In this study I investigate Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) in Tanzania, a security issue affecting about one third of women globally, [1] but about 65% of women in Tanzania. [2] Most quantitative articles have focused on measuring levels of IPV in different demographic groups; however, it is particularly difficult to measure due to low reporting, social stigma, and various other factors. In order to look at the issue from a different angle, I study allyship to women who have experienced IPV and the groups of individuals who are their strongest allies. I use data from the 2005 WHO Multi-country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence against Women report, as the only suitable dataset centring women’s experiences and offering information on their allies. [3]
My findings indicate that institutionalised resources such as the police and health care workers are the weakest allies to women. On the other hand, neighbours are the strongest, indicated by high rates of reporting by women and even higher rates of offering help. This important information should prompt a reevaluation of which resources are valuable, and which should be supported by programming aimed at ending IPV.
IPV comprises physical, sexual, and emotional violence which can include hitting or beating, forced or humiliating sex, and isolation or controlling behaviour, respectively. [4] Furthermore, it has many negative physical, psychological, and emotional consequences for women and their families, including premature death, injury, chronic disease, HIV infection, stress, depression, and poor development in children. [5]
Halim et al. discuss some of the challenges in accurately reporting on IPV, asserting that many measurement instruments may be inaccurate. Most rely almost completely on recall which can cause biases of memory, misunderstanding questions, or concealing information. [6] There are additional methodological problems encountered, including clear definitions of IPV, access to rural or other difficult to reach areas, and systematic collection of data. This plethora of challenges regarding data collection make it very difficult to create full and robust datasets on the issue.
In an effort to contribute to the scarce baseline of quantitative knowledge, I have chosen to focus on how women in Tanzania respond to IPV by studying who they report to and how helpful those people are; I study allyship to women. I answer the questions: 1. To which actors are women most likely to report IPV? And 2. Which actors are most likely to offer help to women who have experienced IPV? Creating a clear picture of the allyship situation is important for efforts to end IPV, as it is clear from my results that certain groups are extremely helpful to women and others fall far short. Governments and social programmes can support the groups that are already strong allies, as a means of providing resources to women.
Methods
In order to measure a baseline of allyship to women who have experienced IPV in Tanzania, I use data from the WHO Multi-country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence against Women report published in 2005, as a uniquely suitable dataset, and the only one I found addressing allyship. [7] This report surveys the distribution of health outcomes and the responses to IPV by 24,000 women in 10 countries between 2000-2003. It centres women’s experiences and offers specifics of those experiences which allows for a detailed and nuanced analysis, characteristics that are missing from many other datasets.
I use nationally aggregated data focused on how women have coped with IPV - particularly who they informed and who offered them help. The categories of individuals in the WHO report are as follows: friends, parents, siblings, uncle or aunt, partner’s family, children, neighbours, police, doctor / health worker, priest, counsellor, NGO / women’s organisation, and local leaders. These groups are all therefore categories in my analysis. I also created a measurement for strength of allyship by taking % of women who received offers of help / % of women who reported IPV for each type of actor, for which I use the shorthand rate of offer / report. I use this value to measure the strength of allyship, with higher values indicating stronger allyship, and values over one indicating that help was offered to women more often than they reported IPV.
Findings
As shown in Chart 1, 31.05% of women reported IPV to their parents and 29.35% reported to their partner’s family. These were the two highest groups to which women turned, probably because they were trusted and accessible. However, it is also evident that these actors were far from the strongest allies.
Chart 2 depicts the rate of offer / report for each type of individual, and it is evident that neighbours and children are the two groups that had the highest rates, at 1.262 and 1.387 respectively. These were the only groups which had a rate of higher than 1, i.e. they offered to help women more often than they were told about IPV. These two groups appear to be the most responsive and therefore the strongest allies to women. However, neighbours were both reported to and offered help on a much larger scale than children, who were involved in less than 3% of both types of occurrences. The data supports the conclusion that neighbours are the strongest allies to women, based on their rate of offer / report and the percentage of interactions in which they were involved.
It is clear that more formal reporting systems do not function as strong allies to women. Police, doctors / health care workers, counsellors, and NGOs / women’s organisations are all reported to by less than 5% of women. Furthermore, in those few cases of reporting, they do not consistently respond, showing rates of offer / report all less than .2, meaning that they offer help in less than one in five incidents of reported IPV. These resources are likely not trusted by women, which may be reinforced by their lack of response when they receive reports.
Discussion
From my findings, there are two systems for women to engage with when dealing with IPV, one informal and one formal. Of the informal system, the strongest allies to women are their neighbours, or their immediate communities. Since these communities are both trusted and responsive, indicated by high levels of reporting and offers of help, they should be supported in responding to IPV and perhaps strengthened in their ability to change norms surrounding it.
There is also the formal reporting system, which consists of law enforcement, the justice system, and social and health services. This system is very behind in both its institutional development, as indicated by a lack of legal protection against IPV and extremely low conviction rates [8], and public trust, indicated by a lack of reporting through these systems. This report shows that in Tanzania commonly thought sources of aid to women are not actually the most sought after by the women themselves, prompting a reevaluation of the type of aid governments and NGO’s can provide to IPV victims.
While the findings of this study are powerful, it is essential to note their meaningful limitations. The WHO dataset was published in 2005 using data from 2000-2003 which therefore limits it as only a benchmark, rather than a study over time. This data has provided a starting point for measuring allyship, and since my research question seeks to do just that, it is still an appropriate source.
Additionally, the data and my analysis are nationally aggregated; therefore, my analysis provides a national benchmark which may be useful for a general understanding or drafting national programmes. However, nuances and differences in dealing with IPV based on other identity groupings such as region, tribe, age, and economic status are not captured by my analysis, which limits its utility for localized project implementation. In order to design specific programmes for different demographic groups, more disaggregated data and analysis should be conducted. While it is beyond the scope of this work to further disaggregate, I acknowledge that limitation and consider the results to still be valuable.
Furthermore, this study describes the situation in Tanzania only, and the conclusions should not be applied to other countries without adequate research and analysis. Lastly, IPV research is always limited in its quantitative accuracy due to challenges of data collection, so the WHO data most likely suffers from underreporting.
Sources
[1] Katiti, Victor, Geofrey Nimrod Sigalla, Jane Rogathi, Rachel Manongi, and Declare Mushi. “Factors Influencing Disclosure among Women Experiencing Intimate Partner Violence during Pregnancy in Moshi Municipality, Tanzania.” BMC Public Health 16, no. 1 (December 2016): 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3345-x.
[2] Kazaura, Method R., Mangi J. Ezekiel, and Dereck Chitama. “Magnitude and Factors Associated with Intimate Partner Violence in Mainland Tanzania.” BMC Public Health 16, no. 1 (June 1, 2016): 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3161-3.
[3] Garcia-Moreno, Claudia, Henrika A.F.M. Jansen, Mary Ellsberg, Lori Heise, and Charlotte Watts. “WHO Multi-Country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence against Women.” World Health Organization. World Health Organization, 2005. http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/violence/24159358X/en/.
[4] Katiti et al., 2.
[5] Halim, Nafisa, Ester Steven, Naomi Reich, Lilian Badi, and Lisa Messersmith. “Variability and Validity of Intimate Partner Violence Reporting by Couples in Tanzania.” Edited by Soraya Seedat. PLOS ONE 13, no. 3 (March 8, 2018): 2. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193253.
Katiti et al., 2.
Simmons, Elizabeth, Nafisa Halim, Maria Servidone, Ester Steven, Naomi Reich, Lilian Badi, Nelson Holmes, Philbert Kawemama, and Lisa J. Messersmith. “Prevention and Mitigation of Intimate-Partner Violence: The Role of Community Leaders in Tanzania.” Violence Against Women 26, no. 3–4 (March 1, 2020): 360. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801219832923.
[6] Halim et al., 2.
[7] Garcia-Moreno et al.
[8] Tanzania Women Lawyers Association. Review of Laws and Policies related to gender based violence of Tanzania mainland. (2014): 11-40. Available at: http://www.svri.org/sites/default/files/attachments/2016-07-05/Tanzanian%20review%20GBV%20report%202014%20by%20TAWLA%20TAMWA%20CRC%20TGNP%20ZAFELA.pdf.