Dr Henrica A. F. M. JansenUNECE Work Session on Gender StatisticsGeneva, 8 October 2008

General considerations for indicators on VAW

Overview proposed indicators on VAW

Comments for reflection and discussion

"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."

(Sign hanging in Einstein'soffice at Princeton)

Need to provide a simple summaryof a complex picture

Need to present features to support informed decision making, policy and programs

Need to be sensitive enough to measure change (periodicity)

Need to enable international comparisons(remember “SMART”???)

No indicator is perfect It is important to be aware of potential

weaknesses The range of indicators to be used

changes according to the purpose and context

If you use of a group of indicators that reflect different aspects of VAW than you get a better idea of the bigger picture

Disaggregation of indicators (sex, age, rural/urban, etc.)

Availability of data sources Feasibility and sustainability of data

collection Not overburden States

Indicators can be an incentive towards systematic and accelerated data collection (accompanied by capacity buildingand institutional development)

Outcome indicators:To measure the extent of the phenomenon (included in EGM report)

Process indicators for policy development and implementation to measure the States’ responses to the problem (indicators developed elsewhere)

Surveys done: VAW/IPV/DV/GBV (by type, time, perpetrators)

Reported violence, through administrative and crime statistics

Issues: comparability reliability...

2006: In region covered by Conference of European Statisticians: 25 national surveys in 17 countries Half conducted by/with NSOs

National dedicated surveys Internationally comparative surveys Module added to other surveys (cheaper,

limited, more under-reporting, safety issues)

Almost all surveys give indicators of prevalence.

Many also on frequency Almost all on perpetrators Surveys carried out by many national

statistical offices and other institutions, however as ad hoc activity

Attitudes sometimes collected -- Issues around usefulness

This may not be the most common form of VAW, depending on context

Demand driven indicators are needed with a regional dimension

Limited to scope, prevalence and incidence of VAW

Give a overview of existing initiatives for the development of indicators

Proposing and international framework for indicators on VAW

Recommending a course of action for different stakeholders at global, regional and national level and donors.

One indicator on the prevalence of all forms of VAW justified in terms of possible misuse of disaggregated data to stigmatize communities..

However: Not simple Not easy to interpret, different contexts Not related to existing data sources Not clear how to assess over time Not comparable transnational etc etc

Physical violence Sexual violence Intimate partner violence Harmful practices

FGM Early marriage (<18y)

severity Perpe-

trator

Fre-quenc

y

Last year

Lifetime

X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X

X

DIMENSIONS

Physical violence Sexual violence Intimate partner

violence Harmful practices

FGM Early marriage

(<18y)

Survey Survey Survey

???Survey/

records??Contextual?

Data source

Need to reconsider harmful practices

Physical violence

Sexual violence

Intimate partner violence

Acts/freq/sev

Acts/freq/else?

Phys and/or sexwho is partner??

Measurement issues

Killing of women by intimate partners Female infanticide Threats of violence Economic and emotional violence as part of

IPV “Honour” crimes Dowry related violence Sexual exploitation Trafficking Femicide Forced marriage Sexual harassment

Issues: Different data sources!!Different levels of feasibility

Consider including Child Sexual Abuse

Operationalization of the different types of violence in terms of acts/injuries(methodological work in ongoing)

Severity, threshold (including frequency, injuries, impact?)

Incidents/Frequency?

STRENGTH: FOCUS ON SEVERITY AND INCIDENTS

Advantages Uses concept of DV as a ‘course of

conduct’ Conventional measure among DV experts

Disadvantages Hard to translate into crime statistics,

which are based on number of ‘incidents’ Does not contain measure of severity Specialised, not mainstream, indicator

Frequency/Incidents Crimes are counted as incidents If dv/gender based violence is to be

mainstreamed into crime statistics there needs to be an incident count

Injuries Violent crime categories are differentiated

primarily by injury level, though also intent To mainstream, injuries need to be known

for each incident

Moving towards “mainstreaming” vaw

Moving towards more inclusive vaw (not only DV/IPV)

Special surveys vs. Modules

Standardized/harmonised methodology – possible/desirable?

Realistic expectations of indicators – provides baseline, but not likely to see dramatic changes in prevalence in the short term

Women’s safety as priority

It really counts, And it needs to be counted!!!

THANK YOU!! henriette.jansen@gmail.com