Development of indicators and official statistics of gender-based violence

1. Development of indicators and official statistics of gender-based violence Sylvia Walby Lancaster University

2. Introduction • Focus: Indicators and statistics on gender-based violence • Just a sub-set of information needs • What are the priorities? • Contributions of academics, government statisticians, policy makers, NGOs.

3. National surveys • Development of large scale national surveys in many countries • Many methodological refinements • Self-completion, wider range, new scaling • Interest in developing comparable national findings through surveys: • UN, EU, IVAWS • What priorities? Next steps?

4. Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault and Stalking: Findings from British Crime Survey • BCS: under continual development • BCS self-completion module, 2001 • 22,463 sample • Self-completion: computer turned to respondent to read and respond confidentially • Included domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking • Questions to both men and women

5. BCS Self-completion methodology • Comparing prevalence rate • Face-to-face interviewing • Self completion • Narrow definition DV (non-sexual, no threats) • face-to-face interviewing: 0.6% • self completion: 2.8% • Prevalence five times higher using self-completion methodology than face-to-face interviewing

6. Comparing definitions in BCS self-complete • DV Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS): • types of actions (e.g. slapped, kicked, choked) • frequency of incidents • Sexual assault and stalking • DV Injuries • Whether injured and how seriously • Whether victim/survivor saw it as DV • Whether victim/survivor saw it as a ‘crime’

7. CTS and prevalence findings • CTS Prevalence (in the last year) • Domestic abuse, threats or force: 5% • Domestic threats or force: 4% • Domestic force: 3% • Beyond CTS • Rape or assault by penetration: women: 0.5% • 54% of rape by intimate (including former)

8. Injuries • Injuries • Whether women injured in worst incident last year: • Some injury: 72% • No injury 28% • Minor injury 46% • Moderate injury 20% • Severe injury 6%

9. Victim/survivors’ views • Whether female victim/survivor saw it as DV • One incident, 56%; 4 or more times, 95% (last year) • Whether female victim/survivor saw it as a ‘crime’: • One incident, 24%; 4 or more, 66% (last year) • Injury: none 15%; minor 53%; severe 87% (lifetime)

10. Why Indicators? • Simplify and abstract from complex data • Relevant to policy making and assessment • Provide a clear focus to measure change • National Plan; Performance indicators; Public Service Agreements for Comprehensive Spending Review • Enable international comparisons • Provide a different contribution than complex statistics, qualitative data, personal accounts. • Depend on large population surveys

11. Productive tension between specificity and mainstreaming • Specific nature of gender-based violence and detailed appreciation of distinctive nuances? • AND/OR • More general categories that facilitate addressing priorities within the mainstream, including crime?

12. Types of indicators • Outcome • The amount of gender based violence • Policy development and implementation • Identifying extent to which policy is implemented on the ground

13. Definitions • Gender-based violence – UN • Domestic violence – HO? • Violence against women - WNC • Range of Actions • domestic violence, sexual violence, stalking, FGM, forced marriage, ‘honour’ crimes, trafficking . . . • Range of Perpetrators • Partner, domestic non-partner, non-domestic?

14. Outcome indicators • Home Office (2004) DV plan: • Domestic homicide • Robust, but small proportion of dv • Prevalence • Rate of domestic violence in the population • ‘headcount’

15. Prevalence: Is it the best indicator? • 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

16. Severity of gender-based violence and crime statistics • 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

17. Prevalence, incidents and gender • Use of prevalence rather than incidents reduces the appearance of gender inequality in official statistics • Domestic violence prevalence: • 4% women, 2% men • Average no. incidents of domestic violence: • women 20, men 7 • DV experienced as one incident only: • 28% women, 47% men • Total incidents DV: • 12.9 million against women, 2.4m men • Gender ratio prevalence: 2:1 • Gender ratio incidents: 5:1

18. Prevalence and incidents • Prevalence use of ‘course of conduct’ might mean that a series of 20 incidents may count only as one crime, thereby underestimating the proportion of violent crime that is dv/gender-based violence • Prevalence: single events count, thereby skewing the gender composition towards image of symmetry

19. Injuries, Acts, and the CTS • Conflict Tactics Scale uses ‘actions’ as severity measure • Crime Statistics use predominantly ‘injuries’ as severity measure (though also intention) • Injuries are more gender asymmetrical than actions • Minor force (e.g. slap): 49% women 36% men sustain physical injury • Severe force (e.g. choke, weapon): 77% women 56% men sustain physical injury • CTS suggests lesser gender inequality than crime categories • CTS does not usually include sexual assault

20. Crime categories for indicators? • Crime categories: • Use incidents to measure extent • Use (primarily) injuries to measure severity • Advantages: • Mainstreams • Show gender dimensions of DV more effectively than CTS and prevalence

21. Data needs? • Prevalence • AND Crime based definitions of incidents, using injuries not acts • DV to include full range of actions, including domestic sexual assaults • Gender-based violence category to include DV, non-domestic sexual assaults, FGM, ‘honour’ crimes

22. Implications for British Crime Survey • Self-completion important innovation • Both prevalence and incidents • Collect data additionally within crime categories • Name wider range of forms of gender based violence e.g. FGM • Collect data on each incident (not worst or last) • Injury (and intent) • ‘Victim forms’ to be completed on each incident • Increase maximum no. forms for each respondent • Findings to be integrated into crime count • Number of BCS violent crimes will rise • DV will appear as a higher % of BCS violent crime

23. Policy Performance • Ministries and agencies have roles in reduction of gender-based violence • Criminal justice system • Health • Local authorities • Housing and refuges • Social services • Civil legal services • Few have the evidence to assess their performance, rarely knowing how much their services are used for DV • Reviewed in Cost of Domestic Violence

24. Service indicators • What do we need to know? • What outcome and policy indicators? • Local authorities • New best value indicator includes DV

25. Health developments in recording/measuring • Screening and diagnostic codes • Screening dilemmas • Screen when referrals not ready? • BCS: • Asked cause of injuries: 94% • Disclosed cause of injuries: 74% • Referred to anyone else: 26% • Diagnostic code for DV • Primary not secondary code: under development • E.g. primary DV; secondary broken wrist

26. Criminal Justice System (CJS): recorded crimes, criminal statistics • Policy change in CJS and its implications • Attrition rate for rape high and rising (Kelly et al) • Conviction rate for reported rapes, 5.6% in 2002 • Recognised need for ‘DV attrition’ rate (HO DV Nat Plan) • Rate of reporting to police (compare BCS rate with reported crimes) • Recording of reports by police (‘recorded crime’ or ‘domestic incident’) • Detection • Arrest (currently sole performance measure) • Prosecution • Completed court case • Conviction (criminal statistics)

27. HO Objectives for reducing attrition of DV in CJS in National Plan 2004 • Objective 4. Increase the rate at which domestic violence is reported . . . to the police . . • BUT No record of number of recorded crimes by police in official statistics for DV • Objective 5. Increase the rate at which domestic violence incidents result in sanction/detections . . . • BUT No record of DV detections/sanctions in official statistics • Objective 6. Increase the rate at which sanction detections are converted into offences/offenders brought to justice . • BUT No record of DV criminal convictions in criminal statistics

28. CJS data requirements • No recorded crime statistics on domestic violence, since not a specific criminal offence • BUT arrest rates for DV are produced, so there is a record of crime by whether domestic; but not public • Recommend: relevant recorded crimes are cross-classified as domestic or not as key aspect of recorded crime and criminal statistics • Met did this in 1999 (cf Health diagnostic codes) • Otherwise impossible to track DV in CJS statistics to evaluate progress on HO objectives

29. Conclusions • Much current development of statistical data and proposals for indicators • Nationally and internationally • BCS 2001 self-completion produced information on implications of different classifications • BCS: further development of outcome indicators • Mainstream into crime categories, as well as for specific needs • Numbers of incidents and injuries for each, as well as prevalence • Both DV and wider range of gender-based violence • International standards for EU and global comparisons? • Recorded crime and criminal statistics: • cross-classify violent crimes by domestic • Further development of public services performance indicators