ircpvpcfinalen

Private Violence, Public Concern | Page 1
PRIVATE VIOLENCE, PUBLIC CONCERN
Intimate Partner Violence In Humanitarian Settings
Practice Brief, January 2015
Violence against women and girls perpetrated by their intimate partners is a
global phenomenon—experienced by at least one in three women during their
lifetime.1
Prevalence is likely to be even higher in humanitarian settings, with
an increasing body of evidence showing intimate partner violence (IPV)2
to
be the most common type of violence women experience, though it may go
underreported and receive less attention from humanitarian actors compared
to sexual violence perpetrated by armed forces.3, 4, 5, 6, 7
A new study by the
International Rescue Committee (IRC), Private Violence, Public Concern,
examines the nature and drivers of intimate partner violence in three refugee
camps across three continents. The research shows that intimate partner
violence in humanitarian settings is driven by a complex set of factors that
include pre-existing gender inequalities, which is exacerbated by rapidly
changing gender roles.
Private Violence, Public Concern’s qualitative findings deepen our understanding of women’s experience
of intimate partner violence in displaced settings and highlights the lack of programming that exists to
effectively prevent and respond to intimate partner violence. The study took place in 2014 in Domiz camp
in Iraq, Dadaab camp in Kenya, and Ajuong Thok settlement in South Sudan, and focused on three key
questions: 1) What are the drivers and nature of intimate partner violence in humanitarian settings?; 2)
How do displaced women experience intimate partner violence?; and 3) What are women’s suggestions
for how humanitarian organizations can improve prevention and response to intimate partner violence? This
brief presents key findings from the study, draws on knowledge and insights from decades of IRC experi-
ence working with women and girls in crisis settings, including research on intimate partner violence in West
Africa and Syria,8,9
and presents recommendations that are relevant to the humanitarian community working
both within and outside of formal camp settings.

Page 2 | Private Violence, Public Concern
INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE IN HUMANITARIAN SETTINGS:
WHAT WE KNOW
Women and girls everywhere wield less power and have less agency and decision-making opportunity
than men and boys, particularly in emergency settings.10, 11
This gender inequality can be exacerbated
by the extreme instability and loss that characterize conflict and displacement and disrupt structural and
interpersonal norms and relationships. These shifts also create an environment that allows men to commit
violence against their female intimate partners with relative impunity.
Intimate partner violence has severe and often long-lasting consequences for women and girls. The phys-
ical and emotional traumas caused by intimate partner violence are strong predictors of poorer physical,
sexual and reproductive and mental health outcomes throughout women’s lives.12, 13, 14
The associated
economic and financial losses and limitations also increase women’s and children’s ongoing vulnerability
and suffering.
For two decades, the IRC has been working with communities in crisis to address violence against wom-
en and girls. The women and girls who walk through the IRC’s doors repeatedly express how violence
against them impacts their lives in their place of origin, during forced flight and displacement, and when
they return home or are resettled. The IRC’s service delivery related data15
reveal that close to 40% of
women and girls who sought services in 2014 were experiencing intimate partner violence.
PRIVATE VIOLENCE, PUBLIC CONCERN: RESEARCH FINDINGS
From April to July 2014, the IRC consulted 284 people across the three study sites. Individual interviews
were conducted with 39 woman survivors of intimate partner violence aged 18 to 46, and focus groups
were held with community members (12 all-female and 11 all-male groups) and with community leaders
and organizational representatives (14 groups).
KEY DRIVERS OF INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE
In each setting, a number of drivers of or contributing factors to intimate partner violence were identified,
including rapidly changing gender norms triggered by displacement, women’s separation from their par-
ents and families, forced marriage and re-marriage, poverty and male substance use.

1. RAPIDLY CHANGING GENDER NORMS TRIGGERED BY DISPLACEMENT
Women and men across all three sites reported that a primary driver of intimate partner vio-
lence was the disruption of gender norms triggered by displacement.
In all sites, participants affirmed that prior to displacement, existing social norms reflected and reinforced
women’s inequality in relation to men, including through the threat or use of violence. Rigid gender roles
placed men at the head of the household as family provider, and women as caretakers and homemakers,
expected to submit to their husbands and respond to their sexual demands. Though women’s caretaking
and household work becomes more demanding and dangerous during displacement, women across the
study sites were also able to access new social, economic and educational opportunities unavailable to
them in their place of origin, including through programs run by humanitarian organizations. At the same
time, men’s employment options dwindle in camp settings, limiting their ability to support their families.
“It is like women have taken the responsibility of men, becoming the breadwinners [and] getting out of
the hut.”
Focus group, Dadaab camp, Kenya
“[T]he women expect the man to bring something. And women are doing the domestic work, cooking
food and also watching children. When a man sees that the woman is not meeting the domestic work,
then he will grow annoyed and will start violence.”
Key informant, Ajuong Thok settlement, South Sudan
Women’s access to new opportunities altered the social dynamic and defied long-held expectations of
women’s and men’s roles. In Iraq, for example, many women reported feeling that their rights were more
respected by the government of Kurdistan and the organizations in Domiz camp than in Syria. In South
Sudan, men consistently complained that women had more freedom in the camps than they did at
home in the Nuba mountains.16
Women stepping outside their traditional roles and supporting their fam-
ilies can create tensions in the home, especially as men’s opportunities to do the same diminish. Some
men adapt to these shifting dynamics, while others use violence as a means to reassert power and
control over their partner. Beating was discussed in Dadaab and Ajuong Thok, and indirectly mentioned
in Domiz, as a tool used to “correct” or “teach” both prior to and during displacement. The concept of
beating to teach was closely linked with the concept of beating women to promote respect towards
men. Husbands deprived women of the money they earned, demanding it be turned over to them to
spend as they pleased, oftentimes not in the best interest of the household.
These findings highlight the tensions between women’s participation in empowerment programming and
the risks of violence at home they may face as a result. The women who participated in this study found
themselves facing a ‘trade off’ between pursuing new opportunities and preserving their own safety.

2. SEPARATION FROM FAMILY AND BREAKDOWN OF COMMUNITY STRUCTURES
Family members and community leaders can play important roles in preventing partner violence. Displace-
ment breaks down these structures and relationships, dramatically reducing safety options for women at risk
of violence. Across the three study sites, participants described their home communities as tightly knit with
well-known community leaders, though this was not the case during displacement. For example, some men
in the Ajuong Thok settlement reported that lack of social cohesion resulting from the scattering of families
in the new setting led to the erosion of respect for settlement leaders, young people without guidance on
how to behave and cope, and some children exhibiting anti-social behavior. Women in all sites reported that
during displacement their partners were more likely to exert violence with increased impunity because family
members were no longer present to monitor men’s behavior or mitigate conflict. It is important to note, how-
ever, that some women reported that family members can fuel violence or allow it to occur.
3. FORCED MARRIAGES
During displacement, marriage may be seen as a critical opportunity for securing economic support and
safety for women and girls. Participants reported that forced marriages, including re-marriages for widows
or divorced women, were often conducted hastily in the camps, sometimes with unequal bargaining power
between the families involved and without traditional support systems in place. Women survivors and focus
group participants shared that they had more protection options pre-displacement when marriages were
conducted with the appropriate family, religious and community leader consultations. While displaced, par-
ents are forced to make agonizing decisions regarding the risks and benefits of marrying off their adoles-
cent daughters. Many see marriage as the best option for securing food and shelter for their daughters and
protection from violence outside the home. Yet, early and forced marriages put adolescent girls in a posi-
tion of extreme dependence on their older husbands and at great risk of intimate partner violence. Single
mothers seeking re-marriage are also vulnerable. They may have a strong motivation to marry as a way to
secure economic and social protection for themselves and their children, knowing the inherent risks in their
social and cultural setting of being a woman without a husband. Her material and social disadvantages can
contribute to a marital dynamic that increases her vulnerability to intimate partner violence.
“I was just forced by my father [to marry a man] a bit older than me. [T]he earl[y] forced marriage […]is
what [is] causing the problem between us and the misunderstanding. [Other wives and husbands] were
in love and they are the ones who understand each other. They married with consent and they are happy
about their marriage.”
Woman survivor, Dadaab camp, Kenya

4. POVERTY AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE
Participants in all study sites reported that the extreme poverty in which many displaced families live can
increase stress and tension between intimate partners. This, combined with the shifting power dynamics
resulting from women’s newfound income-earning opportunities, can become a contributing factor to men’s
justification of the use of violence. Violence happens as their sense of self comes under threat and as cou-
ples clash over control of economic resources. In addition, some men in the camps used alcohol and khat,
a stimulant whose leaves are chewed or used in tea, as a coping mechanisms for their struggle with stress,
boredom and depression, and study participants reported that men who were drunk or high were more likely
to use violence.
“If he doesn’t drink, we are not going have any problem. We just stay. He doesn’t even talk about non-
sense or quarreling me.”
Woman survivor, Ajuong Thok settlement, South Sudan
“When you discuss and ask what forced them to chew miraa, they will tell you because of the stress:
‘When I chew miraa my stress will reduce down and I will feel that I am happy.’”
Key informant, Dadaab, Kenya
BEHIND CLOSED DOORS: WOMEN’S EXPERIENCES WITH INTIMATE
PARTNER VIOLENCE
Women in the three camps reported suffering ongoing, severe, and multiple types of violence at the hands
of their intimate partners. Physical violence was by far the most common type of violence reported, though
women also experienced psychological and sexual violence, as well as male control over their movements
and behaviors. As described above, women also reported economic abuse as husbands controlled house-
hold resources, including women’s earned income. A survivor in Ajuong Thok settlement stated:
“I earn some money and he’s using my money to drink… he started now insulting me that, oh, you don’t
want to give me that money, so you have another husband whereby you want to go and give that mon-
ey… he started fighting cause I refused to give him my money.”
Women were often limited or prohibited to interact with family, friends, and neighbors, preventing them from
reporting intimate partner violence to those closest to them and increasing their isolation. Furthermore,
women described intimate partner violence as a private family matter that brings them shame and dishonor
if disclosed to others. One women from Domiz camp shared:
“One day there was blood on my mouth because he punched it. The neighbor came to me, she said
‘what is going on?’ I said ‘I fall to the floor and there is blood in my mouth.’ We don’t want people to
know about our problems.”

Intimate partner violence negatively impacts many if not all dimensions of women’s lives. It compromis-
es their ability to work productively and live with dignity, care for children and relatives, and socialize with
friends and family. Participants also reported that children living in households where intimate partner
violence occurs are emotionally distraught, fearful, and at risk of experiencing maltreatment themselves. The
interplay between intimate partner violence and children’s wellbeing is evident in this survivor’s words from
Dadaab camp:
“[W]e lived in one room with my children […] I was just escaping with my children and he started beating
me while my children [watched]. [H]e even stepped on some of the children because he was fighting
with me. The children wake up and start shouting because they have seen their mother beaten by this
man. The neighbors tr[ied] to push the door open. He seriously assaulted me all over my body.”
NAVIGATING SAFETY: WOMEN’S DECISION-MAKING
When women do decide to report and take action on the intimate partner violence they are experiencing,
they tend to start with the people and options closest to home. Women in this study identified family mem-
bers, neighbors, and community-based institutions and actors as their preferred and primary avenues for
reporting when violence becomes overwhelming. Survivors emphasized the key role that family, in particu-
lar parents, play. This is due to social norms which dictate that women keep disclosure of intimate partner
violence within the family, and also because family may be well-placed to take action that does not result in
ending the marriage.
Factors women consider when deciding to report intimate partner violence or separate from their partner:
»» The severity and length of violence.
»» The possible consequences of taking action, including being killed or seriously injured, divorce, sepa-
ration from their children, or family disapproval.
»» Availability of material and financial resources and social support for themselves and their children,
including an alternative place to stay.
»» The stigma from family and community associated with disclosure and separation.
The effectiveness of family and community-based actors depends on many context-specific factors that
cannot be generalized or simplified. In some cases, women receive support, and their concerns are ade-
quately addressed through informal mediation and dispute resolution processes. However, women may also
be at greater risk of violence after disclosure, particularly if their request for support is dismissed or the
intervening party proves ineffectual, especially when the intimate partner does not respect them.

“We don’t want people know about our problems […] because it [leads to] shame. […] When I have a
problem I don’t want know anyone to know about that because when I want to go out I want to be proud
and happy [for] all [to] respect me.”
Woman survivor, Domiz camp, Iraq
Formal response actors outside women’s immediate community, such as gender-based violence service
providers, healthcare providers, NGOs, UNHCR and police, were usually sought only when family and com-
munity-based solutions failed or the domestic situation became life-threatening. Very few women pursued
formal legal options: in Ajuong Thok, survivors voiced little interest in punishing their partners through formal
justice systems, and in Domiz and Dadaab only a minority of survivors wanted formal punishment.
While temporary separation was considered as an option while disputes were settled, especially for sur-
vivors of chronic violence, the majority of women hoped for peaceful resolution that included continued
co-habitation as a family. They voiced the importance of being with their children and having adequate food,
shelter and resources to support the family. Across all settings, divorce was considered a last resort given
the considerable social and economic disadvantages for divorced women and the very real risk of losing
their children.
Women’s Voices: Suggestions for Humanitarian Response
The IRC deeply values women’s perspectives to help shape the humanitarian community’s priorities. This
study asked women for suggestions for improving humanitarian prevention and response to intimate part-
ner violence. Their responses included:
»» Awareness-raising and training on violence and gender inequality at the community level that includes
men and leaders.
»» Skills-building for couples to strengthen relationships and foster understanding, cooperation and
communication.
»» Develop clear community-based and formal protocols and accountability mechanisms for responding
to intimate partner violence, such as a set period of time that perpetrators are detained by police so
survivors know when they will be released.
»» Provide women with economic, educational and social skills building opportunities so women can
meet each other and build support networks.
»» Strengthen and improve transparency in the relationships between service providers and community
members, especially men, to facilitate their investment in women’s empowerment programming.
»» Provide a diversity of safe places for women, including as identified and defined by women, where
they can take temporary shelter and get support from other women.

RECOMMENDATIONS: PREVENTING AND RESPONDING TO
INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE IN HUMANITARIAN SETTINGS
Eradicating and effectively responding to intimate partner violence requires an array of changes in the
social, cultural, political, and economic domains of women’s lives that tackle the structural inequalities
and gender norms that make gender-based violence possible, within and beyond humanitarian settings.
Women may face backlash as they step outside of their traditional, prescribed roles, and must navigate
the trade-offs between accessing new opportunities and preserving their immediate safety. The solu-
tion, of course, is not to deny women educational, social, and economic advancement, but to analyze and
anticipate risks and develop mitigation strategies and safety plans. It must also be remembered that while
context-specific drivers of intimate partner violence are important to consider, intimate partner violence
can never be justified as a byproduct of conflict and crisis or any other factor. The use of violence is
always a choice.
The following programmatic recommendations for preventing and responding to intimate partner violence
in humanitarian settings are based on the findings of Private Violence, Public Concern and two decades
of IRC field experience and research on intimate partner violence.

1. DIRECTLY ENGAGE WOMEN AND GIRLS17
and prioritize their recommendations in the
design, implementation, and evaluation of interventions that respond to and prevent intimate
partner violence.
Humanitarian organizations should consult women and girls as a matter of best practice in addressing
intimate partner violence. Women and girls understand the risks and threats they face, and are best
placed to provide insight and guidance to humanitarian organizations on the varied dynamics of intimate
partner violence in their contexts, as well as the wider social implications and potential consequences
of any response. Working with women and girls to understand their constraints and opportunities, their
strategies for mitigating risk, and their ideas for challenging and transforming inequitable gender norms is
fundamental to ensure programming is relevant and conducive to programming they seek for themselves
and their children.
2. ESTABLISH A QUALITY COORDINATED RESPONSE to intimate partner violence across
health, psychosocial, and protection services.
For services designed to respond to intimate partner violence to be effective, they must be coordinated
and comprehensive, addressing the multiple immediate, medium- and long-term needs of women sur-
vivors and their children. These include risk-reduction, treatment and documentation of injuries, and the
provision of confidential referrals across providers, to help ensure her health and safety.
Capacity building for various providers is particularly critical for effective and coordinated care. Psycho-
social providers must be trained on how to adapt case management practices to meet the diverse needs
of intimate partner violence survivors. Training should include how to provide supportive counseling and
education on intimate partner violence, help survivors assess and mitigate risk, address children’s needs,
address family needs (such as food and shelter), and best practices for safe, confidential, and timely
coordination of care across providers. Health care providers require special specialized training on the
nature and dynamics of intimate partner violence and best practices for providing frontline support in line
with the World Health Organization clinical guidelines, Health Care For Women Subjected to Intimate
Partner Violence or Sexual Violence.1
3. PROVIDE SAFETY OPTIONS for women and girls (and their dependents) seeking immediate
and/or long-term protection from intimate partner violence.
At the outset of an emergency, humanitarian response must prioritize the establishment of safe and con-
fidential response services for survivors of intimate partner violence, with specific guidelines for handling
intimate partner violence cases that include different safety options. Women and girls face different levels
and forms of violence, thus multiple options to appropriately address risk and safety are needed. Service
providers must take into account that women face risks and may be subject to retaliation, threats, and
increased violence from the perpetrator and those around him when they report intimate partner violence.
Response services and actions to prioritize women’s safety include: safe and confidential health and
psychosocial services; community-based protection and justice systems that prioritize survivor and child
safety and hold perpetrators accountable; and long-term solutions that effectively separate survivor(s)

and perpetrator and remove the risk and fear of further violence, which may be a local, community-based
solution or resettlement, including to another country.
4. CONSIDER FAMILY-LEVEL INTERVENTION MODELS that integrate intimate partner violence
and child maltreatment prevention and responses.
Intimate partner violence and child maltreatment often occur simultaneously in the home and are based
on similar risk factors, however few programs in humanitarian settings fully address both problems in
tandem. Qualitative findings from various IRC interventions18,19
suggest that an integrated family-based
approach could be effective. For example, parenting programs have highlighted improved communication
and problem-solving within the household, including between spouses, and spousal discussion programs
have shown possible improvements in communication and problem-solving with children.
Any family-level intervention addressing violence in the home should have a strong gender-equality focus.
Since this is a new area, project models for family-based approaches should be developed, piloted, and
evaluated, and adjusted and scaled accordingly.
5. COMBINE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PROGRAMS to mitigate the risk of intimate
partner violence.
IRC programming and research demonstrates that pairing a social empowerment intervention (e.g. cou-
ples discussion groups) with an economic intervention targeting women reduces intimate partner vio-
lence in the home, particularly economic abuse.20
Providing women with access to economic means is
an important factor in reducing their vulnerability to violence, though this alone could be unproductive or
even counter-productive if expectations about power and the acceptability of violence are not addressed.
Thus, simultaneously engaging both members of the couple on relationship dynamics, including finan-
cial planning, communication and negotiation skills, power dynamics, and decision-making, can mitigate
risk and play an important role in violence prevention. Economic and other programs for men can also
address intimate partner violence, including through discussion about shared resources and equality in
decision-making in the home.
6. INFLUENCE SOCIAL NORMS early and through all stages of humanitarian response.
Communities affected by crisis remain displaced for an average of 15 to 20 years. Humanitarian actors
have a responsibility and opportunity to begin strengthening social norms that protect women and girls
from violence, and change norms that hide or encourage violence. This gender transformative work has the
power and potential to prevent many forms of violence at a large scale. As response systems and services
are established, humanitarian actors must first address social norms reflected by service providers and
institutions. This paves the way for survivors of violence to safely access services and support. Coordinated
social norms campaigns can and should be integrated to address the drivers and root causes of violence in
the home as the situation stabilizes. Work to promote equitable gender norms that are informed by wom-
en’s voices, accountable to women, and that challenge the acceptability of intimate partner violence must
start at the outset of humanitarian response and remain an ongoing priority intervention.

1
World Health Organization. (2014). Health care for women subjected to intimate partner violence or sexual violence: a
clinical handbook.
2
In this brief, intimate partner violence is defined as an act or acts of physical, sexual, emotional violence inflicted against
a woman by her male partner, whether cohabitating or not. It also includes refusal of money to cover basic necessities as
well as controlling behaviors such as constraining women’s mobility or access to friends, relatives and services. This is very
similar to the definition in the World Health Organization Multi-country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence
against Women.
3
Stark L., Ager A. (2011). A Systematic Review of Prevalence Studies on Gender-Based Violence in Complex Emergencies.
Trauma, Violence and Abuse, 12(3) 127–134.
4
Pittaway E. (2005). The Ultimate Betrayal: The experience of domestic and family violence in refugee communities. The
Centre for Refugee Research, The University of New South Wales
5
Mchale T., Hadley M., Thomson D. (2011). “Every home has its secrets”: A mixed-methods study on intimate partner violence,
women’s empowerment and justice on Ijdwi island, Democratic Republic of the Congo. Harvard Humanitarian Initiative
Student Working Paper Series.
6
Khawaja M. (2004). Domestic violence in refugee camps in Jordan. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 86(1),
67–69.
7
Vu A., Adam A., Wirtz A., Pham K., Rubenstein L., Glass N., Beyrer C., Singh S. (2014). The Prevalence of Sexual Violence
among Female Refugees in Complex Humanitarian Emergencies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLOS Current
Disasters, 18(1). doi: 10.1371/currents.dis.835f10778fd80ae031aac12d3b533ca7.
8
International Rescue Committee. (2010). Let Me Not Die Before My Time.
9
International Rescue Committee. (2014). Are We Listening?: Acting on our commitments to women and girls affected by the
Syria conflict.
10
Ellsberg M., Arango D.J., Morton M., Gennari F., Kiplesund S., Contreras M., Watts C. (2014). Prevention of violence against
women and girls: what does the evidence say? The Lancet. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61703-7.
11
García-Moreno C., Zimmerman C., Morris-Gehring A., Heise L., Amin A., Abrahams N., Montoya O., Bhate-Deosthali P., Kilonzo
N., Watts C. (2014). Addressing violence against women: a call to action. The Lancet. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61830-4.
12
Campbell J.C. (2002). Health consequences of intimate partner violence. The Lancet, 359(9314): 1331–1336.
13
Falb K.L., McCormick M.C., Hemenway D., Anfinson K., Silverman J.G. (2014). Symptoms Associated with Pregnancy
Complications Along the Thai-Burma Border: The Role of Conflict Violence and Intimate Partner Violence. Maternal and Child
Health Journal.
14
Gupta J., Falb K.L., Carliner H., Hossain M., Kpebo D., Annan J. (2013). Associations between Exposure to Intimate Partner
Violence, Armed Conflict, and Probable PTSD among Women in Rural Cote d’Ivoire. PLOS One.
15
These trends represent data reported to the IRC’s Women’s Protection and Empowerment programs and their local
partners in Burundi, Central African Republic, Cote d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Haiti, Jordan, Kenya,
Lebanon, Liberia, Tanzania, Thailand and South Sudan from service-based data collected through the Gender-Based
Violence Information Management System from January through September 2014. The data quoted above is only from
reported cases, and is in no way representative of the total incidence or prevalence of Gender-Based Violence (GBV) in
those countries. The statistics represented here include only information from survivors who have consented to share their
aggregate information. Data from Liberia, Iraq, Côte d’Ivoire, South Sudan and Tanzania is not wholly representative of the
timeframe because data collection may have started mid-year, ended mid-year or been temporarily interrupted by other crises.
16
Nuba mountains is an area in South Kordofan, Sudan home to the Nuba peoples. Nuba mountains has experienced heavy
fighting and conflict, resulting in displacement.
17
Girls, often adolescent-aged, are subject to forced and early marriage, creating an even higher risk for intimate partner violence
Concerted efforts must be made to create safe spaces and services as well as prevention programs (focused on preventing
early and forced marriage as well as violence), which are responsive to the needs of girls which may be different from those
of women. In so doing, efforts should be made to not hold adolescent girls responsible for ‘solving’ the violence they face, but
rather to keep the choice of non-violence on perpetrators, bystanders, family members and the community at-large.
18
International Rescue Committee. (2014). Building Happy Families: Impact evaluation of parenting and family skills
intervention for migrant and displaced Burmese families in Thailand.
19
International Rescue Committee. (2014). Parents Make the Difference: Findings from the randomized impact evaluation of a
parenting program in rural Liberia.
20
Gupta J., Falb K.L., Lehmann H., Kebo D., Xuan Z., Hossain M., Zimmerman C., Watts C., Annan J. (2013). Gender norms and
economic empowerment intervention to reduce intimate partner violence against women in rural Côte d’Ivoire: a randomized
controlled pilot study. BMC International Health and Human Rights, 13(46): 1–12.

Practice Brief Authors: Abigail Erikson and Sonia Rastogi.
Practice Brief Editors: Sarah Green, Heidi Lehmann and Leora Ward.
Researchers: Dr. Rebecca Horn, independent researcher; Dr. Eve Puffer and Elsa Friis, Duke Universi-
ty; Karin Wachter, University of Texas—Austin.
Funded by: U.S. Department of State Bureau on Population, Refugees and Migration.
For more information about Private Violence, Public Concern please contact: Leora Ward at Leora.
Ward@rescue.org or visit www.gbvresponders.org and www.rescue.org.

ircpvpcfinalen

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to ircpvpcfinalen (20)

ircpvpcfinalen