DSGBV Working Group - Meeting 2

Minutes of Meeting

1. Introduction 

• Donal Kelly (Chair) (CSO) opened the meeting, welcomed members and thanked them for their time. The minutes of the previous meeting were approved.

2. Review of points raised at the previous meeting

Number of relationships in which abuse was encountered –

• The CSO noted that changes since Wave 1 of the survey, along with the need to minimise response burden, mean that detailed information about each relationship is not available. Currently, the survey collects information only on the most recent incident and whether it involved a current or former partner (one or more than one). Collecting specific numeric values could also lead to quality issues.
• The group emphasised the value of gathering this information and expressed concern that its absence represents a missed opportunity to fully depict domestic violence.

Identify if abuse follows young victims through their adulthood –

• The CSO noted that while the survey cannot capture everything, it does cover childhood to adulthood across the four pillars. The group discussed shortcomings of the EUGBV framework, including relationships such as siblings, lodgers, landlords, roommates. The group queried whether combining location, type of violence, and relationship could help identify some relationships.
• The CSO noted scope to include other relationship types, such as elder abuse or non-partner relationships. The group highlighted that elder abuse is not strictly age-related and that language used to define will be important.
• The CSO highlighted that domestic violence is only one part of the survey and violence from strangers is also included.

Non-partner experience connected to a partner/previous partner –

• The CSO noted that after discussing internally, the difficulty of capturing this due to its subjective nature. While it may be possible, any additional questions would require testing.
• The group stressed the importance of collecting this information and suggested questions such as –
  • Thinking about this experience – do you think it is connected to a relationship?
  • Has your partner turned family/friends against you or influenced them?
  • Did you feel this experience was linked to a former partner?
• The CSO agreed to review the matter and explore it in more detail.

Location DSGBV was encountered (home, work, public space, etc.) –

• The group noted the value of capturing not only the location but also situations where the respondent might be vulnerable (e.g., at home - in the shower/while sleeping) and also highlighted the importance of capturing different contexts (cohabiting, postseparation, etc.) as this information is essential for policy development and preventative measures.
• Tech-facilitated abuse was noted as occurring across all locations.
• The CSO agreed to investigate the possibility of integrating this form of abuse across the questionnaire rather than just as a stand-alone block, as designed in the EUGBV.

Use of support services and reasons why support was initially sought –

• The group discussed the need to examine access as well as knowledge of services. It was noted Courts Services already hold data on domestic violence order applications, reducing the need for certain questions.
• Key considerations included:
  • What factors lead someone from abuse to seeking help?
  • Why was support sought?
  • What type of support was sought?
  • Differences in reasons between men and women.
• The CSO noted that these questions have been identified as an area where additional information is needed from a national needs perspective, while still balancing response burden. They also reiterated that the EUGBV framework was designed for women only, meaning gaps in data collection for men must be addressed.

2. Does questionnaire cover four pillars/themes of abuse under D.V.

• The group discussed the different behaviour types and omissions in the questions being asked. The following items were proposed -
  • Restricting access to healthcare including access to reproductive rights e.g. contraception or abortion
  • Restricting access to education
  • Include threaten to hurt animals/pets
  • Include stalking as an additional option on some questions
  • Did your partner’s behaviour cause you to reduce work hours / drop out of a course / result in isolation from family/friends?
  • Sexual abuse – include where victim may have been sleeping
  • Consider implied violence/silence
  • Economic pillar – include questions around housing (security of tenure), education, finances, work
  • Did the behaviour type escalate over course of relationship?
  • Noted specific behaviour type might not be abusive, but intent of perpetrator important to identify abuse
• It was noted that coercive control behaviour includes –
  • Controlling income, benefits, job aspects
  • Forcing loans, surrendering earnings
  • Dictating clothing, food, daily routine
  • Requiring permission for daily activities, food, medicine
  • Belittling, gas lighting
  • Guilt tripping, blaming
  • Demands
• The group also identified a number of language revisions for consideration -
• • ‘Restricted’ may be more appropriate for some questions
  • ‘Forbid you to work’ – consider ‘Interfere with your work’, ‘Threaten your reputation at work’
  • ‘Lock you up’ - consider - ‘Barriers that stopped you from leaving the house’
  • ‘Your partners behaviour makes it feel difficult or impossible to’… work/access education/see your friends etc.
• The CSO noted that it may be difficult to collect this level of detail and that they are bound by EU requirements, so not everything can be changed although the suggestions were very helpful.

3. Tech-facilitated abuse

• The group discussed technology-facilitated abuse in detail and agreed that consideration should be given to developing it within the questionnaire as a fifth form of violence or abuse.
• Items noted for inclusion were –
  • Direct messages, harassment, bombarding
  • Victims being impersonated online or other people being impersonated for the purpose of harassing the victim
  • Smart home misuse – including ring doorbells
  • Location tracking, e.g. Using air tags
• CSO agreed to review the survey structure to assess feasibility of integrating tech-facilitated abuse.

4. Pattern Indicator

• The group discussed the current format of the questionnaire, which asks about frequency and duration after each set of questions. While some members of the group agreed there was value in asking the questions this way, others noted the difficulty in people quantifying the number of incidents as well as the increased response burden it created.
• Concerns were raised around victim shaming/blaming and the importance of the language used. It was suggested to maybe consider using classifications such as repeatedly/continuously for frequency rather than more specific intervals.
• It was agreed to come back to this at the next meeting.

5. Psychological Impacts

• The group highlighted the following as items to consider -
  • Generally, the list of psychological impacts needs to be broadened
  • Someone’s ability to form relationships or being hypervigilant after an abusive relationship
  • How shame is used in coercive control, how victims are convinced into believing it is ‘their fault’
  • Be cautious listing consequences such as depression and problems concentrating together, as it may suggest equivalence.
  • Someone being ‘left feeling worthless’ not identified
  • Consider other psychological impacts such as overeating/undereating, shopping excessively etc.
  • Consider Post-Traumatic Stress/PTSD
  • Consider including list of emotions such as shame, guilt, embarrassment etc.
  • Consider outcomes – did someone use mental health services?
  • Capturing long term effects - hypervigilance, change in behaviour, identity erosion, decision paralysis, etc.

6. Closing

• Donal Kelly (CSO) thanked the group again for their engagement and valuable contributions. He noted that the members had helped to further highlight areas of violence and abuse that are important from a national data and policy perspective. He expressed his hope that the CSO would be able to incorporate as many of these as possible within the questionnaire, though noted the challenges to introducing change within the confines of the EUGBV. Donal highlighted that as part of the questionnaire process, the CSO will also engage with a victim/survivor focus group and will carry out cognitive testing once the questionnaire is ready and before the pilot test.
• The following meeting was agreed to be held virtually on 02 April from 10.00am to 1.00pm.

8. Suggested agenda items for next meeting (Thursday 02 April 2026)

1. Pattern – frequency and duration of behaviour type(s) – are the questions difficult to answer? Is there value in the increased response burden?
2. Tech-facilitated abuse
3. Where we are and reflect on previous meetings.

9. Summary / Actions