucial to inform effective prevention of these fatal IPV outcomes. Intimate partner homicides may cluster in certain counties or disproportionately impact certain communities. Jurisdictions with limited resources may face additional barriers to consistently tracking IPV-related deaths. Incomplete geographic coverage can introduce bias and leads to systematic underreporting of the true scope of the problem.

IPV, by definition, needs a qualifying intimate partner relationship (spouse, ex-spouse, dating partner, cohabitant, etc.). If the relationship is vague or absent, the homicide cannot be reliably flagged as IPV-related; consequently, many firearm homicides in a domestic partner context are incorrectly coded as “other homicides.”

Additionally, if subsequent or ongoing investigations change the manner of death, or if additional victim or perpetrator information emerges after initial coding, the datasets may not always reflect these updates.[ ](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/73/ss/ss7305a1.htm?utm%5Fsource=chatgpt.com)NVDRS data often require [up to 16 months](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/73/ss/ss7305a1.htm?utm%5Fsource=chatgpt.com) after the calendar year of death to be considered complete due to the complexities of gathering, verifying and processing information from multiple sources across different jurisdictions.

Furthermore, in public reports, county-level death counts and circumstances with fewer than 11 total deaths are suppressed for privacy concerns, making it harder to identify intimate partner firearm homicides in certain counties or subgroups.

### Moving to solutions

What measures are required to eliminate the undercounting of intimate partner firearm homicides across the United States and within California counties? 

**Complete state and county expansion:** California and other states must strive for participation to secure total statewide reporting. This prevents the systematic exclusion of fatalities from any jurisdiction. Targeted funding, technical assistance and incentives should be deployed to help smaller or underresourced counties, as this expansion would [“benefit additional counties with access to data-driven prevention.”](https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DCDIC/SACB/CDPH%20Document%20Library/CA%20Violent%20Death%20Reporting%20System%20%28CalVDRS%29/CalVDRS%5FWhitePaper2023.pdf?utm%5Fsource=chatgpt.com)

**Full integration of records:** Participating states, along with their counties, should aim for nearly 100% documented circumstance data for homicides. Achieving this requires stronger collaboration among public health agencies, law enforcement, sheriffs and coroners, as well as improved clearance rates. This can be done by establishing [domestic violence homicide review teams](https://www.law.uci.edu/academics/real-life-learning/clinics/pdfs/DVDRT-2006-2017-FullReport.pdf?ref=vitalcitynyc.org).

**Domestic violence homicide review teams:** Grasping the broader circumstances around IPV fatalities — including interpersonal dynamics, mental health status and care, toxicological findings, and recent life stressors like employment, financial or medical difficulties — is essential for developing effective strategies to alter these outcomes. These are the very circumstances collected by NVDRS but not always reported by local coroners and medical examiners and law enforcement.

**Research funding and training:** Expanding financial support for research dedicated to homicides involving intimate partners is vital, particularly regarding data quality control and the[ coercive effects](https://bwjp.org/the-unseen-harms-of-guns-in-domestic-violence/?gad%5Fsource=1&gad%5Fcampaignid=22657367502&gbraid=0AAAAAoPFSY0PyHlcvI14BGSJmphZexdmr&gclid=CjwKCAjwhNbTBhB4EiwAsFSg-tuWZWMy1tq70RgICtPx2aHov0JE1EZ8DzTLSh1uzvNgDhbaZ5v5ExoC0UUQAvD%5FBwE&ref=vitalcitynyc.org) of weapon use in IPV.

**Local incentives:** Offer financial incentives, training and technical assistance to all states and counties to upgrade their systems and provide staff training to submit comprehensive, high-quality data.

**Data transparency and granular reporting:** Local medical examiners and coroners ought to release yearly reports regarding intimate partner firearm homicides (or matching proxy data) to give local organizations and advocates the ability to monitor patterns. Openness promotes public accountability, improves the thoroughness of tracking systems and builds community awareness to guide local prevention planning.

Significant data gaps within NVDRS leave our understanding of intimate partner firearm homicides incomplete. Local reporting failures risk underestimating the true lethality of IPV and misallocating critical prevention resources.

To properly gauge the nationwide scope of these data gaps, we must conduct state-by-state evaluations of NVDRS. Simultaneously, local advocates should investigate how data are managed within their specific jurisdictions to build a coordinated top-down and bottom-up approach. Ideally, California can lead by example over the next few years, establishing a functional proof of concept for the rest of the nation.