Breaking the Cycle of Gender-based Violence

Translating Evidence into Action for Victim/Survivor-centred Governance

Report

2 October 2023

3. Building holistic and effective systems to tackle gender-based violence

Abstract

This chapter examines elements of the whole-of-state approach to addressing gender-based violence (GBV). It explores how governments can build effective responses to GBV through holistic policies that engage all state actors and account for the experiences of all victims/survivors. The chapter concludes with an examination of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on GBV systems in OECD member countries and highlights good practices and recommendations to improve whole-of-state systems to tackle GBV. The findings are based on 26 countries’ responses to the 2022 OECD Survey on Strengthening Governance and Survivor/Victim-centric Approaches to End GBV (2022 OECD GBV Survey).

In this report, “gender” and “gender-based violence” are interpretated by countries taking into account international obligations, as well as national legislation.

Key findings

Successful GBV policies are built on long-term commitment of all state actors. To this end, all surveyed countries reported having developed important commitments to ending GBV. In this respect, 77% of surveyed countries (20 out of 26) have adopted GBV strategies or policies that cover multiple forms of GBV.
Similarly, 88% of countries (23 out of 26) reported putting in place co-ordination mechanisms, with a view towards improving the effectiveness of whole-of-government and whole-of-state systems. In addition, although recognition of the importance of vertical co-ordination mechanisms across levels of government is increasing, significant challenges were reported in implementing them in several OECD countries.
Notably, despite the growing trend across OECD countries to adopt comprehensive GBV strategies, adequate funding remains a challenge. Of the countries surveyed, 50% (12 out of 24) reported not having a specific budget to fund their GBV plans and programmes.
In addition, availability of data on the incidence of GBV remains a significant challenge, given the high rates of nonreporting. Understanding the real extent of GBV, as well as the strategies that are effective in its prevention and in responding to it, needs to be supported by robust data from several sources, including administrative data, population-based surveys and international surveys. International surveys are far from widespread, highlighting the need for better cross-national co-operation.
In this context, while most OECD countries surveyed indicated that they collect administrative data on GBV, countries struggle to collect data from victims/survivors through the service providers who interact with them. Only 42% of countries (11 out of 26) obtain data from non-governmental organisations. Only a few countries reported that statistics institutions were enlisted as part of implementing national policies and strategies.
Survey responses also indicated the lack of disaggregated and intersectional data relating to various forms of GBV, but countries have stepped up efforts to disaggregate data on victims/survivors and perpetrators. Through administrative data sources and/or population-based surveys, all respondent countries (24 out of 24) reported collecting data on victims/survivors and perpetrators. However, these efforts are not consistent, as there are several gaps within countries: 29% of respondent countries (7 out of 24) did not collect data on perpetrators through both administrative sources and population-based surveys. In addition, all respondent countries (23 out of 23) reported collecting data on different forms of GBV through administrative sources and/or population-based surveys. Most countries collected data on the most common forms of GBV and only 13% of countries collected data on economic violence (3 out of 23), 30% of countries reported gathering data on psychological and technology-facilitated violence (7 out of 23).
A key stage in a holistic approach to GBV is primary prevention and risk management, with a view to assessing the risk of the recurrence of violence and to assessing the risk of lethal violence. Of the countries surveyed, 66% reported developing and/or certifying tools to be used for GBV screening (16 out of 24) and 70% for GBV risk assessment and management (17 out of 24), such as MARAC, B-SAFER and SARA, primarily focusing on intimate partner violence and domestic violence. At the same time, countries reported that linking risk assessment and management efficiently remains a challenge, as does information-sharing across agencies.
There is a broad consensus on the importance of monitoring and evaluation, and most countries rely on internal review mechanisms to do so. The institutions providing oversight are usually Ombudsmen’s offices and parliamentary committees dedicated to gender equality. However, only 33% of countries (8 out of 24) reported using an Independent Human Rights Commission. The 2022 OECD GBV Survey revealed that external review mechanisms are rarely used in OECD countries.
While it is essential that GBV responses be ensured during times of crisis, as they heighten victims’/survivors’ vulnerabilities, 56% of countries surveyed (14 out of 25) had not adopted specific crisis plans. Several countries reported struggling with ensuring interinstitutional co-ordination and continued funding for GBV response in a context where social, justice and health support systems were overwhelmed or had collapsed.

3.1. Introduction

This chapter highlights country practices in putting in place a whole-of-government framework to address GBV, including developing holistic and intersectional policies, and dedicated responses to several forms of GBV. In particular, it notes that, as part of the OECD GBV Governance Framework (OECD, 2021[1]), systems are a crucial element of a whole-of-government framework to address GBV, which encompasses the overall structure of the GBV response, ranging from policies, laws, and programmes to accountability and monitoring elements. Robust GBV systems enable states to respond to the many contexts and needs of GBV victims/survivors and potential victims/survivors, in an effective, intersectional1 and co-ordinated fashion. Box ‎3.1 below outlines the key elements of the Systems Pillar of the OECD GBV Governance Framework.

Box ‎3.1. Key elements of the GBV Systems Pillar

A key element of the OECD GBV Governance Framework is a robust, whole-of-government approach that relies on the following key elements: the government has developed a whole-of-government framework committed to addressing GBV across all areas of life, including during times of crisis, through holistic GBV policies.

The framework outlines a clear vision for addressing the government’s overarching goals and expectations.
Governments establish a holistic approach to GBV by outlining differentiated actions and objectives within the framework.
The framework identifies key state actors who will develop, implement and oversee GBV policy, and clearly outlines their roles and responsibilities.
The framework outlines timelines for implementation and review and includes provisions for monitoring and evaluation.
The framework contains policies, laws and dedicated responses to address several forms of GBV, including: intimate partner violence and domestic violence; physical, sexual, emotional and psychological violence; workplace violence; technology-facilitated violence; criminal harassment or stalking; human trafficking; “honour”-based violence; female genital mutilation; underage and forced marriage; and other forms of GBV relevant to the specific national context. The framework encompasses dedicated policies, programmes and services to prevent and protect against GBV and hold perpetrators accountable in different institutional settings, especially those where the risks of GBV are high. For example, depending on the country context, this may include the military, schools and universities, public- and private-sector workplaces, prisons and immigration detention centres. The framework links to the country’s broader gender equality vision and strategy. The framework considers the connection between GBV and other issues affected by gender inequality, such as access to housing, employment, affordable childcare and a minimum living wage. The framework includes crisis management plans or contingency plans for addressing GBV during crises such as pandemics, natural disasters and/or economic recessions. These plans ensure a continuation of policy implementation, service provision and other activities, and identify emergency measures that can be taken if necessary.

Source: OECD (2021[2]), Eliminating Gender-based Violence: Governance and Survivor/Victim-centred Approaches, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/42121347-en.

3.2. Towards a whole-of-state and systems approach to end GBV

3.2.1. Whole-of-state GBV approaches are now more common, but securing resources is still a challenge

A whole-of-state framework calls for establishing holistic policies, laws and dedicated responses to address various forms of GBV, including sexual and online violence, intimate partner violence (IPV), child marriage and FGM. In this context, 77% of the OECD countries surveyed (20 out of 26) reported putting in place national strategies or plans on GBV (see Box ‎3.2), while 38% reported making GBV a key pillar in broader gender equality strategies (15% of countries had both).

Some other countries have integrated GBV objectives in plans addressing other types of crimes or vulnerabilities. An example of this emerged in Greece, where the National Action Plan for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities devotes its ninth objective to “Women with disabilities” and includes actions to prevent and combat gender-based violence against women and girls with disabilities – including instances of forced abortion and sterilisation. Countries including Greece, Portugal and the United States reported including objectives relating to GBV in national action plans on human trafficking. Luxembourg also reported including objectives to combat GBV in its National Action Plan on Affective and Sexual Health.

In terms of timelines, the majority of surveyed countries reported having two- to five-year term strategies or action plans (largely linked to the strategies of the government in office). Belgium, Finland, Greece, Italy and Mexico take this approach. Only a few countries, such as Australia, Costa Rica, Portugal and Sweden, reported strategies for GBV over a time frame of 10 years. While they allow for greater flexibility, short-term strategies make them more vulnerable in most countries during changes of government.

Box ‎3.2. Canada: An example of a comprehensive stand-alone GBV plan

Canada’s federal strategy “It’s Time: Canada’s Strategy to Prevent and Address Gender-Based Violence” is a whole-of-government approach to preventing GBV, supporting survivors and their families, and promoting responsive legal and justice systems. The strategy brings together all federal initiatives to prevent and address GBV in its multiple forms under the same structure.

The Strategy includes the creation of the Knowledge Centre, housed within Women and Gender Equality Canada (WAGE). The GBV Knowledge Centre’s online platform compiles resources and research into a single platform, providing information on federal funding opportunities related to GBV and searchable databases that bring together existing data, evidence and federal initiatives on GBV.

The Strategy also includes an intersectoral approach that aims to address gaps in supports for diverse populations, including: women and girls; Indigenous women and girls; 2SLGBTQQIA+ and gender-diverse individuals; women living in northern, rural and remote communities; women and girls with disabilities; immigrant and refugee women; children and youth; and senior women. Budgets for 2017 and 2018 provided over USD 200 million starting in 2017-18 until 2022-23 and over USD 40 million per year ongoing to establish, launch, and expand the Strategy.

Note: 2SLGBTQQIA+ stands for Two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, questioning, intersex and asexual. The plus sign acknowledges that there are other sexual and gender diverse people who do not see themselves represented in the umbrella acronym. Two-spirit is a term of describing Indigenous people with diverse sexual, gender identities, gender expressions and orientations.

Source: OECD (2022), Survey on Strengthening Governance and Survivor/Victim-centric Approaches to End Gender-based Violence.

To be comprehensive, whole-of-state frameworks need to address multiple forms of GBV, asserting that all forms of GBV are rooted in issues of gender inequality more broadly (OECD, 2021[2]). Of countries responding, 90% (20 out of 22) reported that their policies and strategies addressed multiple forms of GBV, including femicide/feminicide, human trafficking, technology-facilitated violence, sexual assault, and intimate partner violence. In terms of methods, robust GBV systems should also contain multiple ways to address GBV. Of the countries responding, 72% (18 out of 25) reported relatively comprehensive approaches to tackle GBV, including: i) primary prevention; ii) risk assessment and management; iii) protection/support to victims and survivors; and iv) prosecution and punishment.

Most countries also engaged with different types of ministries and agencies in implementing their active national policies and strategies (see Section ‎3.2.2). A network of gender focal points across the government can help communicate and mainstream the GBV strategy effectively in different policy areas (OECD, 2018[3]).

3.2.2. Institutional design and co-ordination for a whole-of-government approach to GBV

The 2015 Recommendation of the Council on Gender Equality in Public Life (GEPL Recommendation) defines whole-of-government institutional frameworks and effective public governance processes as a way to drive forward gender equality objectives including GBV objectives (OECD, 2019[4]). Providing a comprehensive response to all forms of GBV, from IPV to technology-facilitated GBV, requires the involvement of a significant number of governmental and non-governmental stakeholders working in areas such as: prevention and education, service provision, statistics, etc. Effective GBV frameworks should thus have cross-governmental buy-in (OECD, 2021[2]), which in turn requires sound co-ordination and collaboration among stakeholders within governments at different levels and between different areas and sectors. Effective co-ordination can support countries to improve service delivery for victims/survivors by helping provide access to integrated care, informing strategic decision-making by generating comprehensive evidence and data and ensuring accountability for results. This in turn calls for effective horizontal and vertical co-ordination mechanisms (Box ‎3.3) to ensure that GBV is co-ordinated across the government and implemented at the service delivery level (see Chapter 5) (OECD, 2023[5]).

Box ‎3.3. Horizontal and vertical institutional co-ordination

Horizontal co-ordination refers to a collaborative approach that engages all relevant actors from different sectors. Horizontal collaboration across the government by engaging with ministries, agencies and specialised bodies focused on other national policies, can help co-ordinating bodies contribute to more coherent policy making for GBV. Horizontal co-ordination mechanisms can manage the overall GBV agenda of governments, facilitate alignment of mandates and policies across the government, monitor resource allocation and address emerging funding or operational challenges.

Vertical co-ordination refers to the linkages between higher and lower levels of government. National strategies should be enacted in conjunction with bottom-up approaches from local governments, authorities and actors, as they have the most direct connection with victims/survivors. Vertical co-ordination is an important element of GBV frameworks, because implementation of national GBV strategies should be co-ordinated across the different levels of government, including in healthcare, education, child protection and other social services, as well as aspects of criminal, civil or family law that are the responsibility of subnational governments.

Source: OECD (2021[2]), Eliminating Gender-based Violence: Governance and Survivor/Victim-centred Approaches, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/42121347-en.

In the 2022 OECD GBV survey, the majority of respondents outlined a cross-sector and inter-ministerial approach to their GBV systems. This multifaceted approach enables countries to address the intersectional needs and issues relating to GBV, including access to education, employment, housing, healthcare and justice, and physical and mental well-being and health (OECD, 2021[2]). The most common sectors and ministries reported by the respondents were Gender Equality/Women’s Affairs and Justice, followed by: Education; Health and Social Affairs; Home Affairs / Public Safety and Statistics Figure ‎3.1.

Figure ‎3.1. Ministries and agencies whose roles and responsibilities are outlined in policies, action plans and programmes on GBV

Central gender equality institutions are governmental bodies that are often primarily responsible for supporting the government’s agenda to advance society-wide gender equality goals. Among OECD countries, most of the gender equality institutions are part of the Ministry of Social Affairs or a unit within the centre of government (OECD, 2021[6]). Some countries, including Mexico, reported that their federal bodies or ministries responsible for Gender/Women’s Affairs operate as a decentralised body responsible for implementing GBV initiatives (see Box ‎3.4).Gender equality institutions are often tasked with creating social change and utilising a gender lens when conducting research and drafting policies (OECD, 2021[2]). They are vital to developing and monitoring the implementation of a GBV framework and can help promote good practices and standards, advocate for needs and rights of GBV victims/survivors, and strengthen partnerships with a wide range of sectors and organisations to provide an integrated response (Raftery et al., 2022[7]). It can sometimes be difficult for these institutions to involve all relevant actors and to ensure adequate funding and resources, including for integrated GBV responses, co-ordination, monitoring and evaluation (Murphy and Bourassa, 2021[8]).

Box ‎3.4. Examples of decentralised governance for tackling gender-based violence

Mexico

In Mexico, the National Women’s Institute (INMUJERES), an autonomous, decentralised body, plays a key role in co-ordinating and promoting the National Programme for Equality between Women and Men (PROIGUALDAD). INMUJERES partners with the National Commission to Prevent and Eradicate Violence Against Women (CONAVIM) to carry out the government’s Integrated Programme to Prevent, Address, Sanction and Eradicate Violence Against Women (Programa Integral para Prevenir, Atender, Sancionar y Erradicar la Violencia Contra las Mujeres 2019-2024).

Switzerland

In Switzerland, the Federal Office for Gender Equality has the dual role of supporting measures to combat GBV at the national level by working with different federal offices and authorities, as well as at the state level by assisting co-ordination between cantons, municipalities and the federal government. The cantonal intervention and co-ordination services help, together with the federal government, link state and private institutions active in the prevention of and fight against domestic violence at the cantonal level. They are united in the Swiss Conference against Domestic Violence (CSVD).

Source: OECD (2022), Survey on Strengthening Governance and Survivor/Victim-centric Approaches to End Gender-based Violence.

Ministries of Justice, on the other hand, are largely responsible for legal, policy, and judicial reforms on GBV, as well as the review of such reforms. Justice ministries typically administer many aspects of legal justice systems and are at times involved in developing integrated responses to GBV, specialised domestic violence courts, services for victims/survivors and the children of victims/survivors in the criminal justice system, as well as civil, family and other related justice services (OECD, 2021[1]). Of countries surveyed, 36% (9 out of 25) reported engaging their Ministry of Justice to help implement their plans and programmes on GBV, which can help ensure that victims/survivors have access to legal and judicial services and protection and enforce accountability for perpetrators. As with other sectoral ministries, it can sometimes be difficult to co-ordinate with other sectors and organisations that should be involved in prevention and response to GBV (e.g. health, education, employment, social protection and police). They should thus have a clear mandate and be supported by a robust governance structure, possibly with the involvement of Centre of Government (CoG), to help ensure clear accountability and prioritisation.

While most countries reported that their GBV plans and programmes are being implemented by ministries, a few countries surveyed, such as Australia (Office for Women of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet); Italy (Department for Equal Opportunities of the Prime Minister’s Office) and Japan (Cabinet Office), reported that their GBV plans and programmes were implemented directly through the centre of government. Higher prioritisation of GBV can accelerate implementation and ensure greater accountability, and potentially greater coverage of GBV services. At the same time, it can risk reducing funding and human resources, diluting agendas and limiting capacity, putting the sustainability of GBV co-ordination and implementation at risk.

While there is a growing recognition of the importance of co-ordination mechanisms, further institutionalisation, data and resources are needed

The 2022 OECD GBV Survey revealed a broad consensus among OECD countries on the importance of co-ordination across governments, ministries and sectors, and of ensuring integrated service delivery centred on the needs of victims (see Chapter 5). Communication and collaboration among stakeholders are especially important in emergency contexts, where GBV is often exacerbated (see Section ‎3.2.7). The great majority of OECD countries (88%, 23 out of 26) reported having established at least one co-ordination body for GBV and/or designated existing institutions as co-ordinating bodies.

In particular, half of the surveyed countries reported establishing one inter-ministerial/agency co-ordination mechanism to facilitate whole-of-government co-ordination on GBV, while 38% of surveyed countries (10 out of 26) reported establishing more than one inter-ministerial/agency co-ordination mechanism, with up to 3 different mechanisms in 5 countries and 4 mechanisms in 1 country (Figure ‎3.2).

Figure ‎3.2. Countries where co-ordination between ministries/agencies facilitates whole-of-government co-ordination on GBV

Most co-ordinating mechanisms included members from ministries of: Education; Employment/Labour; Gender Equality/Women’s Affairs; Health; Home Affairs/Public Safety; Justice; and Social Affairs. Examples of collegiate bodies of ministries and institutions with responsibilities for GBV appear in Box ‎3.5.

Box ‎3.5. Examples of collegiate bodies and their responsibility for GBV initiatives

Estonia

In Estonia, the Ministry of Interior formed a cross-sectoral steering group in 2019 to co-ordinate communication and action on GBV between the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Social Affairs, the Ministry of Education and Research, the Social Insurance Board, Prosecutor’s Office, Police and Border Guard Board, Family Doctors Association, Harju County Court and the Association of Estonian Cities and Municipalities.

Iceland

In Iceland, a co-ordination mechanism led by the Office of the Prime Minister focuses on preventive measures among children and young people. It is charged with implementing the Parliamentary Resolution on preventive actions among children and young people against sexual and gender-based violence and harassment and its plan of action for the years 2021–2025. The Steering Group is composed of ministries and also representatives of municipalities and NGOs. Several sectors, including gender equality and children’s affairs, but also transportation, are represented in this group.

United Kingdom

The United Kingdom created the Violence Against Women and Girls Inter-Ministerial Group, known as the VAWG IMG, the most senior decision-making forum driving delivery of the government’s work on addressing violence against women and girls. This group regularly meets at the directors’ level and at the ministerial level, allowing for co-ordination of GBV work between the technical and political spheres.

Source: OECD (2022), Survey on Strengthening Governance and Survivor/Victim-centric Approaches to End Gender-based Violence.

Regardless of the number of horizontal co-ordination mechanisms, the 2022 OECD GBV survey revealed that their most common areas of focus are: i) primary prevention; ii) risk assessment and management; iii) protection and support to victims/survivors; and iv) prosecution and punishment.

Vertical co-ordination is an essential element of GBV responses, to engage all levels of government and local actors. While almost all surveyed countries reported using vertical co-ordination mechanisms to encourage co-ordination on GBV between the central/federal government and sub-national governments (see Box ‎3.6), many reported difficulties in achieving vertical co-ordination on GBV, and applying national policies to local contexts, particularly those relating to gender, human rights, intersectionality and cultural relevance. These challenges are often due to a lack of resources, gaps in infrastructure, challenges of data-sharing and limited clarity on restructuring of roles and responsibilities across government (see Chapter 5 for a discussion on vertical co-ordination and integrated service delivery). Other challenges involve the difficulty of maintaining clear, regular communication channels across levels of government and harmonising standards and approaches for GBV prevention and response, in particular in the context of political and/or cultural sensitivities (Raftery et al., 2022[7]).

Box ‎3.6. Examples of vertical co-ordination bodies in OECD member countries

Estonia

In Estonia, the Police and Border Guard Board has general internal mechanisms in place to co-ordinate on GBV (amongst other initiatives) between the central government and regional/local level. Further, the Social Insurance Board (a sub-organisation of the Ministry of Social Affairs) provides victim support in co-operation with relevant NGOs, police, local government, etc. It also co-ordinates Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conferences (MARACs) in cases of high-risk domestic violence, involving all the relevant counterparts from local and state bodies.

Mexico

In Mexico, the National Commission to Prevent and Eradicate Violence against Women (CONAVIM), a decentralised body of the Ministry of Interior, is responsible for co-ordinating federal, local and municipal authorities relating to the prevention, care, punishment and eradication of violence against women.

Switzerland

Switzerland has a mechanism in place to encourage co-ordination on GBV between central and regional governments, the Confederation-Cantons-Municipalities Committee for the Implementation of the Istanbul Convention. The committee plays a central role in evaluating and monitoring the implementation of the Convention by reporting to GREVIO (Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence of the Council of Europe). Various inter-cantonal conferences also represent the cantons within the committee.

Source: OECD (2022), Survey on Strengthening Governance and Survivor/Victim-centric Approaches to End Gender-based Violence.

At the same time, while co-ordination mechanisms indicate government commitment to the issue of GBV, a range of challenges remain. Challenges reported by countries include lack of clarity on which institutions are responsible for co-ordinating their GBV response, a lack of effective information-sharing and co-ordination amongst ministries and bodies, lack of knowledge and training sessions on GBV, a lack of gender sensitivity on the part of responsible officials and service providers, and gaps in implementing the agreed-upon plans. Scope remains to strengthen the clarity of co-ordination mechanisms (e.g. terms of reference, leadership structures, working groups and reporting systems), to enhance communication and information-sharing (e.g. regular meetings, online platforms), harmonise approaches to GBV prevention and response (e.g. through common tools and indicators) and to build trust, collaboration and accountability among different actors (UNHCR, n.d.[9]). Efficient co-ordination mechanisms need to be supported by adequate capacities and resources, but a lack of funding and dedicated budgets to address GBV makes it difficult to address when ministries and levels of government face constraints in budgets, resources and incentives (as discussed in Section ‎3.2.3). Funding issues are often cited as a barrier to co-ordination between governmental and non-governmental actors (OECD, 2023[5]).

Adequate capacity and resources also include the need to invest in training public officials. Countries surveyed reported public officials’ lack of training and awareness as a major obstacle to the efficient implementation of the co-ordination mechanisms. Co-ordination could benefit from devoting resources to training on GBV that actively engages public officials and raises levels of awareness of the importance of the issue. Capacity-building and specialised training are particularly important for those who interact with victims/survivors (see Chapter 5).

Timely, robust data on the nature and prevalence of GBV, the support services and the perpetrator are crucial in designing targeted policies to eradicate GBV. However, a lack of data, and the need to engage statistical institutions in active national policies, strategies and/or action plans on GBV, is another challenge reported. This is an important gap, since statistical agencies play a vital role in information-gathering for frameworks. Such agencies can help identify gaps in the data and ways to create evidence-based responses to prevent GBV, including in times of emergency, and to provide an early response for eradicating GBV (OECD, 2021[1]). Not only statistical offices, but many government entities collect relevant data, with their own indicators and measurements of programme outcomes, highlighting the need for coherency and sharing among ministries. In the longer term, monitoring data can help to combat negative trends and to adjust the measures adopted. Clear guidelines, tools and expectations are needed on adequate information-sharing across ministries and levels of governments, since intersectional, disaggregated data is a foundation for developing evidence-based GBV strategies and responses, as well as tools for screening, risk assessment and management (see Section ‎3.2.5).

3.2.3. Ensuring adequate funding to tackle GBV

Whole-of-state GBV systems cannot be implemented without adequately resourced action plans and programmes. Given the prevalence of the problem and the large target population not only of victims/survivors but also of their children, perpetrators, at-risk population and communities, sustained funding over longer periods is essential. Dedicated resources are needed in key areas including: shelter and housing, targeted and readily available counselling, and healthcare and justice services. The cross-cutting nature of GBV requires broad co-ordination, which requires substantial resources (see Chapter 5). Ensuring continued funding flows is especially important during emergencies and crises, given the increased risk of GBV (see Section ‎3.2.8).

Efforts to tackle GBV continue to be underfunded. While 96% of surveyed countries (24 out of 25) reported endorsing their GBV policies or strategies at the cabinet (and in one case, the presidential) level, only 50% reported being funded by a specific developed budget, and ten countries (38%) reported having no budget allocated for current GBV plans/programmes (see Figure ‎3.3). Interestingly, the 2022 Survey found that more than half of OECD countries had increased funding to fight GBV in recent years (see Section ‎3.2.8). The need is also great in the humanitarian context, especially as compared to other sectors in global humanitarian response (IRC, 2019[10]). Analysis of bilateral official development assistance (ODA) suggests that funding by members of the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) dedicated to ending violence against women and girls was USD 458 million on average per year in the period 2020-2021, a slight increase from 2019-2020, but still less than 1% of the total bilateral ODA reported on average per year in the period (OECD, 2023[11]). In the context of economic uncertainty following the COVID-19 pandemic, insufficient funding to GBV programmes became a risk, as governments focused social public social spending on health, unemployment and labour market programmes (OECD, 2023[12]). Studies have shown that this issue was overlooked in COVID response funding: globally, only 0.0002% of the USD 26.7 trillion in response funding was dedicated to fighting GBV (Oxfam, 2021[13]).

Figure ‎3.3. Countries with a specific budget for GBV strategies and policies

Indeed, funding remains one of the biggest challenges in addressing GBV, for several reasons, including limited funding sources, short-term funding (which can jeopardise sustainability and continuity in GBV prevention and response efforts), funding restrictions (e.g. allowing to use funds mainly for direct services, rather than for advocacy or policy change) and competition for funding. Addressing these challenges calls for a collaborative effort between governments and civil society organisations.

Tracking financing towards eliminating GBV can help understand how national and international commitments are being translated into efforts to end GBV (UN Women, 2016[14]). For instance, governments can undertake the practice of gender budgeting, including through budget tagging, to earmark dedicated funding towards GBV commitments (OECD, 2021[1]). Gender budgeting is the gender-based assessment of budgets, incorporating a gender perspective at all levels of the budgetary process and restructuring revenues and expenditures to promote gender equality (OECD, 2017[15]). Gender budgeting can help governments understand how budgeting and fiscal measures impact gender equality, and how they can use budgeting to achieve their gender equality objectives, including in the eradication of GBV. Strong leadership commitment, a whole-of-government approach and an enabling environment based on gender-disaggregated data and capacity development of government officials can ensure the effective implementation of gender budgeting (Downes and Nicol, 2020[16]). This practice is increasingly being adopted across OECD countries: in 2022, 23 OECD countries had introduced gender budgeting measures (61%) (OECD, 2022[17]), compared to 17 in 2018 (50%) and 12 in 2016 (35%). In the development co-operation context, OECD/DAC’s Gender Equality Marker is a tool that can help track aid in support of ending GBV against women and girls (OECD, 2021[18]).

Constrained budgets, however, are a major challenge. This, coupled with differences in cross-sectoral priorities can lead to inefficient allocations and lack of multisectoral planning on GBV (Remme and L. Lang, 2016[19]). Understanding how to optimise available resources and enhancing incentives for different actors to collaborate, through options like joint financing, for example, can help overcome such barriers.

Resources to tackle GBV can help scale up programmes; improve the quality and accessibility of services for survivors of GBV, including counselling, medical care, legal support, and other forms of assistance; invest in prevention, including education and awareness-raising campaigns, community mobilisation and changing harmful social norms and attitudes; help address root causes of GBV, including by promoting gender equality; generate data and research to develop evidence-based interventions; and respond to GBV during such emergencies as conflicts, natural disasters and pandemics. Limited resources will continue to be a reality. In particular, the pandemic and Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine have put further pressure on public expenses. Countries may consider prioritising prevention, in view of the greater cost-effectiveness of prevention than response efforts. Other potential approaches include partnerships (e.g. collaborations with government agencies, civil society organisations, and community-based groups); using technology (e.g. mobile phones to provide information and support to survivors, or using social media to raise awareness of GBV); focus on victims’/survivors’ needs by ensuring that they have access to comprehensive services and support (e.g. counselling, medical care, legal support, and other forms of assistance) and advocating for policy change to address the root causes of GBV.

3.2.4. Capturing accurate data on GBV

Systematic collection, monitoring and dissemination of reliable and relevant gender-disaggregated data and statistics on GBV are essential for an effective gender-sensitive policy process and informing policy choices. Capturing the data is crucial for understanding the prevalence and patterns of GBV, and developing effective prevention and response strategies. This requires using clear and consistent definitions to ensure comparability of data, collecting data from multiple sources (e.g. surveys, police records and health facilities), collecting both quantitative and qualitative data to understand both the prevalence and patterns of GBV, and an in-depth understanding of the experiences and perspectives of survivors and other stakeholders. Safeguards must be put in place to ensure respect for confidentiality and privacy of victims/survivors and other participants (e.g. through the use of anonymous surveys, data protection with encryption and secure storage, and informed consent from participants), as well as to use intersectional analysis to understand how multiple forms of oppression are compounded to create unique experiences of violence.

A wide range of data can help measure the prevalence, incidence and impact of GBV, including:

Prevalence data on how many individuals have experienced GBV, which can be collected through surveys or other data collection methods.
Incidence data on new cases of GBV, which can be useful for tracking changes in GBV rates.
Risk factor data, on the factors that increase the risk of experiencing GBV (e.g. low education levels, poverty or living in a conflict-affected area). Collecting this data can inform prevention strategies.
Impact data, including physical, psychological, social and economic impacts of GBV, which can be collected through surveys, interviews or other methods.
Service utilisation data, including on the use of services by victims/survivors of GBV (e.g. healthcare, legal services or counselling). This can help identify gaps in service provision, inform efforts to improve access to services and understand what works.

Data sources on GBV include administrative data, survey data, case studies and qualitative research, media and social media data, expert opinions and policy documents, humanitarian and development programme data, and national and international reports. Data should be gathered not only from surveys and secondary research, but from victims/survivors and the service providers who interact with them, such as healthcare professionals and other social service providers, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and police. Timely, robust and comparable data across countries are also needed. Surveys that gather data internationally can help identify concrete differences between countries and inform policymakers as they design evidence-based measures (see Box ‎3.7).

Box ‎3.7. An example of efforts to collect data on GBV across countries

The FRA Survey on Gender-based violence against women

The European Union Agency of Fundamental Rights conducted the first survey across all EU member countries on gender-based violence in 2011-2012. This survey was based on face-to-face interviews with 42 000 women across all member states and aimed to examine the extent, prevalence and severity of gender-based violence in EU countries. It also aimed to measure women’s experiences with service providers and law enforcement. Characteristics, including age, origin, educational level and employment status of women were anonymously recorded.

Various stakeholders, including frontline practitioners, academia, international and non-governmental organisations were involved in the development of the survey.

Note: The survey was conducted with countries that were members of the European Union in 2011 and 2012 and Croatia.

Source: FRA (2011[20]), FRA Survey on Gender-based Violence against Women, https://fra.europa.eu/en/project/2012/fra-survey-gender-based-violence-against-women

Administrative data

Most OECD surveyed countries indicated that they collect administrative data2 on GBV and use such data to estimate the prevalence and forms of violence. The most common type of administrative data collected came from police reports, e.g. information on the number and types of GBV cases that have been reported to law enforcement, as well as the outcomes of these cases (88%, 23 out of 26 countries); followed by court records (73%, 19 out of 26 countries); helpline/crisis centre records (73%, 19 out of 26 countries); health reports/medical records, e.g. the number of individuals who seek care for injuries related to GBV, as well as the types of injuries and the outcomes of treatment (57%, 15 out of 26 countries) and records on shelter attendance (57%, 15 out of 26 countries) (Figure ‎3.4). Responses revealed that only 42% of countries (11 out of 26) collected data from non-governmental organisations and only 11% (3 out of 26) reported collecting data from schools, e.g. on the prevalence of sexual violence, harassment and other forms of GBV among students and staff.

The majority, 90% of respondent countries (19 out of 21) reported collecting data on different forms of GBV, which indicates a positive trend of recognising the need to disaggregate administrative data. The most common type of GBV captured by all data sources was IPV, followed by sexual assault, abuse and harassment. Police reports, court records and health reports/medical records were the sources most often used to gather data on femicide/feminicide as well as female genital mutilation (FGM). Police reports and court records were also the most common source for data on human trafficking and forced marriage. Records from shelter attendance, as well as police reports and court records, were used to capture information on “honour”-based violence.

However, only three countries, Finland, Mexico and the Slovak Republic, reported capturing data on economic violence; only four countries reported gathering data on psychological violence (Costa Rica, Finland and the Slovak Republic and Sweden); and only six countries reported gathering data on technology-facilitated violence (Belgium, Canada, Italy, Spain, Switzerland and Türkiye). This suggests that there is a lack of data on some types of GBV, in part due to inadequate recognition of forms of GBV that are not linked to physical violence. Economic, psychological, and technology-facilitated violence nevertheless all present serious consequences for victims/survivors and their emotional, mental and financial well-being and can also be accompanied by physical types of GBV. Gathering data on these types of GBV is much needed for holistic, whole-of-government policies that can address GBV comprehensively.

Figure ‎3.4. Types of administrative data collected by countries at the national level to estimate incidences of GBV

The frequency of administrative data collection varied amongst member countries, with some collecting information on a yearly basis, and others collecting biannually, quarterly or monthly. As for the information about GBV captured, the most common responses were: i) relationship status of victim/survivor and perpetrator; ii) frequency of violence; iii) location of violence; and iv) whether violence was reported to authorities. The majority of countries included several of these responses. Collecting data on perpetrators can provide useful information for more effective prevention programming, but as a source of information, it is less frequently explored. All respondent countries reported gathering information on the victim (23 out of 23), but only 85% of respondent countries (18 out of 21) collected data on perpetrators. Furthermore, except for the United Kingdom, none of the countries reported collecting information on the ethnicity of either the victim or the perpetrator – and some did not collect basic information on either the victim or the perpetrator (age, sex, criminal record of the perpetrator, etc.). Box ‎3.8 shows a few examples of good practices in collecting and co-ordinating administrative data on GBV.

Box ‎3.8. Examples of improving data availability by collecting detailed, disaggregated information

Finland

Finland records several variables on GBV that can be disaggregated by gender/sex, religion, industry, age group, mode of housing and so on.

The data also includes different forms of GBV, which can be: i) domestic violence, ii) sexual violence, including rape, iii) other physical violence, iv) psychological violence, v) economic violence, vi) stalking or vii) other.

Finland also gathers robust data on homicides, which contains information on several variables, including the relation of the victim/survivor and the perpetrator (partner, ex-partner, mother, father, child, other relative, acquaintance, stranger), demographic variables (gender, age, marital status) and the main characteristics of the homicides committed. There is also information available on the prior criminal career of the perpetrator and warning signs (restraining orders, shelter, threats, fears). The detailed information for homicide cases is the work of the Finnish Homicide Monitor, maintained by the Institute of Criminology and Legal Policy of the University of Helsinki. Part of the success of this system is attributable to the use of a standard electronic form for collecting data, and to the fact that data submission is mandatory for all investigating police officers.

Spain

Located in the Government Office against Gender-Based Violence, Spain’s Sub-directorate General for Awareness, Prevention and Studies of Gender-Based Violence acts as the national co-ordination mechanism for administrative data related to violence against women. It compiles, analyses and reports administrative data (among other data) from VAW services (e.g. shelters, hotlines, economic support, etc.) that are funded by the Spanish central gender equality institution, the Institute of Women. It has developed provisions for co-ordination of data on VAW across multiple sectors and levels of government, and reporting of this data on the Gender Violence Portal.

Sources: OECD (2022), Survey on Strengthening Governance and Survivor/Victim-centric Approaches to End Gender-based Violence; (EIGE, 2021[21]; UN Women, 2022[22]).

Population surveys

Administrative data is important for assessing how public services respond to the needs of the GBV victims/survivors. However, administrative data is unable to capture the full prevalence of GBV, as much GBV goes unreported (EIGE, 2014[23]) for a variety of reasons (OECD, 2023[5]). Population-based surveys could be one way to understand the subjective experiences of victims/survivors and can also be a tool to build a victim/survivor-centred culture.

As with administrative data collection, OECD member countries express broad consensus on the utility of collecting GBV data in population surveys, with 88% of respondent countries (23 out of 26) conducting at least one type of population-based survey on GBV in the last 15 years. The most common type of population-based surveys in this regard are dedicated survey(s) on GBV (used by 84% of countries, 22 out of 26), followed by the inclusion of questions on GBV in crime surveys (42%, 11 out of 26) and in demographic and health surveys (38%, 10 out of 26) (Figure ‎3.5). Good practices on population-based surveys that disaggregate data on GBV, and that also aim to investigate causes of failure to report, emerged from Canada and Mexico (see Box ‎3.9). Surveys on legal needs could also be a valuable tool to give insight into the user-centred experience of legal problems of victims/survivors and to improve legal frameworks, as well as access to justice (see Chapter 6). However, only 11% of respondent countries (3 out of 26) reported using this type of population-based survey.

Population-based surveys at regular intervals could obtain the most accurate data on GBV, but only 17% of respondent countries (4 out of 23) used yearly surveys, and more countries (35%, 8 out of 23) relied on one-time surveys. Of respondent countries, 26% (6 out of 23) repeated surveys every three to four years, and 22% (5 out of 23) repeated their surveys every five years or more.

The most common institutions responsible for population-based surveys are central gender equality institutions (35%, 8 out of 23 countries) and statistics agencies/offices (35%, 8 out of 23 countries). Box ‎3.9 shows examples in several countries of population surveys that aim to collect GBV-related data.

Figure ‎3.5. Types of population-based surveys used by OECD countries to collect GBV data

Box ‎3.9. Population-based surveys to capture GBV data

Canada

The Survey of Safety in Public and Private Spaces (SSPPS), first conducted in 2018, is a national survey on GBV conducted by Statistics Canada. It collects information from respondents about whether the GBV they experienced was brought to the attention of the police; whether they themselves reported it; and if so, the nature of their interactions with police. Additionally, the SSPPS enquires into the reasons why respondents did not also seek help from people who were not authorities, for example a family member, friend, religious leader, lawyer or medical professional.

Mexico

In Mexico, the National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI) published the National Survey on the Dynamics of Household Relations (ENDIREH) in August 2022. This comprehensive survey disaggregates data on the type of violence, where the violence occurs, intersectional vulnerabilities and also examines reasons for failure to report. The survey was the fifth instalment of a statistical series that reports on the situation of violence against women in Mexico.

The environment where the violence occurred is also examined: the survey collects data on violence that occurred within the women’s community, in their couple, in school or at work. This data is disaggregated by the women’s region of origin.

The survey collects data IPV and disaggregates forms of IPV not only by physical and sexual violence, but also by psychological and economic abuse. This data includes whether violence occurred throughout the relationship and/or over the last 12 months and also specifies the age group of the women experiencing violence.

The survey was conducted with women and girls over 15 years old, from 140 784 households.

Source: OECD (2022), Survey on Strengthening Governance and Survivor/Victim-centric Approaches to End Gender-based Violence; (INEGI, 2022[24]).

A fundamental challenge in collecting accurate data on GBV is the general tendency to underreport both the prevalence and incidence of the problem. Countries’ responses revealed serious challenges in capturing or estimating unreported cases of GBV. Current strategies mostly included population-based surveys and records from shelters, as noted above. Victims/survivors may be reluctant to admit abuse for a variety of reasons: stigma, cultural norms, fear of harm (towards the victim/survivor and/or their loved ones), inadequate ability to self-support, and low levels of trust in law enforcement actors. This means that many violent crimes go unreported (OECD, 2020[25]) (OECD, 2021[1]) (OECD, 2023[5]). One-off GBV questionnaires and ad hoc modules in larger surveys gather only limited information, which makes it difficult to understand the causes and patterns of violence in detail (OECD, 2020[25]). Some of the reasons for non-reporting, as captured by Mexico (Box ‎3.9), include a perception that the violence was not important enough to report; followed by fear of consequences and threats and a lack of awareness on how to report. Several women also reported that pride and the perception that nobody would believe them or that they would be blamed caused them not to report their experiences.

At the same time, while survey-based figures probably underestimate the extent of the phenomenon, administrative data such as police reports often provide even less information, since many victims/survivors may not feel comfortable reporting their cases to public authorities for fear of retaliation and because they do not believe that the criminal justice system will offer them adequate protection (OECD, 2020[25]).

Any effort to better capture the prevalence and forms of GBV must start by considering how to estimate prevalence more accurately (OECD, 2020[25]). Survey questions, for example, should be phrased to make sure that victims/survivors feel safe to answer honestly. A comprehensive data collection strategy should thus employ a variety of sources – including administrative and survey data, as well as data collected by other service providers – to try to better estimate the prevalence and forms of GBV (OECD, 2021[2]). Certain countries, however, have undertaken efforts to capture unreported cases of violence, as outlined in Box ‎3.10 below.

More generally, overcoming underreporting of GBV calls for increased awareness and education to reduce the stigma and encourage people to report; providing safe and confidential reporting mechanisms (such as hotlines, online reporting forms and secure reporting channels) to reduce fears of retaliation or further violence; and training service providers (such as healthcare workers and police officers) to recognise signs of GBV and how to respond appropriately to cases of violence. Other possible solutions to improve survivors’ confidence in the reporting process include involving community leaders and organisations in encouraging reporting and supporting survivors (e.g. through raising awareness, providing information about reporting options, and advocating for better services for survivors); as well as addressing legal and policy barriers, such as restrictive laws or biased attitudes among law enforcement officials. In certain countries, it is mandatory for certain professions, such as school teachers or healthcare providers, to report GBV cases. Training may help to obtain better and more rapid identification and reporting of such cases, which can help governments get a clearer picture of the incidence and extent of GBV (see Chapter 4).

Box ‎3.10. Strategies to capture or estimate unreported data on GBV in OECD countries

Estonia

Estonia has created a website where GBV victims can give feedback on their experience in the criminal justice system and victim support services, helping authorities identify barriers to reporting. This informal tool is available in Estonian, Russian and English.

Italy

The National Action Plan on Male Violence against Women 2021-2023 has introduced ex ante and ex post evaluation actions for supporting women who are survivors/victims of violence and who have reached out for help. These evaluations include providing a follow-up on the caller’s condition and differentiating cases from the helplines that were probably not reported to authorities from those reported to the police and those reported to anti-violence centres and shelters.

Spain

Underreporting to the police is estimated in Spain’s Survey on Violence against Women 2019. This survey measures underreported cases of intimate-partner violence, non-partner physical or sexual violence, sexual harassment and stalking. The survey directly inquires whether the individual has reported the violence to the police or the judiciary. Results showed that 70% of GBV victims and nearly 90% of non-partner sexual violence victims do not report the violence. Yet even this may be a low estimate, as survey respondents often do not disclose violence they have experienced.

Sources: OECD (2022), Survey on Strengthening Governance and Survivor/Victim-centric Approaches to End Gender-based Violence

Another common challenge relates to capturing information about perpetrators and the victim-perpetrator relationship, as well as what form of GBV took place. Disaggregated data is useful in advancing understanding of the needs of victims/survivors and the potential obstacles they face. Such information also provides insight into several forms of GBV within different populations and may indicate how effective prevention and response initiatives are (OECD, 2021[2]). Data collection should incorporate the principle of intersectionality to understand the experience of victims/survivors with intersectional experiences due to race, ethnicity, age, class, religion, indigeneity, national origin, migrant or refugee status, sexual orientation, disability and gender identity. However, countries continue to struggle to include all these aspects into administrative data collection efforts and population-based surveys (see Chapter 4).

Understanding the full impact of GBV on victims’/survivors’ lives could be supported by extensive data-collection efforts that include questions and data points that aim to assess not only its physical, but also its psychological, mental and emotional impact. These are more difficult to capture and measure, which is why stakeholders, such as psychologists and mental health professionals, should be consulted to develop data collection efforts, especially population-based surveys. It is also hard to capture information on the long-term effects of GBV on physical and mental health through “one-time” surveys and data collection. Longitudinal population-based surveys could be a valuable source of information on long-term consequences, but they remain an underused tool (see Box ‎3.11 for an example of a promising practice on gathering data that can provide insights on long-term impacts of GBV).

Box ‎3.11. Australia’s Longitudinal Study for information on long-term effects of GBV

The Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health (ALSWH) was developed by ANROWS (Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety), which collected data on violence and abuse on 57 000 women for over 25 years, and revealed valuable information on the long-term impact of GBV on women’s lives through national, longitudinal, population-based surveys. The data was disaggregated by sexual identity, cultural and linguistic diversity, disability and area of residence.

The aim of the study was to determine the prevalence of sexual violence across women’s lifecycles, both within and outside intimate relationships. The data was also used to analyse the impact of violence experienced in childhood on victims’/survivors’ lives later in life. The longitudinal data made it possible to gain insight into the long-term health and socioeconomic impacts of sexual violence.

The findings of this study served as a strong and comprehensive evidence base to develop recommendations for prevention programming, risk reduction and promoting recovery from experiences of sexual violence.

Source: ANROWS (2022[26]), A life course approach to determining the prevalence and impact of sexual violence in Australia: Findings from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health https://anrowsdev.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/4AP.4-Loxton-Longitudinal-Womens-Health-Report.pdf

In addition, the difficulty of data collection can be amplified if victims/survivors are in vulnerable situations that inhibit them from engaging with authorities and if they face additional stigma due to their situation. These include women who either voluntarily or due to coercion and/or threats, engage in prostitution, women who have been trafficked and/or women with irregular immigration status. Victims/survivors from these backgrounds can be even more exposed and vulnerable to violence and experience further barriers in reporting to authorities. Measures that create safe environments for victims/survivors with such backgrounds to report their experiences need to be employed to understand the full scale of GBV.

However, data can only contribute to the fight to eliminate GBV if it is efficiently shared amongst governmental agencies, as well as service providers (see Section 5.4.2 in Chapter 5). Agreements and protocols on information-sharing need to be put in place to ensure that data can be used in all areas of action on GBV, including risk assessment and management (see Section ‎3.2.5) in the development of policies, laws and action plans, as well as prevention of femicide/feminicide (see Section 6.4.3 in Chapter 6).

Finally, as GBV policy work should be data-driven, it is key that sound data on this issue be made available to all the stakeholders involved, including NGOs. The datasets can be shared on an online platform, making it easily accessible and transparent. Leveraging published data helps NGOs to create visualisations and stories from the data that will raise awareness of GBV.

3.2.5. Risk assessment, detection and prevention – screening tools for central/federal governments

A key stage in a holistic approach to GBV is at the primary prevention and risk management stage. When GBV incidents are identified early, service providers are better equipped to intervene and prevent further instances from occurring. Prevention includes engaging perpetrators (see Chapter 6 and Section 4.2.2 in Chapter 4.) to avoid any recurrence of violence and community and education-based programmes that promote gender equality, non-violence and healthy relationship behaviour – especially among men and boys, children and adolescents (see Chapter 4). Actions should also focus on public awareness, access to information and resources, and the provision of services for individuals at risk of perpetrating or becoming victims of GBV.

Importantly, risk assessment and management can save lives. Research has shown that some datapoints, including the increase in frequency and severity of violence and instances of separation/divorce and death threats, can be used to predict lethal violence cases (Garcia-Vergara et al., 2022[27]). It is thus vital that specialised risk assessments are developed and that robust data on femicide/feminicide is available to prevent predictable deaths of women and girls (also see Section 6.4.3 in Chapter 6). As prevention requires a sound understanding of the situation of GBV in a particular country, it is important to identify the forms and prevalence of GBV, the characteristics of victims/survivors and perpetrators, and other factors associated with GBV within a country over time. States would benefit from investing in monitoring and evaluation of prevention-focused policies and programming to ensure they are achieving the desired outcomes.

Screening, risk assessment and risk management are key elements of detection and subsequent intervention. These should be crafted using evidence-based procedures on known signs and risk factors for GBV.

Screening tools identify victims/survivors of GBV and refer them to GBV services in an environment of confidentiality that acknowledges the reasons for non-reporting (including stigma, fear of repeated violence and other reasons). Service providers, especially healthcare providers, need to be trained to adequately apply the screening tools, which rely on gathering information on the experiences of the potential victims/survivors through questionnaires.

Similarly, risk assessment tools are based on collecting information on the case of GBV (most often used in cases of IPV), including on past incidents and on the behaviour of the perpetrator. Risk assessment tools outline the methods of data collection, including guidelines on interviewing victims/survivors and the data needed on perpetrators from other services. An evidence-based approach is underpinned by an exchange of data across services that make relevant information on perpetrators (such as treatment programmes and medical records) accessible to those using GBV screening, risk assessment and/or management tools (EIGE, 2019[28]). Based on the evidence gathered from victims/survivors and service providers, risk assessment tools can predict the likelihood of violence. These tools are increasingly relying on machine learning and algorithms, which can potentially improve the accuracy of predictions (González-Prieto et al., 2021[29]).

Once the case of GBV is identified and the level of risk assessed, a larger risk management system needs to be set up to reduce the risk of recurring violence and provide victims/survivors with support to increase their safety. Risk management can include victim safety planning, which includes a set of measures designed with the victim’s/survivor’s specific needs at different times in the cycle of the abusive relationship (EIGE, 2019[28]). Ensuring the accountability of perpetrators, including enforcing protection orders and establishing perpetrator programmes, are also key elements in protecting victims/survivors (see Chapter 6 for further discussion).

Early detection of GBV is a key component of preventing further or escalated instances of GBV. In the 2022 OECD GBV Survey, 67% of respondent countries (16 out of 24) reported developing and/or certifying tools to be used for GBV screening. (Figure ‎3.6). The majority of countries (71%, 17 out of 24) also reported developing and/or certifying3 tools to be used for GBV risk assessment and management (Figure ‎3.7).

Figure ‎3.6. Countries reporting on developing and/or certifying tools to be used for GBV screening

Figure ‎3.7. Countries reporting on developing and/or certifying tools to be used for GBV risk assessment and management

Some countries reported using innovative GBV screening tools that increasingly rely on technology that make their use more accessible. In addition, governments are also developing and/or certifying tools that aim to acknowledge all aspects of each GBV incident and are culturally and trauma-informed. Hungary reported, for example, that its National Crisis Management and Information Telephone Service has developed a screening questionnaire for all received emergency phone calls, tailored for victims of domestic violence, human trafficking and children. The service’s website also raises awareness by sharing examples of instances that can be early signs of violence, as well as several types of violence. Secret shelters carry out a secondary screening, a more in-depth interview that helps identify and place those at risk of violence in a shelter. The United States reported that the Department of Health and Human Services has developed the Adult Human Trafficking Screening Tool and Guide, which assesses adult patients or clients for human trafficking victimisation or risk of victimisation. A survivor-centred, trauma-informed and culturally informed intervention, it is tool designed for use in healthcare, behavioural health, social services and public health settings.

Most countries reported that their main purpose in using risk assessment and management tools is to i) assess the risk of violence recurring, and ii) to assess the risk of lethal violence. The most common forms of GBV addressed by these tools are intimate partner violence and domestic violence.

Several OECD countries use stand-alone IPV risk assessment tools that have been developed and tested for predictive validity in multiple research studies. Nine OECD countries use the spousal assault risk assessment (SARA); three use the brief spousal assault form for the evaluation of risk (B-SAFER); and four use the Ontario domestic assault risk assessment (ODARA) (EIGE, 2019[28]) (Government of Canada, n.d.[30]). The 2022 OECD GBV Survey and the OECD QISD-GBV also revealed increasing use of the multi-agency risk assessment conferences (MARAC), which develop an effective model based on information-sharing between service providers (see Chapter 5 for further discussion and Box ‎3.12 below for a promising example of developing a risk assessment and management tool).

Box ‎3.12. Australia: Example of risk assessment and management tools for GBV prevention

Australia

Australia’s Lighthouse Project is a systematic approach to identifying and managing family safety risks of those who engage with Australia’s family court system. Its components include:

An online risk screening questionnaire completed by parties who are filing or responding to applications for parenting orders in Australia’s federal family law courts.
The assessment by a family counsellor of risks that are identified through the risk screen.
Safety planning and referrals to support services for parties who are at higher risk.
Triaging matters and differentiated case management pathways based on identified risks.
Operating a specialist list (the Evatt List) to manage high-risk cases.

The Family Law “Detection of Overall Risk Screen” (DOORS) is a risk-screening tool that assists separating parents and family law professionals to detect and evaluate well-being and safety risks.

Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety Limited (ANROWS) – an independent, not-for-profit research organisation – was funded in 2018 to develop the National Risk Assessment and Safety Management Principles for Family and Domestic Violence. The principles do not replace existing state and territory frameworks, but instead provide a guide for policymakers and practitioners to develop risk assessment tools and resources.

Source: OECD (2022), Survey on Strengthening Governance and Survivor/Victim-centric Approaches to End Gender-based Violence.

Risk assessment and management tools can only produce accurate decisions if they are based on sufficient data on all aspects of the case of GBV, including information on perpetrators. However, this data needs to be shared across agencies, and a lack of co-operation and information-sharing can be a major barrier to efficient, accurate implementation of the tools (see Section 5.4.2 in Chapter 5). One promising way to circumvent challenges related to information-sharing is to set up agreements and protocols between agencies. Spain’s Action Protocol for Security forces and bodies and co-ordination with judicial bodies for the protection of victims of violence against women and domestic violence urges all actors to share data effectively and also introduces several mechanisms to facilitate communication and co-operation between agencies (Council of Europe, 2020[31]).

However, the design of risk assessment tools, which rely on data and algorithms, can have inherent limitations. Despite the technological advances, “algorithmic governance” can be fallible: a case study in Spain on the usage of a risk assessment tool, which has been used since 2010 in courtrooms and law enforcement, revealed that the algorithms that serve as a basis for the tool often make mistakes (and can also be biased against men and perpetrators from certain backgrounds). Professionals and those in the justice systems who work with these tools should always assess the result and preserve the aspect of the “human experience” in the risk assessment process (Valdivia, Hyde-Vaamonde and García Marcos, 2022[32]). The case study also revealed, however, that the tool was introduced without sufficient training of practitioners, which jeopardised transparency in the use of risk assessment. Specialised training is needed for all actors who use risk assessment and risk management tools, but several OECD countries reported difficulties in setting up the necessary training. The high rotation of public officials and the complexity of these tools can also impede their efficient implementation and complicate specialised training.

In addition, several OECD countries reported struggling with linking risk assessment to risk management. However well risk assessment tools are designed, they may fall short if they are not considered as part of a broader risk management system with individualised safety planning (Council of Europe, 2020[31]). While risk assessment and risk management have been recognised as constituting a critical element of preventing and combating GBV by stakeholders, OECD countries reported a lack of regulatory framework for multidisciplinary risk assessment. However, significant progress has been made: for example, Article 51 of the Istanbul Convention (Council of Europe, 2011[33]), requires parties to take necessary legislative or other measures to implement risk assessment and management measures. These tools have also been integrated into the EU legislative and policy framework as well, through the Victims’ Rights Directive (EUR-Lex, 2012[34]) .

Finally, risk assessment and management need to take into account the fact that the risk of violence is dynamic and evolves over time, and that risk assessments need to be regularly updated. The questions asked in the re-assessment also need to be adapted and be different from the first assessment. They should aim to investigate the re-incidence of violence, changes in behaviour, whether the victim has returned to the perpetrator (in cases of IPV), and whether there are new factors of vulnerability (Council of Europe, 2020[31]).

3.2.6. Review mechanisms to assess the efficacy of whole-of-state frameworks

If whole-of-state frameworks are to offer a more effective approach to addressing GBV, countries should develop and implement evaluation, measurement and accountability mechanisms. These should regularly assess and report on the efficacy of their national strategies, policies and programmes, in order to assess the progress, review and strengthen them. The 2022 OECD GBV Survey revealed broad consensus on the value of monitoring and evaluating national policies, strategies and/or action plans on GBV. Two types of mechanisms are used: internal and external to State institutions. Most countries rely upon internal review mechanisms (see Box ‎3.13 below) within the government to assess and improve the effectiveness of GBV prevention and response measures. These can include independent audits and parliamentary oversight to identify gaps, weaknesses and areas for improvement, regulatory oversight to ensure compliance with GBV-related regulations, policies and standards, accreditation and certification to assess their measures against established standards, peer review and community feedback to ensure they are meeting their needs, and finally, complaints mechanisms (e.g. ombudsmen, human rights commissions, or independent oversight bodies) to investigate complaints about GBV prevention and response measures.

In this context, 46% (11 out of 24) of respondent countries reported that institutions that provide oversight are Ombudsmen Offices and/or the Parliament and/or a Parliamentary Committee dedicated to gender equality/women’s affairs. Of respondent countries, 41% (10 out of 24) reported that a commission in the political executive fulfilled this role, while eight countries reported using an Independent Human Rights Commission and 29% (7 out of 24) of countries reported using an Advisory Council. In addition, several countries reported putting in place internal Committees representing both governmental and non-governmental actors.

Box ‎3.13. Practices to implement internal monitoring mechanisms

Iceland

In Iceland, a special steering group led by the Prime Minister’s Office is tasked with monitoring the programme (i.e. the Action Plan 2021-2025 for the Parliamentary Resolution on preventive actions among children and young people against sexual and gender-based violence and harassment) and harmonising its work. The Department of Equality and Human Rights updates the monitoring and evaluation dashboard every six months.

Costa Rica

In Costa Rica, the Commission for the Evaluation and Enforcement of Policies of the National System for the Prevention of Violence against Women and Domestic Violence supervises and evaluates the efficient and effective compliance of the national policy on GBV. It is composed of representatives from private organisations, the Ombudsman’s Office, and the Ministry of National Planning and Economic Policy (MIDEPLAN), which is responsible for the co-ordination and direction of the commission.

Finland

In Finland, the Government Action Plan for Gender Equality is monitored by a horizontal group consisting of representatives of several ministries. The work is co-ordinated by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. The government discusses developments once a year. Furthermore, the working group that prepared the Action Plan for Combating Violence against Women monitors implementation of the Action Plan regularly and reports on its progress to the Ministerial Working Group on Internal Security and Strengthening the Rule of Law, which is chaired by the Minister of Justice.

Spain

In Spain, evaluations of the implementation of the State Strategy to Fight against Sexist Violence is carried out by the State Observatory on Violence against Women, a body run by officials from state and regional public administrative bodies as well as other stakeholders, such as civil society organisations.

Sweden

In Sweden, the Equality Agency annually evaluates the government’s efforts to prevent and combat men’s violence against women. Every other year, the agency undertakes a more rigorous analysis of the efforts. In 2020-21, the Swedish Agency for Public Management (Statskontoret) conducted a special evaluation of the government’s national strategy to prevent and combat men’s violence against women. Aside from regular monitoring and evaluation of policies to combat GBV, the Swedish government can appoint ad hoc government inquiries to evaluate the effectiveness of legislative and policy frameworks on GBV.

Source: OECD (2022), Survey on Strengthening Governance and Survivor/Victim-centric Approaches to End Gender-based Violence; (Council of Europe, 2017[35]).

While most surveyed countries reported using internal review mechanisms, it is also important to develop oversight mechanisms external to the government. External review mechanisms involve external actors in assessing and improving the effectiveness of GBV prevention and response measures. An example emerged in Greece, where the National Council of Greek Women, a federation of 48 women NGOs across Greece and Cyprus, has the mandate of assessing and evaluating existing policies on gender equality (EIGE, 2014[36]). Actions to strengthen review mechanisms have also been taken at the international level. The “Independent Expert Mechanisms on Discrimination and Violence against Women” initiative, launched in 2018, aims to promote the use of independent expertise by strengthening institutional collaboration among international and regional review mechanisms (OHCHR, 2018[37]).

In addition, monitoring and evaluation mechanisms of NGOs that provide services as part of the GBV framework are also important, to ensure their efficacy and adherence to relevant policies and standards. These can be carried out through feedback mechanisms, such as evaluations by service users assessing the work and challenges of NGOs. Such provisions can also be explicitly required by the authorities responsible for selecting and funding NGOs in the GBV space. Nevertheless, these requirements should not place unnecessary burdens on NGOs (OECD, 2021[1]).

3.2.7. Making systems work in crisis – addressing GBV in emergencies (including the COVID-19 pandemic)

GBV often increases during crises, such as pandemics, natural disasters, and economic recessions (OECD, 2021[2]). Evidence from past crises and natural disasters demonstrates that confinement measures often lead to increased or first-time GBV and violence against children (OECD, 2020[38]). Contingency plans or crisis management plans can be integrated into existing national action plans on GBV or developed as complementary policy documents. They should identify relevant policies and actions that can be taken during specific types of crises to ensure mechanisms are in place to allow for effective rapid responses to GBV.

The COVID-19 pandemic is not the only emergency that OECD member countries have faced in the past few years, but in many countries, it has acted as a catalyst to create better GBV responses in emergency contexts. Responses from the 2022 OECD GBV Survey revealed that 56% of respondent countries (14 out of 25) did not adopt stand-alone crisis management plans for GBV, and only 35% (9 out of 26) reported doing so. In addition, many countries reported that these stand-alone plans were created in the framework of the COVID-19 pandemic (Box ‎3.14).

Box ‎3.14. Good practice examples of stand-alone crisis management plans for GBV during the pandemic

Mexico

In the context of the COVID-19 emergency, the government of Mexico has taken several measures to increase women’s safety, including by strengthening the project “9-1-1 Emergency Call Attention Number”, introduced by INMUJERES in co-ordination with the Executive Secretariat of the National Public Security System (SESNSP) through the National Information Center (CNI). This was done through increased collaboration at the subnational level, to establish more efficient communication mechanisms for the urgent care of 9-1-1 users who require psychological help. More than 1 500 civil servants also received training (“Active Listening” workshops) to strengthen the processes of attention and channel the 9-1-1 emergency call number.

Portugal

As a result of reported cases of GBV during the lockdowns due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Portugal adopted measures to ensure the safety and support of victims of domestic violence and increased risk of violence during periods of confinement. Measures included dissemination of information about support services/ helplines, safety advice and alerts, strengthening and diversification of channels for victims to seek help, and reinforcing of victim support structures and services.

Spain

Spain benefited from measures and frameworks already in place before the COVID-19 pandemic, building on them for its stand-alone plan to respond to the needs of GBV victims/survivors during the pandemic. The Spanish government launched the Contingency Plan against Gender Violence for the crisis derived from the pandemic. This had two main goals; first, to strengthen measures already in place to address GBV (both in cases where the perpetrator is or is not the partner or former partner of the victim); and second, to implement an urgent Action Plan for victims of trafficking, sexual exploitation and those working in the sex industry during the pandemic. Measures included the title of “essential services” for shelters, legal aid and those providing information and assistance to victims of GBV.

Sources: OECD (2022), Survey on Strengthening Governance and Survivor/Victim-centric Approaches to End Gender-based Violence.

3.2.8. Increasing funding of GBV programming during COVID

In emergency situations, it is particularly important that services be properly resourced to ensure they remain widely accessible to victims/survivors, who are often among the most affected and at-risk during crises such as pandemics and economic recessions (OECD, 2021[2]). There is a broad consensus among surveyed countries on the main GBV-related services funded during the COVID-19 pandemic: shelters, non-shelter accommodations (e.g. hotels); helplines; psychological and/or counselling services and specific economic/financial aid to victims/survivors are among the most funded services, while legal aid, perpetrator treatment and/or rehabilitation, public awareness campaigns and sexual assault crises centres were the less funded services during the pandemic. The pandemic caused several social, justice, and health support systems to collapse and several countries directed efforts to fund sectors that treated patients. Notably, none of the countries reported funding specialised police units and/or task forces during the pandemic.

Several countries reported that funding was a major challenge during the pandemic, but 16 out of 26 countries reported increasing funding for GBV-related programmes and/or services. In Estonia, the State Supplementary Budget Act of 2021 granted additional resources for the following services: i) helplines / hotlines; ii) psychological and/or counselling services iii) ICT solution for online management of tasks; and iv) expenses for Social Insurance Agency volunteers (support persons, psychological first aid advisers, mediators and crisis workers).

3.2.9. Institutional arrangements

As a result of the pandemic, some countries made changes to GBV approaches on institutional arrangements, co-ordination and communication across agencies, as well as to engagement with stakeholders. While several countries reported that a lack of co-ordination was a major barrier to effective GBV responses during the pandemic, some OECD countries demonstrated that in times of crisis, existing institutional arrangements can adapt to better respond to citizens’ needs, including GBV victims/survivors. Switzerland offers one example, where the Confederation-Cantons-Municipalities Committee for implementation of the Istanbul Convention proposed concrete measures (e.g. awareness campaigns) through the Task Force on Domestic Violence and COVID-19, headed by the Federal Office for Gender Equality (OECD, 2021[1]). Another example is the former National Federation Reform Council Taskforce on Women’s Safety4 (established by Australia’s National Cabinet), which was responsible for monitoring and responding in a co-ordinated manner to issues relating to women’s safety, including the impacts of COVID-19 on women’s safety (OECD, 2021[2]).

3.2.10. Data collection

Ensuring the continuity of data collection during crises is essential, especially since the prevalence of GBV likely increased during the pandemic. However, the nature of this crisis may have impeded data collection efforts, especially tools that required travel and face-to-face contact (UN Women/WHO, 2020[39]). It is thus important that countries rely on several types of technologies for data collection, including online platforms and mobile phones, while mitigating the risks associated with the use of non-traditional data sources. Survey respondents also reported changes to their data collection methods. The most commonly used method of data collection during the pandemic (reported by 19 countries) was police reports, which is also the most commonly used in non-emergency contexts (Figure ‎3.8). However, countries reported using helpline records to collect data during the pandemic (18 out of 26 countries reported collecting data from this source) and fewer countries reported collecting data from court records.

Responses also show that certain countries (7 out of 26) collected information from population surveys, while others (5 out of 26) collected data from secondary research conducted by academics and/or non-governmental organisations. A promising practice was reported by Belgium, where Ghent University conducted a national survey in May 2020 in four languages (French, Dutch, German and English) on domestic violence and sexual violence since the introduction of COVID-19 measures. Respondents throughout Belgium were asked if they wanted to participate in a monthly follow-up. Sweden also reported adding a module to its 2021 Swedish Crime Survey (SCS), posing questions on victimisation of domestic violence during the period March-December 2020 (in the context of COVID-19).

Figure ‎3.8. Methods used by countries to collect data during the COVID-19 emergency

To support changes in approaches to GBV during the COVID-19 pandemic, 16 out of 26 countries reported making changes to funding for GBV-related programmes and/or services through legislation, decree or other relevant process.

Some of the main challenges reported were: i) implementing and providing services via telephone or internet during the pandemic; ii) interinstitutional co-ordination; iii) considering intersectionality; and iv) considering a comprehensive approach to critical public health issues.

Some countries reported challenges in collecting data and implementing population-based surveys during the COVID-19 pandemic, mostly due to difficulties reaching victims/survivors during lockdowns, including geographical and technological limitations. Countries also reported scarce data collection from academia and targeted studies during the emergency.

Despite the challenges, the responses also showed how countries were able to explore new ways to reach out to those experiencing or at risk for GBV. Estonia, Japan and Greece reported increasing the availability and use of telephone helplines to reach more individuals remotely. The Netherlands used a codeword for use at pharmacies and on an online chat so that GBV victims could reach out more easily for help and advice. It also launched a national campaign to inform (potential) victims of GBV where they could get help and/or advice. In Greece, inter-institutional agreements were made to facilitate shelters for women victims of violence and their families, in hotels, and to guarantee necessary medical exams during the lockdown. Australia reported conducting studies and reports to understand the impact of COVID-19 and its aftermath on women victims of domestic, family and sexual violence.

The COVID-19 pandemic also shed light on the importance and issue of data interpretation. An example of good practice emerged in Italy, where the government analysed data from calls from 2018-2021 to its national helpline provided to support victims of GBV. The analysis revealed an increase in calls during lockdowns and a change in the patterns of GBV. However, it also showed a peak in calls (up to 350 calls daily) each year around 25 November, corresponding to the International Day for the Elimination of GBV, covered widely by television and social medias. Distinguishing between an “actual” increase in cases as opposed to an increase in reporting can be complex, in particular for short-term analyses, as was the case in COVID-19. This challenge calls for setting up effective co-ordination mechanisms among governmental and non-governmental stakeholders to ensure information-sharing is complete and timely (UNECE, 2021[40]).

3.3. Policy Recommendations

Strategy: Addressing GBV should remain a high priority for governments, particularly given the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic upon GBV and gender equality. This should be translated into sufficient executive-level commitment and cross-governmental buy-in. GBV policies should also be linked to broader, long-term governmental gender initiatives to mitigate vulnerability during governmental changeovers.
Whole-of-government approaches: Countries should adopt a whole-of-government approach by adopting holistic laws and policies and sufficient funding, and create efficient co-ordination mechanisms to assist in their implementation.
Disaggregated and intersectional data collection: Up-to-date, gender-disaggregated and intersectional data should be gathered in order to create gender-sensitive policy choices and processes, to monitor gender equality advances and to hold public sector institutions and executives accountable. Data on GBV should be disaggregated by forms of GBV, and should also include information on perpetrators.
Data collection methods: Disaggregated data on GBV should be gathered not only from secondary research and surveys, but also from victims/survivors and the service providers who interact with them, such as healthcare professionals and other social service providers, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and police.
Raising awareness and reducing stigma: Countries should take necessary actions to encourage people to report GBV, including providing safe and confidential reporting mechanisms; reducing fear of retaliation or further violence; training service providers; involving local actors such as community leaders and organisations, providing information about reporting options; and advocating for better services for survivors; as well as addressing legal and policy barriers.
Increasing reporting: Countries should aim to develop initiatives that reduce the stigma around GBV and other factors that lead to nonreporting. They should aim to capture unreported instances of GBV and construct surveys to ensure that victims/survivors feel safe enough to answer honestly.
Prevention, risk assessment and management: Prevention initiatives should be evidence- and education-based and supported by GBV screening, risk assessment and risk management tools. Countries should ensure adequate information-sharing across agencies for their effective use. Risk assessment tools should be linked to a broader risk management system, where the regular re-assessment of risks is available.
Monitoring and evaluation: Countries should develop and implement evaluation, measurement and accountability mechanisms in order to regularly assess and report on the efficacy of their national strategies, initiatives, public policies and programmes.
Crisis management: Countries should consider incorporating contingency plans and crisis management plans into the GBV framework, as well as integrating a gender lens into national emergency management strategies to ensure adequate communication and co-ordination across agencies. Data collection efforts should be maintained through multiple channels in times of crisis. Countries should take into account that victims’/survivors’ vulnerability is magnified, should ensure continued funding for responding to GBV and consider increasing funding for GBV response.

References

[26] ANROWS (2022), A life course approach to determining the prevalence and impact of sexual violence in Australia: Findings from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health, Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety, https://anrowsdev.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/4AP.4-Loxton-Longitudinal-Womens-Health-Report.pdf.

[31] Council of Europe (2020), Assessing and Managing Risks in Cases of Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence, Council of Europe, https://rm.coe.int/trk-2021-assessing-and-managing-risks-in-cases-of-vaw-and-domestic-vio/1680a2a7cb.

[35] Council of Europe (2017), Report submitted by Sweden pursuant to Article 68, paragraph 1 of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Baseline Report), https://rm.coe.int/state-report-on-sweden/168073fff6.

[33] Council of Europe (2011), Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (“Istanbul Convention”), Council of Europe Treaty Series, No. 210, Council of Europe, https://rm.coe.int/168008482e (accessed on 5 October 2022).

[16] Downes, R. and S. Nicol (2020), “Designing and implementing gender budgeting – a path to action”, OECD Journal on Budgeting, https://doi.org/10.1787/689198fa-en.

[21] EIGE (2021), EIGE’s indicators on intimate partner violence, rape and femicide: Recommendations to improve data quality, availability and comparability, European Institute for Gender Equality, https://eige.europa.eu/publications/eiges-indicators-intimate-partner-violence-rape-and-femicide-recommendations-improve-data-quality-availability-and (accessed on 20 October 2022).

[28] EIGE (2019), A guide to risk assessment and risk management of intimate-partner violence against women for police, European Institute for Gender Equality, https://eige.europa.eu/publications/guide-risk-assessment-and-risk-management-intimate-partner-violence-against-women-police.

[23] EIGE (2014), Data Collection on Violence Against Women, European Institute for Gender Equality, https://eige.europa.eu/gender-based-violence/data-collection#2014 (accessed on 20 October 2022).

[36] EIGE (2014), National Council of Greek Women, European Institute for Gender Equality, https://eige.europa.eu/gender-mainstreaming/structures/greece/national-council-greek-women.

[34] EUR-Lex (2012), Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2012/29/oj.

[20] FRA (2011), FRA Survey on gender-based violence against women, European Union Agency of Fundamental Rights, https://fra.europa.eu/en/project/2012/fra-survey-gender-based-violence-against-women (accessed on 13 March 2023).

[27] Garcia-Vergara, E. et al. (2022), “Risk Assessment Instruments for Intimate Partner Femicide: A Systematic Review”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 13, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.896901.

[29] González-Prieto, A. et al. (2021), “Machine learning for risk assessment in gender-based crime”, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2106.11847.pdf.

[30] Government of Canada (n.d.), Intimate Partner Violence Risk Assessment Tools: A Review, https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/fv-vf/rr12_8/a.html (accessed on 13 March 2023).

[24] INEGI (2022), Encuesta Nacional sobre la Dinámica de las Relaciones en los Hogares, Institute of Statistics, Geography and Informatics, https://www.inegi.org.mx/tablerosestadisticos/vcmm/#General.

[10] IRC (2019), Where is the money? How the humanitarian system is failing in its commitments to end violence against women and girls, International Rescue Committee, https://www.rescue.org/report/wheres-money-how-humanitarian-system-failing-fund-end-violence-against-women-and-girls (accessed on 13 March 2023).

[8] Murphy, M. and A. Bourassa (2021), Gap Analysis of Gender-Based Violence in Humanitarian Settings: a Global Consultation, ELRHA, London, https://reliefweb.int/report/world/gap-analysis-gender-based-violence-humanitarian-settings-global-consultation (accessed on 13 March 2023).

[11] OECD (2023), Development finance for gender equality and women’s empowerment, https://www.oecd.org/development/financing-sustainable-development/development-finance-topics/development-finance-for-gender-equality-and-women-s-empowerment.htm (accessed on January 2023).

[5] OECD (2023), Supporting Lives Free from Intimate Partner Violence: Towards Better Integration of Services for Victims/Survivors, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d61633e7-en.

[12] OECD (2023), The rise and fall of public social spending with the COVID-19 pandemic, https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/OECD2023-Social-Expenditure-SOCX-Update-Rise-and-fall.pdf.

[17] OECD (2022), 2022 Survey on Gender Budgeting.

[6] OECD (2021), 2021 Gender Equality Questionnaire.

[18] OECD (2021), Development finance towards the elimination of gender-based violence, OECD Development Co-operation Directorate, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/development/gender-development/development-finance-elimination-gender-based-violence.pdf.

[1] OECD (2021), Eliminating Gender-based Violence: Governance and Survivor/Victim-centred Approaches, OECD.

[2] OECD (2021), Eliminating Gender-based Violence: Governance and Survivor/Victim-centred Approaches, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/42121347-en.

[25] OECD (2020), Issues Notes: Taking public action to end violence at home, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/gender/VAW2020-Issues-Notes.pdf (accessed on 6 October 2022).

[38] OECD (2020), “Women at the core of the fight against COVID-19 crisis”, OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19), OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/553a8269-en.

[4] OECD (2019), Fast Forward to Gender Equality: Mainstreaming, Implementation and Leadership, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/g2g9faa5-en.

[3] OECD (2018), OECD Toolkit on Mainstreaming and Implementing Gender Equality, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/gov/toolkit-for-mainstreaming-and-implementing-gender-equality.pdf.

[15] OECD (2017), Gender budgeting in OECD countries, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/gender/Gender-Budgeting-in-OECD-countries.pdf.

[37] OHCHR (2018), The EDVAW Platform: cooperation among UN, global and regional women’s rights mechanisms, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-violence-against-women/edvaw-platform-cooperation-among-un-global-and-regional-womens-rights-mechanisms.

[13] Oxfam (2021), The Ignored Pandemic, https://doi.org/10.21201/2021.8366.

[7] Raftery, P. et al. (2022), “Gender-based violence (GBV) coordination in humanitarian and public health emergencies: a scoping review”, Conflict and Health, Vol. 16/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13031-022-00471-z.

[19] Remme, M. and J. L. Lang (2016), Re-thinking Financing for Addressing Gender-based Violence: Background Paper for the Global Expert Meeting on “Reducing Gender-based Violence to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals”, https://www.sparkblue.org/system/files/2022-03/Rethinking%20Financing%20for%20Addressing%20GBV.pdf.

[22] UN Women (2022), Improving the collection and use of administrative data on violence against women: global technical guidance, https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/2022-10/Improving-the-collection-and-use-of-administrative-data-on-violence-against-women-en.pdf (accessed on January 2023).

[14] UN Women (2016), Why Money Matters, https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/Headquarters/Attachments/Sections/Library/Publications/2016/UNiTE-Why%20Money%20Matters-Brochure-EN.pdf.

[39] UN Women/WHO (2020), Violence Against Women and Girls: Data Collection during COVID-19, UN Women/World Health Organization, https://rm.coe.int/vawg-data-collection-during-covid-19/16809e5e79 (accessed on 13 March 2023).

[40] UNECE (2021), easuring violence against women during Covid19 period: The Italian experience, https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-09/PPP_muratore_italy_eng.pdf.

[9] UNHCR (n.d.), Gender-based violence toolkit, https://www.unhcr.org/gbv-toolkit/coordination-2/ (accessed on 13 March 2023).

[32] Valdivia, A., C. Hyde-Vaamonde and J. García Marcos (2022), Judging the algorithm: A case study on the risk assessment tool for gender-based violence implemented in the Basque Country, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2203.03723.pdf.

Notes

← 1. Intersectionality refers to the multiple, intersecting identities individuals possess, which can expose them to different and often overlapping forms of exclusion or disadvantages. Intersectional analysis allows for an enhanced awareness of the significant diversity between individuals that make up any given population or group in policy making. It is increasingly recognised as a strategy for addressing gender inequalities.

← 2. Administrative data is data reported to public authorities by legal entities, including the police, courts, health institutions, shelters, pharmacies, NGOs, schools or social services.

← 3. Governments may also decide to certify tools used for GBV screening and risk assessment and management developed by non-governmental organisations, and implement their use in public services.

← 4. In September 2022, this group was replaced by the Women and Women’s Safety Ministerial Council.

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment

Governance

Health

Industry, business and entrepreneurship

Regional, rural and urban development

Science, technology and innovation

Society

Taxation

Trade

Energy

Nuclear energy

Transport

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment

Governance

Health

Industry, business and entrepreneurship

Regional, rural and urban development

Science, technology and innovation

Society

Taxation

Trade

Energy

Nuclear energy

Transport

Countries A - C

Countries D - I

Countries J - M

Countries N - R

Countries S - T

Countries U - Z

Regional and global engagement

Countries

Countries A - C

Countries D - I

Countries J - M

Countries N - R

Countries S - T

Countries U - Z

Regional and global engagement

Publications

Publications

Featured publications

Data

Data

Featured data

News & Events

News & Events

Featured Events

About OECD

About

Engage with us

Work with us

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment