Before the Three Questions on Physical Violence by Non-Partner, I Suppose There Will

1. Before the three questions on physical violence by non-partner, I suppose there will be a sentence explaining to the respondent that violence by partner or ex-partner are excluded. Otherwise, it should be mentioned in the first question.

-It was mentioned in the instructions for the interviewer, but it is ok. We have added an introduction before the first question about physical violence:

“In the next questions I will ask you to think about stranger or people you know; for instance, someone at school or at work, afriend or aneighbour or someone of your family excluding your actual or former partners.”

1. The question NPSXWHO is new. Does it mean that the question will be included in the regulation or is it just a proposal for countries which are interested ? We would prefer not to change the regulation.

- The question is not new; it was in the details section. Now it is anticipated in the screening questions (see the Violence Notes). We can discuss it in the Task Force meeting

1. NPPHVIOWHO : for this question, as well as for question NPSXWHO, we have questions/proposals about response items. It would be interesting to add children as a modality of family member. We don't see the difference between family member and relative (actually, in French, I think the translations are "membere de la famille" et "parent", which mean the same).

-I guess that a family member is a relative who lives with the victim, but it would be interesting to add children; in this case we can live only “other relatives” and erase the item “other family member”

1. You consider that at work, the perpetrator can be the boss of the victim ; why don't take account of cases where the victim is the boss of the perpetrator?

-I think that violence from the boss is a most relevant category of violence at work both from conceptual and statistical point of view, but we can add the item “Subordinate at work place”

1. NPPHVIOPOLREP: I don't really understand how incidents can come to the knowledge of the police if nobody reports to the police. Is it the case when the violence took place on the street and the police was present by chance at that moment? Or repeated violence: the victim can tell to thepolice once, but not each time?

- Yes, if the violence happens in the street or if someone (neighbours or people walking by) call for the police because see or hear something

1. NPPHVIOPOLWHN : it would be great if the modality of responses could be the same for this question and for questions about other victimisations. So, for instance, keep one answer for "not serious enough, inappropriate for police/ police not necessary". Some modalities may be unrelevant in the case of violence (e.g. "no insurance"): then keep it in the list, with the same code as in other questions, but don't tell it in the violence module.

- Yes, obviously one can keep the samecode list

7. NPPHVIOPOLSATN: item n°4 is indeed not relevant, but it would be easier to keep the same meaning for codes 5 to 8 as in the same question in other modules (for instance 5 = "didn't keep me properly informed").

- Ok. See above

8. For partner violence, I understand that you need a question to have the right denominator. But as SASU ask questions about the last 5 (or 2) years, I think the right denominator is the number of persons who had a partner during the last 5 (or 2) years, and not those who ever had a partner.

-The ex-partner violence can occur even after the end of the relationship. So one can have had no partner in the last 5 or 2 years, but he or she can have suffered a violence from the ex partner in the same period.

9. Moreover, the filters at page 64 are not clear to me. Are we supposed to ask the question "are you currently in a relationship with someone you are not living with" to married persons? Why ?

- The filters have a “funnel” shape. Respondents go through the next questions only if it is indicated in the filter. Married people go directly through past relationship question.

10. And is it necessary to ask the next question about past relationships to married persons? We already know they are married so they are in denominator.

-Yes because the right denominator for ex-partner violence include actually married people who have had former relationship

11. PPHVIOSLAPP: in the question, the example of ex-husband is given; why not give the example of ex-wife? (there is ex-boyfriend and ex-girlfriend).

- Ok, it was an omission