Eva Gisela Ramírez Rodríguez

1. RESULTS OF THE PROPOSED INTERNATIONAL QUESTIONNAIRE TO MEASURE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMENTested by INEGI-Mexico Second Meeting of Experts to measure violence against women • Eva Gisela Ramírez Rodríguez • Subdirección de desarrollo de estadísticas de género y violencia contra las mujeres • Ginebra, 18 de noviembre de 2010

2. Objectives of questionnaire • Develop and test a questionnaire and methodology for applying a survey enabling one to obtain information to measure violence against women, with the indicators approved by the United Nations Statistical Commission. • The objective of the data collection instrument is to facilitate countries collecting a set of information to estimate the prevalence of physical and sexual violence by an intimate partner. • The test should simulate regular survey procedures, whether as a module of another survey or as a specific survey.

3. Participation of INEGI • INEGI undertook in April 2010 to carry out a Test of the International Questionnaire to measure violence against women. • Reasonsforparticipating • To strengthen work done by the Group of Friends towards defining guidelines • To contribute its experience, enabling it to carry out the test in less time and with fewer resources • To support work by DG-CEPAL in the region • To have a proven proposal for Spanish-speaking countries

4. General Structure of questionnarie UNECE

5. General Structure of questionnarietestedby INEGI

6. Proposed Structure and Tested Structure

7. Changes and adjustments • Format • Translation or interpretation adjustments • Structure. The section on partner violence was segmented into three blocks: violence by current partner; violence by the last or most recent partner and violence by some previous partner (for those saying that they have had two or more partners), while the proposal in English has two blocks. • Inclusion of sociodemographic and context variables regarding traits of the women and of their current or most recent relationship. • Inclusion of other test questions of specific interest. • Inclusion of some acts of violence that were not considered for the purpose of corroborating feasibility.

8. MAIN CONTRIBUTIONS • Definition of the partner in a wide sense, not limited to marriage or living together, including boyfriends and couples not living together. • There is a significant impact on data if the definition of partner is different. • Inquiries about violence by any partner prior to the current or last one. • Informant’s consent

9.  INFORMATION COLLECTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT • TYPES AND TRAITS OF THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CURRENT OR LAST PARTNER THAT WOMEN 15 OR OLDER HAVE HAD • VIOLENCE BY PARTNER(S): • Current partner for women living together, married and those with a boyfriend or partner • Last partner for separated, divorced and widowed women and those who had a boyfriend or partner • Partners prior to the current or last partner, for women who have had 2 or more partners, husbands or boyfriends during their lifetime. • OTHERS VIOLENCE

10. Test Objectives • Observe the informant’s understanding of and reactions to the terms and concepts included in the questionnaire questions • Learn the extent of difficulty in detecting acts and stories of violence • Evaluate the adequacy of the classifications defined in the answer choices • Verify the correct identification of subpopulations based on questions about marital status and the condition of the current and previous partner • Verify proper flow of the questionnaire, sequences, filters and passes • Measure the average interview time

11. Criteriafortheselection of samplingareas • Define a sample in geographical areas where there is a greater probability of selecting cases of women who experienced violence. • The test would be restricted to some geographical areas that displayed prevalence of physical and sexual violence above the national mean, based on the information of ENDIREH-2006. • The sample was limited to the States of Jalisco and Oaxaca that in 2006 showed high rates of prevalence in physical violence by partners (20.3% and 22.76% respectively). • Sample was: 354 households in Oaxaca and 250 in Jalisco

12. Total housing units selected by state, municipality and town

13. Operational organización forfieldwork • Observer team • accompanied the interviewers to observe the interview and record information on the operation of some key aspects of the functioning of the questionnaire: • Sequences of references periods • Passes/Filters • Understanding of violence including • the identification of partners.

14. Interviewer Profile Experience and Participation in Related Surveys Includes: National Survey on the Dynamics of Family Relations, 2003 or 2006, National Survey Population Dynamics 2009 and National Survey on Dating Violence, 2007 Education and areas of knowledge

15. Results of collecting data Out of the total housing units visited (632), a complete interview was conducted with an eligible woman in 396 (62.7%) of them, while the number of housing units uninhabited and with no occupants was high at 25.6%: 28% in Oaxaca and 22.1% in Jalisco.

16. Average time of interview Interview Length. Only 15 questionnaires was the length of the interview omitted or recorded incorrectly. The average time for applying the questionnaire with the selected women was 25.1 minutes.

17. CORE ASPECTS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE EVALUATION • Performance of the questions to identify the type of partner relationship and interview sequence. • Clarity and pertinence of the questions to identify the number of partners the woman has had during her life. • Pertinence, comprehension and interpretation of the partner concept. • Effectiveness of the instrument and of the instructions to detect acts of violence according to the relationship status of the current or last partner. • Suitability and comprehension of acts of violence included by kind of violence. • Clarity of the instrument and of the instructions for handling temporary passes and violence frequency. • Performance of the questions to record the frequency of acts and events or episodes of violence. • Usefulness of the instrument to identify cases of women claiming to be divorced, separated or widows but who have a relationship with a current partner. • Usefulness of the instrument to identify violence by another or other partners previous to the current or last relationship. • Usefulness of the instrument to identify violence by any person other than the partner, by sets of the same kind of acts. • Performance of the introductory questions about consent and privacy.

18. Methodology to assess the questionnaire • Database raised questionnaires without validation or consistency review • Parallel database to identify sequence errors and consistency • Questionnaires observation raised confronted with questionnaires • Reports from the observers and interviewers

19. Advantages and limitations

20. Obtaining consent and verifying privacy A key aspect of this test was to evaluate the application of these two criteria are usually in another type of survey is not considered and that it was highly relevant because:a. Respect the right of women to refuse to discuss these issuesb. Ensure privacy and safety of respondents and interviewers

21. Identification of the Partner Relationship Results of Identification of the Partner Relationship

22. Identification of the Partner Relationship • The data show that: • The questions proved to be very consistent. In 96.5% of the cases, the interviewers managed to correctly identify the existence or inexistence of a relationship with a current or last partner, or that the woman had never had any kind of partner relationship. • Three important findings were evident in these results • The questions and their sequence are pertinent for identifying the current partner relationship • Interviewers generally read the questions textually; nevertheless, there is an important number of cases where it could be seen that they failed to apply this rule. This is due to a good number of cases of biases or assumptions that do not necessarily correspond to the situation of the interviewed women; therefore, this indication needs to be underscored during training. • Women understand what “have a relationship of partner, fiancé or boyfriend” means since an explanation was needed in only 31 cases.

23. Number of partnerreported Although it was the one with the largest number of inconsistencies ... very useful to identify the number of partners and their experiences of violence

24. Number of partnerreported

25. Violentactsincluded • The acts of violence included proved to be adequate for detecting the violence faced by women. •  Those that presented the main inconsistencies are located in acts of emotional control and economic violence. •  In the first case, “Does he get angry if you talk to another man?” women deem it is not an attitude limiting their freedom, but like something that “should be” • In second case, “Has to give you permission to seek medical care when you need it?, in many cases the women needed explanation. • In the case of economic violence, the first two acts of violence do not manage to differentiate between “he does not give enough for expenses” and “he does not give them”.

26. Violentactsincluded • Consistency was the highest in physical violence. • Acts of sexual violence also show a very high proportion of consistency; nevertheless, it was reported that it was not possible to include events of attempted rape.

27. REVIEW OF CONSISTENCY AND SEQUENCE OF THE DATING VIOLENCE

28. REVIEW OF CONSISTENCY AND SEQUENCE OF THE DATING VIOLENCE

29. REVIEW OF CONSISTENCY AND SEQUENCE OF THE DATING VIOLENCE

30. Previouspartnersviolence • The section on violence by previous partners shows that many acts of violence sometime during their lives were able to be detected, enabling us to create the Prevalence of Violence by a Partner throughout their life Indicator. • The inquiry by the recent violence for the former or any previous partners is not entirely appropriate, because in most cases they are partners with whom women no longer have any link. • During the collection of information, these questions proved to be inconvenient or considered by respondents as redundant as it had mentioned that this relationship was long over.

31. Previouspartnersviolence

32. Violence of Others • Limitations occurred with regards to Violence by other People due to its design and location. • It is better to have questions for each setting (at school, at work, in other spaces) or by relation (relatives, acquaintances). • Therefore, this section requires further work on design.

33. Violence of Others

34. General indicators Prevalence of violence against women by relationship with perpetrator and by type of violence (1). These estimates are not statistically representative, since the surveyed population corresponds to a specific sample and not a statistical sample. Therefore should be considered only exemplified in the calculation of prevalence.

35. General indicators (1). These estimates are not statistically representative, since the surveyed population corresponds to a specific sample and not a statistical sample. Therefore should be considered only exemplified in the calculation of prevalence.

36. LESSONS AND OBSTACLES • Consent and Privacy • It is very useful to prepare the interview • Location is not pertinent • The operative area is that when the explicit question about “Consent” is asked the possibility of “Rejection” is opened and this impacts the work load, the coverage as well as the costs of any survey. • This tension is between getting consent from women versus the costs this implies upon opening the possibility of a negative reply or rejection.

37. Identified the partner relationship • These three questions work quite well to identify the type of partner relationship. • The intermediate question allowed us to retrieve 10% of the women who at first said they were separated, divorced or widows and 30% of those who said they were single that did have a partner at the time of the interview. • But… • The inclusion of a “broad” concept of couple has the advantage of letting the women determine if they have or had a couple or boyfriend. • Its necessary to define “partner” better and clarify a more useful definition for couples that do not live together and boyfriends,

38. Number of partners • Questions 5.8 and 6.13 make the informant to perform two tasks, on the one hand she must recall the number of relationships (boyfriends, husbands and/or partners), and on the other hand she must discriminate between more significant or important partners. • It is necessary to determine more clearly who should have. • This question was very concerned because it was linked to the actual age at marriage and first marriage, which affected the understanding and explanation to interviewers

39. Finally • It is necessary to establish strategies to promote comparable information to be generated in response to the guidelines and the proposed instrument, at least two lines: • a. Encourage countries with incipient or no on this matter, adopt and adapt this instrument. • b. In countries that already have a history or development should be promoted to address the recommendations and bring their instruments to have information comparable

40. Diseño y organización de la prueba Dirección General Adjunta de Información de Gobierno Coordinación Eva Gisela Ramírez Gabriela Pérez Lorena Aguilar Iván Islas Dirección General Adjunta de Encuestas y Registros Administrativos Coordinación Operativa Clara Mantilla Claudia Acosta Vianey Salazar Norma Saavedra Guadalupe Aguilar María de los Angeles Téllez Arcelia Breceda

41. Equipo de Campo • Entrevistadoras • Martha Elizabeth Álvarez Carreón • Claudia Acosta Careaga • María del Rocío Carrrasco Rosales • María Eugenia Cortés Baldrán • Fania Cielo Galindo Zafra • María Concepción García Coba • Lorena Georgina Gómez Soto • Flor Rebeca González Varela • Iris del Rocío López Peña • María Elena Lora Arcos • Gabriela Macías Guzmán • Ma. Guadalupe Martínez Gómez • Teresita Muñoz Rodríguez • Julieta Carolina Orduña Guzmán • María Guillermina Peña Morales • Andrea Susana Pulido Tenorio • Irma Quijas Briseño • Julia Edith Ramírez Soto • Carmen Celina Triana Salazar • Alejandrina Valencia Páez • Teresa de Jesús Vela Briones • Lidia I. Velasco Ríos • Alicia Vázquez Díaz Responsables de Grupo Juan Acevedo Mario Cortés Miguel Cureses Joel Martínez Vianey Salazar José Segura • Observadoras • Guadalupe Aguilar • Elizabeth Brizuela • Matilde Gutiérrez • Connie Sotelo • Gabriela Pérez • Eva Gisela Ramírez • Norma Saavedra • María de los Angeles Téllez