This chapter takes a life course approach to review key statistics relating to gender-based violence, with a focus on violence against women, covering topics such as childhood maltreatment and abuse, intimate partner violence, workplace sexual harassment, perceptions of safety in public spaces and technology-facilitated violence. The chapter closes with policy options to eradicate gender-based violence and violence against women.
Gender Equality in a Changing World
Taking Stock and Moving Forward
Abstract
Gender-based violence (GBV) is a worldwide phenomenon. The majority of victims/survivors of GBV are women and the majority of perpetrators are men. Most EU and OECD countries report that tackling GBV (including violence against women) is a top policy priority for gender equality.
Estimating the prevalence of GBV is complicated by several factors, including underreporting. Despite this challenge, the data that do exist show that gender-based violence is pervasive. In EU countries, 36% of ever-partnered women report having experienced intimate partner violence (IPV) in their lifetime and 34% of ever-working women report having experienced sexual harassment at some point in the workplace. Violence and the threat of violence affect the day-to-day lives of millions of women across the EU, with only 68% of women report feeling safe when walking alone at night.
Data on experiences of violence for children and older people are limited. Based on the little evidence that is available, girls are more likely to experience sexual abuse than boys. For older people, abuse remains an issue and may require more focused attention as populations age.
The causes and consequences of GBV are complex, and addressing such violence – including workplace harassment, IPV and sexual assault – requires concerted, co‑ordinated and collaborative efforts across policy domains that provide interventions across the life course (i.e. childhood, adulthood, old age). Policy combinations to tackle GBV should focus not only on providing support to victims/survivors, but also on preventing violence, addressing the perpetrators of violence, and building capacity across society to comprehensively prevent, identify and respond to violence. This means involving educational institutions, healthcare providers, social protection systems, employment supports, justice institutions, frontline service providers, and more. Emphasising integration and information sharing (while protecting data and privacy) across actors can help victims/survivors navigate a seamless network of supports and services without feeling re traumatised at every re telling. Campaigns on the prevalence and impacts of GBV, including sexual harassment in the workplace, may help raise awareness that such issues persist in all EU and OECD countries.
Gender-based violence (GBV) is defined by the European Commission as “violence directed against a person because of that person’s gender or violence that affects persons of a particular gender disproportionately” (European Commission, n.d.[1]). GBV may manifest itself in many different settings, forms, and relationships; it may be physical, sexual, emotional, psychological, social, cultural, spiritual, financial, economic or technology-facilitated; it may take place within the home, at work, at school, online or in public spaces; it may occur between intimate partners, family members, friends, acquaintances, employers and employees, and strangers; and it may be experienced in childhood, adolescence, adulthood, or in old age. GBV is a worldwide phenomenon, cutting across countries as well as social, economic and demographic groups (Beck et al., 2023[2]), and it has massive implications for women’s employment, health, economic security, housing, well-being and more (OECD, 2023[3]).
In many cases, “GBV” is used interchangeably with “violence against women,” reflecting that most victims/survivors of GBV are women and most perpetrators of GBV are men. Yet, GBV can also include violence against men, boys and gender-diverse individuals. Violence against women is, therefore, one manifestation of GBV, and violence against other groups may often be a result of similarly harmful inequities and gender norms (Council of Europe, 2019[4]). According to the EU Directive on combating violence against women and domestic violence, violence against women is defined as “all acts of gender-based violence directed against a woman or a girl because she is a woman or a girl or that affect women or girls disproportionately, that result in or are likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological or economic harm or suffering, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life” (European Union, 2024[5]).
Given that women represent the vast majority of victims/survivors of GBV, this chapter focuses on violence against women. It proceeds as follows. Section 8.1 reviews key indicators of GBV over the life course to better understand the experiences of girls and women in private, semi-public and public spaces. Section 8.2 explores policy options to address GBV, with a particular focus on intimate partner violence and workplace harassment and sexual assault.
A growing body of research has identified a number of risk factors for (and contributors to) GBV, with much research focusing on risk factors for IPV. In this research, risk factors consistently associated with perpetuating and/or being a victim/survivor of GBV (or IPV) include exposure to violence in childhood; social and cultural norms that support violence (e.g. high acceptability of violence); rigid gender norms and harmful ideas of masculinity (e.g. masculinity means strength, dominance and control); and mental health problems and harmful substance use (e.g. depression and alcohol abuse, respectively). Much remains to be learned about whether and how these factors causally “drive” violence, though research is paying growing attention to these questions.
While violence can affect anyone, some social and demographic factors have been linked to a heightened risk of violence. Poverty, for example, can directly and indirectly contribute to violence, including by heightening household stress, limiting women’s options outside of violent relationships, and/or keeping victims/survivors trapped in violent relationships. However, the link between poverty and violence is complex and context dependent. Increased income is not always a risk or protective factor. Extreme poverty has been shown to limit opportunities for intra-personal conflicts over household finances in some settings, while increases in women’s income in contexts of high gender inequality has sometimes led to “backlash” and increased violence. In these cases, the increase in women’s income and/or autonomy can be perceived as a threat to masculinity or a challenge to established social and/or power structures. The complex interplay between violence and indicators of income and poverty has led some researchers to argue that the relative income (or empowerment) of women and men is more important than their absolute individual level of income (or empowerment). In other words, economic inequality in the context of poverty is more “important” in explaining violence than poverty alone (Jewkes, 2002[6]).
Systems-level factors may further perpetuate GBV, such as low (or no) moral or legal sanctions for violence, weak punishment of perpetrators and poor law enforcement practices.
Given the complex risk factors for violence – and the interplay between them – Heise (1998[7]) has developed an influential ecological approach to violence against women that emphasises the importance of intervention at multiple levels, including individual, inter-personal and societal levels. In this approach, GBV is an expression and reinforcer of inequitable power relations between women and men, and efforts to address gender inequality play an important part in addressing GBV. At the same time, theories of GBV that emphasise violence as an expression of inequitable power relations can fail to explain why some men commit violence when others do not (Heise, 1998[7]).
A comprehensive and cross-sectoral approach is therefore needed to effectively address the varied and inter-related risk factors for GBV, with integrated action across government ministries – social, labour, health, justice and other – that effectively addresses the causes and consequences of violence.
Source: Gibbs et al. (2020[8]), Cesur et al. (2022[9]), Oram et al. (2022[10]), University College London (2025[11]), and Heise (2011[12]).
Estimating the prevalence and incidence of GBV is extremely challenging, and there are considerable limitations to the availability and international comparability of existing prevalence estimates (OECD, 2023[3]; OECD, 2020[13]; OECD, 2017[14]). Some reasons for this include:
Underreporting
Whether estimates are based on survey data (e.g. data on experiences of violence collected from a sample of (representative) respondents) or administrative data (e.g. records of violence as reported to police, health providers, etc.), underreporting is a persistent problem and leads to low estimates of the prevalence and incidence of GBV (Beck et al., 2023[2]). For example, in the EU, only 68% of women who report (in an anonymous survey) having experienced IPV say they told someone – either a person or service – about their experience, with only 17% telling the police and 33% telling a health, social or support service (Eurostat, 2024[15]). In this same survey, only 37% of victims/survivors of sexual harassment at work say they told an official body (e.g. support, health or social service, policy or officials at work), while 78% say they told an unofficial person (e.g. colleague, close person) (Eurostat, 2024[16]).
There are many reasons for underreporting. Victims/survivors may be reluctant or unable to disclose the abuse due to fear, feelings of shame, or concerns that their disclosure would not be believed or taken seriously (OECD, 2023[3]). In the case of survey data, specifically, victims/survivors may not recognise or identify their experiences as violence. In addition, victims/survivors may be unable to disclose abuse due to coercive and controlling surveillance and monitoring by their abuser. Coercive control of victims/survivors can extend to correspondence, including online and digital platforms, such as social media profiles and email (Harris and Woodlock, 2018[17]). In the case of administrative data, often drawn from police records, victims/survivors may be reluctant to report violence due to a fear of retribution and a lack of confidence in the criminal justice system (see Chapter 5 in OECD (2023[3])).
Novel methods for measuring the incidence and prevalence of violence using internet search records may help to overcome some underreporting issues and increase the accuracy of the measurement of prevalence (Anderberg, Rainer and Siuda, 2021[18]; Berniell and Facchini, 2021[19]). Research using internet search data points to much greater increases in domestic violence during COVID‑19 lockdowns than estimates would suggest based on police records (Anderberg, Rainer and Siuda, 2021[18]).
Cross-country heterogeneity in measurement
Heterogeneity within and across countries in survey question wording, sampling, definitions, interview methods (e.g. in person, online) and timing affects the propensity and accuracy of reporting (Beck et al., 2023[2]; OECD, 2020[13]). Countries also vary in the frequency and intensity of data collection, with some countries systematically surveying every few years, while others survey much less frequently and/or in an ad hoc fashion. Administrative reporting procedures may also differ within and across countries for a variety of reasons, including the lack of a centralised body for regulating data collection, differences in legal definitions of violence, and variations in the existence and application of laws (EIGE, 2016[20]). This can further complicate the measurement and comparability of the prevalence of GBV.
Cross-country heterogeneity in norms and stigma
Even in cases where survey methods are harmonised across countries, differences in norms and stigma around GBV can affect perceptions and understanding of violence, as well as willingness to report. For instance, there may be cross-country differences in the social acceptability of disclosing acts of violence, as well-harmonised cross-country European surveys seem to suggest (OECD, 2020[13]).
This section uses a life course approach to explore experiences of violence in private spaces (e.g. home), semi-public spaces (e.g. work, school) and public spaces (e.g. transit, park). Cyber spaces are also briefly discussed.
8.1.1. Childhood and adolescence: Child sexual abuse is devastatingly high, and particularly high amongst girls
Childhood maltreatment may take many forms – including physical, sexual or emotional abuse, as well as neglect and exposure to (including witnessing) family violence and IPV (McTavish et al., 2016[21]; Sethi et al., 2018[22]) – and is linked to many lifelong problems, such as “substance misuse, high-risk sexual activity, noncommunicable disease, mental illness and interpersonal violence” (Sethi et al., 2018[22]) and disrupted emotional, social and cognitive development (McTavish et al., 2016[21]; Mueller and Tronick, 2019[23]). Eliminating childhood maltreatment could, therefore, confer significant benefits to society.
There is, however, limited consistent and harmonised data on childhood maltreatment (Box 8.3), making it difficult to assess the extent to which girls and boys are exposed (and may be differently exposed) to childhood maltreatment, both overall and by type. Based on the available data, girls report considerably higher rates of sexual childhood maltreatment. In Belgium, for example, the prevalence of sexual childhood maltreatment is estimated at 20% for girls versus 10% for boys, while in Norway, rates are estimated at 10% for girls and 4% for boys. Girls and boys in Norway are, by contrast, estimated to have similar prevalence rates for physical childhood maltreatment (Sethi et al., 2018[22]).
Survey-based estimates of childhood maltreatment are hard to come by and difficult to compare. Indeed, as reported by 49 out of 53 countries in the European Region responding to a WHO questionnaire, only 35 countries have representative national child maltreatment surveys and only 20 conduct regular surveys (Sethi et al., 2018[22]; Mathews et al., 2020[24]). Even in those cases where estimates are available, results are limited to only one or a few types of maltreatment and come from surveys with varied samples and methods and which may not use standardised instruments. Given the significant personal and social benefits that could be derived from eliminated childhood maltreatment, governments should work toward introducing regular surveys measuring and tracking childhood maltreatment at the national level, with results disaggregated by type of abuse and by social, demographic and economic characteristics – such as gender, race and ethnicity, urban or rural status and income. Surveys on childhood maltreatment can be administered to adults reflecting on historical experiences (see Box 8.4 for an example from Canada), but may also be administered to children. In the United Kingdom, the government is currently assessing the feasibility of a survey to measure the prevalence of child abuse, with recommendations that the survey take place in schools among children aged 11‑15 years (UK Office for National Statistics, 2024[25]).
Source: Sethi et al. (2018[22]) and Mathews et al. (2020[24]).
These results are mirrored in the World Health Organization (WHO)’s Violence Info Database. This database – which provides weighted averages of prevalence estimates across available studies – finds that the estimated prevalence of childhood physical abuse for girls and boys is roughly similar, while the estimated prevalence of sexual abuse is nearly double for girls compared to boys (Figure 8.1). These figures, however, aggregate estimates from relevant studies and do not represent global (or even regional) averages. Recent estimates from the EU suggest that, in 2021, 7% of women self-report having experienced sexual violence in childhood, defined as before the age of 15 years (Eurostat, 2024[26]). Estimates for men in the EU were not available at the time of writing, but Eurostat will soon publish statistics on men from the 11 EU countries that included men in their most recent EU-GBV survey.
Weighted average across studies of estimates of lifetime prevalence (%) of childhood physical abuse, sexual abuse and psychological abuse for girls and boys
Note: The WHO Violence Studies Database on Child maltreatment is a collection of 3 293 studies on child maltreatment. These estimates do not represent global prevalence estimates, but instead, the mean of the set of estimates from the selected studies. Estimates are weighted by sample size. For physical abuse, there are 164 studies with estimates for girls and 96 studies with estimates for boys contributing to the mean. For sexual abuse, there are 515 studies for girls and 324 for boys. For psychological abuse, there are 71 for girls and 53 for boys. Data for this figure can be downloaded via Annex 8.A.
Source: WHO Violence Info, Violence Studies Database, Child maltreatment (https://apps.who.int/violence-info/child-maltreatment).
While GBV can affect anyone, gender may intersect with other identity characteristics to contribute to a higher risk of violence. In Canada, First Nations and Métis women and men are more likely to report experiences of childhood abuse than non-Indigenous women and men (Figure 8.2). A history of socio‑economic marginalisation, territorial dispossession, and intergenerational trauma have contributed to complex and inequitable outcomes for Indigenous people, including “higher rates of serious physical health problems, issues with mental health and cognitive impairment, suicide, physical and sexual abuse, alcohol and drug abuse, interpersonal violence, family breakdown, and involvement both as victims/survivors and accused/convicted persons in the criminal justice system” (Department of Justice Canada, 2024[27]).
Gender gaps are also larger for people with disability and sexual minorities. As in the case of Indigenous women and men, this reflects differences in underlying drivers (Box 8.1), including socio‑economic marginalisation and systemic discrimination as well as differences in trust in justice systems and willingness to report.
Share (%) of women and men reporting experiences of physical and sexual abuse as children, Canada 2018
Note: The 2018 Survey of Safety in Public and Private Spaces has a sample size of 145 000 individuals. The survey was delivered to non-institutionalised persons 15 years of age or older, not living on an Indigenous reserve, living in the 10 provinces or 3 territories of Canada. Data for this figure can be downloaded via Annex 8.A.
Source: Statistics Canada Table 35‑10‑0167‑01 “Self-reported physical and sexual abuse during childhood” based on 2018 Survey of Safety in Public and Private Spaces (www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3510016701).
Cyberbullying is the product of technological developments creating new and/or amplified avenues for harassment, especially among children and teenagers. Exposure to cyberbullying can lead to mental health problems, such as anxiety, depression and self-harm (Lindert, 2017[28]). Among EU and OECD countries, cyberbullying is reported more often among girls than among boys (see Online Annex Figure 8‑A1) (OECD, 2022[29]). Since digitalisation across all areas of life – education, employment and leisure, etc. – will continue apace, it is imperative to find ways of making the online space safe for all people (OECD, 2019[30]).
8.1.2. Adulthood: Many women experience violence
This section focuses on violence against women across several spaces – private, semi-public and public – presenting statistics on the prevalence of violence and perceptions of violence.
Private spaces: Many women report experiences of intimate partner violence
Women may be exposed to many types of violence, including physical, sexual, emotional, psychological, social, cultural, spiritual, financial, economic and technology-facilitated, among others. Such violence may be carried out by intimate partners, family members, friends, colleagues or strangers.
Recent estimates from a cross-EU survey suggest that, on average, 36% of ever-partnered women have experienced psychological, physical (including threats) and/or sexual violence from an intimate partner in their lifetime (Figure 8.3). Of these three types of IPV, psychological violence alone is reported by 34% of women, and physical or sexual violence is reported by 20%.
Share (%) of ever-partnered women who have ever experienced violence committed by an intimate partner, by type of violence, EU‑27 average, 2021
Note: EU‑27 average is unweighted. Violence by an intimate partner covers psychological, physical (including threats) and sexual violence. Intimate partners are persons with whom a respondent has or had an intimate relationship. Prevalence of intimate partner violence is calculated out of women who have ever been in an intimate partnership. For more details on definitions and methodology, see Eurostat (2024[31]). For results for each EU‑27 country by occurrence of last episode, see Online Annex Figure 8‑A2. Data for this figure can be downloaded via Annex 8.A.
Source: Eurostat “Ever-partnered women who have experienced violence by an intimate partner, by type of violence” (https://doi.org/10.2908/GBV_IPV_TYPE).
Many women report experiencing such violence recently, with 14% reporting occurrence(s) in the past 5 years and 6% reporting occurrence(s) in the past 12 months (see Online Annex Figure 8‑A2) (Eurostat, 2024[32]; WHO, 2024[33]). And repeat offenses are common. Looking at women in EU countries who have reported experiencing physical (including threats) or sexual violence from an intimate partner, an average of almost 80% report that they were abused repeatedly, not just once (see Online Annex Figure 8‑A3) (Eurostat, 2024[34]).
The consequences of intimate partner violence can be significant, including potential negative impacts on the physical and mental health of victims/survivors and their families, and on victims/survivors’ safety, employment, economic security, housing, and social well-being (Loxton et al., 2017[35]; Stewart, MacMillan and Wathen, 2013[36]; Karakurt, Smith and Whiting, 2014[37]; Hing et al., 2021[38]). This violence can also be fatal.
According to a recent survey in the EU, men are on average more likely than women to report experiences of physical violence in the past five years and in the past 12 months (Fundamental Rights Agency, 2020[39]) and men account for the majority of victims of homicide in most EU countries (Eurostat, 2024[40]). But unlike women, men are less likely than women to be partnered with or related to their perpetrator.
Although statistically less likely, many men are still victims/survivors of IPV. In 2023, for example, men accounted for about one‑third of all people who experienced domestic abuse in the United Kingdom according to the Crime Survey for England and Wales (UK Office for National Statistics, 2023[41]). And in Spain in this same year, 39% of victims/survivors registered in domestic violence matters were men according to the Central Register for the Protection of Victims of Domestic and Gender Violence (Instituto Nacional de Estadística, 2024[42]).
As with women, underreporting of IPV is an issue for men and these figures are not necessarily accurate representations of the true gender distribution of IPV (see Box 8.2). Whatever the true distribution may be, it is a fact that both women and men may experience IPV and that both women and men victims/survivors of IPV face many barriers to reporting and accessing services and support – such as fear, shame and a lack of appropriate resources. In addition, recent evidence suggests that women and men may not experience the same barriers in the same way and that there may be gender-specific barriers (Taylor et al., 2021[43]). Men, for instance, may have to confront cultural norms that associate masculinity with strength and self-reliance, making them reluctant to admit to their vulnerability for fear of being labelled weak. In addition, men may feel isolated when trying to find help since many services and supports are targeted toward women (and their children), including much online information and many hotlines and shelters (Taylor et al., 2021[43]).
Recognising that women and men may experience IPV differently, governments should work toward implementing comprehensive policy packages that support both women and men equally and address their unique needs and barriers in the context of IPV. This includes ensuring men have access to shelters and counselling services and working toward eliminating harmful norms and stereotypes that prevent men from seeking supports, such as through anti-stigma awareness campaigns.
In the most recent EU survey on Gender-Based Violence against Women and Other Forms of Inter-Personal Violence (EU-GBV) (Eurostat, 2024[31]), the following definitions are used when aggregating the data by category of violence.
Psychological violence encompasses acts of emotional abuse and controlling behaviour, such as belittling and humiliation; restrictions on friends, family, hobbies or other activities; tracking via GPS, phone or social network; forbidding leaving the house without permission or being locked up; constantly receiving accusations of unfaithfulness; facing anger after speaking to another person; forbidding or restricting work; controlling family finances and victim/survivor spending; keeping or taking away identification as a means of control; yelling and smashing things or behaving in a way to scare or intimidate; threatening to hurt the children or people close to the victim/survivor; threatening to take away the children or to deny custody; and threatening to harm themselves.
Physical violence refers to behaviour or acts involving harm and fear, such as threatening harm; pushing or shoving, pulling hair, slapping or throwing objects; punching or beating with an object; kicking; burning (with fire, acid or any other means); trying to choke or strangle; threatening to use or actually using a knife, gun, acid or something similar; or using force in some way with the aim of hurt or harm.
Sexual violence includes unwanted sexual intercourse through force or physical violence or by exploiting a situation where refusal of sexual intercourse is not possible due to the influence of alcohol or drugs, fear or force. Attempts to carry out any of the above acts or any other unwanted sexual behaviour perceived as degrading or humiliating are also included. Sexual violence in childhood covers experiences before the age of 15 perpetrated by any person, such as posing naked in front of another person, unwanted sexual touching or sexual intercourse.
Intimate partner violence in Eurostat (2024[31]) includes psychological, physical (including threats) and sexual violence. Violence by non-partner, domestic perpetrator and any perpetrator covers physical (including threats) and sexual violence.
Data collection for the first wave took place between September 2020 and March 2024 in EU countries based on their national timetables. Eurostat collected data in 18 EU countries. The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) and the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) collected data in eight EU countries not covered by Eurostat following the EU-GBV manual.
Source: Eurostat (2021[44]), “Methodological manual for the EU survey on Gender-Based Violence against Women and Other Forms of Inter-Personal Violence (EU-GBV)” and Eurostat (2024[31]) “Reference metadata for EU survey on Gender-Based Violence against Women and Other Forms of Inter-Personal Violence (EU-GBV).”
Although existing estimates are not directly comparable to one another due to differing methodologies and questions, evidence across surveys points to a continued acceptance of violence against women in EU and OECD countries. For example, across OECD countries with available data, 19% of people believe it is justifiable under at least some circumstances for a man to beat his wife, 8% of people believe that it is acceptable for a man to occasionally slap his wife or girlfriend, and 5% believe that a man can have sex with his wife or girlfriend without her consent (Figure 8.4). But the prevalence of such beliefs is likely underestimated due to social desirability bias – meaning that true acceptance in the population is in all probability higher. Indeed, much research has shown that survey respondents tend to overreport socially desirable characteristics and underreport socially undesirable ones when asked sensitive questions in surveys, especially on taboo topics (Krumpal, 2023[45]), such as IPV (Sugarman and Hotaling, 1997[46]).
Share (%) of respondents who believe certain forms of IPV are justifiable or acceptable according to various sources, EU and OECD averages, 2024 or latest
Note: EU and OECD are unweighted averages. For “justifiable for a man to beat his wife” (World Values Survey), there are 7 EU and 15 OECD countries with available data. Countries belonging to both the EU and the OECD are counted toward both averages, so there is overlap in membership in the averages. For “sex without her consent” and “slapping wife or girlfriend” (Eurobarometer), there are 27 EU and 22 OECD countries. For “justifiable for a man to beat his wife, respondents rate on a scale from 1 to 10 whether it is justifiable for a man to beat his wife. Response options range from “Never justifiable” (1) to “Always justifiable” (10). Estimates include all responses from 2 to 10 as evidence of believing there are some circumstances under which it is justifiable to beat a wife. Data refer to the 7th wave of the World Values Survey (WVS), which took place between 2017 and 2022. The majority of surveys were completed between 2018 and 2020. WVS must cover the population aged 18‑85 years, but age ranges may be lowered as long as the minimum required sample of 1 200 for the population aged 18 years and over is achieved. For “sex without her consent,” respondents are asked to what extent they agree or disagree with various statements, including “A husband or boyfriend can have sex with his wife or girlfriend without her consent.” Response options are “Totally agree,” “Tend to agree,” “Tend to disagree,” “Totally disagree,” and “Don’t know/prefer not to answer.” Shares reflect the sum of “Totally agree” and “Tend to agree,” For “slapping wife or girlfriend,” respondents were asked what they think about various situations, including “A man occasionally slapping his wife/girlfriend.” Response options were “I find it unacceptable,” “I find it acceptable under certain circumstances,” “I find it acceptable” and “Don’t know/prefer not to answer.” Shares reflect the sum of “I find it acceptable under certain circumstances” and “I find it acceptable.” Data for this figure can be downloaded via Annex 8.A.
Source: OECD Secretariat calculations using European Commission “Flash Eurobarometer FL544: Gender stereotypes Violence against women” (https://data.europa.eu/data/datasets/s3252_fl544_eng) and World Values Survey Wave 7 (2017‑22) Cross-National Data-Set (www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSOnline.jsp).
Much research has found that people with disability are at greater risk of violence than people without disability, and this is no different for women with disability (Savage, 2021[47]). According to a recent EU survey, around half of all women with a severe disability have experienced intimate partner violence in their lifetime (51%) compared to a third of women without disability (33%) (Figure 8.5).
Share (%) of ever-partnered women who have experienced violence by an intimate partner by level of disability, EU‑23 average, 2021
Note: EU‑23 is an unweighted average. Hungary, Slovenia, and Ireland do not have data for “severe disability,” and as a result, have been excluded from the averages. Disability status is measured through a concept of general activity limitation (limitation in activities people usually do because of health problems for at least the past six months). See Figure 8.3 and Box 8.7 for more details on definitions and methods. Data for this figure can be downloaded via Annex 8.A.
Source: Eurostat “Ever-partnered women who have experienced violence by an intimate partner, by level of disability (activity limitation)” (https://doi.org/10.2908/GBV_IPV_LIM).
Similar results emerge in Mexico in the Encuesta Nacional sobre la Dinámica de las Relaciones en los Hogares 2021 (“National Survey on the Dynamics of Household Relationships 2021”), which finds that women with disability (49%) are more likely to have experienced violence from a partner in their lifetime than women without disability or limitation (35%) (INEGI, 2021[48]).
Intimate partners are, however, only one type of perpetrator. Many women experience violence – physical and sexual – at the hands of other types of perpetrators, including non-partners and other domestic perpetrators. Looking at all women in the European Union and specifically at physical or sexual violence (including threats), 12% of all women report such experiences from someone they know but to whom they are not related, 9% from someone who is a stranger and 5% from a family member (Figure 8.6).
Share (%) of women who report experiences of physical or sexual violence (including threats) by type of perpetrator, EU‑26 average, 2021
Note: EU‑26 is an unweighted average. “Non-partners” are all perpetrators with whom a respondent does not have or has never had an intimate relationship. “Family member or relative,” Known but not family or relative,” and “Stranger” are an average of 26 EU countries, as data for Italy are missing for these categories. See Box 8.7 for more details on definitions and methods. Categories do not aggregate since respondents may experience violence from more than one type of perpetrator. Data for this figure can be downloaded via Annex 8.A.
Source: Eurostat, “Women who have experienced violence by a non-partner, by type of perpetrator” (https://doi.org/10.2908/GBV_NPV_PERP).
Just as it is challenging to compare survey-based estimates of GBV across countries (Box 8.2), it is also challenging to compare GBV estimates based on administrative data, such as judicial records from police or the courts. Several factors complicate comparability, including:
Cross-country differences in reporting violence to police: In the EU, a recent survey finds that only 19% of women who had experienced intimate partner violence in their lifetime reported it to the police, and only 11% reported violence by non-partners (including family or relatives, known people who are not family or relatives and strangers) to the police (see Online Annex Figure 8-A4) (Eurostat, 2024[15]; Eurostat, 2024[49]).
There are many reasons why women do not report incidents to the police, such as a lack of faith in the criminal justice system, limited or no “hard” evidence, confusing evidence requirements, unclear procedures for reporting incidents, potential re traumatisation through reporting, fear of retaliation, self-blame and knowing the perpetrator (see Online Annex Figure 8-A5) (Stewart et al., 2023[50]; Johnson, 2017[51]; Murphy-Oikonen et al., 2020[52]; Fundamental Rights Agency, 2020[39]). A lack of faith in the criminal justice system may stem, in part, from the fact that many women who have come forward to the police with cases of sexual assault have had their cases dismissed as baseless or deemed unfounded, facing “insensitivity, blaming questions, lack of investigation and lack of follow-up” (Murphy-Oikonen et al., 2020[52]). Though difficult to measure, confidence in the police (and willingness to report) (Box 8.2) as well as norms and stigma around violence and reporting (Figure 8.4) may systematically vary by country, contributing to measurement error in cross-national estimates.
Cross-country differences in legal treatment of violence against women: There are differences in the legal treatment of sexual assault and rape across countries. In 17 EU and OECD countries, the legal definition of rape is not based on a lack of consent and in 11 EU and OECD countries, the legal definition of rape does not include marital rape (see Online Annex Figure 8-A6 based on OECD (OECD, 2024[53]).
Cross-national variation in governments’ aggregation and publication of judicial records on GBV: Governments may have different capacity and effectiveness in aggregating administrative records on GBV at the national level. Countries in which policing is largely governed regionally or locally, for example, may have less capacity and/or authority to produce and publish accurate national estimates of GBV.
Semi-public spaces: GBV persists in workplaces and in educational institutions
As in private spaces, there are many different forms of violence that may be experienced in semi-public spaces, such as the workplace or school.
Many women experience violence and harassment in the workplace
According to the most recent EU survey on GBV, 34% of women who have ever worked report experiencing sexual harassment at work in their lifetime and 5% report such experiences in the last 12 months (Box 8.10) (Figure 8.7, Panel A). When looking at the type of perpetrator, this 34% is inclusive of the 29% of ever-working women who report workplace sexual harassment from a perpetrator who was male, the 16% who report it from a male co-worker and the 8% who report it from a male boss (noting that these values sum to greater than 34% because women may experience sexual harassment from more than one type of perpetrator) (Figure 8.7, Panel B).
Share (%) of ever-working women who have experienced sexual harassment at work by occurrence of the last episode (Panel A) and by type of male perpetrator (Panel B), EU‑27 average, 2021
Note: EU‑27 average is unweighted. See Box 8.10 for the definition of sexual harassment at work. In this figure, types of perpetrators are defined according to relationship and power: “Co-worker” is a person with whom one works, typically someone in a similar role or at a similar level within an organisation. “Boss” is a job title of a management position that is primarily based on authority over a worker or being in charge of a workplace. “Other work-related person” is someone with whom the respondent has a professional relationship but who does not work in the same workplace as the respondent (e.g. client, customer, patient, student, passenger, etc.). In both Panel A and Panel B, the top row is a total, and therefore inclusive of the subsequent categories. In Panel B, respondents may have experienced sexual harassment in the workplace from multiple types of perpetrators, so categories are not additive. Data for this figure can be downloaded via Annex 8.A.
Source: Eurostat “Ever-working women who have experienced sexual harassment at work, by occurrence of the last episode” (https://doi.org/10.2908/GBV_SHW_OCC) and “Ever-working women who have experienced sexual harassment at work, by type of male perpetrator” (https://doi.org/10.2908/GBV_SHW_PERP).
Although sexual harassment at work may only be a single instance, for many women it is a recurring problem. In fact, almost one in five ever-working women in EU countries report having experienced repeated occurrences of sexual harassment in the workplace (Eurostat, 2024[54]). This reflects in part that an average of 20% of people in EU‑27 countries believe it is acceptable under at least some circumstances for men to make suggestive comments or allusions about a woman colleague’s appearance at work (Eurobarometer, 2024[55]). As with perceptions of IPV, these figures are likely low due to social desirability bias.
Despite this evidence of persistent and continued sexual harassment at work, in EU‑27 countries in 2019, an average of 33% of women and 40% of men believed there was too much attention on issues like sexual harassment in the workplace (see Online Annex Figure 8‑A7) (Fundamental Rights Agency, 2020[39]).
As with other forms of violence against women, definitions of sexual harassment at work vary across sources and surveys. In the most recent EU survey on GBV against women, sexual harassment at work was defined to cover the following unwanted behaviours with sexual connotations that happen in a work context: inappropriate staring or leering; being exposed to sexually explicit images or videos; indecent sexual jokes or offensive remarks about a person’s body or private life; inappropriate invitations to go out on a date or suggestions for sexual activity of any kind; unsolicited physical contact; inappropriate advances on social networking websites or sexually explicit emails or text messages; threatening with unpleasant consequences if sexual proposals or advances are refused; and any other similar behaviour with sexual connotations that took place at work or in work-related settings and that offended, humiliated or intimidated the respondent (Eurostat, 2024[31]).
Gender-based violence and violence against women persist in educational institutions
Schools, universities and research institutions are another semi-public space where violence against women persists. In a recent (non-representative) EU survey spanning 46 participating universities across 15 countries, UniSAFE found that 66% of women reported some form of violence within their academic or research environments compared to 56% of men (Lipinsky et al., 2022[56]). This includes physical, psychological, economic and sexual violence, as well as sexual harassment and online violence.
Psychological violence was the most prevalent form of violence, followed by sexual harassment. As with violence in other settings, few victims/survivors reported their experiences of violence, with many noting that they were unsure whether the behaviour was serious enough to report, that they did not recognise the behaviour as violence at the time it was perpetrated, and that they did not think that anything would result from reporting.
The survey also found significant negative impacts among staff and student victim/survivors, including feeling dissatisfied with work or school, reduced productivity or academic achievement, and having considered leaving the academic environment.
Given that such experiences persist for both staff and students within educational settings, governments should (continue to) work toward eliminating violence on campuses and ensure victims/survivors receive adequate supports and services, such as counseling and legal assistance.
Public spaces: Women feel less safe in public than men
Even though violence toward women may be more likely to come from within the family, women continue to face violence and the threat of violence in public every day in the EU and the OECD. This, unsurprisingly, translates into a lower sense of safety. Indeed, in OECD‑38 countries, only 68% of women report feeling safe when walking alone at night, while 82% of men report the same (see Online Annex Figure 8‑A8) (OECD, 2024[57]).
Reflecting this lower sense of safety, many women adapt their behaviour in public spaces out of fear of being harassed or assaulted, including avoiding places where there are no other people around, avoiding certain streets, and avoiding being alone with a person who arouses fear (Figure 8.8).
Share (%) of respondents who report various preventative behaviours sometimes, often or all of the time out of a fear of being assaulted or harassed, by gender, EU‑27 average, 2019
Note: EU‑27 average is weighted. Data are based on 34 948 respondents, interviewed between January and October 2019. Data for this figure can be downloaded via Annex 8.A.
Source: Fundamental Rights Agency, Fundamental Rights Survey 2020 (https://fra.europa.eu/en/publications-and-resources/data-and-maps/2021/frs).
Gender gaps in perceived public safety – and women’s related preventive and protective behaviours – highlight the importance of public safety measures, including adequate street lighting, and safe, affordable and reliable public transportation options. Without such investments in public spaces, women’s real and perceived lack of safety can limit their access to education, jobs and healthcare services (ITF, 2018[58]).
In countries where data is publicly available, evidence shows that women’s perceptions of safety vary across different social and demographic groups. In Australia, for example, women with disability are more likely to feel unsafe while walking alone in their local area after dark (23%) than women without disability (13%) (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2023[59]). Women belonging to the lowest quintile of the socio‑economic index of disadvantage are also more likely to report feeling unsafe (25%) than women in the highest quintile (12%). Similar results emerge for visible minority women in Canada, who are 4 percentage points more likely than women who are not a visible minority to feel unsafe walking in their neighbourhood alone after dark (18% versus 14%). There are also important differences between visible minority groups. Only 12% of Latin American women felt unsafe, compared to 28% of Southeast Asian women (Statistics Canada, 2024[60]). Although based on a slightly different question, results from the third EU-wide survey on the experiences of immigrants and their descendants show that “Muslim women who wear religious clothing in public face more harassment than those who do not (27% compared to 16%)” (Fundamental Rights Agency, 2024[61]). Muslim men wearing religious clothing also reported discrimination (24%), but slightly less than Muslim women wearing religious clothing.
Since the means for technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TF-GBV) are ever evolving with technology advancements, there is currently no standardised, widely used definition for TF-GBV. It can be considered to refer to a form of violence where perpetrators use digital technologies (e.g. social media, messaging apps, online forums, gaming platforms, etc.) to intimidate, harass, threaten or otherwise cause harm (Canadian Women's Foundation, 2024[62]). Digital technologies may be used to commit violence on their own, but may also be used to assist, aggravate or amplify other forms of violence (Government of Australia, 2024[63]).
Based on available data, women and girls may be disproportionately at risk of TF-GBV (Dunn, 2021[64]), especially those who are in public spheres (e.g. celebrities, politicians).
In a study by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), 85% of women report witnessing online violence against other women (including from outside their networks), 65% report knowing other women who have been targeted online from their personal or professional networks, and 38% report personal experiences with online violence (EIU, 2021[65]). In the EIU study, misinformation and defamation – defined as the spreading of rumours and slander to discredit a woman’s character – are the most commonly reported type of online threat to women. This is followed closely by cyber harassment (i.e. repeated behaviour using textual or graphical content to frighten and undermine self-esteem) and hate speech (i.e. sexist or hateful language designed to attack or humiliate). This may, in part, reflect the normalisation of violence toward women in online settings. In a recent survey run in EU countries, for example, 21% of respondents agreed that when a woman shares her opinion on social media, she should accept that it may elicit sexist, demeaning and/or abusive replies (Eurobarometer, 2024[55]).
Recognising the significant negative impacts of TF-GBV, the Government of Australia has conducted an audit of key government systems to identify areas where they are being weaponised by perpetrators of violence, and the eSafety Commissioner has developed advice on Safety by Design (Government of Australia, 2024[66]; Government of Australia, n.d.[67]). This exercise recognises that violence can also be “system abuses,” defined as “the manipulation of legal and other systems by perpetrators of family violence, done so in order to exert control over, threaten and harass a current or former partner” (Government of Australia, 2022[68]).
8.1.3. Later life: Abuse of older people requires particular attention as populations age
As with abuse in earlier stages of life, abuse of older people may take many forms (e.g. neglect, psychological, physical, sexual and financial), may be perpetrated by various individuals (e.g. family members, friends, informal or formal caregivers, co-residents in homes or institutions, acquaintances and strangers), and may take place in any number of settings (e.g. home, community establishments, public spaces and healthcare institutions) (Bolkan, Teaster and Ramsey-Klawsnik, 2023[69]).
Consistent, harmonised and timely data on abuse of older people is scarce, but country- and time‑specific evidence suggests that abuse of older people is pervasive. One meta‑analysis finds that, over the past year, 33% of older adults in institutional settings reported psychological abuse, 14% reported physical abuse, 14% financial abuse, and 2% sexual abuse (Yon et al., 2018[70]). Another meta‑analysis found a pooled prevalence rate of 10% among older people using population-based studies and 34% using third party- or caregiver-reported studies, suggesting “third parties or caregivers [are] more likely to report abuse than older abused adults” (Ho, Wong and Ho, 2017[71]). The most common subtype of abuse is emotional abuse. Other research, including surveys of staff in long-term care institutions, also reveals that neglect and abuse are alarmingly common (Myhre et al., 2020[72]; Malmedal, Ingebrigtsen and Saveman, 2009[73]; Drennan et al., 2012[74]).
Since rigorous data on abuse of older people are lacking (WHO, 2024[75]), it is perhaps not surprising that data disaggregated by gender is also lacking. In one meta‑analysis, women are found to be more at risk than men (Ho, Wong and Ho, 2017[71]). Another meta‑analysis, using 50 studies from community settings and focused on older women, found that 14% of older women reported experiencing abuse in the past 12 months (Yon et al., 2017[76]), with psychological abuse as the most common.
Beyond the indicators presented in this chapter and in the Online Annex, relevant data sources include:
OECD Dashboard on Gender Gaps: Presents key indicators on gender inequalities in education, employment, governance, health and well-being and private and public leadership.
European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE)’s Gender Statistics Database: Includes gender-disaggregated indicators from a range of topics relating to violence against women and GBV, including various types of violence, female genital mutilation, human trafficking and attitudes and perceptions toward violence.
Fundamental Rights Agency Fundamental Rights Survey 2020: Contains questions relating to crime victimisation and safety, data protection and privacy, functioning of democracy, views on human rights and experiences with public services.
Eurobarometer 2024 Survey on Gender Stereotypes Toward Violence against Women: Includes questions aimed at gaining a “better understanding of EU citizens’ attitudes towards violence, and relativisation of violent or humiliating behaviours” (Eurobarometer, 2024[55]).
WHO Violence Against Women Prevalence Estimates: Provides a comprehensive database drawing on population-based, nationally or sub-nationally representative surveys and studies.
WHO Violence Studies: Draws on 8 419 published scientific studies to provide data on “the prevalence, consequences, risk factors and effectiveness of prevention and response strategies” concerning violence against children, youth and older people, intimate partner violence, sexual violence and homicide (WHO, 2022[77]).
EU Survey on GBV against Women and Other Forms of Inter-Personal Violence (EU-GBV): Provides data on the prevalence of violence, including psychological, physical and sexual violence, sexual harassment at work, violence experienced in childhood and stalking.
Women, Business and the Law: Presents information on laws pertaining to protections against discrimination and sexual harassment in the workplace.
OECD Social Institutions and Gender Index: Contains information on laws, social norms and practices relating to discrimination in the family, restricted physical integrity, restricted civil liberties and restricted access to productive and financial resources, including measures of women’s protections from intimate partner violence, rape, sexual harassment and female genital mutilation and protection of new-born girls against discrimination.
Eliminating violence against women remains a top-cited gender equality priority for most OECD countries (Figure 8.9). According to the 2024 OECD Questionnaire on Policy Combinations for Gender Equality and the 2021 OECD Gender Equality Questionnaire – combined covering all 43 EU and OECD countries – 37 countries mentioned violence against women as one of their top three priorities for gender equality, with 24 mentioning it as their first priority. The United Kingdom even noted that “violence against women and girls is a national emergency” and the government has set out the ambition to halve violence against women and girls in a decade.
Violence against women has become an increasingly pressing issue since the OECD began surveying governments on gender equality priorities in 2016 (see Figure 1.6 in OECD (2017[78])), jumping from a top-three priority for 68% of the 31 OECD countries responding to the OECD questionnaire in 2016 to a top-three priority for 86% of the 43 OECD and EU countries responding in 2024. The continued prevalence of violence on the ground suggests that this prioritisation has not resulted in adequate policy (including budget) commitments.
Number of EU and OECD countries identifying specific policy issues as their first, second or third priority for gender equality, 2024 or latest
Note: OECD and EU countries selected priority issues in gender equality from a list of topics based on the OECD Recommendation on Gender Equality in Education, Employment and Entrepreneurship. The horizontal axis indicates the number of respondents that ranked the issues among their top three priorities for gender equality (or in some case listed them without ranking). Respondents also had the possibility to suggest additional priorities. These categories are indicated with a star. In total, 35 countries responded to the questionnaire, with 32 countries providing a ranking of three items, one country providing a listing of two items, one country providing a ranking of four items and one country providing a ranking of five items. Responses for the eight remaining EU and OECD countries are obtained from responses provided to the 2021 Gender Equality Questionnaire, including responses for Austria, Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom. A total of 43 countries responded to the 2024 Questionnaire on Policy Combinations for Gender Equality and/or the 2021 Gender Equality Questionnaire. Data for this figure can be downloaded via Annex 8.A.
Source: OECD Secretariat using the 2024 OECD Questionnaire on Policy Combinations for Gender Equality and the 2021 OECD Gender Equality Questionnaire.
As EU countries work toward implementing the provisions of the 2024 EU Directive on Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (see Box 8.14), significant policy developments on GBV are expected.
Council of Europe “Istanbul Convention”
The Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, known as the “Istanbul Convention,” was established in 2011 and sets a global standard for addressing GBV. Aimed at preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, it sets legally binding standards for signatory countries to protect women, prosecute perpetrators, and implement preventive measures. The Convention covers various forms of violence, including domestic violence, sexual harassment, rape, forced marriage and female genital mutilation. It also emphasises gender equality and the protection of victims/survivors through services such as shelters and legal assistance. The convention was signed on behalf of the EU in 2017, and it entered into force for the EU in 2023 (Council of Europe, 2011[79]).
EU Directive on combating violence against women and domestic violence
The EU Directive on combating violence against women and domestic violence, adopted in 2024, establishes common minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and penalties in the areas of sexual exploitation of women and children and computer crime; the rights of victims/survivors of violence against women or domestic violence before, during and after criminal proceedings; and the protection and support of victims/survivors, prevention and early intervention.
The Directive defines violence against women and domestic violence and mandates the criminalisation of acts like female genital mutilation, forced marriage, non-consensual sharing of intimate or manipulated material, cyber stalking, cyber harassment, and cyber incitement to violence or hatred. It also requires Member States to provide support services for victims/survivors, such as shelters, healthcare services and helplines, and implement legal protections such as protection orders and individual assessment to identify victim’s protection needs. The Directive places significant emphasis on prevention, including through public awareness, education and targeted measures for those at heightened risk, along with specialised training for law enforcement and judicial authorities. It additionally mandates enhanced data collection and co‑operation between national authorities. Member States are expected to comply with this Directive by 14 June 2027 (European Union, 2024[5]).
Using Table 8.1, this section applies the priority considerations of the conceptual framework included in Chapter 3 to advance gender equality in educational attainment and skills by exploring three examples of policy goals (priority consideration 1): eradicating GBV (Outcome A), eliminating workplace sexual harassment (Outcome B) and supporting victims/survivors (Outcome A and B). These goals need to be accompanied by a results framework (priority considerations 1 and 4), whose indicators can be drawn from those presented in Section 8.1 and additional sources.
Table 8.1 is designed to assist policy makers in identifying the range of cross-portfolio policy and programme combinations (priority consideration 3) and planning for their evaluation (priority consideration 2). While the list of policy options is extensive, it does not pretend to be exhaustive. At the same time, not all policy options apply in all settings or contexts. Overall, Table 8.1 aims to encourage the consideration of different policy options as part of a cross-sectoral and multi-stakeholder approach that works towards the achievement of gender equality outcomes.
To eradicate GBV, policy combinations should focus both on providing support to victims/survivors and on prevention, addressing harmful norms and stereotypes, rehabilitation of aggressors and raising awareness among citizens, lawmakers, service providers and other institutions (Beck et al., 2023[2]). This requires concerted efforts in policy areas relating to education, health, employment, justice, media and more. Implementing such policy combinations will also require efforts across numerous actors – national and subnational governments, healthcare providers, employers, frontline justice, service providers, collective bargaining units, online platforms, etc. (OECD, 2023[80]).
Educational institutions, for example, play an important role in preventing violence at the outset by ensuring the adequate provision of curriculum and education concerning consent, respectful relationships and positive masculinities. Sexual education (including campaigns) can also help to ensure the development of a healthy understanding and application of consent among both girls and boys.
Justice institutions should additionally be involved as perpetrators must both be adequately and appropriately punished and given opportunities for social rehabilitation and reintegration. Governments may also look to therapeutic (problem-solving) justice to address the root causes of criminal behaviour instead of simply punishing behaviour. This often involves collaboration between courts, social services, and other community-based organisations to help perpetrators overcome issues like substance abuse, mental health problems and poverty (OECD, 2016[81]). Moreover, justice services should be accessible and people‑centred, so that victims/survivors are able to achieve justice outcomes that respect their priorities and concerns, in line with the OECD Recommendation on Access to Justice and People‑centred Justice Systems.
At the same time, a range of integrated services must be made available to victims/survivors to ensure they have access to physical and mental health care, housing, employment and justice in a co‑ordinated and joined-up way – see OECD (2023[3]) and Box 8.15. This would mean understanding the legal and justice needs of the victims/survivors. To ensure that victims/survivors are not re‑traumatised with the re‑telling of violence upon every interaction with a service provider, such services should be integrated into a network that enables information sharing, while simultaneously protecting data and privacy. This may mean providing longer-term housing, financial assistance and re‑employment support as victims/survivors seek to leave violent situations. Clear and accountable (anonymous) reporting mechanisms and follow-up procedures may build trust and increase women’s sense of safety. Mental health supports can help ensure that victims/survivors can properly manage the trauma of their experiences. Awareness campaigns on the prevalence and impacts of GBV, including sexual harassment at work, may also be needed, especially since many women and men in the EU believe that there is too much attention on issues such as sexual harassment in the workplace (Fundamental Rights Agency, 2020[39]).
The OECD report Supporting Lives Free from Intimate Partner Violence (OECD, 2023[3]) focuses on integrated service delivery for women victims/survivors of IPV. Based on questionnaire responses from 35 OECD governments and extensive consultation with non-governmental service providers, the report finds that integrated survey delivery (ISD) is most frequently introduced at entry points in healthcare, emergency housing and police services. These sectors are increasingly interconnected and have linkages to income support, child-related services and legal assistance. Many of these ISD practices rely on case management, referral systems and/or physically co-located delivery. The report stresses the need for trauma‑informed, victim/survivor-centred approaches, where clear lines of communication must connect local service providers with national policy makers to enable better and more victim/survivor-centred policy design and service delivery. The report also highlights the need to a) focus on perpetrators, b) engage stakeholders for the co‑creation of good policies, c) strengthen data-sharing capabilities across agencies, and d) conduct rigorous evaluations of ISD strategies. All work “on the ground” should, of course, be embedded in well-designed, whole‑of-government strategies to address GBV (OECD, 2023[80]).
Table 8.1 also highlights the importance of feedback loops between policy goals. Gender differences in labour market outcomes may reflect that women are more exposed to GBV, but GBV may also impact the extent to which women are able to obtain an education (see Chapter 4), participate in the labour market (see Chapter 5) and advance to leadership positions (see Chapter 6). GBV may also contribute to poorer physical and mental health for women compared to men (see Chapter 7).
The effectiveness of the policies and programmes outlined in Table 8.1 varies across countries and across time. Continuous monitoring and evaluation that incorporates a gender perspective is essential for governments to understand the gendered effects of policies and programmes (see Chapters 2 and 3); ensure that policies and programmes are achieving their intended outcomes; identify strengths and areas for improvement; improve decision-making, resource allocation and accountability; and inform future strategies (priority consideration 6). While international evidence offers valuable insights on similar interventions, the effectiveness of each policy and programme will depend on their specific design and context – including interactions with other interventions, socio‑economic and cultural factors, available resources, and institutional settings. As outlined earlier in this chapter, the causes and consequences of violence span across many sectors, involving a complex interplay of individual, household, societal and structural factors. As such, interventions to prevent and stop GBV have been wide‑ranging, focusing on individuals (e.g. programmes targeted to people who use or may use violence, or programmes targeted to individuals to prevent victimisation, such as financial education or empowerment programmes for women and girls), couples/households (e.g. income support, relationship strengthening, parenting programmes), and societies/systems (e.g. interventions to address social norms and attitudes, ensuring access to services).
Yet, robust causal evaluations of interventions to stop violence against women are far too rare, linked to persistent funding, research and data gaps. Some international frameworks have sought to consolidate the evidence base on what works to stop violence, including the 2019 RESPECT framework, developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) and UN Women, which outlines the state of evidence on specific interventions to stop violence in high and low-income countries (WHO and UN Women, 2019[82]). In World Bank higher-income countries, promising actions (i.e. those where evaluations show significant reductions in violence outcomes) include labour force interventions such as employment policies, livelihood and employment training; couples counselling and therapy; empowerment counselling or psychological support to improve access to services (i.e. advocacy); measures to prevent child and adolescent abuse (specifically, home visitation and health worker outreach, parenting interventions and psychological support interventions for children who experience violence and who witness intimate partner violence). Some perpetrator interventions have also been found to be effective in reducing violence, though high-quality evidence on the effectiveness of perpetrator programmes remains scarce.
High-quality studies published in recent years have expanded and nuanced this evidence base, and have highlighted the importance of context-specific factors in mediating the impact of interventions on reducing violence. For example, access to services, such as health and police services, can improve the identification of violence and can help to reduce violence, at least in the short term. Looking at a 2012 healthcare reform in Spain that prevented access to the public healthcare system by undocumented migrants, Bellés-Obrero, Rice and Castello (2023[83]) found a 12% reduction in IPV reporting and application for protection orders amongst foreign women driven entirely by regions with stronger enforcement of the reform, highlighting the importance of healthcare access as a pathway to the identification/reporting of violence. Looking at police services in England (United Kingdom), Amaral et al. (2023[84]) found that arrest leads to a 51% reduction in future domestic violence calls in the ensuing years, driven by a decline in repeat victimisation.
Income and employment support can contribute to reducing violence, including through reductions in household stress and the empowerment of women (by increasing women’s options outside of the relationship, heightening their bargaining power and/or making it easier for them to leave the relationship). Looking at the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) in the United States between 1992‑2000, Cesur et al. (2022[9]) found that an expansion in the EITC reduced physical and sexual assault, with the effects highest amongst groups more likely to both be eligible for the ETIC and experience IPV. Yet, the causal mechanisms underlying the relationships between income, employment and violence are complex, and it is important that interventions are tailored (and evaluated in) local contexts, so that mechanisms (and any limitations to mechanisms) are elucidated. For example, increases in women’s employment/empowerment has been shown to lead to increases in violence in some settings, which may be particularly the case where negative masculinities are prevalent, and where increases in women’s empowerment are perceived as a threat to men’s authority. In a similar way, interventions which seek to reduce violence through increases in income may be effective, but might do little to change the underlying norms which make violence an acceptable response to stress (i.e. they remove the stressor but do not make violence a less acceptable response to that stressor, which may mute their potential to lead to long-term, sustainable reductions in violence).
Evidence also points to the role of adequate social protection in reducing violence. While most studies have found that motherhood increases the risk of violence, Bergvall and Rodríguez-Planas (2024[85]) found that in Sweden, violence decreases around pregnancy and early motherhood, driven by women who are able to leave a violent relationship after the birth of the child. Strong social protection systems that support financial independence are therefore key to enable victim/survivors to leave violent relationships. In countries with limited social protection, institutions which prevent the dissolution of relationships (e.g. restrictive social norms and/or divorce laws) and lack of contraception, the link between motherhood and (increased) violence seems to be higher.
As countries scale up their efforts to address GBV, including in line with the EU Directive on Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence, there is significant opportunity for improved evaluations of interventions to help strengthen the evidence base on what works to stop violence.
8.2.1. Key policy actions across EU and OECD countries
Note: “Env.” stands for Environment and “Agri.” stands for Agriculture.
Source: OECD Secretariat based on desk research and the 2024 OECD Questionnaire on Policy Combinations for Gender Equality and OECD (2022[86]) and European Union (2015[87]; 2024[88]).
8.2.2. Country case studies of key policy combinations in EU and OECD countries
According to the OECD Secretariat’s 2024 Questionnaire on Policy Combinations for Gender Equality, many EU and OECD countries have implemented policy combinations to tackle GBV, including intimate partner violence and sexual harassment at work. Case studies are provided below.
Tackling GBV and supporting victims/survivors
Chile’s National Plan to Address Violence Against Women (2022‑30) is central to its broader strategy for gender mainstreaming. The plan was developed through a participatory process, involving representatives from the government, public services, the police, the judiciary, the Public Ministry, international organisations, higher education institutions, civil society and experts in GBV. It supports prevention, protection, legal reform, cultural change, intersectoral co‑ordination and civil society’s active participation under different strategic lines of action: promoting the right to a life free from GBV, fostering a cultural shift through public awareness campaigns and educational programmes; preventing GBV through nationwide prevention programmes in schools, workplaces, and communities; articulating and strengthening institutional responses, including enhancing intersectoral and inter-institutional co‑ordination in law enforcement, the judiciary, and public health services; ensuring that all victims/survivors have access to justice by strengthening legal frameworks, creating specialised courts, providing legal aid and support services, as well as providing training for judicial and law enforcement personnel to handle cases related to GBV; and supporting data collection, research, and the dissemination of knowledge to inform policies and practices that effectively address GBV.
To eradicate GBV and support victims/survivors, Finland uses a life course approach that aims to provide targeted support and protection at every life stage. This approach is co ordinated mainly by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health and the Ministry of Justice and informed by Finland’s Action Plan for the Istanbul Convention (Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, 2022[89]). The policy mix encompasses legal frameworks, support services, and professional training, providing protection and support throughout an individual’s life. The Ministry of Social Affairs and Health implements the Barnahus model to support children victims/survivors of violence (including enhanced investigation of suspected violence towards children as well as support and care for children who have experienced violence), while the Ministry of Justice enforces strict legislation on sexual offences, ensuring children are protected with severe penalties for offenders. As individuals transition through youth and young adulthood, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health supports victims/survivors aged 16 and above through a nationwide network of support centres, providing psychosocial care and legal assistance. The Ministry of Social Affairs and Health oversees shelters and the Nollalinja helpline, offering immediate support for victims/survivors of IPV. The ministry also educates professionals through the “Intervene in Violence” programme, ensuring effective frontline responses. Overall, the Ministry of Justice maintains robust legal protections under the legislation on sexual offences, ensuring continued safety for individuals of any age.
Lithuania has placed co ordination and co operation among various stakeholders at the centre of its fight against domestic violence. Its policy combination integrates legal reforms, support services, public awareness campaigns, training and multi-level co ordination mechanisms. A key mechanism is the Council for Prevention and Protection from Domestic Violence, under the Ministry of Social Security and Labour. This public advisory body includes representatives from different institutions, NGOs and municipalities to address domestic violence issues through policy proposals and implementation support. Based on such co operation, the revised Domestic Violence Protection Law has introduced targeted measures, such as the domestic violence protection order, which allows for the temporary removal of individuals posing a risk of violence in a close relationship. Lithuania has also improved its system of direct assistance to victims/survivors of domestic violence, with a network of 25 accredited comprehensive assistance centres to provide targeted support to GBV victims/survivors, with a focus on accessibility for individuals with disability. These centres are supported by a methodological centre, ensuring consistent service quality across the country. Public awareness campaigns and training are also critical components of Lithuania’s approach, challenging harmful gender stereotypes. For instance, the National Information Centre on Sexual Violence provides training and methodological support regarding sexual violence, ensuring that professionals are equipped to effectively assist victims/survivors.
Australia has introduced a joint federal, state and territorial government document that sets the national policy agenda for addressing violence against women and children for the next 10 years. The National Plan addresses violence across the intersecting domains of prevention, early intervention, response, and recovery and healing. Through the National Plan, the Australian, state and territory governments have collectively committed to the vision of ending gender-based violence in one generation. More than 3 000 people were engaged through various consultation methods to drive development of the National Plan, with voices of victim/survivors at the centre. The National Plan is supported by a dedicated Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Action Plan 2023-25, the First Action Plan 2023-27, the Activities Addendum to the First Action Plan, and the Outcomes Framework 2023-32. Work to progress policy priorities of the Action Plans is co ordinated through a governance structure comprised of several bodies and groups providing oversight, strategic direction and progress tracking. These include the National Plan Advisory Group, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Council, the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission and the Lived Experience Advisory Council.
Eliminate workplace harassment and support victims/survivors
Canada has acted to create a single, integrated framework to protect federally regulated employees (about 6% of all employees in Canada) from harassment and violence in the workplace. Some of the non-legislative initiatives include an awareness campaign, education and training programmes, and a Harassment and Violence Prevention Hub. A tri-partite working group comprised of government, employer and employee representatives was also established to co-develop harassment and violence prevention tools and resources for federally regulated workplaces. To assess the reduction in occurrences of harassment and violence in federally regulated workplaces, employers are now required to report annually to the Head of Compliance and Enforcement on the number of occurrences that were related to sexual and non-sexual harassment and violence in the workplace. The data are compiled and analysed to determine whether there is an overall reduction in occurrences over time and to evaluate the effectiveness of this regime.
In Iceland, the Administration of Occupational Safety and Health started an action campaign in 2023 against sexual harassment in the workplace under the title “Let’s work Together” (#TökumHöndumSaman). The campaign includes new educational materials and tools that were developed with the aim of supporting workplaces in preventing and responding to sexual harassment in the work environment. The tool includes material to support both employees and employers. In addition, the Directorate for Equality offers an educational course on sexual harassment to workplaces, with the aim of building employers and employees’ capacities and knowledge regarding the manifestations and consequences of sexual harassment, as well as available tools to combat it.
Eradicate IPV and support victims/survivors
The Ministry of Digital Government and Gender Equality in Denmark launched a National Action Plan to Combat Intimate Partner Violence and Intimate Partner Killings 2023-26 (Danish Ministry of Digital Economy, 2023[90]). The Plan refers to various forms of violence against women – including physical, psychological, sexual, digital and honour-based violence, and promotes initiatives around three pillars: co-ordination and early detection; early and effective action; and a focus on perpetrators. To ensure co-ordination and early detection, Denmark has invested in capacity building, upskilling, and developing a systematic detection tool for health personnel in meetings with new and expectant parents; municipal preparedness for detecting and handling domestic violence; information campaigns; research on IPV incidence; and a nationwide annual creative competition to prevent IPV among young people. To support early and effective action, Denmark has introduced outpatient courses and services for adults exposed to violence; targeted support in the healthcare system for pregnant women and new parents exposed to violence; crisis centre services for men exposed to violence; interventions for children and young people who grew up with domestic violence; protections for children in relation to custody and visitation; psychological treatment for children with the consent of only one parent; protections for children in crisis centres who change schools; guidance on support for children and relatives of partner homicide; and extended violence provisions in the law. For perpetrators, Denmark has focused on enhancing parole criteria for inmates convicted of partner violence or partner murder; building nationwide outpatient treatment for perpetrators and their families; increasing treatment capacity of the Danish Stalking Centre; designing a national guide on digital security and stalkerware (i.e. software installed on devices that allows a third party to secretly track device location and activity); reforming penal codes for a stricter stance against violence; strengthening follow-up on domestic violence.
On 19 December 2024, Latvia approved The Plan for the Prevention and Combatting of Violence against Women and Domestic Violence 2024-29. The Plan includes measures to prevent violence against women and domestic violence (e.g. teaching young people about healthy relationships, respect, and gender equality), to ensure protection and support for victims/survivors (e.g. expanding crisis centres, developing risk assessment tools), and to strengthen perpetrator accountability, support and rehabilitation services (e.g. electronic monitoring systems for offenders, violence reduction programmes). The Plan also includes commitments toward a coherent, co ordinated and inclusive policy and legal framework on violence against women and domestic violence, including the establishment of single mechanism to promote co operation at the national, regional and municipal level.
Indigenous women, migrant women and women with disability may face additional disadvantages or barriers in disclosing violence or accessing supports and services for victims/survivors. Government should take care to ensure that policies, programmes and interventions are sensitive and adapted to the needs of key population groups.
For migrant women, this may mean ensuring that benefits and protection are provided to women regardless of visa status and that women in abusive relationships who migrated on spousal visas have rights and are aware of their rights to stay (Chadambuka and Essue, 2024[91]; Alsinai et al., 2023[92]; OECD, 2024[93]).
For Indigenous women, this may mean delivering place based, trauma aware and culturally responsive programmes. Australia, for example, has a dedicated Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Action Plan 2023-25 underneath their National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-32 and is currently developing a standalone national plan to end violence against First Nations women and children (Government of Australia, 2023[94]).
For women with disability, this may mean improving accessibility for persons with disability in shelters for victims/survivors of GBV (Canada), conducting specific analyses on violence against women with disability in facilities (Germany), offering specialised comprehensive assistance to women and girls with disability who have experienced violence (Lithuania) or preparing a guide on ethical and professional behaviour for workers in social care structures for women and girls with disability who are victims/survivors of GBV (Greece). It may also mean ensuring that government documents apply a disability lens. In Australia, for example, the government has invested AUD 0.5 million to apply a disability lens to the First Action Plan 2023-27 under the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-32 to identify how each action will address the needs of women and girls with disability. A stakeholder engagement strategy has also been developed to ensure that women and girls with disability will be involved in developing the action plan. Legislation may need to be adjusted as well to better protect women with disability. In 2022, only 13 of 43 EU and OECD countries had domestic violence laws that explicitly addressed women with disability, only 8 of 43 EU and OECD countries had domestic violence laws that established accessibility to services for women with disability, and only 6 EU and OECD countries had legislation on sexual harassment against women with disability (World Bank, 2022[95]).
Source: OECD Secretariat based on 2024 OECD Questionnaire on Policy Combinations for Gender Equality.
References
[92] Alsinai, A. et al. (2023), “Use of immigration status for coercive control in domestic violence protection orders”, Frontiers in Sociology, Vol. 8, https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2023.1146102.
[84] Amaral, S. et al. (2023), IZA DP No. 15856: Deterrence or Backlash? Arrests and the Dynamics of Domestic Violence, https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/15856/deterrence-or-backlash-arrests-and-the-dynamics-of-domestic-violence (accessed on 20 May 2025).
[18] Anderberg, D., H. Rainer and F. Siuda (2021), “Quantifying Domestic Violence in Times of Crisis: An Internet Search Activity-Based Measure for the COVID-19 Pandemic”, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society, Vol. 185/2, pp. 498-518, https://doi.org/10.1111/rssa.12780.
[59] Australian Bureau of Statistics (2023), General feelings of safety, https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/general-feelings-safety/latest-release#data-downloads.
[2] Beck, C. et al. (2023), Systems and legal frameworks to address gender-based violence, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/67d48024-en.
[83] Bellés-Obrero, C., C. Rice and J. Castello (2023), IZA DP No. 15994 Hit Where It Hurts: Healthcare Access and Intimate Partner Violence, https://docs.iza.org/dp15994.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2025).
[85] Bergvall, S. and N. Rodríguez-Planas (2024), IZA DP No. 17129 Motherhood and Domestic Violence: A Longitudinal Study Using Population-Wide Administrative Dat, https://docs.iza.org/dp17129.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2025).
[19] Berniell, I. and G. Facchini (2021), “COVID-19 lockdown and domestic violence: Evidence from internet-search behavior in 11 countries”, European Economic Review, Vol. 136, p. 103775, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2021.103775.
[69] Bolkan, C., P. Teaster and H. Ramsey-Klawsnik (2023), “The Context of Elder Maltreatment: an Opportunity for Prevention Science”, Prevention Science, Vol. 24/5, pp. 911-925, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-022-01470-5.
[62] Canadian Women’s Foundation (2024), The Facts about Gendered Digital Hate, Harassment, and Violence, https://canadianwomen.org/the-facts/online-hate-and-cyberviolence/.
[9] Cesur, R. et al. (2022), Intimate Partner Violence and Income: Quasi-Experimental Evidence from the Earned Income Tax Credit, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, https://doi.org/10.3386/w29930.
[4] Council of Europe (2019), Gender matters: A manual on addressing gender-based violence affecting young people, https://rm.coe.int/gender-matters-a-manual-on-addressing-gender-based-violence-affecting-/16809e1c34.
[79] Council of Europe (2011), Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (CETS No. 210), https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=treaty-detail&treatynum=210.
[35] Dalby, A. (ed.) (2017), “Intimate partner violence adversely impacts health over 16 years and across generations: A longitudinal cohort study”, PLOS ONE, Vol. 12/6, p. e0178138, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178138.
[90] Danish Ministry of Digital Economy (2023), 26 initiatives in a historically ambitious action plan against partner violence and partner murder, https://www.digmin.dk/ligestilling/nyheder/nyhedsarkiv/2023/jun/26-initiativer-i-historisk-ambitioes-handlingsplan-mod-partnervold-og-partnerdrab-.
[27] Department of Justice Canada (2024), Understanding the Overrepresentation of Indigenous people in the Criminal Justice System, https://www.justice.gc.ca/socjs-esjp/en/ind-aut/uo-cs.
[74] Drennan, J. et al. (2012), Older people in residential care settings: results of a, http://hdl.handle.net/10147/301725.
[64] Dunn, S. (2021), Technology-Facilitated Gender-Based Violence: An Overview, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3772042.
[20] EIGE (2016), Administrative data collection on violence against women: Good practices, https://eige.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/mh0416095enn.pdf.
[65] EIU (2021), Measuring the prevalence of online violence against women, https://onlineviolencewomen.eiu.com/.
[55] Eurobarometer (2024), Gender stereotypes - Violence against women, https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/3252.
[1] European Commission (n.d.), What is gender-based violence?, https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/gender-equality/gender-based-violence/what-gender-based-violence_en.
[88] European Union (2024), 2024 report on gender equality in the EU, https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/965ed6c9-3983-4299-8581-046bf0735702_en?filename=2024%20Report%20on%20Gender%20Equality%20in%20the%20EU_coming%20soon.pdf.
[5] European Union (2024), DIRECTIVE (EU) 2024/1385 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 on combating violence against women and domestic violence, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1385/oj/eng.
[87] European Union (2015), Report on equality between women and men 2014, https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/cc106eb5-4510-40b7-b497-4b4f7b41f22b.
[32] Eurostat (2024), Ever-partnered women who have experienced violence by an intimate partner, by occurrence of the last episode, https://doi.org/10.2908/GBV_IPV_OCC.
[15] Eurostat (2024), Ever-partnered women who have experienced violence by an intimate partner, by person/support service to whom violence was reported, https://doi.org/10.2908/GBV_IPV_RP.
[34] Eurostat (2024), Ever-partnered women who have experienced violence by an intimate partner, by type and frequency of violence, https://doi.org/10.2908/GBV_IPV_FRQ.
[54] Eurostat (2024), Ever-working women who have experienced sexual harassment at work, by frequency, https://doi.org/10.2908/GBV_SHW_FRQ.
[16] Eurostat (2024), Ever-working women who have experienced sexual harassment at work, by person/support service to whom violence was reported during last year, https://doi.org/10.2908/GBV_SHW_RP.
[31] Eurostat (2024), Gender based violence against women (GBV), https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/metadata/en/gbv_sims.htm.
[40] Eurostat (2024), Intentional homicide and sexual offences by legal status and sex of the person involved, https://doi.org/10.2908/CRIM_HOM_SOFF.
[26] Eurostat (2024), Women who have experienced sexual violence during childhood, by age group, https://doi.org/10.2908/GBV_CH_AGE.
[49] Eurostat (2024), Women who have experienced violence by a non-partner, by person/support service to whom violence was reported, https://doi.org/10.2908/GBV_NPV_RP.
[44] Eurostat (2021), Methodological manual for the EU survey on gender-based violence against women and other forms of inter-personal violence (EU-GBV) | 2021 edition, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-statistical-reports/w/ks-ft-22-005.
[89] Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health (2022), Action Plan for the Istanbul Convention for 2022-2025, https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/164242/STM_22_10_J.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
[61] Fundamental Rights Agency (2024), Being Muslim in the EU: Findings questions and answers, https://fra.europa.eu/en/news/2024/muslims-europe-face-ever-more-racism-and-discrimination.
[39] Fundamental Rights Agency (2020), Fundamental Rights Survey, https://fra.europa.eu/en/publications-and-resources/data-and-maps/2021/frs.
[8] Gibbs, A. et al. (2020), “New learnings on drivers of men’s physical and/or sexual violence against their female partners, and women’s experiences of this, and the implications for prevention interventions”, Global Health Action, Vol. 13/1, https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2020.1739845.
[63] Government of Australia (2024), An industry guide for addressing technology-facilitated gender-based violence through Safety by Design, https://www.esafety.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-09/SafetyByDesign-technology-facilitated-gender-based-violence-industry-guide.pdf?v=1726531200021.
[66] Government of Australia (2024), Safety by Design, https://www.esafety.gov.au/industry/safety-by-design#safety-by-design-principles.
[94] Government of Australia (2023), Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Action Plan 2023-2025, https://www.dss.gov.au/national-plan-end-gender-based-violence/resource/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-action-plan-2023-2025.
[68] Government of Australia (2022), National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032, https://www.dss.gov.au/system/files/resources/national-plan-end-violence-against-women-and-children-2022-2032.pdf.
[67] Government of Australia (n.d.), Audit of Australian Government Systems, https://www.pmc.gov.au/office-women/womens-safety/audit-australian-government-systems.
[17] Harris, B. and D. Woodlock (2018), “Digital Coercive Control: Insights From Two Landmark Domestic Violence Studies”, The British Journal of Criminology, Vol. 59/3, pp. 530-550, https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azy052.
[12] Heise, L. (2011), What Works To Prevent Partner Violence? An evidence overview, STRIVE Research Consortium, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08abde5274a31e0000750/60887-PartnerViolenceEvidenceOverview.pdf (accessed on 26 February 2025).
[7] Heise, L. (1998), “Violence Against Women”, Violence Against Women, Vol. 4/3, pp. 262-290, https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801298004003002.
[38] Hing, N. et al. (2021), “Impacts of Male Intimate Partner Violence on Women: A Life Course Perspective”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 18/16, p. 8303, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168303.
[71] Ho, C., S. Wong and R. Ho (2017), “Global Prevalence of Elder Abuse: A Meta-analysis and Meta-regression”, East Asian Archives of Psychiatry, Vol. 27/2, pp. 43-55, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28652497/.
[48] INEGI (2021), Encuesta Nacional sobre la Dinámica de las Relaciones en los Hogares (ENDIREH) 2021 - XIX. Discapacidad, https://www.inegi.org.mx/programas/endireh/2021/#tabulados.
[42] Instituto Nacional de Estadística (2024), Statistics on Domestic Violence and Gender Violence (SDVGV), https://www.ine.es/dyngs/Prensa/en/EVDVG2023.htm.
[58] ITF (2018), Women’s Safety and Security: A Public Transport Priority, https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/womens-safety-security_0.pdf.
[6] Jewkes, R. (2002), “Intimate partner violence: causes and prevention”, The Lancet, Vol. 359/9315, pp. 1423-1429, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08357-5.
[51] Johnson, H. (2017), “Why Doesn’t She Just Report It? Apprehensions and Contradictions for Women Who Report Sexual Violence to the Police”, Canadian Journal of Women and the Law, Vol. 29/1, pp. 36-59, https://doi.org/10.3138/cjwl.29.1.36.
[37] Karakurt, G., D. Smith and J. Whiting (2014), “Impact of Intimate Partner Violence on Women’s Mental Health”, Journal of Family Violence, Vol. 29/7, pp. 693-702, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-014-9633-2.
[45] Krumpal, I. (2023), “Social Desirability Bias and Context in Sensitive Surveys”, in Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research, Springer International Publishing, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17299-1_4086.
[28] Lindert, J. (2017), “Cyber-bullying and it its impact on mental health”, European Journal of Public Health, Vol. 27/suppl_3, https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckx187.581.
[56] Lipinsky, A. et al. (2022), Gender-based violence and its consequences in European Academia, Summary results from the UniSAFE survey, https://unisafe-gbv.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/UniSAFE-survey_prevalence-results_2022.pdf.
[73] Malmedal, W., O. Ingebrigtsen and B. Saveman (2009), “Inadequate care in Norwegian nursing homes – as reported by nursing staff”, Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, Vol. 23/2, pp. 231-242, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6712.2008.00611.x.
[21] McTavish, J. et al. (2016), “Children’s exposure to intimate partner violence: an overview”, International Review of Psychiatry, Vol. 28/5, pp. 504-518, https://doi.org/10.1080/09540261.2016.1205001.
[23] Mueller, I. and E. Tronick (2019), “Early Life Exposure to Violence: Developmental Consequences on Brain and Behavior”, Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, Vol. 13, https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2019.00156.
[52] Murphy-Oikonen, J. et al. (2020), “Unfounded Sexual Assault: Women’s Experiences of Not Being Believed by the Police”, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol. 37/11-12, pp. NP8916-NP8940, https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520978190.
[72] Myhre, J. et al. (2020), “Elder abuse and neglect: an overlooked patient safety issue. A focus group study of nursing home leaders’ perceptions of elder abuse and neglect”, BMC Health Services Research, Vol. 20/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-5047-4.
[93] OECD (2024), How do OECD countries respond to domestic violence against migrants?, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2024/01/responses-to-domestic-violence-against-migrants-in-oecd-countries_9fca040c/1fd6f3df-en.pdf.
[57] OECD (2024), OECD Data Explorer “Current well-being by sex”, http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/14k.
[53] OECD (2024), Social Institutions & Gender Index Dashboard, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/dashboards/social-institutions-gender-index.html.
[80] OECD (2023), Breaking the Cycle of Gender-based Violence: Translating Evidence into Action for Victim/Survivor-centred Governance, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b133e75c-en.
[3] OECD (2023), Supporting Lives Free from Intimate Partner Violence: Towards Better Integration of Services for Victims/Survivors, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d61633e7-en.
[29] OECD (2022), OECD Child Well-being Dashboard Dataset, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/dashboards/oecd-child-well-being-dashboard.html.
[86] OECD (2022), Report on the Implementation of the OECD Gender Recommendations, https://www.oecd.org/mcm/Implementation-OECD-Gender-Recommendations.pdf.
[13] OECD (2020), Issues Note: Reporting and measuring intimate partner violence, OECD, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/topics/policy-sub-issues/gender-equality-at-work/vaw2020-issues-notes.pdf.
[30] OECD (2019), Measuring the Digital Transformation: A Roadmap for the Future, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264311992-en.
[78] OECD (2017), The Pursuit of Gender Equality: An Uphill Battle, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264281318-en.
[14] OECD (2017), The Pursuit of Gender Equality: An Uphill Battle, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264281318-en.
[81] OECD (2016), Northern Ireland (United Kingdom): Implementing Joined-up Governance for a Common Purpose, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264260016-en.
[10] Oram, S. et al. (2022), “The Lancet Psychiatry Commission on intimate partner violence and mental health: advancing mental health services, research, and policy”, The Lancet Psychiatry, Vol. 9/6, pp. 487-524, https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(22)00008-6.
[24] Salinas-Miranda, A. (ed.) (2020), “Improving measurement of child abuse and neglect: A systematic review and analysis of national prevalence studies”, PLOS ONE, Vol. 15/1, p. e0227884, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227884.
[47] Savage, L. (2021), Intimate partner violence: Experiences of women with disabilities in Canada, 2018, https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2021001/article/00006-eng.htm.
[22] Sethi, D. et al. (2018), European status report on preventing child maltreatment, https://www.who.int/europe/publications/i/item/9789289053549.
[60] Statistics Canada (2024), Table: 43-10-0058-01 “Feeling part of the community and neighbourhood satisfaction, safety feeling and economic hardship, by visible minority and selected characteristics”, https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/cv.action?pid=4310005801.
[36] Stewart, D., H. MacMillan and N. Wathen (2013), “Intimate Partner Violence”, The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 58/6, pp. E1-E15, https://doi.org/10.1177/0706743713058006001.
[50] Stewart, S. et al. (2023), ““I thought I’m better off just trying to put this behind me””, The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, Vol. 35/1, pp. 85-101, https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2023.2292103.
[46] Sugarman, D. and G. Hotaling (1997), “Intimate Violence and Social Desirability”, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol. 12/2, pp. 275-290, https://doi.org/10.1177/088626097012002008.
[43] Taylor, J. et al. (2021), “Barriers to Men’s Help Seeking for Intimate Partner Violence”, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol. 37/19-20, pp. NP18417-NP18444, https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211035870.
[25] UK Office for National Statistics (2024), Exploring the feasibility of a survey measuring child abuse in the UK: June 2024, https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/exploringthefeasibilityofasurveymeasuringchildabuseintheuk/june2024.
[41] UK Office for National Statistics (2023), Domestic abuse in England and Wales overview: November 2023, https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/domesticabuseinenglandandwalesoverview/november2023.
[11] University College London (2025), Risk of domestic abuse increases over time for those exposed to childhood maltreatment, https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2025/jan/risk-domestic-abuse-increases-over-time-those-exposed-childhood-maltreatment.
[75] WHO (2024), Abuse of older people, https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/abuse-of-older-people.
[33] WHO (2024), Indicators on violence against women, https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/topics/indicator-groups/indicator-group-details/GHO/non-partner-sexual-violence-prevalence.
[77] WHO (2022), Violence Info, https://apps.who.int/violence-info/.
[82] WHO and UN Women (2019), RESPECT Women: Preventing violence against women, https://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2019/05/respect-women-preventing-violence-against-women (accessed on 20 May 2025).
[95] World Bank (2022), Women, Business and the Law: The Rights of Women with Disabilities, https://wbl.worldbank.org/en/wbl-data.
[76] Yon, Y. et al. (2017), “The Prevalence of Self-Reported Elder Abuse Among Older Women in Community Settings: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis”, Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, Vol. 20/2, pp. 245-259, https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838017697308.
[70] Yon, Y. et al. (2018), “The prevalence of elder abuse in institutional settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis”, European Journal of Public Health, Vol. 29/1, pp. 58-67, https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/cky093.
[91] Zeinali, Z. (ed.) (2024), “A policy review on the visibility of migrant women exposed to, and at risk of gender-based violence: Considerations for inclusive and equitable policies and programs in Canada”, PLOS Global Public Health, Vol. 4/2, p. e0002919, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0002919.
Note: Supporting data for all Chapter 8 figures in the main text and the Online Annex are available in the StatLink below.