In 2023, almost one out of three ever-partnered Turkish women had experienced domestic violence. In comparison, only 12 percent of women living in Switzerland had experienced domestic violence in their lifetime.

In 2024, domestic violence was still a global issue affecting women all around the world. One of the main issues with domestic violence was the acceptance and justification of it. For instance, more than ******************** still considered a husband to be justified in beating his wife if she was to neglect the children or refuse sexual relations.

A collection of resources on combating domestic violence, including awareness-raising campaigns, support services and trainings in the area of combating domestic violence at a national, EU and International level.

In 2024, gender-based violence remained a global issue. However, some populations appeared to be more at risk than others. For instance, around *** percent of women with high income aged between 30 and 34 had been subjected to physical or sexual violence in the past year. On the other hand, for women the same age but with low income, the percentage reached ****.

San Marino Legislation Exists on Domestic Violence: 1=Yes; 0=No data was reported at 1.000 NA in 2017. This stayed constant from the previous number of 1.000 NA for 2015. San Marino Legislation Exists on Domestic Violence: 1=Yes; 0=No data is updated yearly, averaging 1.000 NA from Dec 2015 (Median) to 2017, with 2 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 1.000 NA in 2017 and a record low of 1.000 NA in 2017. San Marino Legislation Exists on Domestic Violence: 1=Yes; 0=No data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s San Marino – Table SM.World Bank: Policy and Institutions. Legislation exists on domestic violence is whether there is legislation addressing domestic violence: violence between spouses, within the family or members of the same household, or in interpersonal relationships, including intimate partner violence that is subject to criminal sanctions or provides for protection orders for domestic violence, or the legislation addresses “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” or “harassment” that clearly affects physical or mental health, and it is implied that such behavior is considered domestic violence.; ; World Bank: Women, Business and the Law.; ;

The main purpose of the EU survey on gender-based violence against women and other forms of inter-personal violence (EU-GBV) is to assess the prevalence of violence in order to address the requirements of the Istanbul Convention. The survey covers psychological, physical and sexual violence by intimate partner, physical and sexual violence by non-partner, sexual harassment at work, violence experienced in childhood and stalking by any perpetrator.

The data collection for the first wave (year 2021) was conducted in voluntary bases and took place between September 2020 and March 2024 in the EU countries, based on their national timetables. Eurostat coordinated data collection in 18 Member States (BE, BG, DK, EE, EL, ES, FR, HR, LV, LT, MT, NL, AT, PL, PT, SI, SK, FI). Additionally, Italy agreed to share data from their national survey on violence against women, but the implementation of the survey was postponed from 2022 to 2024 due to administrative difficulties. The indicators disseminated for Italy are based on the last national survey conducted in 2014, given that the prevalence of gender-based violence is not expected to differ significantly over time, specifically for prevalence of lifetime violence, and the indicators will be updated when 2024 survey results will be available. Moreover, indicators on sexual harassment at work disseminated for Italy are based on the national victimisation survey of 2022-2023. To cover the full EU, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) and the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) launched a joint data collection in the eight Member States not covered by Eurostat (CZ, DE, IE, CY, LU, HU, RO, SE) following the EU-GBV manual. Accordingly, data disseminated for wave 2021 and estimated EU-average is based on a joint data collection by Eurostat, FRA and EIGE.

The disseminated indicators focus on violence by perpetrator, disaggregated by type of violence, by time of occurrence, by age and by personal characteristics of the respondent; and on frequency, severity, seriousness and reporting of the experienced violence.

However, it is necessary to point out that survey data might only be a close proxy to real prevalence as survey data depends on the willingness of the respondent to disclose any violence experienced. Therefore, to understand the prevalence of violence and disclosure rates by survey respondents, it is important to take into account the extent to which violence is tolerated in the wider community. For example, in cultures where people are ready to talk about their painful experiences, their answers may reflect more accurately their own experiences rather than community norms. To provide some background on country specific context, few indicators on commonness and awareness of support services are disseminated.

It is essential to avoid using sensitive terms that could cause anxiety or concern when introducing the survey. Accordingly, the general recommendation was that the survey name should be neutral when contacting the respondents. The aim was to avoid alerting any perpetrators of domestic violence to the nature of the survey or frightening off any victims of violence, in order to minimise non-response, as some respondents might be discouraged from taking part if the name of the survey included terms like ‘assault’, ‘sexual violence’, or ‘gender-based violence’.

Majority of countries have followed this recommendation and the title of the survey was translated as survey on health, safety or security and well-being or living conditions; quality of life or relationship survey. Only few countries (BG, SK) used gender-based violence in the title of the survey during data collection and explained that this decision was taken as no issue appeared during testing the survey using the word “violence”, or the word "violence" was used in order to avoid misunderstanding regarding the aim of the survey and to reduce non-response due to the fact that respondents were not aware of the real theme of the survey.

However, the pilot survey results indicate that respondents understood the rationale for the choice of neutral survey name once they had been given an explanation, and agreed that it was right. Due to the sensitivity of the topic, the participating countries were strongly encouraged to include experts on violence against women and/or gender-based violence as well as psychologists and psychotherapists in every step of the survey - from the preparation, through the field work to the data dissemination.

Majority of countries included experts on the topic in the project team: gender statisticians, gender-based violence or violence against women researchers, policy experts, psychologists, social workers, experts working on victim support or NGOs, experts on victimization surveys. External experts were included in the preparation of the survey, training of the interviewers and in order to provide support to the interviewers.

Few countries (MT, FI) established the focus group or expert group consisting of different experts in the field and providing the support to the survey during all phases.

The main purpose of the EU survey on gender-based violence against women and other forms of inter-personal violence (EU-GBV) is to assess the prevalence of violence in order to address the requirements of the Istanbul Convention. The survey covers psychological, physical and sexual violence by intimate partner, physical and sexual violence by non-partner, sexual harassment at work, violence experienced in childhood and stalking by any perpetrator.

The data collection for the first wave (year 2021) was conducted in voluntary bases and took place between September 2020 and March 2024 in the EU countries, based on their national timetables. Eurostat coordinated data collection in 18 Member States (BE, BG, DK, EE, EL, ES, FR, HR, LV, LT, MT, NL, AT, PL, PT, SI, SK, FI). Additionally, Italy agreed to share data from their national survey on violence against women, but the implementation of the survey was postponed from 2022 to 2024 due to administrative difficulties. The indicators disseminated for Italy are based on the last national survey conducted in 2014, given that the prevalence of gender-based violence is not expected to differ significantly over time, specifically for prevalence of lifetime violence, and the indicators will be updated when 2024 survey results will be available. Moreover, indicators on sexual harassment at work disseminated for Italy are based on the national victimisation survey of 2022-2023. To cover the full EU, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) and the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) launched a joint data collection in the eight Member States not covered by Eurostat (CZ, DE, IE, CY, LU, HU, RO, SE) following the EU-GBV manual. Accordingly, data disseminated for wave 2021 and estimated EU-average is based on a joint data collection by Eurostat, FRA and EIGE.

The disseminated indicators focus on violence by perpetrator, disaggregated by type of violence, by time of occurrence, by age and by personal characteristics of the respondent; and on frequency, severity, seriousness and reporting of the experienced violence.

However, it is necessary to point out that survey data might only be a close proxy to real prevalence as survey data depends on the willingness of the respondent to disclose any violence experienced. Therefore, to understand the prevalence of violence and disclosure rates by survey respondents, it is important to take into account the extent to which violence is tolerated in the wider community. For example, in cultures where people are ready to talk about their painful experiences, their answers may reflect more accurately their own experiences rather than community norms. To provide some background on country specific context, few indicators on commonness and awareness of support services are disseminated.

It is essential to avoid using sensitive terms that could cause anxiety or concern when introducing the survey. Accordingly, the general recommendation was that the survey name should be neutral when contacting the respondents. The aim was to avoid alerting any perpetrators of domestic violence to the nature of the survey or frightening off any victims of violence, in order to minimise non-response, as some respondents might be discouraged from taking part if the name of the survey included terms like ‘assault’, ‘sexual violence’, or ‘gender-based violence’.

Majority of countries have followed this recommendation and the title of the survey was translated as survey on health, safety or security and well-being or living conditions; quality of life or relationship survey. Only few countries (BG, SK) used gender-based violence in the title of the survey during data collection and explained that this decision was taken as no issue appeared during testing the survey using the word “violence”, or the word "violence" was used in order to avoid misunderstanding regarding the aim of the survey and to reduce non-response due to the fact that respondents were not aware of the real theme of the survey.

However, the pilot survey results indicate that respondents understood the rationale for the choice of neutral survey name once they had been given an explanation, and agreed that it was right. Due to the sensitivity of the topic, the participating countries were strongly encouraged to include experts on violence against women and/or gender-based violence as well as psychologists and psychotherapists in every step of the survey - from the preparation, through the field work to the data dissemination.

Majority of countries included experts on the topic in the project team: gender statisticians, gender-based violence or violence against women researchers, policy experts, psychologists, social workers, experts working on victim support or NGOs, experts on victimization surveys. External experts were included in the preparation of the survey, training of the interviewers and in order to provide support to the interviewers.

Few countries (MT, FI) established the focus group or expert group consisting of different experts in the field and providing the support to the survey during all phases.

How does donor domestic ideology and partisan politics shape the lives of people in aid-dependent countries? In this paper, we study the impact of the United States Mexico City Policy, which—when in place—prohibits the disbursement of United States aid funds to foreign Non-Governmental Organizations that provide information or services related to abortion care. Since its 1984 inception, every Democratic president has rescinded it, while every Republican has reinstated it. While previous global public health studies reveal how the Mexico City Policy has actually increased unwanted pregnancies and unsafe abortion rates, we argue that these unintended consequences go further than previously understood. We argue that when women lose access to abortion care, they are more likely to lose their lives and suffer life-changing injuries due to violence by their partners. Using global data on United States aid and the health burden caused by intimate partner violence against women in up to 204 countries and territories between 1993 and 2019, we show that the burden of deaths and disability attributed to intimate partner violence increases by approximately 16 percent when the Mexico City Policy is in place.

The main purpose of the EU survey on gender-based violence against women and other forms of inter-personal violence (EU-GBV) is to assess the prevalence of violence in order to address the requirements of the Istanbul Convention. The survey covers psychological, physical and sexual violence by intimate partner, physical and sexual violence by non-partner, sexual harassment at work, violence experienced in childhood and stalking by any perpetrator.

The data collection for the first wave (year 2021) was conducted in voluntary bases and took place between September 2020 and March 2024 in the EU countries, based on their national timetables. Eurostat coordinated data collection in 18 Member States (BE, BG, DK, EE, EL, ES, FR, HR, LV, LT, MT, NL, AT, PL, PT, SI, SK, FI). Additionally, Italy agreed to share data from their national survey on violence against women, but the implementation of the survey was postponed from 2022 to 2024 due to administrative difficulties. The indicators disseminated for Italy are based on the last national survey conducted in 2014, given that the prevalence of gender-based violence is not expected to differ significantly over time, specifically for prevalence of lifetime violence, and the indicators will be updated when 2024 survey results will be available. Moreover, indicators on sexual harassment at work disseminated for Italy are based on the national victimisation survey of 2022-2023. To cover the full EU, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) and the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) launched a joint data collection in the eight Member States not covered by Eurostat (CZ, DE, IE, CY, LU, HU, RO, SE) following the EU-GBV manual. Accordingly, data disseminated for wave 2021 and estimated EU-average is based on a joint data collection by Eurostat, FRA and EIGE.

The disseminated indicators focus on violence by perpetrator, disaggregated by type of violence, by time of occurrence, by age and by personal characteristics of the respondent; and on frequency, severity, seriousness and reporting of the experienced violence.

However, it is necessary to point out that survey data might only be a close proxy to real prevalence as survey data depends on the willingness of the respondent to disclose any violence experienced. Therefore, to understand the prevalence of violence and disclosure rates by survey respondents, it is important to take into account the extent to which violence is tolerated in the wider community. For example, in cultures where people are ready to talk about their painful experiences, their answers may reflect more accurately their own experiences rather than community norms. To provide some background on country specific context, few indicators on commonness and awareness of support services are disseminated.

It is essential to avoid using sensitive terms that could cause anxiety or concern when introducing the survey. Accordingly, the general recommendation was that the survey name should be neutral when contacting the respondents. The aim was to avoid alerting any perpetrators of domestic violence to the nature of the survey or frightening off any victims of violence, in order to minimise non-response, as some respondents might be discouraged from taking part if the name of the survey included terms like ‘assault’, ‘sexual violence’, or ‘gender-based violence’.

Majority of countries have followed this recommendation and the title of the survey was translated as survey on health, safety or security and well-being or living conditions; quality of life or relationship survey. Only few countries (BG, SK) used gender-based violence in the title of the survey during data collection and explained that this decision was taken as no issue appeared during testing the survey using the word “violence”, or the word "violence" was used in order to avoid misunderstanding regarding the aim of the survey and to reduce non-response due to the fact that respondents were not aware of the real theme of the survey.

However, the pilot survey results indicate that respondents understood the rationale for the choice of neutral survey name once they had been given an explanation, and agreed that it was right. Due to the sensitivity of the topic, the participating countries were strongly encouraged to include experts on violence against women and/or gender-based violence as well as psychologists and psychotherapists in every step of the survey - from the preparation, through the field work to the data dissemination.

Majority of countries included experts on the topic in the project team: gender statisticians, gender-based violence or violence against women researchers, policy experts, psychologists, social workers, experts working on victim support or NGOs, experts on victimization surveys. External experts were included in the preparation of the survey, training of the interviewers and in order to provide support to the interviewers.

Few countries (MT, FI) established the focus group or expert group consisting of different experts in the field and providing the support to the survey during all phases.

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) is an ongoing nationally representative survey that assesses experiences of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence among adult women and men in the United States and for each individual state. The survey focused exclusively on violence and collects information about Sexual violence by any perpetrator, including information related to rape, being made to penetrate someone else, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and non-contact unwanted sexual experiences Stalking, including the use of technologies such as text messages, emails, monitoring devices (e.g., cameras and GPS, or global positioning system devices), by perpetrators known and unknown to the victim Physical violence by an intimate partner Psychological aggression by an intimate partner, including information on expressive forms of aggression and coercive control Control of reproductive or sexual health by an intimate partner In addition to collecting lifetime and 12 month prevalence data on sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence, the survey collects information on the age at the time of the first victimization, demographic characteristics of respondents, demographic characteristics of perpetrators (age, sex, race/ethnicity) and detailed information about the context in which these types of violence occur. The primary objectives of the survey are to describe the prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence in the United States; who is most likely to experience these forms of violence; the context in which sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence are experienced; and the consequences and impacts of these forms of violence. The data file contains 18,957 cases and 26,114 variables.

Abstract

The WORLD Policy Analysis Center (WORLD) is committed to improving the quantity and quality of globally comparative data available to policymakers, citizens, civil society, and researchers on laws and policies that work to support human rights, including economic opportunity, social and civic engagement, human health, development, well-being, and equity. This dataset is part of a series that assesses progress in laws across African countries that lay the foundation for equal opportunities in childhood and gender equality. Domestic violence has devastating consequences for women's health, economic security, and autonomy, as well as consequences for children's health and nutrition. WORLD's Protection from Domestic Violence, Africa 1990-2021 dataset was created to assess progress on laws prohibiting domestic violence through a systematic review of legislation governing domestic violence from 1990 to 2021 in 51 African countries. A public use legislative repository is available with the legislation used to code each African country. In some cases the laws made available are only the recent laws and not all the laws that relate to the coded data in the longitudinal African datasets.

Analysis unit

Laws

Kind of data

Other

Mode of data collection

Other

Abstract

Violence against women (VAW), in its many forms and manifestations, and across all settings, is a violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Around the world, many women experience violence regardless of age, class, race and ethnicity. Most of this violence is driven by the fact that they are women, and related to gender roles in society. Violence against women is predominately perpetrated by men, and most often by intimate partners. According to most recent global estimates, 35% of women aged 15 years or older globally have experienced physical and/or sexual violence during their lifetime (Devries et al., 2013; WHO, 2013). Intimate partner violence is the leading cause of homicide in women globally (Stockl et al., 2013) and has many other major short- and long-term health consequences (WHO, 2013). The economic and social costs associated with VAW are significant, and global evidence shows that violence consistently undermines development efforts at various levels, affecting physical, human and social capital (WHO, 2005). In Cambodia, the state of research on violence against women points toward widespread experiences of violence across the country (CDHS, 2012; Fulu et al., 21013). Women of all cultures and classes are subjected to many forms of physical, psychological, sexual and economic violence. This includes, but is not limited to intimate partner violence (IPV), rape and sexual assault, sexual harassment, acid violence and trafficking (MoWA, 2008). The Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC) has made a strong commitment to addressing violence against women by introducing a number of legislative and policy reforms including domestic violence legislation and a national action plan. Cambodia has demonstrated its strong commitment to promoting gender equality and ending VAW by ratifying several core international human rights conventions. In addition, there is widespread recognition among Cambodian government leaders that having quality data on the prevalence and health and other consequences of different forms of VAW is essential to increase awareness, inform evidencebased programming and policies, including the NAPVAW, and to monitor progress in the implementations of such interventions. Between 2014-2015, to fill the identified knowledge gaps, the Royal Government of Cambodia with support from the World Health Organization (WHO) and UN Women conducted a national prevalence study using the WHO multicountry study methodology. This methodology was selected because it has been widely used and is known to produce reliable data, that can be used for cross-country comparisons, and it adheres to internationally recognized ethical and safety standards.

Specific Objectives: Among specific objectives, the following deserve special mention:

ESTIMATE THE PREVALENCE AND FREQUENCY of different forms of VAW: physical, sexual, emotional and economic violence against women by intimate partners, as well as sexual and physical violence by perpetrators other than partners (in this document also referred to as ‘nonpartners’) since the age of 15, and sexual violence before the age of 15;

DETERMINE THE ASSOCIATION of physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence with a range of health and other outcomes;

IDENTIFY FACTORS that may be associated with either reducing (protective factors) or increasing (risk factors) women’s risk of hysical and/or sexual intimate partner violence; DOCUMENT THE STRATEGIES and services that women use to cope with violence by an intimate partner.

INCREASE NATIONAL CAPACITY and collaboration among researchers and women’s organisations working on domestic violence;

INCREASE AWARENESS about and sensitivity to partner violence among researchers, policymakers and health care providers;

CONTRIBUTE TO THE DEVELOPMENT of a network of people committed to addressing

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Households
• Individuals

Universe

All resident households in Cambodia

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

• The survey sample design was developed by the NIS in the Ministry of Planning. A multi-stage sampling strategy was used based on a sampling frame that took into consideration the 24 provinces in the country delineated into a total of 225 districts for a total of 14,172 "villages" or 28,701 enumeration areas (EAs) in the country. The sample is self-weighted at the household level.

• The results achieved on VAW 2015 sampling design is already completed and describes as follows: a.Two level of survey results will be produces as: first at National level and second sub-national (Urban and Rural) b.Survey methods of VAW 2015 were designed bases on the three- stage stratified cluster sampling. b1. First stage: selected the sample Enumeration area consisting of 200 sample EAs b2. Second stage: selected the sample households consisting of 4,000 households b3. Selected the sample Women consisting of 4,000 eligible women

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Cleaning operations

The questionnaire was programmed into electronic format using CAPI software, which allowed interviewers to enter the responses to questions directly into the electronic devises that were uploaded on a daily basis. Data entry was therefore not required. The software directly checked internal consistency, range and error checking, and skip patterns of the responses at the point of entering the answers during the interview. The uploaded files were aggregated at a central level and were immediately available for data analysis.

Response rate

Eligible woman response rate: 98% Household response rate: 99.5% Household refused: 0.5%

Sampling error estimates

Sample size calculations: Z (95% Confidence Interval), the value of 1.96 P = 30%. In many countries were data are available, lifetime intimate partner sexual violence often reaches 25-30% and lifetime intimate partner physical violence is 65-70%. In a normal distribution the highest variance for a factor would be at the 50% level (resulting in needing a very large sample) and the lowest variance would be at the extremes (needing the smallest sample). We compromise at 30% which is identical to assuming 70% so the resulting sample size is large, but not unmanageable. DEFF = 2. We have used this value for all the national surveys, to date. E = 0.02291. We calculate the sample size using margin of error 2.291%.

The sample size results are as follow: Confidence Level :1.96 Margin of Error (MOE): 0.02291 Baseline levels of the indicator: 0.3 Design effect (Deff): 2 Sample size (n) - Female: 3,074

BackgroundViolence against women by an intimate partner (DV) is a serious public health and human rights issue. Attitudes justifying DV strongly predict its perpetration and victimisation. This paper presents gendered ecological analyses of the societal acceptance of DV in 49 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) across geographical regions.Methods and findingsWe utilised data from 49 Demographic and Health Surveys conducted between 2005 and 2017, United Nations Statistics and topic-specific meta-databases. DV acceptance was measured as the justification of ‘wife-beating’ in at least one of five circumstances, and by the summative scale. Stepwise multiple linear regression examined country-level social, economic and political empowerment predictors of societal acceptance of DV amongst women, men, and the aggregate gender difference. Women were more likely than men to justify DV in Sub-Saharan Africa and South (east) Asia with societal acceptance of DV being more widespread in these regions compared with Latin America, the Caribbean, Central/West Asia and Europe. Political conflict and limited economic rights for women were associated with higher levels of DV acceptance amongst women and men. Men in more democratic countries were less likely to justify DV. Amongst women, higher national female literacy rates predicted lower levels of justification. There were higher levels of DV acceptance amongst women and a wider aggregate gender difference in countries with a larger representation of women in national parliament.ConclusionJustification of DV is widespread amongst women and men in LMICs with acceptance rates varying across countries and regions. Gender differences in the impact of contextual factors on DV acceptance supports a gendered approach to national-level interventions. Our findings highlight the need for tailored interventions targeting DV acceptance in conflict-impacted societies. The emphasis of inter(national) policies on the ‘empowerment’ domains of widely-used gender (in)equality indices need to be coupled with strategies tackling discriminatory gender norms.

This survey shows a greater awareness of domestic violence and desire for tougher action to clamp down on it. Only 2% of Europeans are unaware of domestic violence. The survey showed that one European in four knows a woman among friends and family who is a victim of domestic violence. One in five of the EU citizens surveyed said they know someone who commits domestic violence in their circle of friends and family. 87% of those surveyed believed that the EU should be involved in the fight against domestic violence. The survey follows on from a previous Eurobarometer survey conducted in 1999 in the 15 Member States, which comprised the EU at the time, and hence for these countries offers a comparative analysis of the results of the two surveys. The survey follows on from a previous Eurobarometer survey conducted in 1999 in the 15 Member States which comprised the EU at the time (henceforth described as the EU15). The report at hand analyses the evolution of responses in the EU15 in the intervening decade, and will offer a comparative analysis of the results of the two surveys. However, it will also analyse data from the newer Member States, for which no trend comparisons are possible.

The results by volumes are distributed as follows:

• Volume A: Countries
• Volume AA: Groups of countries
• Volume A' (AP): Trends
• Volume AA' (AAP): Trends of groups of countries
• Volume B: EU/socio-demographics
• Volume B' (BP) : Trends of EU/ socio-demographics
• Volume C: Country/socio-demographics ---- Researchers may also contact GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences: https://www.gesis.org/eurobarometer

Venezuela VE: Legislation Exists on Domestic Violence: 1=Yes; 0=No data was reported at 1.000 NA in 2017. This stayed constant from the previous number of 1.000 NA for 2015. Venezuela VE: Legislation Exists on Domestic Violence: 1=Yes; 0=No data is updated yearly, averaging 1.000 NA from Dec 2013 (Median) to 2017, with 3 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 1.000 NA in 2017 and a record low of 1.000 NA in 2017. Venezuela VE: Legislation Exists on Domestic Violence: 1=Yes; 0=No data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Venezuela – Table VE.World Bank.WDI: Policy and Institutions. Legislation exists on domestic violence is whether there is legislation addressing domestic violence: violence between spouses, within the family or members of the same household, or in interpersonal relationships, including intimate partner violence that is subject to criminal sanctions or provides for protection orders for domestic violence, or the legislation addresses “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” or “harassment” that clearly affects physical or mental health, and it is implied that such behavior is considered domestic violence.; ; World Bank: Women, Business and the Law.; ;

Background:

Violence against women has multi-dimensional perpetuation in in a society affecting wide range of relations. There have been multiple studies done on this topic and interested ML practitioners are encouraged to further have look at the report published in 2008 in National Research on Domestic Violence against Women in Turkey (https://evaw-global-database.unwomen.org/en/countries/asia/turkey/2008/national-research-on-domestic-violence-against-women-in-turkey), refresh the conclusions, and indicate the improvements made from 2008 to 2021.

Source

This data is primarily obtained from http://anitsayac.com/ . Apart from any errors incurred during data gathering, the data presented here is in the as is form.

Inspiration

Typical questions that can should be sought out answered via this data - Most dangerous city/province for women - Top most reason for violence against women in Turkey - Average age of victims at the time of crime - Most probably perpetrator - relation involved in the most number of crimes against women in Turkey

In late March of 2020, many governments in Latin America imposed lockdowns in order to avoid the further spread of the virus SARS-CoV-2. As a result of the isolation, a steep rise of gender violence and family abuse cases was identified in several countries in the region. For instance, Mexico's domestic violence reports increased 25 percent in March 2020, in comparison to the same month of the previous year. In Argentina, a hotline for sexual violence victims received more than two thirds more phone calls in April 2020, compared to a year earlier. Argentina is one of the Latin American countries with the highest number of femicide victims.

National IPV/SV Survey

Examining Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence in the United States

By Health [source]

About this dataset

This NISVS Intimate and Sexual Violence Survey dataset captures detailed information on intimate partner violence (IPV) and sexual violence experiences among U.S. adults aged 18 years or older. It contains statistics on the prevalence of lifetime IPV, as well as additional data on the types of intimate partner violence (psychological aggression, physical assault, sexual assault), and details more recent IPV experience; including experiencing sexual coercion or being forced to do sexual acts against one's will. Additionally, it records measures of the frequency of experiencing different forms psychological abuse; such as feeling scared by a partner's use or threat of force and feeling like one had no power over important issues in their life due to an abusive partner. Further characteristics such as respondent demographics are also included in the dataset to further explore disparities around incidence of IPV and SVP experience across various populations. With a better understanding about these trends, policy makers can take targeted action towards creating responsible legislation that addresses this pervasive problem in our society today

More Datasets

For more datasets, click here.

Featured Notebooks

• 🚨 Your notebook can be here! 🚨!

How to use the dataset

This dataset provides data from the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS), which collects information about intimate partner violence (IPV) and sexual violence (SV). The survey was conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from 2010-2012. This dataset includes key statistics from the surveys, with an emphasis on IPV, SV, and other types of intimate partner violence.

To get started with this dataset, take a look at the variables included in it. There are several types of variables – demographic characteristics like age; report tables that include numbers associated with different forms of IPV or SV; summary charts that show percentages associated with certain activities or events; and full reports detailing information on various topics related to IPV/SV.

For more detailed analysis, you can explore specific characteristics in different subsets of this data. For example, you might look at patterns by gender, race/ethnicity or geography. Or you could compare the frequency of certain forms of abuse over time across different groups who participated in the survey. You could also use visualizations like line graphs or scatter plots to reveal patterns between variables that were not immediately obvious when looking at only raw numbers or percentages in tables.

When analyzing results using this dataset you’ll want to be sure to take into account any potential limitations due to sampling methods used when collecting this data as well as any issues caused by variations across states’ reporting standards depending on their understanding of specific terms included in their formulation of reporting questions for participation in this survey project. It is important to keep these potential sources for variations alive when creating research questions and hypothesis associated with your own analyses related to choosing appropriate indicators as partof developing effective measuresfor comparison purposesacross differentpartici-pants participatinginthisdataset environment .

Ultimately though we hope that this dataset serves as a helpful resource when evaluating trends surrounding IPV/SV both nationally among all states included alongwith representativelocally relevantpopu- lation groups in order to promote awareness needed around monitoring preventative measures which deter people from engaginginbehaviors leading toparticularoutcomes identified through aninterpretationofthisdataset source material available via Kaggle platform interface provided hereinby subjectexpertiseand resources available within academic literature used foranalyzingdata captured within NISVS Inti/Sexualviolence Surv collection according prescribed analytical protocols suggested here- within forthiguidebooklet offeredtosupportsuchinquiries related

Research Ideas

• Examining county-level variations of national intimate partner and sexual violence incidents over time.
• Analyzing the demographics of individuals affected by such violence to better understand marginalized identities and communities at risk.
• Investigating how intimate partner and sexual violence intersects with other risk factors, including income, location, age, gender identity, race/ethnicity etc., in order to identify potential disparities in service a...

Financial inclusion is an area of growing global interest in women’s empowerment policy and programming. While increased economic autonomy may be expected to reduce the prevalence of intimate partner violence, the mechanisms and contexts through which this relationship manifests are not well understood. This analysis aims to assess the relationship between women’s financial inclusion and recent intimate partner violence using nationally-representative data from 112 countries worldwide. Levels of both financial inclusion and recent intimate partner violence varied substantially across countries (ranging from 2–100%, and 1–46%, respectively), and across regions. In multivariate global analyses, increased levels of women’s financial inclusion were associated with lower levels of recent intimate partner violence after accounting for asset-based enablers of economic autonomy and gender norms; this relationship was lost upon the inclusion of measures of national context (i.e., development and fragility). These results underscore that the relationship between financial inclusion and recent intimate partner violence is complex, follows many pathways, and is affected by context. In low and middle income countries, asset-based enablers of economic autonomy, gender norms and national context explained much of the relationship between financial inclusion and recent intimate partner violence. In those low and middle income countries with high levels of controlling behavior by male spouses, financial inclusion was associated with higher levels of recent intimate partner violence. These findings further suggest that initiatives that aim to prevent intimate partner violence by way of increased economic autonomy may be ineffective in the absence of broader social change and support, and indeed, as seen in countries with higher levels of men’s controlling behavior, backlash may increase the risk of violence. Efforts to improve women’s financial inclusion need to recognize that its relationship with intimate partner violence is complex, and that it requires an enabling environment supportive of women’s rights and autonomy.

Users can access data related to international women’s health as well as data on population and families, education, work, power and decision making, violence against women, poverty, and environment. Background World’s Women Reports are prepared by the Statistics Division of the United Nations Department for Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). Reports are produced in five year intervals and began in 1990. A major theme of the reports is comparing women’s situation globally to that of men in a variety of fields. Health data is available related to life expectancy, cause of death, chronic disease, HIV/AIDS, prenatal care, maternal morbidity, reproductive health, contraceptive use, induced abortion, mortality of children under 5, and immunization. User functionality Users can download full text or specific chapter versions of the reports in color and black and white. A limited number of graphs are available for download directly from the website. Topics include obesity and underweight children. Data Notes The report and data tables are available for download in PDF format. The next report is scheduled to be released in 2015. The most recent report was released in 2010.