Online Discussion on proposed indicators for data collection on intimate partner violence, rape and femicide

7 Jul '16 Thu 10:00 CEST07/08/2016 9:00pm EuroGender Online Discussion public Online Discussion on proposed indicators for data collection on intimate partner violence, rape and femicide Europe/Vilnius 07/07/2016 11:00am
8 Jul '16 Fri 20:00 CEST
Past

Node tabs

Discussion
Federal Statistical Office of Germany's picture

[quote=Maria Guseppina Muratore]

About femicide, I think that the only indicator useful it is femicide that is a very complex concept to be definied and operazionalized from a  statistical point of view, but the female homicide by victim/perpetrator relationship.

Recently in Vienna (UNODC), we had a meeting on this issue and what emerged is the difficulty to transalte femicide in data.

What it is possibile is to identify women killed by a partner/ former partner, as well by other family members, or the homicide of prostitutes or of the honour killing and so on.

The clear problem was that very few countries had statistics on this topic and also for latin america countries, that has the law agasint femicide, data are not easy to be collected

at the end of the meeting, the decision was to start collecting the victim/perpetrato relationship.

About age, I agree about the classes of age comparison, starting from before 18 years old.   

[/quote]

In the ICCS femicide is an inclusion element of the definition of intentional homicide and attempted femicide is an inclusion element of the definition of attempted intentional homicide. However, as Maria Guseppina mentioned it is a problem to collect detailled data on it.

Nathalie Meurens's picture

[quote=Daniela Cherubini]

I am sorry, I have to leave the discussion. Thank you very much, I hope my contributions have been of any help. I'll check tomorrow the discussion, answering for direct questions or clarifications.

I'll put here some comments for the last question, which you are going to discuss later: whether the proposed indicators are sufficients to support politcy develpment

Looking at the indicators you are focusing on, we have 1) indicator on IPV, 2) indicator on rape and 3) intimate femicide. This means that we have just one indicator that also cover some forms of violence outside intimate partnership, covering just the more severe form of sexual violence. I see the point, since the IPV is the most common, and the less culturally sanctioned form of GBV. Therefore we need policies that address it. However, the most common does not mean that 99% of gbv is intimate partner violence - there are many experiences and many subjects who will be not included in these indicators. Risk of neglection is high. This could be corrected either transforming the last indicator (indicator of femicide instead of intimate femicide), and/or further expanding this effort and including new indicators int he near future (eg. sexual harrasment, or sexual harrasment at work).

Thank you for your work.

[/quote]

Indeed, femicide covers many more forms of violence than those proposed in the indicators. We made a first analysis at national level to understand what forms would be covered in terms of definitions or specific criminal offences; including honour killing and dowry-related death etc. We could not find Member States covering those forms as specific offences. Since, as said above, we focused as a starting point on what is currently collected in terms of data by administrative sources, those forms were not included in the scope. Of course, you are right to point out that with this approach specific forms of femicide would be neglected, but then the issue is data availability of these forms of femicide and how can this be addressed as they are not always specific criminal acts (and therefore would fall under the wider category of homicide, with or without aggravating circumstances)?

Nathalie Meurens's picture

[quote=Barbora Holubová][quote=Elena Fries-Tersch Milieu]

If there are no more comments on femicide we would like to raise a general question related to all indicators: 

Do you think that the proposed indicators are sufficient to support policy development?

[/quote]

I think that a great job was done and many issues were /or will be taken into the consideration, including  some suggestions from this discussion. Despite of the limits, this would  be definitelly a progress.

Good-buy and thank you for the opportunity for discussion.

Barbora Holubova

[/quote]

Thank you very much for your contributions to this discussion!

Inger Lövkrona's picture

[quote=Elena Fries-Tersch Milieu]

If there are no more comments on femicide we would like to raise a general question related to all indicators: 

Do you think that the proposed indicators are sufficient to support policy development?

[/quote]

As to develop policies to collect information on GBV in order to get a picture of prevalence and forms of GBV in a country, the indicators could be supportive. However, as has been discussed, some clarifications regarding the contexts of sexual assault, rape and femicide are necessary. I think it also would be worth considering, as proposed, a definition of the concept "intimate partner". It is also important to cover IPV cases with other family perpertrators.

I also find the indicators supportive to policies on planning for health care, social service support, e g the societies support to the victims.

As to policies to erase, stop, men´s violences, which is the overarching goal för EU:s work on GBV, the indicators are less usefull. To be frank, you cannot combat violence with numbers and definitions. In order to stop the violence you have to address  gender-power structures - and the perpertrators, e g the men.

Gender equality achievements will empower women, however there is no reearch that confirms that gender equality will stop men´s violence.  Sweden is an example of this - we have a very high ranking on the global gender equality scale, but the vilence against women is not decreasing.

Elena Fries-Tersch Milieu's picture

[quote=Andrada Filip][quote=Elena Fries-Tersch Milieu]

We would like to ask Andrada from the WAVE network specifically: do you think the indicators on IPV (the general one and possibly also the specific ones) could be populated with social services data? How do you see the potential of social services data for this? Our research showed that quite a few Member States collect data from social services nation-wide, but there is of course the problem that they have different types of social services and different target groups. Do you have any suggestions for adaptation of the indicator for social services' data? 

THANK YOU!

[/quote]

Apologies for the late reply but I have been caught up with work at the office. In any case I have consulted my colleagues, and this would be our suggestions: 

For the general indicator, we envision the following challenges and some ways to mitigate them:

1.       Social services would have to be defined more narrowly and I imagine a coordinating body would have to be in charge of collecting these data from a pre-defined number of social services. Important to consider would be whether general services such as legal aid offices or employment agencies, or specialist services like national women’s helplines, shelters.

2.       One should be careful with the “as a share of the total population of women” because it may lead to troublesome interpretation, when comparison between countries is attempted. If a smaller percent accesses services in Romania as opposed to in another country, it may be indicative of a lack of awareness about services, the times the services are available (e.g. 24/7, not 24/7), availability of staff, among others. A helpline in a country with similar population may have significantly different number of callers depending on staffing and opening times. Furthermore, shelter capacity differs per country, in terms of the number of beds or family places available, the stay allowance (e.g. some shelters allow for up to 12 months, while others only 3 months), which will all impact the number of victims that are supported, and distort the ability for clean comparison.

3.       The method of service provision may impact numbers. For example, some helplines may provide telephone service and also chat or advice via e-mail. Some centres conduct outreach, whereas others require victims to physically visit the establishment.

4.       For a helpline, which is by nature and according to international standards required to be confidential, it is not likely that data on age will be collected.

5.       Specialist women’s services are not always funded in a stable fashion to make sure they operate continuously. Not only can the hours of operation for a helpline change from one year to the next, shelters and centres can also close year to year, and new ones can open. In some cases, in one year, within a network of women’s shelters in any given country, the number of shelters feeding national level data may change.

6.       Always keep in mind that services deal with repeat clients, but due to confidentiality this may not always be recorded.

7.       It will be important to allow for quantitative data to be supported with some qualitative feedback to provide the context within which service provision exists, to allow for some preliminary explanation for the data.  

The number of incidents reported to anyone varies due to cultural differences – e.g. in some countries it is easier to admit to IPV than in others, this distorts the picture of “what is really going on”.  And differences in legal frameworks can also impact e.g. some countries have Emergency Barring Orders which allow some women to deal with IPV in a different way and how the police use the legislation on Emergency Barring Orders varies enormously (see page 86 of WAVE 2015 Report).  This could impact on how many women approach a shelter for accommodation, how could this variation be allowed for.  Finally, the amount of resources a woman has impacts on how she can cope with IPV e.g. if she is able to rent private accommodation and pay for a therapist, she may never approach any social services for help.  Similarly, if she has an extensive support network she may not approach any social services.  Just counting who approaches services shifts the focus of the picture towards women with fewer resources (poorer women & possibly migrant women).

[/quote]

thank you very much for this very informative reply! probably some of these biases are also true for police and especially for health services (accessibility, number of staff, funding etc.) but it sounds like social services data cannot really be used for cross-country comparisons, neither to be interpreted as proxy for prevalence nor as support performances - or at least, a lot of effort and improvement will need to be done in order to retrieve comparable data??

do you have any suggestions for specific types of social services that exist in many Member States, in order to narrow down the term? would 'national helplines' and 'women's shelters' be better types?

Andrada Filip's picture

A discussion on femicide took place in Vienna during the UNODC Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. Experts from the UNODC statistics department indicated that there is currently no operational definition on femicide. Offences which can be classified as femicides are punished by different laws under various legal frameworks. The term is not used in many countries, neither is it included in legislation. What statisticians currently have available are proxies on femicide, such as intimate partner homicide. Another one could be the killing of prostitutes. Indeed, the relationship between the victim and the offender is of crucial importance and this aspect must not be overlooked during any data collection exercise. 

Jurgita Peciuriene's picture

[quote=Andrada Filip]

A discussion on femicide took place in Vienna during the UNODC Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. Experts from the UNODC statistics department indicated that there is currently no operational definition on femicide. Offences which can be classified as femicides are punished by different laws under various legal frameworks. The term is not used in many countries, neither is it included in legislation. What statisticians currently have available are proxies on femicide, such as intimate partner homicide. Another one could be the killing of prostitutes. Indeed, the relationship between the victim and the offender is of crucial importance and this aspect must not be overlooked during any data collection exercise. 

[/quote]

This is exactly the reason why EIGE is working on a femicide definition and indicator to support the improvement of the ICCS. It would also support the UNODC/Eurostat efforts on improvement of data collection.

Maria Guseppina Muratore's picture

Coming back to other indicators:

about psychological violence there is a point  on page 8, in which is cited "harassment". I have not understood what you mean. Since this word is also on the SDG indicator and it is not clear at all, I think it can be better to clarify it in the contect of psychological violence.

Perhaps you already said it, but I think that this indicator is not opportune  from administrative surveys.

The topic is so huge, so complex, that it risks to be banalized if studied from police statistics. DAta from shelters, can be useful indeed but athe same time, not really comoarable at the moment.

Anyway, according to ICCS definition it is possible to calculate rate for female victims of defamations, verbal insults.... But as previosusly said, not many countries are able to disaggregate data for acts perpetrated by partners.

About sexual violence indicators:

this indictaor is not clear. The problem is that the definition of sexual violence is so wide.

For instance in Italy it is  comprehensive of rape, attenpted rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment (with touching).

 Not considering the prevalence indicators, that it is not good from police statistics and only looking at incidents reported, the international comprability can be a problem.

The reporting behaviour changes a lot among countries and it increases according to the raising in women awareness.

Furthermore data the reporting rate it is also very different according to the perpetratop typology, if a partner or an unknown people for instance.

I think the same observation can be considered for the all indicators.

I agree about the disaggregation by citizenship and age

  

Tim de Jong Atria Institute on Gender Equality and Women's History's picture

I'm sorry I have to leave by now.

Thanks everyone for the inspiring discussions!

bye bye

Tugce Tugran's picture

[quote=Inger Lövkrona][quote=Elena Fries-Tersch Milieu]

If there are no more comments on femicide we would like to raise a general question related to all indicators: 

Do you think that the proposed indicators are sufficient to support policy development?

[/quote]

As to develop policies to collect information on GBV in order to get a picture of prevalence and forms of GBV in a country, the indicators could be supportive. However, as has been discussed, some clarifications regarding the contexts of sexual assault, rape and femicide are necessary. I think it also would be worth considering, as proposed, a definition of the concept "intimate partner". It is also important to cover IPV cases with other family perpertrators.

I also find the indicators supportive to policies on planning for health care, social service support, e g the societies support to the victims.

As to policies to erase, stop, men´s violences, which is the overarching goal för EU:s work on GBV, the indicators are less usefull. To be frank, you cannot combat violence with numbers and definitions. In order to stop the violence you have to address  gender-power structures - and the perpertrators, e g the men.

Gender equality achievements will empower women, however there is no reearch that confirms that gender equality will stop men´s violence.  Sweden is an example of this - we have a very high ranking on the global gender equality scale, but the vilence against women is not decreasing.

[/quote]

Dear Inger, I agree with you, of course the problem is much wider and deeply anchored in societal structures, power relations between victims and perpetrators. The numbers, data is a way among others to fight this phenomenon that is unfortunately common in every country, every culture. We are hoping to advance things incrementally on every front.Hence this study.  About the issue of equality and violence, one can also argue that in Sweden the incidence is higher not because there is more violence against women but Swedish women are less afraid to report incidences, and there is a higher awareness about the issue. We can only hope that policies aiming to reduce inequality between men and women will also contribute to fight the violence.   quote=Inger Lövkrona]

Andrada Filip's picture

[quote=Elena Fries-Tersch Milieu][quote=Andrada Filip][quote=Elena Fries-Tersch Milieu]

We would like to ask Andrada from the WAVE network specifically: do you think the indicators on IPV (the general one and possibly also the specific ones) could be populated with social services data? How do you see the potential of social services data for this? Our research showed that quite a few Member States collect data from social services nation-wide, but there is of course the problem that they have different types of social services and different target groups. Do you have any suggestions for adaptation of the indicator for social services' data? 

THANK YOU!

[/quote]

Apologies for the late reply but I have been caught up with work at the office. In any case I have consulted my colleagues, and this would be our suggestions: 

For the general indicator, we envision the following challenges and some ways to mitigate them:

1.       Social services would have to be defined more narrowly and I imagine a coordinating body would have to be in charge of collecting these data from a pre-defined number of social services. Important to consider would be whether general services such as legal aid offices or employment agencies, or specialist services like national women’s helplines, shelters.

2.       One should be careful with the “as a share of the total population of women” because it may lead to troublesome interpretation, when comparison between countries is attempted. If a smaller percent accesses services in Romania as opposed to in another country, it may be indicative of a lack of awareness about services, the times the services are available (e.g. 24/7, not 24/7), availability of staff, among others. A helpline in a country with similar population may have significantly different number of callers depending on staffing and opening times. Furthermore, shelter capacity differs per country, in terms of the number of beds or family places available, the stay allowance (e.g. some shelters allow for up to 12 months, while others only 3 months), which will all impact the number of victims that are supported, and distort the ability for clean comparison.

3.       The method of service provision may impact numbers. For example, some helplines may provide telephone service and also chat or advice via e-mail. Some centres conduct outreach, whereas others require victims to physically visit the establishment.

4.       For a helpline, which is by nature and according to international standards required to be confidential, it is not likely that data on age will be collected.

5.       Specialist women’s services are not always funded in a stable fashion to make sure they operate continuously. Not only can the hours of operation for a helpline change from one year to the next, shelters and centres can also close year to year, and new ones can open. In some cases, in one year, within a network of women’s shelters in any given country, the number of shelters feeding national level data may change.

6.       Always keep in mind that services deal with repeat clients, but due to confidentiality this may not always be recorded.

7.       It will be important to allow for quantitative data to be supported with some qualitative feedback to provide the context within which service provision exists, to allow for some preliminary explanation for the data.  

The number of incidents reported to anyone varies due to cultural differences – e.g. in some countries it is easier to admit to IPV than in others, this distorts the picture of “what is really going on”.  And differences in legal frameworks can also impact e.g. some countries have Emergency Barring Orders which allow some women to deal with IPV in a different way and how the police use the legislation on Emergency Barring Orders varies enormously (see page 86 of WAVE 2015 Report).  This could impact on how many women approach a shelter for accommodation, how could this variation be allowed for.  Finally, the amount of resources a woman has impacts on how she can cope with IPV e.g. if she is able to rent private accommodation and pay for a therapist, she may never approach any social services for help.  Similarly, if she has an extensive support network she may not approach any social services.  Just counting who approaches services shifts the focus of the picture towards women with fewer resources (poorer women & possibly migrant women).

[/quote]

thank you very much for this very informative reply! probably some of these biases are also true for police and especially for health services (accessibility, number of staff, funding etc.) but it sounds like social services data cannot really be used for cross-country comparisons, neither to be interpreted as proxy for prevalence nor as support performances - or at least, a lot of effort and improvement will need to be done in order to retrieve comparable data??

do you have any suggestions for specific types of social services that exist in many Member States, in order to narrow down the term? would 'national helplines' and 'women's shelters' be better types?

[/quote]

well, as far as helplines are concerned, the data they collect has to be confidential. What they usually keep track of is the number of callers, and if the call was made by a woman or a man. And of course, there are countries which do not have national helplines as such...Shelters may be better types, but then again, their capacities and regulations vary considerably across European countries. 

Inger Lövkrona's picture

[quote=Tugce Tugran][quote=Inger Lövkrona][quote=Elena Fries-Tersch Milieu]

If there are no more comments on femicide we would like to raise a general question related to all indicators: 

Do you think that the proposed indicators are sufficient to support policy development?

[/quote]

As to develop policies to collect information on GBV in order to get a picture of prevalence and forms of GBV in a country, the indicators could be supportive. However, as has been discussed, some clarifications regarding the contexts of sexual assault, rape and femicide are necessary. I think it also would be worth considering, as proposed, a definition of the concept "intimate partner". It is also important to cover IPV cases with other family perpertrators.

I also find the indicators supportive to policies on planning for health care, social service support, e g the societies support to the victims.

As to policies to erase, stop, men´s violences, which is the overarching goal för EU:s work on GBV, the indicators are less usefull. To be frank, you cannot combat violence with numbers and definitions. In order to stop the violence you have to address  gender-power structures - and the perpertrators, e g the men.

Gender equality achievements will empower women, however there is no reearch that confirms that gender equality will stop men´s violence.  Sweden is an example of this - we have a very high ranking on the global gender equality scale, but the vilence against women is not decreasing.

[/quote]

Dear Inger, I agree with you, of course the problem is much wider and deeply anchored in societal structures, power relations between victims and perpetrators. The numbers, data is a way among others to fight this phenomenon that is unfortunately common in every country, every culture. We are hoping to advance things incrementally on every front.Hence this study.  About the issue of equality and violence, one can also argue that in Sweden the incidence is higher not because there is more violence against women but Swedish women are less afraid to report incidences, and there is a higher awareness about the issue. We can only hope that policies aiming to reduce inequality between men and women will also contribute to fight the violence.   quote=Inger Lövkrona]

[/quote]

I sincerly hope you are right, at least gender equality has encouraged women to report, but unfortunately there are too many cases to report, still...

I´ll leave you now, thanks for an interesting debate

Tugce Tugran's picture

[quote=Inger Lövkrona][quote=Tugce Tugran][quote=Inger Lövkrona][quote=Elena Fries-Tersch Milieu]

If there are no more comments on femicide we would like to raise a general question related to all indicators: 

Do you think that the proposed indicators are sufficient to support policy development?

[/quote]

As to develop policies to collect information on GBV in order to get a picture of prevalence and forms of GBV in a country, the indicators could be supportive. However, as has been discussed, some clarifications regarding the contexts of sexual assault, rape and femicide are necessary. I think it also would be worth considering, as proposed, a definition of the concept "intimate partner". It is also important to cover IPV cases with other family perpertrators.

I also find the indicators supportive to policies on planning for health care, social service support, e g the societies support to the victims.

As to policies to erase, stop, men´s violences, which is the overarching goal för EU:s work on GBV, the indicators are less usefull. To be frank, you cannot combat violence with numbers and definitions. In order to stop the violence you have to address  gender-power structures - and the perpertrators, e g the men.

Gender equality achievements will empower women, however there is no reearch that confirms that gender equality will stop men´s violence.  Sweden is an example of this - we have a very high ranking on the global gender equality scale, but the vilence against women is not decreasing.

[/quote]

Dear Inger, I agree with you, of course the problem is much wider and deeply anchored in societal structures, power relations between victims and perpetrators. The numbers, data is a way among others to fight this phenomenon that is unfortunately common in every country, every culture. We are hoping to advance things incrementally on every front.Hence this study.  About the issue of equality and violence, one can also argue that in Sweden the incidence is higher not because there is more violence against women but Swedish women are less afraid to report incidences, and there is a higher awareness about the issue. We can only hope that policies aiming to reduce inequality between men and women will also contribute to fight the violence.   quote=Inger Lövkrona]

[/quote]

I sincerly hope you are right, at least gender equality has encouraged women to report, but unfortunately there are too many cases to report, still...

I´ll leave you now, thanks for an interesting debate

[/quote]

Thank you Inger for the input and insights! 

Jurgita Peciuriene's picture

Dear participants,

Many thanks for all of your contributions throughout the day. They were very valuable and will contribute to refining the indicators on intimate partner violence, rape and intimate femicide as well as comparable administrative data collection across the EU.

Have a good evening.

EIGE team
 

Anu Laas's picture

[quote=Maria Guseppina Muratore]

Coming back to other indicators:

about psychological violence there is a point  on page 8, in which is cited "harassment". I have not understood what you mean. Since this word is also on the SDG indicator and it is not clear at all, I think it can be better to clarify it in the contect of psychological violence.

Perhaps you already said it, but I think that this indicator is not opportune  from administrative surveys.

The topic is so huge, so complex, that it risks to be banalized if studied from police statistics. DAta from shelters, can be useful indeed but athe same time, not really comoarable at the moment.

Anyway, according to ICCS definition it is possible to calculate rate for female victims of defamations, verbal insults.... But as previosusly said, not many countries are able to disaggregate data for acts perpetrated by partners.

About sexual violence indicators:

this indictaor is not clear. The problem is that the definition of sexual violence is so wide.

For instance in Italy it is  comprehensive of rape, attenpted rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment (with touching).

 Not considering the prevalence indicators, that it is not good from police statistics and only looking at incidents reported, the international comprability can be a problem.

The reporting behaviour changes a lot among countries and it increases according to the raising in women awareness.

Furthermore data the reporting rate it is also very different according to the perpetratop typology, if a partner or an unknown people for instance.

I think the same observation can be considered for the all indicators.

I agree about the disaggregation by citizenship and age

  

[/quote]

Psychological violence could be defined, also harassment (as violeting the dignity of a person, creating an intimidating, jostile etc environmen), but it is hard to get administrative data. Only from NGOs, shelters. It is even harder to guess how to get data on economic violence. In Estonia is huge problem with separated lone mothers, where children do not get support from fathers (child maintenance). There is an indicator of separated lone parents (majority of them women), a number of children without economic support, also a sum of alimony in total (total unpaid child maintenance).

Marta Adiego's picture

Thank you all for the interesting discussion

Maria Guseppina Muratore's picture

Thank you to all of  you too 

all the best

Giusy

Elena Fries-Tersch Milieu's picture

Thank you very much for this fruitful discussion. As a reminder, the discussion will remain open for you to post comments the rest of today and tomorrow. We will go through the transcript of this discussion tomorrow morning and maybe post further questions after lunch, so you are kindly invited to take a further look, if you are interested.

The transcript will be available for download.

Your comments were very useful and will be integrated into our further work on the indicators.

Have a nice evening! Thank you, the Milieu team

Irene Rosales's picture

On the question about the indicators supporting policy developments: I think that this initiative is very interesting and useful as well to be aware of the legal difference and different legal protection inside the EU. I think that the indicators can foster policy development -specially if closely linked to the current International and European standards. Linked to this and thinking on the areas of policy development, I would like pick up on the remark that has been made before pointing out that the from the three indicators two of them are mostly linked to intimate partner violence. I think that it can be worth it to include a justification on why these three forms of violence were chosen, taking into account that specific forms of violence are being left out such as sexual harassment from others rather than intimate partners and sexual harassment at work, which is covered by Eu antidisrimination legislation.

Thank you for the very interesting discussion! Have a nice evening!

Siobán O’Brien Green's picture

The indicator (Femicide) could be measured by the following sources and units:

1.    Source: police records of crimes; units: number of women victims.

2.    Source: hospital and healthcare professionals’ records, units: number of women victims; death records of women

Hello apologies for my late replies to the discussion, I'm Siobán based in Dublin, Ireland. I can't find the section that relates to the sources for Femicid data collection, see above.

I would propse that information and data from coroners offices and annual reports is used here, it is likely that health and hospital records will not rovded the units we are seeking. 

Nathalie Meurens

Dear Sioban,
Many thanks for your comment. You can find the indicators in the background note, which you can download from the introductory text above which includes the agenda.

Maria José Carrilho's picture

Hello. Good afternoon everyone. Sorry for the delay.

The definition of intimate partner violence is clear and in line with Istanbul Convention definition of Violence against woman.Otherwise, and as Elke Moons mentioned, economic violence needs further discussion.

Nathalie Meurens

Many thanks Maria Jose. The proposed definition of economic violence in the context of intimate partner violence is: Any act or behaviour which causes economic harm to the partner. Economic violence can take the form of, among others, property damage, restricting access to financial resources, education or the labour market, or not complying with economic responsibilities, such as alimony.
The suggested forms of economic violence correspond to ICCS tags and are in line with the most common forms of economic violence recognised across the Member States.
Do you have any specific suggestions regarding this definition?

Maria José Carrilho's picture

Examples of indicators on intimate partner violence:

  • Number of reported cases of women who experienced physical and/ or sexual/ psicological violence by their current or former partner;
  • Proportion of women who experienced physical and/ or sexual/ psicological violence by their current or former partner in relation to the total number of women resident in the country (per 100 000).
Maria José Carrilho's picture

Sources:

I support measuring the indicators on intimate partner violence from administrative statistics - source:Police records of crimes. I agree with Maria Guseppina Muratore about age: administrative sources include all ages of victimes.However, the data should be disaggregated by age. So, I don´t agree with the age group of 18 and over. The limit of age is applied in the surveys and in my opinnion it is difficult to select representative sample of the phenomena for statistical purposes.

Maria José Carrilho's picture

Example of indicators on femicide:

  • Number of women victms of homicide commited by current or former partner;
  • Proportion of women victims of homicide commited by current or former partner in relation to the total number of women victims of homicide (per 1000);
  • Proportion of women victms of homicide commited by current or former partner in relation to the total number of women resident in the country (per 100 000).

Souce: Police records of crimes.

Maria José Carrilho's picture

The great challange is to collect information harmonized across all the member states. It is a good opportunity to improve the administrative statistics on gender violence.

Thank you very much for the invitation. It is a very  interesting projet.

Goodbye. I´m leaving.

Henriette Jansen's picture
Hi dear all,
 
A lot of interesting contributions were made since I left yesterday afternoon. I would like to give a final contribution by giving a message of caution and remind us about the nature and objective but also about the risks, ethics and human rights aspects of an exercise of harmonization of administrative records.
 

The first troubling issue that we are dealing with nowadays is that because we CAN collect data it often seems that we need to be committed to collect data on everything (even if we are not clear about what to use it for). This is linked with the perception that information will improve practice, while in reality the focus becomes information rather than the needs of women and girls and the changes that are needed in organizations.  

Secondly there are issues arounds rights and privacy and whether women give consent to data being recorded and shared, whether anyone gives any concern to data protection, to the dangers of the risk of having a body of data in which known victims can possibly be identified. While in the past it was the criminals that were listed on record (in the criminal justice system), it is now the victims that come at the center of our attention. There are many complex issues related to this to do with rights, privacy, ethics, and self-determination, not least being that women ought to have the choice about who they tell what and the right not to tell; they manage institutions in their own contexts where they may have good reasons not to share everything. 
 
Finally when we improve and harmonize administrative data systems we should make absolutely clear that these data will never give us the story of the magnitude of the problem, because they capture only those who come forward, usually the most serious cases (and from ethics/rights point of view women should never be obliged to report). Most importantly the administrative data systems should never have the intention or purpose or give the impression that they capture the full problem. Their value is in particular for their own management purposes (to understand behaviour, access, use, quality, etc of the services). The story that the data tells us will need constant explanation.
 
Thanks again for giving this opportunity to contribute and I am looking forward to the next phase (the draft report?).
Henriette Jansen's picture

Further to the discussion on definition of partner. I found the following in the 2015 CDC manual on intimate partner violence surveillance.

Intimate partner: An intimate partner is a person with whom one has a close personal relationship that may be characterized by the partners’ emotional connectedness, regular contact, ongoing physical contact and sexual behaviour, identity as a couple, and familiarity and knowledge about each other’s lives. The relationship need not involve all of these dimensions.

Intimate partner relationships include current or former:

  • Spouses (married spouses, common-law spouses, civil union spouses, domestic partners)
  • Boyfriends/girlfriends
  • Dating partners
  • Ongoing sexual partners.

Intimate partners may or may not be cohabiting. Intimate partners can be opposite or same sex. If the victim and the perpetrator have a child in common and a previous relationship but no current relationship then by definition they fit into the category of former intimate partners (CDC 2015).

In my own work countries differ as to what constitutes common-law marriage and even as to whether they would consider anyone who is not a current or former spouse a partner.

Nathalie Meurens

Dear Henriette, thank you for the information on the definition of intimate partner. It is an exhaustive one. The Istanbul Convention only refers to partners as defined by national laws. So our approach is to compare national definitions and find the most common elements (such as current and former spouses, cohabiting partners, civil partners and dating partners), taking into account the ICCS (which also include current and former spouse, cohabiting partner, non-cohabiting partners).

Elena Fries-Tersch Milieu's picture

[quote=Maria José Carrilho]

Sources:

I support measuring the indicators on intimate partner violence from administrative statistics - source:Police records of crimes. I agree with Maria Guseppina Muratore about age: administrative sources include all ages of victimes.However, the data should be disaggregated by age. So, I don´t agree with the age group of 18 and over. The limit of age is applied in the surveys and in my opinnion it is difficult to select representative sample of the phenomena for statistical purposes.

[/quote]

disaggregation by age will be complicated due to data protection issues - the age groups would need to be very large. even if data is disaggregated, the indicator needs to specify which age group is covered in order to make figures comparable. 

we will review the age thresholds in the national legal definitions and base the age coverage on what is most widely used and what makes most sense from a topical point of view (this discussion made clear that it would be useful to include teenagers, too). 

Elena Fries-Tersch Milieu's picture

We had an internal discussion about your comments on the use of the indicators and the reference population. We came to the conclusion that the figures from administrative sources (so, figures on reported cases) will serve to inform monitoring of programmes and policies that target these services. The figures on reported cases will need to be used in context with other information, and depending on the approach of the monitoring, total numbers or rates will need to be used for cross-country comparison. 

For example: monitoring could compare the effect of a policy (e.g. improvement of accessibility) by comparing TRENDS across countries ('over the period of XY years, country A implemented a programme and in country A reported cases increased while country B did not implement a programme and reported cases stayed the same' - in this case, there is no need for a rate. However, monitoring could also compare effects horizontally: 'country A and country B spend the same budget on police intervention against IPV, but in country A reporting is much lower than in country B, although the prevalence rates are the same' - in this case, total numbers cannot be compared and they should be divided by a reference population that somehow reflects the size of the target group - which would be ever-partnered women; however this information will be hard to get, so the proxy reference group could be all women. 

Do you agree with this explanation and that indicators will be suggested both in total numbers and as rates? 

thank you!

Henriette Jansen's picture

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/intimatepartnerviolence.pdf

This is the link to the document from which I took the partner definition mentioned hereabove. You may find this a useful background document for this exercise.

Intimate Partner Violence Surveillance: Uniform Definitions and Recommended Data Elements, Version 2.0 is a set of recommendations designed to promote consistency in the use of terminology and data collection
related to intimate partner violence. This document was developed through an extensive consultation process.
It is published by the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (USA).