Interpersonal violence, intimate partner violence: France between figures and public policy

1. Interpersonal violence, intimate partner violence:France between figures and public policy Catherine CAVALIN Centre d’études européennes de Sciences Po (Paris) Centre d’études de l’emploi (Noisy-le-Grand)

2. 12 years ago… • Interpersonal violence: 3 victimization surveys (1984-1985, 1996, 1999) • Conducted by CESDIP and INSEE • « Classic » approach of delinquency: measure of offences against property, but no detailed question about offences against the person • « Attack » or « mugging » to designate all forms of physical and sexual violence • Nothing about the identity of the perpetrator • Intimate partner violence: nothing but scattered pieces of information • Testimony of social workers, fieldwork of feminist and non-governmental organizations • Psychological approach of the mechanisms of interpersonal violence, at work and between partners (Marie-France Hirigoyen, 1998, Le harcèlement moral. La violence perverse au quotidien)

3. In the meantime (2000-2012): figures and public policy measures… • The starting point: NVAWS (« ENVEFF » 2000, results published in 2003, Maryse Jaspard, Elizabeth Brown et al.)… • … and then : several statistical surveys (EVS and CSF 2005-2006, CVS 2007 and then annually),… • Followed by: • Parliamentary reports(Bousquet, Geoffroy 2009; Laborde, 2010), laws on intimate partner violence (L.2006-399, L.2010-769),… • Public campaignsto denounce and prevent violence against women(from 2006)… • National action plans(2005-2007, 2008-2010, 2011-2013)… • … in a favourable European context where data and measures are also growing in number and gaining in importance (STCE, No. 210, 7th April, 2011 ; continuation of the DAPHNE programme; etc.)

4. => Objectives of this presentation • An assessment of what has been done in France to improve the knowledge about IPV from 2000 to 2012 • The aim is not to give many figures that could bring THE measure of IPV… • In order to understand… • The advances in knowledge and action AND the ambiguities and inadequacies they keep coming up against • At least two issues to bear in mind • Links between interpersonal violence and intimate partner violence • Definition of violence (and particularly IPV) as a public problem and a public health problem

5. Plan (1/2): On the sunny side… • Apositive interaction between new figures on the one hand, between figures and « public policy » on the other… • How did the French NVAWS found IPV as public problem? • Previous non-statistical steps denouncing violence against women, particularly IPV • The « discovery » of IPV in France: prevalence and complexity • How did the advances in measuring interpersonal violence help in qualifying IPV as a public problem? • Old questions about delinquency reactivated about « violence » as defined by international institutions • Victimization surveys revitalized so as to be able to measure IPV • How figures can (rarely) impact the definition of a public problem: the consequences on (so-called) public policy

6. Plan (2/2): … and on the darker side • IPV: an unquestionable… and consequently common public problem? • The limits and negative side effects of describing IPV in the terms of interpersonal violence • Why IPV is so difficult to manage as a public health problem? • And further: is managing IPV as a public health problem a good idea? • Last but not least: the classic discrepancy and inefficiency in public action

7. I - How did the French NVAWS found IPV as a public problem?

8. Old questions, new figures • In all social fields: many actors in competition, so that a « problem » can become a « public problem » • Leading role of the feminist movements for IPV • Mostly qualitative works • A new context from the mid 1990s: • WHO and EU members were required to develop the knowledge about violence, particularly IPV and violence against women, children (and other vulnerable populations) • The feminist movement made the most of this statistical tropism: how to measure quantitatively the phenomenon of IPV in a gender perspective

9. The « discovery » of IPV in France: several thunderbolts • The quantitative extent to which women are victims along the whole duration of the lifecourse • Particularly • The quantitative extent of IPV; its severity • The role played by ex-partner(s); the severity of health and social consequences in that case • The « classic » social criteria are irrelevant: IPV as a social transverse phenomenon • Accumulation of… • … forms of violence • … situations of victimization at different periods in life

10. A strong consistency with other statistical sources since then (adding comparisons with men)… • Confirmation of the NVAWS results through the comparisons between men and women • Types of violence, types of perpetrators • Severity measured by injuries, immediate consequences on health • IPV versus violence perpetrated « outside » and/or by strangers • Among the new sources • Some are interested in health: EVS (2005-2006, French ministry of Health and Social A ffairs) • Some others go back to the « traditional » victimization approach and renew it: CVS (annually since 2007, French Home Office) • Which means a preoccupation for Health, Human Rights and Security (larger and different from a gender perspective)

11. From a public problem to a public policy? • A very rare case of a real impact of figures on the definition of IPV as a public problem • Women’s Department at the Ministry of Social Affairs • Several prevention campaigns since the mid 2000s • Parliamentary works to follow up the statistical results • Definition of three National Action Plans (2005-2007, 2008-2010, 2011-2013) • A decisive evolution of law: • Law n° 2006-399 (4th April, 2006) • Decree n°2010-355 (1st April, 2010) • Law n° 2010-769 (9th July, 2010) • … A continuation of a former and on-going evolution: the criminalization of « private » behaviours (e.g. legislative changes on rape 1980 ; IPV defined as specific offences in the new French Penal Code, 1992, 1994)

12. => Are all the elements assembled to make IPV a public problem i.e. (in a full meaning) a real public policy problem?…

13. II – The limits of IPV as a public problem: figures are not sufficient !

14. IPV: an unquestionable… and then common public problem? • Paradoxical situation: in spite of some opposition (denounciation of a « victimizing feminism »)… • Large consensus about IPV as a « public problem ». Intimate partner violence IS a public problem • … BUT were the results of the NVAWS « too » efficient? • « 10% of women… »: round figures, simplification of the results • Trivialization of the problem? • From the denial of domestic violence to the acceptance of its « obviousness »? • Forgetting the diversity of the forms of IPV (not only « battered women ») • Parallel with the success and deadlock of the gender mainstreaming

15. IPV as trivial « interpersonal violence »? Victimization surveys and public security policy • The new French victimization surveys produce light… and confusion • Giant strides in the factual description of physical and sexual violence committed between co-resident individuals, partners or ex-partners • But: • What is IPV without knowing elements of CONTEXT about family life, relations within the couple, organization of daily life, etc.? • The public policy on delinquency is in fact « located » elsewhere and aims at other targets • And additionally: the new laws are difficult to implement (very few « protective orders »)

16. IPV as a public health problem: other negative side effects? • The perception of IPV (and all forms of violence) as a public health problem might also create confusions • First of all (and except for direct injuries): the correlations between violence and health cannot be easily interpreted as causal relationships • Contexts where other types of adverse events also occurred in the lifecourse • Definition of a « public health policy » on violence = addressing mainly the consequences of violence? • IPV: what about gender relations? • Moreover, risk of naturalizing women’s health • Trivialization of health, as much as of violence? • What happened to the « Violence and Health Plan » ?

17. Last but not least: public policy and « true life »… An enlightening personal experience about the implementation of the 3rd National Action Plan => How to understand the « Grande cause nationale 2010 » announced by the Prime Minister François Fillon on 25th November, 2009?

18. Conclusion : statistical measures as a historical means to build IPV as a public problem • Social problems don’t exist by themselves and in a timeless form • Such is violence, such is IPV • Statistical measures have been helping to build IPV as a public policy matter since the mid 1990s • The content of those measures partly expresses the way we consider IPV and violence (historically) • A powerful tool to bring some hidden social facts into light

19. IPV, statistically defined and measured, competes and possibly clashes with other public problems • Security, delinquency / health : also public problems, with their historical specificities • Possible contradictions or practical difficulties • Interferences and competition with a gender-based approach of IPV • … bearing in mind the difficulties that usually characterize the implementation of public policies =>France in the midstream: • Diagnoses: OK (figures and policy) • Objectives: many uncertainties • Instruments: many uncertainties too…

20. Bibliography • Bajos Nathalie, Bozon Michel, 2008, « Les agressions sexuelles en France : résignation, réprobation, révolte », in : Bajos Nathalie, Bozon Michel (dir.), Enquête sur la sexualité en France. Pratiques, genre et santé, Paris, la Découverte, p. 381-407 • Bauer (Alain) (dir.), 2011, La criminalité en France. Rapport de l’Observatoire national de la délinquance et des réponses pénales 2011, Paris, CNRS Éditions • Bousquet Danielle (présidente), Geoffroy Guy (rapporteur), 2009, Rapport d’information fait au nom de la commission d’évaluation de la politique de prévention et de lutte contre les violences faites aux femmes, Rapport n° 1799, 7 juillet, Paris, Assemblée nationale (2 tomes) • Beck François, Cavalin Catherine, Maillochon Florence (dir.), 2010, Violences et santé en France : état des lieux, Paris, la Documentation française • Gignon Maxime, « « Violence et santé », autopsie d’un plan de santé publique », Santé publique, vol. 22, n° 6, p. 685-691 • Jaspard Maryse, Brown Elizabeth, Condon Stéphanie, Fougeyrollas-Schwebel Dominique, Houel Annik, Lhomond Brigitte, Maillochon Florence, Saurel-Cubizolles Marie-Josèphe, Schiltz Marie-Ange, 2003, Les violences envers les femmes en France. Une enquête nationale, Paris, la Documentation française

21. Bibliography • Laborde Françoise, 2010, Rapport d’information sur la proposition de loi, adoptée par l’Assemblée nationale, renforçant la protection des victimes et la prévention et la répression des violences faites aux femmes (n° 340, 2009-2010) et sur la proposition de loi relative aux violences au sein des couples et aux incidences de ces dernières sur les enfants (n° 118, 2009-2010), Rapport n° 553, 10 juin, Paris, Sénat • Maillochon Florence, « « Chiffres noirs » contre « chiffres ronds » : l’enquête Enveff dans la presse quotidienne française (2000-2004) », in Chetcuti Natacha, Jaspard Maryse (dir.), Violences envers les femmes. Trois pas en avant deux pas en arrière, Paris, L’Harmattan (Bibliothèque du féminisme) • Rizk Cyril, 2011, « Violences physiques ou sexuelles au sein du ménage. Description par les personnes de 18 à 75 ans se déclarant victimes des suites et des conséquences des actes subis », ONDRP, Repères, n° 15, juillet • Rizk Cyril, 2012, « Recueil de tableaux et graphiques sur les personnes de 18 à 75 ans s’étant déclarées victimes de violences physiques ou sexuelles par conjoint ou ex-conjoint sur 2 ans lors des enquêtes « Cadre de vie et sécurité » de 2008 à 2012 », ONDRP, Repères. Annexes, n° 18, octobre • Tursz Anne, 2006, Violence et santé. Rapport préparatoire au plan national, Paris, la Documentation française