Transcript Are we there yet? The SRVAW Indicators project Liz Kelly Roddick Chair in Violence Against Women London Metropolitan University.

Are we there yet? The SRVAW Indicators
project
Liz Kelly
Roddick Chair in Violence Against Women
London Metropolitan University
Moving towards indicators
•
•
•
1999 the first SRVAW noted the need to develop indicators to monitor state
responses to VAW.
The second rapporteur in her first report to the Commission Human Rights (CHR) in
2004, stated the need for indices on measuring VAW and state responses to it.
Commission on Human Rights’ 2004 resolution on violence against women (2004/46).
Paragraph 25 states:
Bears in mind the need to develop, with full participation of all Member States, a
international consensus on indicators and ways to measure violence against women
and calls on the Special Rapporteur to recommend proposals for indicators on
violence against women and on measures taken by, inter alia, Member States, to
eliminate violence against women.
•
Political support intensified, including GA Res 61/143 of 19 December 2006 (para. 18)
which requests the UN Statistical Commission to propose, building on work of SR on VAW,
possible indicators to assess scope, prevalence and incidence of VAW.
Indicator project


Proposal by SRVAW to develop two sets of indicators
Tasks
 Review current research literature on measuring VAW
and indicators on state responses
 Consult with states, UN agencies, academics and
NGOs
 Produce a technical report and recommendations
Challenges

States and other parties not on board with the wider VAW
agenda





Research and PoA’s often limited to DV/IPV
Limited understanding of technical and ethical issues
Limited progress at state level on disaggregation to
produce gender statistics
Multiple approaches to research tools and definitions
Diverse approaches in national laws
Not quite there yet
•
Technical report completed
•
Some of UNECE seen a version
•
SRVAW’s report to CHR still in process, will be presented
in Nov 2007; the proposed suite of indicators will
•
•
•
•
endeavour not to overburden states
reflect the wider VAW agenda
link to obligations under international law
refer to what we know about measuring violence and promising
practices.
Some analytic conclusions 1
•






Strong support from states
 Meaningful - not lowest common denominator
 Saw as a lever to increase importance of issue
UN agencies and academics more uncertain
 More concerned than states about ‘burden’
Necessity of ensuring wider VAW agenda is
attended to
Need to document trends over time
Neglect of attitudes, tolerance and prevention
Danger of too few/too many
Interest in layering to take account of differential
resources and capacities of states
Some analytic conclusions 2








Measuring violence
Harmonisation unlikely
 Some forms still a need for methodological development
 Local legal definitions
Analytic strategies – creating comparable data
Unanticipated consequences
 Moves towards gender equality can result in increased levels of
violence
 Potential for discovering differential rates across societies
State responses
Too little focus on
Untapped potentials
Likely to give useful results from HR perspective in short term
Defining terms: human rights indicators
•
•
•
•
•
In addition to the technical and SMART criteria HR indicators must be anchored in
human rights norms and standards, four key areas:
 Do states respect, protect and fulfill rights?
 Are the key principles met – non-discrimination, progress, participation and
remedies?
 Is access assured through norms, institutions and law?
 Is the role and contribution of non-state actors in realizing rights
recognized and supported?
OCHHR categories of HR Indicators
Structure: ratification/adoption of legal instruments and basic institutional
mechanisms deemed necessary for realization of human rights
Process: policy instruments, programmes and specific interventions; actions taken by
the state and by individuals to protect and fulfill rights according the HR principles
Outcome: the realization of rights. These are the slowest to move, often due to the
interdependence of HRs – realization of one requires the realization of many others.
Here measurements of incidence/prevalence of the targeted right (or violations of it)
are critical
Basic measures on state
responses: structure
•
•
Ratification without reservation of key HR
conventions
HR architecture
•
•
VAW and gender equality
Plans of Action
•
•
•
Qualified along various dimensions: coverage of all forms
of VAW, time lines, implementation
Legal framework
Protection, challenging impunity, prevention
Basic measures on state
responses: process
•
Inter-ministerial policy group
•
•
•
Budget lines
Mainstreaming AND specialist responses
Basic service standards
•
Quality and diverse services
•
•
•
Equitable access – geography and excluded groups
Specialisation
•
•
•
Shelter places, helpline hours, advocacy/counselling projects per 10000
female population
Training – in service and in basic professional qualifications
Recognition of women’s NGO sector
Roll out of proven good practice
Promising directions: Attrition

The proportion of reported cases that fail to result in prosecution and
conviction
 Increased reporting as indicator of decreased tolerance and
increased confidence in the justice system
 Rates of investigation, prosecution and conviction indicators of
extent to which systems have engaged with VAW
Attrition in rape cases: England and Wales 19852004
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
Reported
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001 2002
2003 2004
1,842 2,288 2,417 2,855 3,305 3,391 4,045 4,142 4,589 5,032 4,986 5,759 6,281 7,636 8,409 8,593 9,449 11,766 12,760 14,192
Prosecutions
844
927
1,048
1,288
Convictions
450
415
453
540
1,400 1,467
613
561
1,711
559
1,648 1,704
529
Reported
482
1,782
460
1,604 1,696
578
Prosecutions
573
1,880 2,185
599
2,169 2,046 2,651 2,945 2,790 2,689
675
Convictions
659
598
572
655
673
751
Attrition in rape cases: Germany 1977-2001
9000
7500
Cases
6000
4500
3000
1500
0
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Reported
6725 6598 6576 6904 6925 6708 6723 5954 5919 5604 5281 5251 4987 5112 5454 5568 6376 6095 6175 6228 6636 7914 7565 7499 7891
Prosecutions 1703 1617 1603 1609 1711 1651 1683 1660 1480 1456 1461 1403 1297 1194 1138 1298 1323 1415 1323 1341 1321 2401 2480 2490 2451
Conv ictions
1190 1162 1166 1177 1310 1303 1333 1333 1180 1156 1161 1110 1017 923
897
1014 1053 1124 1021 1010 1009 1873 1917 1877 1876
Attrition in rape cases: Hungary 1977-2001
700
600
Cases
500
400
300
200
100
0
Reported
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
430
491
434
469
Prosecutions
Conv ictions
542
424
406
398
562
483
622
653
593
622
485
438
457
468
470
438
410
436
417
423
392
346
331
294
321
479
415
499
523
474
505
399
326
328
315
324
298
288
297
278
281
251
219
201
159
199
410
443
400
489
490
460
386
325
291
257
212
236
184
264
238
195
224
203
173
162
157
Good and bad news





Unprecedented interest in developing indicators
Over focus on measuring violence
Uneven starting points
 IPV/VAW
Continuum of interests
 States, organisations, NGOs and academics
Difficult conundrums
 Common definitions across ongoing debates and varied legal contexts
 Not all forms need attention to frequency, severity or incidents



Do not have some official data currently – but not do we have funds for surveys
Need for a few useful measures into MDG/development programmes
Ongoing projects in dialogue and debate