Recommendations for data harmonisation and consolidation

IMPRODOVA Project-Deliverable (3.2): Recommendations for data harmonisation and consolidation

Published: June 2020
Authors (VICESSE): Paul Herbinger, Marion Neunkirchner, Norbert Leonhardmair

Full Text: Available Here

Executive Summary:

Following the work undertaken in IMPRODOVA task T1.2 (Mapping and Interrogating Data Sources), led by POLAMK, this report focuses primarily upon data harmonisation recommendations in respect of two key data sources about domestic violence:

1) Administrative data produced by the police 2) National victimisation survey data

While other front-line responder (FLR) agencies and some research projects may record and analyse information about domestic violence, police data and victimisation surveys are prioritised since they are recognised as official data sources with the capacity to record trends in the nature, prevalence and reporting of domestic violence over time. Police and victimisation survey data are complementary. Police data - coupled with data from other criminal justice agencies - provides important insight into cases coming to the attention of the police and the associated criminal justice response (e.g. the number of crimes reported, prosecuted, convicted and sentenced). At the same time, victimisation surveys illuminate understandings as to the nature and extent of domestic violence that is not reported to the police. This is important in the context of domestic violence since many victims do not self-classify their experiences as a crime (Groves and Thomas, 2014), nor do they wish to bring their situation to the attention of criminal justice agencies.

Whilst this report focuses on police and survey data, the existence of other data sources should be acknowledged. In particular, NGOs possess a wealth of knowledge about the experiences and needs of victims, and NGO data should be viewed as an important source of information in relation to domestic violence in that light. Likewise, FLR agencies, such as health, housing and social work gather varying degrees of detailed information about their service users. Whilst different FLR agencies engage with different populations, and the inclusion of data sources other than police and survey data is challenging, future attempts to include data from major NGOs, Women’s Shelters and the Medical Sector would be advantageous. As IMPRODOVA D1.2 (Fagerlund and Houtsonen, 2019) indicates, however both NGO and other FLR data may lack in comparability within and between sources.

Together, administrative and survey data can be appreciated as an essential part of understanding and responding to domestic violence in three interrelated ways. First, these data sources document trends over time and monitor the criminal justice response, highlighting areas for improvement, public spending and innovation. Second, insights gleaned through administrative and survey data can contribute to public understandings and prevention work. Third, the data that is gathered, as well as the analyses that are performed on it, don’t simply report upon domestic violence but also constitute how it is understood through definition of what is and what isn’t counted; what is and what isn’t seen.

This report provides recommendations in relation to data harmonisation and consolidation for improved data practices as they relate to each of the three facets outlined. Its principle aim is to enhance administrative police data for FLR decision making, resource allocation and policy making; and improve survey data for monitoring, evaluating and researching domestic violence and relevant interventions.

In doing so, it begins with an overview of existing European data frameworks and guidance on data collection. It then turns to specific consideration of police and survey data, drawing upon IMPRODOVA material gathered in WP1 and WP2, and upon existing data reports and relevant academic literature. Finally, the concluding points reflect critically upon the purpose and utility of data gathering and consolidation, and the range of ways in which such data might work to inform frontline practices and policies designed to address domestic violence.

Data collection and analysis process

This report is informed by the gathering and analysis of three main sources of information:

1) European data frameworks and guidance, including:

•   Council of Europe study on administrative data collection on domestic violence in Council of Europe member states (2008);

•   The Istanbul Convention;

•   European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) administrative data reports and

  recommendations to improve data collection. 2) IMPRODOVA data

 WP1 reports:
o D1.1 (Mapping and interrogating DV policy framework; confidential

report)
o D1.2 (Map of available data) by Fagerlund and Houtsonen (2019)

 WP2 reports:
o D2.2 (Analysis of the implementation of policies and guidelines into

frontline responder practices) by Bradley et al. (2020)
o D2.3 (Reviewing the use and scope of risk assessment and case

documentation across frontline responders) by Hera & Szegő (2020)
 Consultation with all IMPRODOVA partners at, and following, the November

2018 Consortium Meeting in Portugal.

3) Research reports and literature on domestic violence data, including:

•   FRA Violence Against Women Survey (2014)

•   Contemporary debate within academic and policy literature on survey data (e.g.

  Walby / Myhill)