User Tools

Site Tools

INDICATOR 10: % of people who reject intimate partner violence
Why this indicator? What will it measure and provide information for?
The indicator is a measure of attitudes by women and men, girls & boys (aged 15-49) with regard to the acceptability of intimate partner violence. It assesses the level of support for the belief that there are no situations under which a man is justified in hitting or beating his wife (or intimate partner). Rejecting intimate partner violence means that respondents agree that there are no situations or conditions when it is acceptable or justifiable for a man to physically, emotionally, or economically abuse his intimate partner. Changes in attitudes towards gender-based violence may be more achievable within the timeframe of the CARE 2020 Program Strategy than changes in reported levels of violence over the last 12 months (the other two GBV indicators), as increased public awareness of the problem of GBV can often lead to increases in levels of reported violence, at least in the short-term. Attitudinal questions towards wife-beating have traditionally been used to assess the acceptance of certain gender roles.
What Sustainable Development Goal is the indicator connected to? This indicator is linked to SDG 5: “Achieve gender equity and empower all women and girls”, and in particular, SDG target 5.2 (“Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres, including trafficking and sexual and other types of exploitation”). It is not one of the formal indicators for tracking this SDG target, but is widely captured through DHS surveys and other means.
Definitions and key terms
Rejecting intimate partner violence requires the respondent to indicate “no” to all five options, in response to the standard DHS question: “In your opinion, is a husband justified in hitting or beating his wife in the following situations: a) If she goes out without telling him? b) If she refuses to have sex with him? c) If she argues with him? d) If she neglects the children? e) If she burns the food?)“.
CARE defines gender-based violence as: a harmful act or threat based on a person’s sex or gender identity. It includes physical, sexual and psychological abuse, coercion, denial of liberty and economic deprivation whether occurring in public or private spheres. GBV is rooted in unjust and unequal power relations and structures and rigid social and cultural norms.
Some countries have adapted the standard DHS questionnaire to their social contexts by including different circumstances, such as if the woman spends too much money, if she disobeys, if she is unfaithful, if she insults him, if she neglects household chores, if she disrespects her in-laws, and if she speaks about the need to protect herself against HIV/AIDS. CARE should consult with national statistics offices or gender ministries before adapting the questionnaire in any context, to ensure compatibility with other studies.
Data and information required to calculate the indicator
* Numerator: Women & girls - and boys & men - who reject all 5 reasons for justifying a husband beating his wife, as determined by the question above
* Denominator: Total of women & girls - and boys & men – surveyed
* Questions are addressed to men and women surveyed, aged 15-49, regardless of their marital status and experience of violence.
Suggested method for data collection
* This information is collected via surveys, typically DHS surveys which include standard questions for obtaining data for this indicator (question 932 of the woman's DHS questionnaire, & question 618 of the man's – see Data should only be collected by teams with specialized knowledge and pre-training to collect this type of sensitive data.
Possible data sources
* Household surveys (DHS) conducted typically every 3 or 5 years. In some cases, data are available for disaggregation at sub-national level.
* Other surveys on violence against women or gender-based violence.
* UNICEF maintains a global database - - with estimates for this indicator, disaggregated by age, place of residence and wealth quintile by country and for some (flexible) regional groupings with sufficient population coverage. Fully comparable data are currently available for approximately 56 low- and middle-income countries.
* If feasible and appropriate, CARE may also commission household surveys, especially if sampling to represent marginalized impact populations or specific geographic areas, not covered by national statistics. However, data should not be collected by CARE or research partner teams unless they have specialized knowledge and pre-training to collect this type of sensitive data.
Resources needed for data collection
If the information will be gathered from secondary data sources, no investment is required for gathering this indicator at the national level. However, your evaluation may want to assess this directly in specific geographic areas or sub-populations or include questions on CARE’s contribution to the change, which will require resources for conducting surveys or interviews or focus groups.
Reporting results for this indicator: number of people for which the change happened
* How many women or men have interacted directly with CARE GBV programming? And with CARE programming more generally?
* Has there been an improvement of the % of people that reject intimate partner violence? Or has it worsened? Why?
* Given CARE’s role and presence, to what extent has CARE contributed to this change and at which level (national, in a particular region or part of the country, marginally)? Please explain.
* Are there changes in relation to responses to the individual 5 options for which violence might be justified (see the question above), even if not reflected in changes in those absolutely rejecting physical violence towards a wife by a husband?
Questions for guiding the analysis and interpretation of data (explaining the how and why the change happened, and how CARE contributed to the change)
* How has CARE contributed to the change? What were CARE’s main strategies for contributing to this change (e.g. shifting attitudes of community influencers or service providers, community awareness raising, advocacy and policy change, supporting social accountability and gender-equitable participation in decision making, a combination of strategies, other ways)?
* How do the results for this quantified indicator compare to qualitative findings on women’s, men’s and community influencers’ attitudes, norms and experiences related to gender based violence?
* With regards to those that did not answer 'no' to all the questions, what were the internal differences? What actions were considered more or less acceptable? Are there any difference between the sexes, youth and adults?
* What might explain any changes in relation to responses to the 5 options (see the question above)? Why might there be changes in response to some options, but not in others?
* Have there been any changes in attitudes since the past measurement, has it stayed the same or worsened?
* Is the change in attitudes towards GBV influenced by increased participation of women in decisions related to their lives (reproductive, political or economic decision making, etc.)?
* Is the change in attitudes towards GBV influenced by new or amended policies, legislation, programs, spaces and/or budgets, or widespread efforts to change public attitudes or social norms?
Other considerations
There are significant ethical considerations and do no harm principles in seeking to measure prevalence of or attitudes towards violence against women and girls, and so it is essential that research partners with experience in this area are used, applying international guidance and tools in ways that are appropriate to the local context.
indicator_10.txt · Last modified: 2018/12/11 21:03 (external edit)