Meeting 2: 26th September, 2019

Sexual Violence Survey Liaison Group Meeting

Portobello Suite, CSO Office, Ardee Road, Rathmines, Dublin.

26th September 2019 

Agenda

1. Introduction
2. Minutes and update on actions
3. Variable list for Liaison Group presentation
4. Variable list discussion
5. Next steps
6. AOB

Minutes

Attendees:

• Keith McSweeney (Chair), Helen McGrath (Secretary), Jessica Coyne, Central Statistics Office
• Eithne Tiernan, Consultant
• Aoife Cartwright, Dublin Rape Crisis Centre
• Caroline Counihan, Rape Crisis Network Ireland
• Elaine Byrnes, National University of Ireland, Galway
• Maeve Lewis, One in Four
• Mary Roche, TUSLA, the Child and Family Agency
• Orla O'Connor, National Women’s Council of Ireland
• Philip McCormack, Department of Justice and Equality
• Sarah O'Connor, Sexual Assault Treatment Unit
• Susan Leahy, University of Limerick

1. Introduction

The Chair welcomed all participants to the Dublin office. He explained the focus of this Liaison Group meeting was on the variable list for the testing phase.

2. Minutes and update on actions

The Secretary gave an overview of the minutes and gave an update on all the actions from the last meeting. There were no issues raised with the minutes.

3. Variable list for liaison Group presentation

The Secretary presented on overview of the work conducted in preparing the variable list for the Liaison Group and introduced the structure of the list. Several points were addressed in the presentation including:

• The aim of the survey is to capture the prevalence of sexual violence in Ireland. While the current version of the variable list also contains variables focusing on details of experiences, and work is progressing on testing these for inclusion, a key consideration for CSO will be achieving high quality prevalence data. Decisions on the inclusion of the more detailed variables with the prevalence variables will be made in this context.
• The survey design was described - a household survey with one person randomly selected to complete the survey. It will be delivered as a face to face interview with a large self-completion element to the survey as per the recommendation from CSO Methodology unit (shared at the last Liaison Group meeting).
• The introduction of partner and non-partner classification in adult sexual violence experiences was highlighted, responding to international experience and stakeholder feedback from the May information session.
• The variable list is not reflective of the structure of the questionnaire – testing must be completed before that can be determined
• There are six overall sections to the current draft of the variable list:
  • Sociodemographic variables
  • Concern/attitudes
  • Sexual Harassment/Stalking
    
    • If yes to any of the experiences, then further details collected
  • Adult Sexual Violence - this is split into intimate partner and non-partner
    • If yes to any of the intimate partner experiences, then further details collected
    • If yes to either intimate partner or non-intimate partner experience, then data collected on disclosure, reporting and service use behaviours
  • Childhood Sexual Abuse
    • This is split into contact and non-contact abuse
    • If yes to any of the contact experiences, then further details collected
    • If yes to any of the non-contact experiences, then further details collected
    • If yes to either contact or non-contact experiences, then data collected on disclosure, reporting and service use behaviours.
• Detailing of the next steps after the finalisation of the variable list. The list will be tested using various techniques including cognitive testing, testing the questionnaire flow and timing of the questionnaire length as well as, potentially, focus group work. The duration of the interview needs to be carefully assessed to minimise respondent burden and to better achieve good quality prevalence data.

There followed some general discussion:

• It was confirmed that one variable doesn’t necessarily mean one question – some variables may require more than one question to tease out responses. It was stressed by CSO that this issue needs careful consideration given the potential to have a questionnaire which is too long, thereby impacting on the quality of responses, and hence on the quality of the sexual violence prevalence data. It was noted that the respondent may find the answering of the questionnaire a difficult experience, which could add to timings also.
• The responses to the survey questions will take the form of a list of answer categories to choose from, rather than free text responses.
• In a discussion around the likely achievability of a sufficient number of responses to enable results to be produced for some variables, CSO outlined the publishing rules which will be followed. These rules apply to all CSO statistics (Labour Market, other household surveys, etc.) and will be followed for the Sexual Violence Survey. A variable for which there are less than 30 observations collected will not be published. Variables which have between 30 and 49 observations collected can be published, and if published, will be identified in the publication table as being potentially unreliable. Variables which have 50 or more observations collected can be published free of any quality constraint.
• CSO outlined its intention to run the pilot survey in Q3 2020 and outlined the major project tasks which are needed to be completed to enable this. A key project milestone to enable the pilot to happen in Q3 2020 is the finalisation of the survey variable list during October.
• CSO outlined that the design of the cognitive and questionnaire testing process is still underway, and that international experience would be incorporated in the design of the testing process.

CSO concluded this part of the meeting by again stressing how valuable the input from the Liaison Group is, and how open CSO is to the feedback from experts in this field. There will be additional meetings of the Liaison Group going forward to share expertise and project progress. CSO is looking forward to the feedback from the Liaison Group to the draft variable list – CSO is available on phone and email and is available to meet face to face.

4. Variable list discussion

A number of detailed discussion points were introduced by the Secretary for Liaison Group members to discuss.

a. Alcohol/drugs 

The Secretary identified that there was a lot of discussion in the Expert Group on what data should be collected by the survey in relation to alcohol/drugs and the impact of    collecting this data on respondent burden. In the current draft of the variable list, data relating to alcohol is captured in these sections:

        - attitudes

        - reasons for not reporting/disclosing 

        - adult sexual violence prevalence variables

***Not yet finalised. Requires further consultation.

The Liaison Group discussed data needs and the priorities in relation to this issue for the survey. CSO concluded this section by noting the interest in collecting information on alcohol and drug factors, but that the Liaison Group noted how this needs to be handled in a sensitive manner. It was agreed that the group would consider the issues discussed and send their feedback to the CSO over the next two weeks. 

b. Attitudes

The section on attitudes section was introduced, and there were some queries concerning why these questions are proposed to be included in a prevalence survey, and what the policy need for these questions would be.

CSO outlined that the questions were recommended by the Scoping Group and were also in SAVI. CSO noted that no final decision has been taken on the inclusion of these attitudinal questions in the survey, and that their inclusion will be assessed against any risks to the quality of sexual violence prevalence data.

c. Stalking versus sexual stalking

The Secretary sought feedback on the rationale behind these variables identified in light of potential data quality issues related to the definition of stalking in a survey on sexual violence.

The group explored the potential differences between stalking and sexual stalking, and that stalking in general could be related to non-sexual situations also. CSO explained that the respondent will be in the headspace of sexual violence, which is where respondent should be, so how can sexual stalking be expressed?

The group queried the provenance for these questions and it was outlined that they were in the Scoping Group list and were also in SAVI. The group commented that it was difficult to understand what sexual stalking was and offered that these variables are potentially covered in harassment. It was noted that the inclusion of sexual harassment questions might conflate with sexual harassment in the workplace.

CSO queried what information (once collected) in this area would be useful for the group, and that feedback on this issue would be important. It was noted that the intention to ask questions of this nature relate to the need to reflect the whole spectrum of sexual violence in the survey. How these sexual harassment variables would be presented in a publication also requires consideration, as would the introduction to the questions themselves in the data collection phase.

d. Respondent perception of childhood abuse being appropriate at time or now

The Secretary sought feedback on the rationale behind these variables identified in the variable list, particularly in the context of ethical considerations.

The clear consensus of the group was that asking questions based on these variables would be inappropriate. It was agreed that the recommendation from the group is that these variables could be removed.

e. Impact

The Secretary sought feedback on the main user needs for data relating to the impact of sexual violence.

A discussion on the definition of impact was held referencing issues such as normalisation and minimisation. The types of impact were also discussed. The Scoping Group list outlined data points which mainly concentrated on moods, for example how often you felt nervous, depressed, happy, etc. The measurement of ‘wellbeing’ or impact is quite complex, is a broad multi-dimensional issue, and the inclusion of it in a prevalence survey of this nature could be difficult. Capturing these types of data is not straightforward and the Group were asked to consider this as part of their feedback.

f. Reasons why abuse stopped

The Secretary requested feedback on the data needs in relation to these variables. The Secretary surmised feedback that we need to be careful not to put the victim into the mind of the perpetrator when potentially describing perpetrator’s motives.

There was a discussion of the needs and challenges. The CSO noted the feedback of the Group and will include this in the development of questions for the variables. There was some discussion that, perhaps, the focus of the variable could be on the “when” not on the “why” and make the categories more descriptive. Some information on the “why stopped” could be useful in determining some risk factors around sexual violence.

CSO again noted that the value for the variable lies in what can be extracted as a policy intervention and that feedback on this, and other variables, should be cognisant of this.

g. Sociodemographic variables

The Secretary sought feedback on the data needs relating to these variables in the sociodemographic block.

1. Relationship status considering the split between Intimate Partner and Non-Partner in the adult experience section
2. Occupation of spouse considering the deprivation variable which is available from the CSO
3. Household tenure considering the deprivation variable which is available from the CSO

The Group discussed the potential value of this data as well as limitations and alternative sources. It was agreed that the deprivation indicator would be the appropriate source for this data and that further consideration would be given to data on relationships.

5. Next steps

The Chair commended the group for the positive engagement on the draft variable list. Feedback on the specific issues discussed above and the full list in general is very welcome from the group, and if that could be provided in writing by October 11^th that would really facilitate project progress, with the aim of piloting the survey in Q3 2020. The Secretary to the group is available by email, phone, and in person, to progress any queries and feedback the group have.

All variables are still subject to testing, and in some cases (for example the attitudinal questions) additional methodological considerations. Consequently, the development of the variable list into a pilot questionnaire (and from the pilot to the main study) will likely involve changes. The Chair again cautioned that the objective is to collect high-quality prevalence data, as per the Government decision, and that the inclusion of variables additional to the core prevalence variables in a workable survey, balancing respondent burden, will be considered in that context. CSO remains committed to keeping the Liaison Group updated on matters and will continue to actively seek feedback.

6. AOB 

SATU shared details of their conference on the 4th October with members of the Liaison Group.

Actions for next meeting

If you have been affected by the issues raised in this notice, you can contact the Rape Crisis Centre 24-hour national helpline on 1800778888 or by email at counselling@rcc.ie.