“Yes” response to having experienced any of the forms of SGBV listed by the interviewer.  Data should be disaggregated by sex and can be disaggregated by type of SGBV experienced, relationship with perpetrator, current age of respondent, age when respondent first experienced SGBV, region, ethnicity, or other appropriate group (only if the sample size can support sub-group analysis). If the data is measured in a survey using a probability sample, this estimate can be generalized back to the target population (e.g. people living in a particular region).

Data Source(s):

Special surveys.  In some instances this information can be gathered from clinic data if client SGBV history is gathered from both men and women.

Purpose:

This indicator measures the extent to which a given population has experienced SGBV by anyone – stranger, intimate partner, relative, etc.  When gathered, SGBV data is often collected from women and girls only. The inequality of power that is the foundation of SGBV, coupled with women’s inferior status in virtually all societies, makes women and girls the primary targets of SGBV around the globe.  However, SGBV is unfortunately not uncommon among boys and men as well, particularly among gay, bisexual, and transgender males, in conflict situations, and in communities where homosexuality is considered an aberration from the expectations of how men should behave.  In a South African study on sexual violence against men, about 1 in 10 men reported having experienced sexual violence by another man and about half of the male sexual violence survivors said they had raped a women.  The findings revealed that men’s violence towards other men overlaps significantly with physical abuse of female partners (IRIN, 2011). Unless information is collected from both men and women and the full scope of SGBV is assessed, it will be difficult to structure programs to prevent and respond to the problem.

Issue(s):

While it is useful to measure the prevalence of any form of SGBV, there are several concerns to consider related to both the way this information is obtained as well as to how the results are interpreted. A woman who experiences intimate partner violence or other violence may be endangered by participating in a study if her partner or another perpetrator discovers that she disclosed this information. The interview also needs to be conducted in a sensitive manner in order to protect the respondent as much as possible from experiencing distress if s/he discloses their experiences.  All research in this area should adhere to ethical guidelines which were established as standards to maintain safety and confidentiality. (See the WHO documents, “Ethical and safety recommendations for researching, documenting, and monitoring sexual violence in emergencies” and “Putting Women First: Ethical and Safety Recommendations for Research on Domestic Violence Against Women”, for examples.) In addition, data based on self-reports can be biased by any number of factors.

Gender Implications:

Because of the high prevalence of violence against women and girls globally, it is easy to forget that men and boys are victimized too and the prevalence of SGBV among males may be higher than previously thought.  SGBV against men and boys conflicts with male stereotypes of machismo. There is also a myth that women do not have the capacity to commit sexual violence atrocities despite prosecutions for such crimes. Policymakers and donors need to adjust societal paradigms of sexual violence and direct attention to female perpetrators and male survivors in regard to rehabilitation and justice. Furthermore, collecting data on SGBV prevalence reinforces the need to include men in sexual violence definitions and policies and consider the protections of men and boys by the United Nations as it has with women and children (Johnson et al., 2010).

References:

Johnson K, Asher J, Rosborough S, Raja A, Panjabi R, Beadling C, and Lawry L. “Association of Combatant Status and Sexual Violence with Health and Mental Health Outcomes in Postconflict Liberia,” JAMA (300) 2008: 676-690.