International Crime against Women Survey

The HK United Nations International Violence Against Women Survey (IVAWS) Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 1 Outline 1. Background and methodology 2. Results – Summary report of statistical analysis – Summary report of interview with victims 3. Questions & Answers 2 Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU Research Team • Prof. John Bacon-Shone – Social Sciences Research Centre (SSRC) – Centre for Criminology, HKU • Prof. Roderic Broadhurst – School of Justice, QUT • Ms. Loretta Tang S.F. – Department of Sociology, HKU • Dr. Lena Zhong Y.Y. – Centre for Criminology, HKU • Dr. Lee K.W. – Centre for Criminology, HKU Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 3 Priorities and Directions • Address high levels of consumer • • fraud & corruption Reduce fear of crime Develop crime prevention policies and practices to reduce household and motorcycle theft Improve victims services Additional help for repeat victims Encourage ‘reporting’ of contact crimes Focus on vulnerable victims 4 • • • • Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU UN IVAWS • The HKU Centre for Criminology, and Social Sciences Research Centre (SSRC) with the European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control, affiliated with the United Nations (HEUNI); & input from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, UNICRI and Statistics Canada • 本計劃由香港大學犯罪學中心及社會科學研究 中心、HEUNI、聯合國藥物及罪案部門、 UNICRI及加拿大統計部門協辦。 Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 5 Crime Victims Survey • United Nations International Crime Victims Survey (UN ICVS) is broadly successful in providing estimates of the prevalence of property & personal crime, & in better understanding victims’ perceptions and reporting behaviour, but… • Does not adequate for measure crimes of violence against women Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 6 Limitations of UN ICVS • Lack of detailed follow-up questions about personal crime: e.g. domestic violence • Lack of gender selection & specific training for interviewers about how women are affected by violence & how they may react to survey questions: • The broad scope of UNICVS does not allow the time to adequately or sensitively address complex issues of violence • The 12-month reference period used in CVS undercounts women’s experiences of violence & limits analyses of long-term consequences, such as reporting to police and court outcomes Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 7 Official Crime Victims Survey Possibly the result of a face-to-face interview method and an unavoidable gender conflict, the latest published official crime victims survey1 in Hong Kong reported: • “In a survey of this nature, respondents tend to be unwilling to report rape incidents. The number of rape cases captured is hence extremely small. In the 1999 CVS, no rape incidents were reported [despite a large sample size]. The crime type of ‘rape and indecent assault on female’ has therefore been renamed as ‘indecent assault’ in this report.” (1.11, p.4) 1Crime and Its Victims in Hong Kong in 1998 (1999). Census and Statistics Department. HKSAR. Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 8 Result Comparison Rate per 100 women Method Gender matching Age Assault & threat Sexual victimization UN IVAWS UN ICVS (2005 May – (2005) 2006 June) Telephone Yes =>18 1.7 2.1 Telephone Yes =>16 1.5 1.4 Official CVS (1998) Face-toface No =>12 0.05* 0.43 All age N.A. 0.02 HKP (2005) Cases reported * For all crime of violence (0.95), included indecent assault (0.43), wounding and assault (0.05), robbery (0.26), criminal intimidation (0.21) Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 9 UN IVAWS • The United Nations International Violence Against Women Survey (UN IVAWS) was developed in 1999 as a solution to the underreporting of sexual & domestic violence in the UN ICVS: • Improved data collection – provide reliable statistical data on the prevalence of violence against women • Create a standardised tool – comparable data on the prevalence & incidence of violence against women across cultures Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 10 Development of UN IVAWS • Translated into Czech, Danish, French, German, Greek, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Spanish & Chinese • Eleven countries 20032006 • Telephone, personal face-to-face, or at times using a mail-out/mailback questionnaire Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 11 Participating Countries Country Hong Kong Australia Costa Rica Denmark Greece Italy Mozambique Philippines Poland Switzerland Sample size* 1,297 6,677 908 3,589 479 ~30,000 2,015 2,602 2,009 1,973 59% 96% Jun-Aug 2004 Jun-Jul 2005 Mar-May 2004 Apr-Aug 2003 Response rate 45% 39% 58% 52% Date of interviewing Method of interviewing May-Jun 2005 Dec 2002-Jun 2003 Jul-Aug 2003 May-Jun 2003 Oct-Nov 2003 Telephone Face-to-face Face-to-face Face-to-face Telephone Face-to-face Telephone Face-to-face Face-to-face Face-to-face Telephone 12 Czech Republic 1,980 *successfully interviewed Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU Hong Kong Methodology • Survey conducted May-June, 2006 • Computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI): reduces coding errors • Next birthday rule: reduces the over-representation of elderly and housewives in the sample • A random sample (n=1297) from Hong Kong households: females aged >18 • Female interviewers • 45% responded fully about their experiences • Weighted estimates based on sample characteristics Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 13 IVAWS Questionnaire Design • Uses specific questions about behavior to measure violence & includes a range of indicators of incident severity, • Measures impacts of violence on women & their children • Assess service utilization • Nine separate sections Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 14 IVAWS Questionnaire • • • • • • • • Information on the composition of respondent’s household Marital status Experience of violence – 7 physical and 5 sexual forms of violence Non-partner victimisation report Partner victimisation report Characteristics of previous (violent) intimate partner Characteristics of current intimate partner Income -household Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 15 Results & Findings • Statistical analysis • Qualitative following interviews with victims – Ms. Loretta Tang Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 16 International & Local Comparison • Women in Hong Kong second lowest rate of lifetime violence victimization in all forms (21%) compared to other participating countries • Lowest rates of lifetime physical violence (12%) and second lowest sexual violence (14%) Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 17 International Comparisons • Hong Kong also has second lowest one year violence rate of victimization in all forms (3%) • IVAWS yields a higher annual violence or sexual victimization rate than reported by HK Police crime statistics, or official crime victim survey (CVS) or the United Nations International Crime Victims Survey (UN ICVS). • Reflects under-reporting in other approaches Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 18 Adult women’s lifetime rates of any violence Costa Rica Czech Republic Australia Mozambique Demark Switzerland Poland Hong Kong Philippines 0% 10% 21% 17% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 19 60% 58% 57% 55% 50% 39% 35% Any violence (at least once) Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU Adult lifetime rates of physical or sexual violence against women Czech Republic Australia Mozambique Costa Rica Denmark Poland Switzerland Philippines Hong Kong 0% 10% 35% 34% 24% 41% 28% 17% 27% 25% 6% 15% 12% 14% 20% 30% 40% 50% 51% 48% 48% 47% 38% 30% Physical violence (at least once) Sexual violence (at least once) 60% Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 20 Adult one year rates of any violence against women Mozambique Costa Rica Czech Republic Australia Poland Philippines Denmark Hong Kong Switzerland 0% 2% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 21 22% 15% 14% 10% 6% 6% 5% 3% Any violence (at least once) Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU Adult one year rates of specific violence against women Mozambique Czech Republic Costa Rica Australia Poland Philippines Denmark Hong Kong Switzerland 0% 9% 5% 7% 4% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 17% 12% 11% 8% 5% 5% 4% Physical violence (at least once) Sexual violence (at least once) 18% Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 22 Some Local Characteristics • The most common form of physical violence was slapping, kicking, biting or hitting with something, 5.2% experienced this at least once in lifetime • The most common form of sexual violence was non consensual sexual contact 13.3% experienced this at least once in lifetime • 98% of all victims experienced repeated victimizations Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 23 Adult lifetime rates of physical violence Slapped or kicked or bit or hit Thrown something Pushed or grabbed or twisted arm or pulled hair Threatened to hurt Used or threatened to use a knife or gun Strangle or suffocate or burn or scald Other physical violence 0.8 0.5 1.9 3.6 5.2 5.1 5 At least once (n=1297) % 0 1 2 3 4 5 24 6 Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU Adult lifetime rates of sexual violence Unwanted sexual touch Forced into sexual intercourse Attempted to force into sexual intercourse Other sexual violence Forced or attempted to force into sexual activity with others 13.3 2.3 1.9 0.2 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 25 At least once (n=1297) % Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU Adult lifetime % repeated victimization 99 98 97 % 96 95 94 Multiple violence Multiple sexual Any repeated victimization (n=160) victimization (n=192) victimization (n=280) 26 98 98 96 Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU Victim age-group (% within category) 6.0 5.2 5.0 4.0 % 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 4.4 Within 12 months any physical violence (p<0.00) 2.42.4 1.9 1.5 0.6 0.0 0.00.0 Within 12 months any sexual violence (p<0.05) 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 and above Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 27 Victim education (% within category) Tertiary degree Matriculation (F6-7)/ IVE/ vocational/ Tertiary non-degree Senior secondary (F4-5) Junior secondary (F1-3) No formal education/primary 0.0 0.0 Within 12 months any sexual violence (n.s.) Within 12 months any physical violence (n.s.) 2.0 1.2 3.4 3.4 1.6 2.4 2.0 1.2 1.8 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 % 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 28 Victim marital status (% within category) 3.5 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.0 % 1.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 Married Within 12 months any physical violence (p<0.05) Within 12 months any sexual violence (n.s.) 29 3.0 1.6 Not married Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU Victim economic status (% within category) No money earned or that comes to you 0.6 0.9 5.5 3.3 2.6 2.1 1.0 2.0 3.0 % 30 No decision on how to spend money earned or that comes to you Decide how to spend money earned or that comes to you 0.0 Within 12 months any sexual violence (p<0.01) Within 12 months any physical violence (n.s.) 4.0 5.0 6.0 Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU Who are the victims within last 12 months • Young women were significantly more likely victimized by either physical violence and sexual violence • No significant relationship between victim’s education level and experience of physical or sexual violence • Unmarried women were significantly more likely to experience any physical violence within last 12 months than those married. No difference for sexual violence • Those having no decision on how to spend money earned or that came to them were significantly more subject to sexual violence within last 12 months. No significant difference observed for physical violence. 31 Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU Age-group and education level 18Agegroup 29 No formal education/ primary/ kindergarten Junior secondary (F1-3) Senior secondary (F4-5) Matriculation (F6-7)/ IVE/ vocational/ Tertiary non-degree Tertiary: degree or above (masters/doctorate) Total percentage P<0.001 Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 32 3039 0 5 4 15 40 14 27 100 4049 13 30 35 10 12 100 5059 32 31 21 10 6 100 => 60 40 14 20 12 14 100 Total 17 19 29 16 20 100 24 33 38 100 Logistic regression Any physical violence within last 12 months B Age -1.33 S.E. 0.35 Wald df Sig. 14.9 Exp(B) 1 0.00 3.79 Any sexual violence within last 12 months B S.E. Wald df Sig. 9.23 Exp(B) Age -0.65 0.214 1 0.00 1.92 N.S. for education level, marital status, economic status in both type of violence. Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 33 Victimization detail • Non-partner victimization report (n=195) – Most recent incident involving a man other than a husband/partner or boyfriend • Partner victimization report (n=115) – Most recent incident involving a current or previous husband/partner or boyfriend Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 34 Characteristics of last victimization • The most common form of the last non-partner violence was sexual touch against will (59%) • The most common form of the last partner violence was slapping, kicking, biting or hitting with something (30.4%). The next common form was sexual touch against will (20.9%), pushed/grabbed/twisted arm (13.9%) and forced sexual intercourse (10.4%) • Strangers (55%) were most likely involved in the last non-partner violence whereas current husband/partner (43%) were most like involved in the last partner violence Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 35 Most recent non-partner incident Sexual touch against will Pushed/ grabbed/ twisted arm/ pulled hair Thrown something Threatened to hurt Slapped/ kicked/ bit/ hit Knife/ gun Forced into sexual intercourse Attempted to force into sexual intercourse Other physical violence Other sexual violence Strangle/ suffocate/ burn/ scald % 0 59 10.3 8.7 6.2 5.1 4.6 2.1 2.1 1 0.5 0.5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 36 Most recent partner incident slapped/kicked /bit/hit with fist sexual touching against will pushed/grabbed /twisted arm forced sexual intercourse being threw something at /hit with something threatened to hurt physically attempted forced sexual intercourse Don't know/n.a. strangled/suffocated /burned/scalded other sexual violence used /threatened to use knife /gun 0 1.7 1.7 0.9 0.9 5 10 15 % 20 25 30 35 37 30.4 20.9 13.9 10.4 9.6 5.2 4.3 Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU Who was involved in the most recent non-partner incident Stranger Friend Other relative Father Colleague Acquaintance Others Schoolmate Neighbor Someone else known quite well Doctor Client/patient 9.8 7.2 6.7 6.2 4.6 3.6 2.6 2.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 55.2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 38 Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU Who was involved in the most recent partner incident current husband/ partner previous boyfriend previous husband/ partner current boyfriend don't know 0 43 27 23 5 2 5 10 15 20 % 25 30 35 40 45 39 Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU Location • While 22.1% of the last non-partner incident took place in victim’s own home/yard, most others took place in a public area such as the public transit (20%), street/alley (13.8%) or work (10.3%) • On the contrary, most of the last partner violence incident took place in victim’s own home/yard (67%), next perpetrator's home/yard (16.5%) Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 40 Where did the most recent nonpartner incident occur Own home/yard Public transit Street/alley Work Other public building Don't know/N.A. Car His home/yard Bar/dance club/pool hall Someone else's home/yard School/ college/ campus Rural areas/ woods/ park/ campground Other public building 22.1 20 13.8 10.3 9.2 4.6 4.1 4.1 3.6 3.6 2.1 2.1 0.5 0 5 10 % 15 20 25 41 Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU Where did the most recent partner incident occur Own home/ yard His home/ yard Street/ alley Don't know/ N.A. Rural areas/ woods/ park/ campground Other Someone else's home/ yard Work 67 16.5 7 3.5 3.5 0.9 0.9 0.9 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 % Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 42 Post-trauma event • Alarmingly, one-third (31.3%) of the last partner violence incident result in physical injury but only 27% of victims felt life was in danger. Comparatively, only 12.3% of victims of the last non-partner incident were physically injured, but more (19%) felt life was in danger • Of those injured, 45.8% of injured victims of nonpartner incident seek medical care but only 36.1% of injured victims of partner incident did so. Types of injuries resulted varies little between partner and non-partner incident but partner incidents included three incidents of genital injury whereas none in non-partner incident Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 43 Post-trauma event • Victims of partner incident (7.8%) were also more likely to use alcohol or medication to help cope with experience than victims of nonpartner incident (4.6%) • Although more were physically injured, victims of partner incident have similar report to police rate (12.1%) when compared to victims of nonpartner incident (11.8%) Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 44 Post trauma behavior (% yes) 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 45.8 36.1 31.3 27 19 12.3 4.6 7.8 11.812.1 Feel life was in danger Physically injured Non-partner last incident Partner last incident Medical care Ever used Reported to police alcohol or needed medication (injured to help cope only) 45 Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU Types of injuries (multi-responses) bruises others cuts/scratches/burns etc head or brain injury broken bones, broken nose genital injury miscarriage internal injuries fractures 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 10 15 Partner last incident Non-partner last incident 20 25 30 46 17 5 5 3 1 2 3 4 6 7 27 Frequency 0 Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU Major reasons for not reporting did not want offender arrested /in trouble with police didn't want anyone to know /kept it private 3.4% 0.5% 3.4% 1.9% Partner last incident Non-partner last incident too minor /not serious enough 46.6% 33.8% 22.4% 8.6% dealt with it herself /involved a friend/ family matter 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% Multi-responses allowed Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 47 Major reasons for not reporting • Almost half (46.6%) were ‘too minor/not serious enough’, • 22.4%,‘dealt with it herself/involved a friend/family matter’ 3.4% ‘did not want offender arrested/in trouble with police’ 3.4% ‘didn’t want anyone to know/kept it private’ (3.4%). • These reasons for not reporting the last partner incident were more frequently cited than in the last non-partner incident. • Only one-third (33.8%) stated that the reasons for not reporting non-partner incident was ‘too minor/not serious enough’ and 8.6% stated that they ‘dealt with it herself/involved a friend/family matter’ 48 Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU Building victim services for women Reaching out to victims: victims have little or no knowledge of services and may be discouraged to report crimes involving family or ‘colleagues’ Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 49 Summary of interview with select victims: reporting by female victims Ms. Loretta Tang S.F. Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 50 Follow-up Interviews • • • • Face-to-face and phone interviews 20 participants selected Semi-structured, informal setting Qualitative findings to hypotheses Loretta Tang S.F. Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 51 Nature of Victimization • • • • • Physical victimization Sexual victimization Psychological victimization Reported vs. non-reported victimization Impact of victimization Loretta Tang S.F. Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 52 Physical Victimization • 8 participants who experienced physical assault • Perpetrator mostly known to victim • Mixed perception of whether or not victimization was crime • Half reported to police • Of all those who reported, their motive was to seek help Loretta Tang S.F. Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 53 Case Example • Victim #44, aged 35, not married • Various forms of physical abuse by elder brother • Did not report because was young, “felt very helpless (無助)” • After each incident, “would only know how to hide” • Wanted to die but did not have enough courage to commit suicide Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 54 Sexual Victimization • 12 participants experienced some form of sexual assault • 5 victims were victimized by strangers • 3 out of 4 victimized by strangers indicated incident considered crime • Most victimized by someone close to them, e.g. intimate partner, considered incident as something that just happens • Only 2 reported to police • Reasons for not reporting: Minor, family matter, not brought up to say such things, police would not have helped, others would not believe her Loretta Tang S.F. Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 55 Case Example • • • • • Victim #33, aged 33, not married, clerical Workplace sexual harassment Sexual touching, occurred almost daily Forced sexual intercourse Did not report because feels that perpetrator knows “rules of the game” and police finding evidence would be like “dead-end”, and “did not want to re-enact Clinton-Lewinski incident”; incident has become a black spot “ 污點” in her life Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 56 Case Example Victim #2, aged 57, married Forced sexual intercourse by husband Shared same bedroom with husband, son Could not yell or fight back because does not want to alarm son • Felt ‘collapse’ (精神崩潰) from physical and psychological suffering • Did not report for the sake of maintaining harmony in family Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 57 • • • • Psychological Victimization • 4 participants: psychological victimization (not withstanding common stress, trauma experienced by all crime victims) • In the form of stalking, verbal harassment, discriminating behaviour • 3 cases involving ex-husband as perpetrator • 2 victims considered victimization as wrong but not crime • 2 victims reported • Reasons for reporting: annoying, did not want to be bothered anymore Loretta Tang S.F. Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 58 Case Example • Victim #49, aged 41, divorced • New immigrant from China in 1988 • Ex-husband: alcoholic, swears, abusive, e.g. “even if you have wings, I would clip them off so you cannot leave (have freedom)” • Victim left abusive environment even though parents told her to remain in marriage because “marry chicken…, follow dog…嫁雞隨雞嫁狗隨狗” • Constantly phoned, harassed, stalked even after separation • Reported to police: felt police absolutely 100% cannot provide her with help, as did not give pressure toward partner to stop abuse and did not encourage “鼓勵” her to leave abusive situation • “幸福靠自己爭取” – cannot rely on others to achieve one’s own happiness Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 59 Reported vs. Non-reported • Similarities – Mix of violence reported to police – Mix of perpetrators – Cases consisted of both one-off attacks and repeat victimizations • Differences – Series of victimizations within single incident – Victims’ need for external assistance – Perception of victimization: embarrassment vs. access to justice Loretta Tang S.F. Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 60 Impact • Individual level – Physical and mental suffering – Desire for help, not simply on emotional, tangible support but help in terms of providing sense of justice • Family level Loretta Tang S.F. Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 61 Victim-offender relationship • Victim-offender relationship as variable influencing reporting: inconclusive • Parabole relationship Victim-offender relationship & Reporting 15 10 5 0 Stranger Acquaintance Current/previous intimate partner Relationship type Loretta Tang S.F. Victimization reported Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 62 Perceived Crime Seriousness • More severe, more likely to report • Exception: sexual violence • But exception to the exception: strangerperpetrated sexual violence • In general, intimate-partner crimes are not considered dangerous, criminal, nor very serious 63 Loretta Tang S.F. Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU Family Values • No conclusive pattern • Those who did not report: held Chinese family values e.g. strive for harmony within family Loretta Tang S.F. Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 64 Summary of Follow-up Interview • Research questions – Non-reporting continues to prevail among female victims in HK – Reasons for reporting: Want protection, support, justice – Reasons for non-report: Minor incident, family matter – Crime severity correlated to reporting 65 Loretta Tang S.F. Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU Overall Summary • Generally lower female violence victimization rate in HK when compared to other countries – consistent with UN ICVS and official statistics • Different patterns of violent victimization involving partner and non-partner • Last violent victimization involving partner (current/previous husband/partner) were more likely to result in physical injuries but comparatively less considered life-threatening and reported to police. Most took place in domestic setting (83.5%) – unrevealed Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 66 Overall Summary • The high non-partner victimization in the form of unwanted sexual contact often in public transport or street warrant concern • Different survey methodology is required to address the sensitivity of woman’s violent victimization experience • Violence against women – more than just a family/domestic issue? Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 67 Thank You For enquiry please contact: Dr. Lee K.W. (leekwa@hkusua.hku.hk) Centre for Criminology, HKU Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HKU 68