1. Gender Based Violence State of Play Item 4.1 of the draft agenda
DSS Meeting 23 and 24 May 2019

2. Background
DSS informed on the development of a EU survey on Gender Based Violence (GBV) in previous meetings
Working Group Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics set up a TF in 2016 (currently DE, EE,ES,FR,HR,IT,LV,LU,HU,NL,AT,PT,SI)
Grant action with ISTAT to support the work
First meetings of the TF in 02/2017; 5 meetings until now (twice in year) + written consultations
DSS meetings where GBV presented: March, October 2017; March 2018
ISTAT grant – until end of May 2019
TF meetings: February 2017; June 2017; 7-8 March 2018; May 2018; 1-2 April 2019
Eurostat

3. Grants action – testing & piloting
Grants to pre-test questionnaire, to conduct pilot survey and to assess impacts of methodologies
Grants 2017: until end January 2019
Grants 2018: until end of September 2019
Pre-testing questionnaire: 8 countries (EE, ES, HR, IS, MT, NL, PL, SI)
Pilot survey: as end-March conducted in 9 countries (BG, EE, ES, LV, LT, MT, NL, PL, SI) and ongoing in 4 (HR, HU, PT, AT)
Pilot survey: the document was prepared earlier, before Spain and Lithuania finished with the pilot, therefore presentation is updated
Iceland – did not manage to finish with the actions: pre-testing done, started to prepare the fieldwork but did not manage to continue. This is why we have always presented 14 countries to make the pilot, but we will have 13 finally.
Eurostat

4. Outcomes pilot survey (1)
Fieldwork: August 2018 – January 2019, within 2 months in majority of countries
Different mode of data collection used:
Face-to-face interview: PAPI (LT, MT, PL); CAPI (BG, EE, ES, LV, LT, PL, SI)
Phone interview: CATI (EE, LV)
Self-completion: CAWI (BG, EE, LV, LT, NL, SI); on paper (MT, PL)
Response rate: from 80% in BG (CAPI/CAWI) and NL (CAWI) to below 60% (EE, LV, MT)
Fieldwork: August to November 2018 in the majority of the countries, two countries later than originally planned: Lithuania from November to December 2018 and Spain from November 2018 to January 2019
Mode of data collection: advantages and disadvantages were pointed out by countries. It was common recommendation to use a computer-assisted method for data collection due to complexity of the questionnaire. The paper questionnaire should be used only in specific situations, e.g. in case of technical problems. However, using different computer-assisted methods (CAPI, CATI or CAWI) should be allowed, while different method could be appropriate according to the specificity of the country.
Comparable response rate for all countries is not available as mode of data collection and sampling were different and countries tested different issues. Estonia tested response rate by mode of data collection, therefore sample was split between CAPI, CATI, CAWI respondents; few countries (PL, ES) used reserve sample in order to get enough number of interviews to analyse pilot results, replacement was allowed in LT, e.g.
Gross sample size: Gross sample size was 300 in Malta, 504 in Bulgaria, 700 in Lithuania and around 1000 in the rest of countries: Estonia, Latvia, Netherlands and Slovenia. The basic sample with 1000 dwellings plus reserve sample with 1000 dwellings was selected in Poland; the main sample with 1200 individuals and reserve sample equal to size of main sample was selected in Spain.
Number of interviews: the lowest number of interviews was conducted in Malta (144), while 777 interviews were conducted in the Netherlands, 820 in Poland and 1022 in Spain.
For all countries: MT 144; BG 379; LT 390; EE 429; LV 534; SI 649; NL 777; PL 820; ES 1022
Eurostat

5. Outcomes pilot survey (2)
Positive feedback from interviewers as well as from respondents
Feedback indicated that it is feasible to conduct a survey on this sensitive subject
Respondents considered the topic as important, although many respondents pointed out the sensitiveness of the questions
Length and complexity of the questionnaire was pointed out, more complicated for the older population
Duration of interview: average duration of the interview remained from less than half of hour in Slovenia to around three times longer in Bulgaria. The maximum interview duration was more than 1.5 hours in several countries.
Examples on positive feedback:
respondents satisfied – 55% in EE, positive feedback in MT, successful in NL (90% topic is interesting, 54% made them to think), survey important in PL;
interviewing went well according to interviewers – 75% in BG, overall in ES, 70% PAPI and 80% CAPI in LT, positive feedback in SI
Eurostat

6. Target population (1)
Age group: 18+ was tested, however recommended by TF after pilot survey
Including men in the survey:
Tested with pilot: possible to respond and gender differences visible
Istanbul Convention focus mainly on GBV against women
Definition of GBV against men not existing
Opposite views by researchers as well as by MS (2 MS agrees to include only women, several pointed out no interest data only about women)
Gender differences:
- prevalence rate of physical violence is quite similar for women and men.
- Prevalence rate of sexual violence is clearly higher for women.
- gender differences in prevalence rate of violence are visible as soon as type of perpetrator is included: prevalence of domestic and partner violence is much higher for women than men.
- more visible if repetition, fear and injury taken into account: much more women than men experience repeated violence, by partner or by non-partner. The share of women who experienced physical or sexual violence and felt that their life was in danger is much higher compared with men. This is even more true for violence experienced by partners. And this is similar with physical injury: much more than men experienced physical or sexual violence that caused physical injury and the difference between women and men is even bigger when only partner violence is taken into account.
Opposite views:
GREVIO; EIGE: only women/Council publication on data collection in the context of article 11 of Istanbul Convention: data on experienced violence should be collected from both women and men
Both academic experts in TF supported including men; around half of countries where national survey on violence has been done, included also men in the survey
MS: IT, ES no men; 7 countries would support the inclusion of men, while 4 countries are not sure yet
Eurostat

7. Target population (2) Further internal discussions in Commission:
Title of the survey should be changed as survey could collect the data on GBV against women and violence experienced by men
Model free statistical data collection seems to better to reply the possible criticism
Data about violence experienced by men can be collected by countries willing to do so and depending on the availability of the financial resources
Eurostat

8. Additional testing
New approach of data collection (focusing on violent episode) was recommended by academic members of the TF when questionnaire for the pilot survey was almost finalized (focusing on victim)
Taken into account as much as possible and compromise solution used in pilots
However, additional testing was launched for alternative questionnaire as proposed by academic members of the TF
Results: end of summer 2019
Private experts in May 2018:
Critics: not an accurate report on the gender dimensions of violence; systematically underestimate the extent to which domestic violence is more frequent by men against women; EUROSTAT is refusing to ask for a count of all the violent events by the same person/s; limiting the number of violent events that are fully recorded
Recommendations: not to change: background of respondent, stalking, violence in childhood, support services and general victimisation
Include some questions under background of partner: occupation and income; starting and stopping all relationships between respondent and partner;
Merge non-partner, current partner and former partner violence sections (E-M): one set of screening questions, “Event form” per each event, repeat up to 6 times
Additional testing includes: pre-testing, pilot survey, indicators and comparing the results. Only sexual harassment at work, non-partner and partner violence included. Both questionnaires included.
New alternative questionnaire: same questions as much as possible, new structure: screening merged, if experienced any violent act, focus on episode(s): separated form filled for each perpetrator(s) about violent episode(s) done by that person(s)
Both questionnaires: compromise and alternative available in CIRCABC.
Eurostat

9. Grants: main survey implementation
opened in March 2019:
Deadline: April 2019, duration December 2019 – December 2021
Deadline: September 2019, duration February – December 2021
will be opened in February/March 2020:
Deadline April/May 2020, duration December – September 2022
We need to remind that the next deadline for the applications is in 26 September. We do not publish again the call, the call was published but with two deadlines.
Eurostat

10. DSS consultation
Online survey in February 2019 about national plans to implement GBV survey
26 Member States and 2EEA countries responded:
14 MS plan to conduct the survey
8 MS and CH, IS not sure yet
4 MS do not plan it
12 MS plan to apply for grant
Did not respond: DE, UK and NO, LI
Yes: BE, EE, ES, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, NL, AT, PT, RO, SI, SK
Not sure yet: BG, DK, EL, CY, HU, MT, PL, FI
No: CZ, IE, LU, SE – however, Ireland will collect data about sexual violence (their national survey, done in 2001 and will be repeated now), LU just contacted us, they will not participate in the gender-based violence survey, but would like to include a large number of the indicators in their victimisation survey, Sweden has national violence survey + regular data collection for some indicators – if we want to point out, then only CZ is sure that they do not have to improve data collection and make recent data collection: only international violence against women survey (IVAWS) was conducted in 2003
The total estimated cost for the 11 Member States that expressed their willingness to apply for the call for proposals and provided their costs estimates (1 country didn’t provide it) is around 5.5 million EUR taking into account the proposed effective sample size (5000 respondents per country).
However, 4 countries consider the proposed effective sample size as too small.
Eurostat

11. Way forward
Analysis of outcomes discussed in TF meeting in April and discussion continued in written through Wiki
Analysis of results of additional testing and still ongoing pilot surveys
TF meeting in autumn 2019 to discuss final questionnaire and methodological material
Final questionnaire and methodological materials will be shared in December 2019
Eurostat

12. DSS is invited:
To take note of the work ongoing with the TF on the development of the GBV survey
To apply for grants already in whenever possible (otherwise in 2020) in order to implement the GBV survey at national level over the period
Eurostat