Gender Based Violence Survey, 2009
Uganda, 2009
Reference ID
UGA-UBOS-GBV-2009-v01.
Producer(s)
Uganda Bureau of Statistics, The Government (Ministry of Gender Labour and Social Development- MGLSD), GBV Intervening Institutions including CSOs and Government Agencies, Local Government (LC1s),, Sector Ministries, The Media,, Tribal Authorities,, Religious Institutions,, Development Partners
Created on
Feb 14, 2018
Last modified
Feb 14, 2018
Page views
481176
Identification
Survey ID Number
UGA-UBOS-GBV-2009-v01.
Title
Gender Based Violence Survey, 2009
Country
| Name | Country code |
|---|---|
| Uganda | UGA |
Study type
Gender Based Violence Survey, 2009
Abstract
Background
Even prior to the adoption of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the Government of Uganda (GoU) had devoted considerable attention to the issues of gender inequality. Indeed, affirmative action programs, such as those focusing on female education, have been in existence since the early 1990s. Specifically, in 1991, female students were provided with additional points to help them qualify for tertiary education. Other examples in the education sector have included the Universal Primary Education (UPE) program initiated in the mid 1990s. There is evidence to show that as a result of this particular program, the gender gap in enrolment was eliminated (Deininger, 2003). Despite success in reducing gender disparities in education, inequalities remain in most other socio-economic relations. A recent World Bank report concluded that without addressing gender inequalities in the control of resources, Uganda's economic growth would remain subdued (Amanda, et al. 2006).
Despite efforts to improve wellbeing within the household and to directly empower women in Uganda, the control of productive resources, such as access to credit and the ownership of land, is still biased against women. For example, the results from the 2005/2006 national household survey revealed that female household heads owned only 14 percent of land in Uganda. Furthermore, the incidence of receiving credit for women is only 9.3 percent as compared to 18.2 percent for men. Such unequal distribution of resources not only perpetuates the status quo but also negatively impacts on overall national production. There is global evidence indicating that increasing women's access to productive resources can trigger national productivity growth by as much as 20 percent (World Bank, 2001). Within sub-Saharan Africa, there is evidence to show that gender inequalities with regard to productive assets, has far reaching implications beyond the household level. According to Ellis (2006), there is cross country evidence showing that gender inequalities in sub-Sahara Africa (SSA) negatively affects the rate of GDP growth.
The Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBoS) has, since 1992 conducted nationally representative surveys at household level. The analysis based on these surveys has provided empirical evidence in informing and influencing socio-economic policy in Uganda. However, due to the high costs of survey data collection and a diverse range of national data priorities, there has been a limited focus on gender issues within the household surveys. In the past, some aspects of intra-household resource allocation have been inferred based on the gender of the household head. In its regular surveys, UBoS does collect individual information on education and health. However, information on household assets is gathered at household level. Ideally, such information should be collected at the individual level in order to understand how gender dynamics influence intra-household resource allocation, and in turn, impact on productivity. However, as highlighted in the international literature on asset ownership (e.g. Doss, 2006; Deere and Doss, 2006), most assets are held by individuals and not by the household as a whole. Consequently, it is important to understand how differences in women's and men's ownership and control of assets impacts on overall welfare outcomes. This is one of the reasons why a survey on gender and productivity was undertaken.
While there have been attempts by individual researchers to collect information on intra-household issues, relating to gender in particular, most of these investigations were based on small samples. Findings based on such limited samples limit the usefulness of using the findings in informing policy at national level. Most importantly, small samples are inadequate for monitoring national programs such as the targets set by the Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) and the proposed National Development Plan (NDP). In order to fill this void, Office of Prime Minster (OPM); the agency responsible for coordinating the monitoring the social outcomes, in Uganda in collaboration with the International Centre on Research on Women (ICRW), commissioned a comprehensive survey on gender and productivity in Uganda. Furthermore, this unique survey was intended to contribute to the knowledge base of the National Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy (NIMES) monitoring process. Therefore, this survey provides the data necessary to engender development indicators as defined in the PEAP and NDP results and policy matrix.
The survey Objectives
The objective of the survey was to provide data and information for the PEAP implementation review with a focus on the various aspects of gender as outlined in the PEAP. The survey also provides data at the individual level which can enable policy makers to understand how gender dynamics influence intra-household resource allocation and in turn impact on productivity at household level.
The specific objectives of the survey were to:
· Obtain nationally representative information on gender and productivity in Uganda;
· Provide nationally representative data necessary to engender indicators in Uganda's national plan; and
· Monitor and understand progress towards achieving the PEAP and the MDGs.
Scope and coverage
Three modules were covered in this survey, namely: the household module; a module for eligible women and men; and the service provider's module. The household module was administered to collect information on household characteristics as well as employment status. The service provider module contained the following questionnaires: the police questionnaire; the health facility questionnaire; the questionnaire for the probation officer; and finally, the questionnaire for LC1/community leaders who handle women's issues. In addition, a woman and man's questionnaire were administered to eligible persons in the household. In the survey, an eligible person was defined as a woman or man, aged 15 years and above, who was currently married or had been in a marital union in the past 12 months prior to the survey. In cases where a number of women in the same household were eligible for interview, only one was randomly selected using the KISH grid. The household modules covered the following areas:
· individual characteristics of household members including marital status;
· education- schooling status of household members and expenditures on schooling;
· general health covering: disease incidence, access to facilities, and types of illnesses;
· housing and household conditions;
· labour force participation including usual activity status, time use and wages/earnings; and
· household and enterprise assets.
The individual woman's and man's questionnaires collected the following information:
· women's child birth history;
· reproductive health;
· background of current partner;
· child birth history;
· household and enterprise assets;
· time use for household chores and responsibilities;
· attitudes towards gender roles;
· roles in decision making; and
· history of marital violence.
Given that the survey had a special interest in gender violence, that is, its manifestations and the institutions that deal with gender violence, related modules were included in the survey. Specifically, these extra modules collected information on: health facilities, the law enforcement agencies (police), district probation office and LC1 officials responsible for gender. These particular modules were administered at the respective facilities in order to capture their contribution to the gender concerns within their areas of jurisdiction. In addition, special consideration was undertaken to understand the cost implications of assisting/pursuing a reported case of domestic violence. Cost information was collected at the community (LC1), the probation office, the police station, and the health facilities (in cases where injuries had to be treated). The following information was collected relating to gender violence:
· community characteristics like availability and accessibility to social services (schools, health units, etc);
· cases of domestic violence that had been treated;
· complaints received (police, LC1, Probation office);
· duration to receive hearing;
· average time taken to analyse a complaint;
· average number of complaints;
· cost of providing a service;
· skills required to handle such cases of domestic violence; and
· infrastructure to handle cases of domestic violence.
Despite the comprehensive nature of the GPS survey, it nevertheless does not capture some issues-especially those that can not be quantitative measured. For example, although the survey captures individuals that are unpaid family workers, it does not explicitly identify who among unpaid family workers are housewives. Other issues such as the career promotion of women in formal employment are not captured. Also, issues relating to the nature of household production are also not covered by the survey. Finally, this report attempts to provide the “state of the art” of gender inequities in Uganda; an in-depth analysis of the causes of gender disparities will be provided in a forthcoming study by the EPRC.
Pre- testing for the National Situational Analysis on Gender Based Violence (GBV) in Uganda was successfully completed on 22/02/09. The main field work was scheduled to commence in March, 2009. There was a delay in submission of funds from the Miinistry which made the delay for beginning data collection. The data collection started in July, 2009.
The Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBoS) has, since 1992 conducted nationally representative surveys at household level. The analysis based on these surveys has provided empirical evidence in informing and influencing socio-economic policy in Uganda. However, due to the high costs of survey data collection and a diverse range of national data priorities, there has been a limited focus on gender issues within the household surveys. In the past, some aspects of intra-household resource allocation have been inferred based on the gender of the household head. In its regular surveys, UBoS does collect individual information on education and health. However, information on household assets is gathered at household level. Ideally, such information should be collected at the individual level in order to understand how gender dynamics influence intra-household resource allocation, and in turn, impact on productivity. However, as highlighted in the international literature on asset ownership (e.g. Doss, 2006; Deere and Doss, 2006), most assets are held by individuals and not by the household as a whole. Consequently, it is important to understand how differences in women's and men's ownership and control of assets impacts on overall welfare outcomes. This is one of the reasons why a survey on gender and productivity was undertaken.
While there have been attempts by individual researchers to collect information on intra-household issues, relating to gender in particular, most of these investigations were based on small samples. Findings based on such limited samples limit the usefulness of using the findings in informing policy at national level. Most importantly, small samples are inadequate for monitoring national programs such as the targets set by the Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) and the proposed National Development Plan (NDP). In order to fill this void, Office of Prime Minster (OPM); the agency responsible for coordinating the monitoring the social outcomes, in Uganda in collaboration with the International Centre on Research on Women (ICRW), commissioned a comprehensive survey on gender and productivity in Uganda. Furthermore, this unique survey was intended to contribute to the knowledge base of the National Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy (NIMES) monitoring process. Therefore, this survey provides the data necessary to engender development indicators as defined in the PEAP and NDP results and policy matrix.
Major variables in the study:
INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONNAIRE:
SECTION 1A : IDENTIFICATION
SECTION 1B: ITERVIEWER VISITS
SECTION 2: HOUSEHOLD ROSTER
SECTION 3: PERSONAL DATA
SECTION 4: KNOWLEDGE ON GENDER BASED VIOLENCE
SECTION 5: RESPONDENT'S ATTITTUDE TOWARDS VIOLENCE
SECTION 6: PRACTICES/NORMS ON VIOLENT BEHAVIOR WITHIN FAMILIES
SECTION 7: MARRIAGE/PARTENERSHIP
SECTION 8: BACKGROUND INFORMATION OF HUSBAND OR PARTENER
SECTION 9: GENDER BASED VIOLENCE
SECTION 10: GENDER BASED VIOLENCE INCIDENCES WITHIN COMMUNITY
THE INSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONNAIRE:
SECTION 1A: IDENTIFICATION PARTICULARS
SECTION 1B: INTERVIEWER VISITS
SECTION 2: INSTITUTIONAL DATA
SECTION 3: KNOLEDGE ON VIOLENCE AND GBV IN PARTICULAR
SECTION 4: FORMS OF GENDER BASED VIOLENCE IN THE COMMUNITY
SECTION 5: CONCEQUENCES OF GBV ON VICTIMS AND FREQUENCY OF INCIDENCES
SECTION 6: INTERVENTION MEASURES
SECTION 7: THE NUMBER OF GBV CASES HANDLED BY THE ORGANISATION 2005-2008
SECTION 8: COSTS INCURRED BY THE INSTITUTIONS ON GBV
SECTION 9: SUGGETIONS/ RECOMMENDATIONS
Even prior to the adoption of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the Government of Uganda (GoU) had devoted considerable attention to the issues of gender inequality. Indeed, affirmative action programs, such as those focusing on female education, have been in existence since the early 1990s. Specifically, in 1991, female students were provided with additional points to help them qualify for tertiary education. Other examples in the education sector have included the Universal Primary Education (UPE) program initiated in the mid 1990s. There is evidence to show that as a result of this particular program, the gender gap in enrolment was eliminated (Deininger, 2003). Despite success in reducing gender disparities in education, inequalities remain in most other socio-economic relations. A recent World Bank report concluded that without addressing gender inequalities in the control of resources, Uganda's economic growth would remain subdued (Amanda, et al. 2006).
Despite efforts to improve wellbeing within the household and to directly empower women in Uganda, the control of productive resources, such as access to credit and the ownership of land, is still biased against women. For example, the results from the 2005/2006 national household survey revealed that female household heads owned only 14 percent of land in Uganda. Furthermore, the incidence of receiving credit for women is only 9.3 percent as compared to 18.2 percent for men. Such unequal distribution of resources not only perpetuates the status quo but also negatively impacts on overall national production. There is global evidence indicating that increasing women's access to productive resources can trigger national productivity growth by as much as 20 percent (World Bank, 2001). Within sub-Saharan Africa, there is evidence to show that gender inequalities with regard to productive assets, has far reaching implications beyond the household level. According to Ellis (2006), there is cross country evidence showing that gender inequalities in sub-Sahara Africa (SSA) negatively affects the rate of GDP growth.
The Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBoS) has, since 1992 conducted nationally representative surveys at household level. The analysis based on these surveys has provided empirical evidence in informing and influencing socio-economic policy in Uganda. However, due to the high costs of survey data collection and a diverse range of national data priorities, there has been a limited focus on gender issues within the household surveys. In the past, some aspects of intra-household resource allocation have been inferred based on the gender of the household head. In its regular surveys, UBoS does collect individual information on education and health. However, information on household assets is gathered at household level. Ideally, such information should be collected at the individual level in order to understand how gender dynamics influence intra-household resource allocation, and in turn, impact on productivity. However, as highlighted in the international literature on asset ownership (e.g. Doss, 2006; Deere and Doss, 2006), most assets are held by individuals and not by the household as a whole. Consequently, it is important to understand how differences in women's and men's ownership and control of assets impacts on overall welfare outcomes. This is one of the reasons why a survey on gender and productivity was undertaken.
While there have been attempts by individual researchers to collect information on intra-household issues, relating to gender in particular, most of these investigations were based on small samples. Findings based on such limited samples limit the usefulness of using the findings in informing policy at national level. Most importantly, small samples are inadequate for monitoring national programs such as the targets set by the Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) and the proposed National Development Plan (NDP). In order to fill this void, Office of Prime Minster (OPM); the agency responsible for coordinating the monitoring the social outcomes, in Uganda in collaboration with the International Centre on Research on Women (ICRW), commissioned a comprehensive survey on gender and productivity in Uganda. Furthermore, this unique survey was intended to contribute to the knowledge base of the National Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy (NIMES) monitoring process. Therefore, this survey provides the data necessary to engender development indicators as defined in the PEAP and NDP results and policy matrix.
The survey Objectives
The objective of the survey was to provide data and information for the PEAP implementation review with a focus on the various aspects of gender as outlined in the PEAP. The survey also provides data at the individual level which can enable policy makers to understand how gender dynamics influence intra-household resource allocation and in turn impact on productivity at household level.
The specific objectives of the survey were to:
· Obtain nationally representative information on gender and productivity in Uganda;
· Provide nationally representative data necessary to engender indicators in Uganda's national plan; and
· Monitor and understand progress towards achieving the PEAP and the MDGs.
Scope and coverage
Three modules were covered in this survey, namely: the household module; a module for eligible women and men; and the service provider's module. The household module was administered to collect information on household characteristics as well as employment status. The service provider module contained the following questionnaires: the police questionnaire; the health facility questionnaire; the questionnaire for the probation officer; and finally, the questionnaire for LC1/community leaders who handle women's issues. In addition, a woman and man's questionnaire were administered to eligible persons in the household. In the survey, an eligible person was defined as a woman or man, aged 15 years and above, who was currently married or had been in a marital union in the past 12 months prior to the survey. In cases where a number of women in the same household were eligible for interview, only one was randomly selected using the KISH grid. The household modules covered the following areas:
· individual characteristics of household members including marital status;
· education- schooling status of household members and expenditures on schooling;
· general health covering: disease incidence, access to facilities, and types of illnesses;
· housing and household conditions;
· labour force participation including usual activity status, time use and wages/earnings; and
· household and enterprise assets.
The individual woman's and man's questionnaires collected the following information:
· women's child birth history;
· reproductive health;
· background of current partner;
· child birth history;
· household and enterprise assets;
· time use for household chores and responsibilities;
· attitudes towards gender roles;
· roles in decision making; and
· history of marital violence.
Given that the survey had a special interest in gender violence, that is, its manifestations and the institutions that deal with gender violence, related modules were included in the survey. Specifically, these extra modules collected information on: health facilities, the law enforcement agencies (police), district probation office and LC1 officials responsible for gender. These particular modules were administered at the respective facilities in order to capture their contribution to the gender concerns within their areas of jurisdiction. In addition, special consideration was undertaken to understand the cost implications of assisting/pursuing a reported case of domestic violence. Cost information was collected at the community (LC1), the probation office, the police station, and the health facilities (in cases where injuries had to be treated). The following information was collected relating to gender violence:
· community characteristics like availability and accessibility to social services (schools, health units, etc);
· cases of domestic violence that had been treated;
· complaints received (police, LC1, Probation office);
· duration to receive hearing;
· average time taken to analyse a complaint;
· average number of complaints;
· cost of providing a service;
· skills required to handle such cases of domestic violence; and
· infrastructure to handle cases of domestic violence.
Despite the comprehensive nature of the GPS survey, it nevertheless does not capture some issues-especially those that can not be quantitative measured. For example, although the survey captures individuals that are unpaid family workers, it does not explicitly identify who among unpaid family workers are housewives. Other issues such as the career promotion of women in formal employment are not captured. Also, issues relating to the nature of household production are also not covered by the survey. Finally, this report attempts to provide the “state of the art” of gender inequities in Uganda; an in-depth analysis of the causes of gender disparities will be provided in a forthcoming study by the EPRC.
Pre- testing for the National Situational Analysis on Gender Based Violence (GBV) in Uganda was successfully completed on 22/02/09. The main field work was scheduled to commence in March, 2009. There was a delay in submission of funds from the Miinistry which made the delay for beginning data collection. The data collection started in July, 2009.
The Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBoS) has, since 1992 conducted nationally representative surveys at household level. The analysis based on these surveys has provided empirical evidence in informing and influencing socio-economic policy in Uganda. However, due to the high costs of survey data collection and a diverse range of national data priorities, there has been a limited focus on gender issues within the household surveys. In the past, some aspects of intra-household resource allocation have been inferred based on the gender of the household head. In its regular surveys, UBoS does collect individual information on education and health. However, information on household assets is gathered at household level. Ideally, such information should be collected at the individual level in order to understand how gender dynamics influence intra-household resource allocation, and in turn, impact on productivity. However, as highlighted in the international literature on asset ownership (e.g. Doss, 2006; Deere and Doss, 2006), most assets are held by individuals and not by the household as a whole. Consequently, it is important to understand how differences in women's and men's ownership and control of assets impacts on overall welfare outcomes. This is one of the reasons why a survey on gender and productivity was undertaken.
While there have been attempts by individual researchers to collect information on intra-household issues, relating to gender in particular, most of these investigations were based on small samples. Findings based on such limited samples limit the usefulness of using the findings in informing policy at national level. Most importantly, small samples are inadequate for monitoring national programs such as the targets set by the Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) and the proposed National Development Plan (NDP). In order to fill this void, Office of Prime Minster (OPM); the agency responsible for coordinating the monitoring the social outcomes, in Uganda in collaboration with the International Centre on Research on Women (ICRW), commissioned a comprehensive survey on gender and productivity in Uganda. Furthermore, this unique survey was intended to contribute to the knowledge base of the National Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy (NIMES) monitoring process. Therefore, this survey provides the data necessary to engender development indicators as defined in the PEAP and NDP results and policy matrix.
Major variables in the study:
INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONNAIRE:
SECTION 1A : IDENTIFICATION
SECTION 1B: ITERVIEWER VISITS
SECTION 2: HOUSEHOLD ROSTER
SECTION 3: PERSONAL DATA
SECTION 4: KNOWLEDGE ON GENDER BASED VIOLENCE
SECTION 5: RESPONDENT'S ATTITTUDE TOWARDS VIOLENCE
SECTION 6: PRACTICES/NORMS ON VIOLENT BEHAVIOR WITHIN FAMILIES
SECTION 7: MARRIAGE/PARTENERSHIP
SECTION 8: BACKGROUND INFORMATION OF HUSBAND OR PARTENER
SECTION 9: GENDER BASED VIOLENCE
SECTION 10: GENDER BASED VIOLENCE INCIDENCES WITHIN COMMUNITY
THE INSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONNAIRE:
SECTION 1A: IDENTIFICATION PARTICULARS
SECTION 1B: INTERVIEWER VISITS
SECTION 2: INSTITUTIONAL DATA
SECTION 3: KNOLEDGE ON VIOLENCE AND GBV IN PARTICULAR
SECTION 4: FORMS OF GENDER BASED VIOLENCE IN THE COMMUNITY
SECTION 5: CONCEQUENCES OF GBV ON VICTIMS AND FREQUENCY OF INCIDENCES
SECTION 6: INTERVENTION MEASURES
SECTION 7: THE NUMBER OF GBV CASES HANDLED BY THE ORGANISATION 2005-2008
SECTION 8: COSTS INCURRED BY THE INSTITUTIONS ON GBV
SECTION 9: SUGGETIONS/ RECOMMENDATIONS
Kind of Data
Sample survey data [ssd]
Unit of Analysis
SURVEY INSTRUMENTS
The following questionnaires will be administered to the respondents in all EAs:
1. Individual Questionnaire: -
The purpose of this module is to collect relevant information on GBV experiences for males and females at household level. This shall have two questionnaires;
v The individual Questionnaire - Male, to be administered to male respondents
v The individual Questionnaire -female, to be administered to female respondents.
2. The Institutional Questionnaire
This Questionnaire shall be administered to various institutions which deal with issues or cases of gender based violence. These include Police, Judiciary, health centres, NGOs and local Councils.
The following questionnaires will be administered to the respondents in all EAs:
1. Individual Questionnaire: -
The purpose of this module is to collect relevant information on GBV experiences for males and females at household level. This shall have two questionnaires;
v The individual Questionnaire - Male, to be administered to male respondents
v The individual Questionnaire -female, to be administered to female respondents.
2. The Institutional Questionnaire
This Questionnaire shall be administered to various institutions which deal with issues or cases of gender based violence. These include Police, Judiciary, health centres, NGOs and local Councils.
Version
Version Description
v1.0: This is a first version from edited data.
Version Date
2011-08-16
Scope
Notes
Three modules were covered in this survey, namely: the household module; a module for eligible women and men; and the service provider's module. The household module was administered to collect information on household characteristics as well as employment status. The service provider module contained the following questionnaires: the police questionnaire; the health facility questionnaire; the questionnaire for the probation officer; and finally, the questionnaire for LC1/community leaders who handle women's issues. In addition, a woman and man's questionnaire were administered to eligible persons in the household. In the survey, an eligible person was defined as a woman or man, aged 15 years and above, who was currently married or had been in a marital union in the past 12 months prior to the survey. In cases where a number of women in the same household were eligible for interview, only one was randomly selected using the KISH grid. The household modules covered the following areas:
· individual characteristics of household members including marital status;
· education- schooling status of household members and expenditures on schooling;
· general health covering: disease incidence, access to facilities, and types of illnesses;
· housing and household conditions;
· labour force participation including usual activity status, time use and wages/earnings; and
· household and enterprise assets.
The individual woman's and man's questionnaires collected the following information:
· women's child birth history;
· reproductive health;
· background of current partner;
· child birth history;
· household and enterprise assets;
· time use for household chores and responsibilities;
· attitudes towards gender roles;
· roles in decision making; and
· history of marital violence.
Given that the survey had a special interest in gender violence, that is, its manifestations and the institutions that deal with gender violence, related modules were included in the survey. Specifically, these extra modules collected information on: health facilities, the law enforcement agencies (police), district probation office and LC1 officials responsible for gender. These particular modules were administered at the respective facilities in order to capture their contribution to the gender concerns within their areas of jurisdiction. In addition, special consideration was undertaken to understand the cost implications of assisting/pursuing a reported case of domestic violence. Cost information was collected at the community (LC1), the probation office, the police station, and the health facilities (in cases where injuries had to be treated). The following information was collected relating to gender violence:
· community characteristics like availability and accessibility to social services (schools, health units, etc);
· cases of domestic violence that had been treated;
· complaints received (police, LC1, Probation office);
· duration to receive hearing;
· average time taken to analyse a complaint;
· average number of complaints;
· cost of providing a service;
· skills required to handle such cases of domestic violence; and
· infrastructure to handle cases of domestic violence.
Despite the comprehensive nature of the GPS survey, it nevertheless does not capture some issues-especially those that can not be quantitative measured. For example, although the survey captures individuals that are unpaid family workers, it does not explicitly identify who among unpaid family workers are housewives. Other issues such as the career promotion of women in formal employment are not captured. Also, issues relating to the nature of household production are also not covered by the survey. Finally, this report attempts to provide the “state of the art” of gender inequities in Uganda; an in-depth analysis of the causes of gender disparities will be provided in a forthcoming study by the EPRC.
· individual characteristics of household members including marital status;
· education- schooling status of household members and expenditures on schooling;
· general health covering: disease incidence, access to facilities, and types of illnesses;
· housing and household conditions;
· labour force participation including usual activity status, time use and wages/earnings; and
· household and enterprise assets.
The individual woman's and man's questionnaires collected the following information:
· women's child birth history;
· reproductive health;
· background of current partner;
· child birth history;
· household and enterprise assets;
· time use for household chores and responsibilities;
· attitudes towards gender roles;
· roles in decision making; and
· history of marital violence.
Given that the survey had a special interest in gender violence, that is, its manifestations and the institutions that deal with gender violence, related modules were included in the survey. Specifically, these extra modules collected information on: health facilities, the law enforcement agencies (police), district probation office and LC1 officials responsible for gender. These particular modules were administered at the respective facilities in order to capture their contribution to the gender concerns within their areas of jurisdiction. In addition, special consideration was undertaken to understand the cost implications of assisting/pursuing a reported case of domestic violence. Cost information was collected at the community (LC1), the probation office, the police station, and the health facilities (in cases where injuries had to be treated). The following information was collected relating to gender violence:
· community characteristics like availability and accessibility to social services (schools, health units, etc);
· cases of domestic violence that had been treated;
· complaints received (police, LC1, Probation office);
· duration to receive hearing;
· average time taken to analyse a complaint;
· average number of complaints;
· cost of providing a service;
· skills required to handle such cases of domestic violence; and
· infrastructure to handle cases of domestic violence.
Despite the comprehensive nature of the GPS survey, it nevertheless does not capture some issues-especially those that can not be quantitative measured. For example, although the survey captures individuals that are unpaid family workers, it does not explicitly identify who among unpaid family workers are housewives. Other issues such as the career promotion of women in formal employment are not captured. Also, issues relating to the nature of household production are also not covered by the survey. Finally, this report attempts to provide the “state of the art” of gender inequities in Uganda; an in-depth analysis of the causes of gender disparities will be provided in a forthcoming study by the EPRC.
Topics
| Topic | Vocabulary | URI |
|---|---|---|
| rehabilitation/reintegration into society [5.5] | CESSDA | Link |
Keywords
| Keyword |
|---|
| rehabilitation/reintegration into society [5.5] |
Coverage
Geographic Coverage
National Coverage
Geographic Unit
Enumeration Area (EA)
Universe
Three modules were covered in this survey, namely: the household module; a module for eligible women and men; and the service provider's module. The household module was administered to collect information on household characteristics as well as employment status. The service provider module contained the following questionnaires: the police questionnaire; the health facility questionnaire; the questionnaire for the probation officer; and finally, the questionnaire for LC1/community leaders who handle women's issues. In addition, a woman and man's questionnaire were administered to eligible persons in the household. In the survey, an eligible person was defined as a woman or man, aged 15 years and above, who was currently married or had been in a marital union in the past 12 months prior to the survey. In cases where a number of women in the same household were eligible for interview, only one was randomly selected using the KISH grid.
Producers and sponsors
Primary investigators
| Name | Affiliation |
|---|---|
| Uganda Bureau of Statistics | Ministry Of Finance, Planning and Economic Development |
| The Government (Ministry of Gender Labour and Social Development- MGLSD) | |
| GBV Intervening Institutions including CSOs and Government Agencies | |
| Local Government (LC1s), | |
| Sector Ministries | |
| The Media, | |
| Tribal Authorities, | |
| Religious Institutions, | |
| Development Partners |
Producers
| Name | Affiliation |
|---|---|
| Uganda Bureau Of Statistics | MOFPED |
Sampling
Sampling Procedure
The GPS used the 2002 Uganda Population and Housing Census as the sampling frame. In addition, the GPS was based on a stratified two stage sampling design with Enumeration Areas (EAs) as the first stage sampling units and households as the second stage sampling units. The EAs were selected systematically using probability proportional to size. The sample size was composed of 350 EAs covering 78 out of 80 districts of Uganda in 2007. Ten to fifteen households were selected from each EA. The above sample sizes were chosen to enable the generation of reliable estimates at national, rural-urban and at regional level. Following previous surveys by UBoS such as the 2004 Northern Uganda Survey (NUS) and the 2005/06 Uganda National Household Survey (UNHS), the GPS also covered households that are resident in Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) camps. For households in IDP camps, a sample of 15 households per EA/IDP Camp were selected and surveyed. Fieldwork was undertaken from November 2007 to February 2008.
The survey collected background information on all usual household members in the selected household. Within the household, some members were eligible for the individual women and men's questionnaire. For the eligible individuals to be interviewed, these were selected based on the KISH Grid as earlier mentioned. Household members to answer the domestic violence module were selected based on the female to male ratio of three to one. That is, for every 10 females interviewed for domestic violence, three males were interviewed. This is to account for the fact that females are more likely to experience domestic violence than their male counterparts. As such, 2,714 women and 1,217 men were eligible and administered the individual questionnaire relating to various gender aspects including domestic violence.
A total of 250 enumeration areas were sampled and had to be visited and 242 enumeration areas were visited. Attached, Annex C is the list of sampled enumeration areas.
NAMES DESIGNATION
1. AJIDIRU BRENDA SUPERVISOR
2. GIMUI PETER SUPERVISOR
3. KAKAIRE HALIMA SUPERVISOR
4. KATABAAZI ALEXANDER SUPERVISOR
5. KAYONDO FRANCIS SUPERVISOR
6. MUJWARA DEO SUPERVISOR
7. NAVUGA ROSETTE SUPERVISOR
8. OKELLO JAMES SUPERVISOR
9. OMODO JUDE SUPERVISOR
10. RUTAKUNDIRA EDDIE SUPERVISOR
11. BIRYABAREMA JUDITH OFFICE EDITOR
12. NAIGAGA IRENE OFFICE EDITOR
13. ACHAYO TEDDY INTERVIEWER
14. AKERA BENSON INTERVIEWER
AKOL JANE INTERVIEWER
AMUNYO EZEKIEL INTERVIEWER
ANDEBO ROBERT INTERVIEWER
ARINAITWE JUDITH INTERVIEWER
ASIO LAURA BASEMERA INTERVIEWER
AVUTIA HARRIET INTERVIEWER
AWIO FLORENCE INTERVIEWER
AYUB ISABIRYE INTERVIEWER
BATEETA JUSTINE INTERVIEWER
BUSINGYE JONES INTERVIEWER
ISABIRYE ALLAN INTERVIEWER
KAKEETO HENRY INTERVIEWER
KARUNGI SHARIFAH ALLEN INTERVIEWER
KASIMBI WILLY INTERVIEWER
KASUMBA JOSEPH MARY INTERVIEWER
KAYAGA PROSSY INTERVIEWER
KEMBABAZI INNOCENT INTERVIEWER
KIMAKA JULIUS INTERVIEWER
KYOMUGISHA BEATRICE INTERVIEWER
MAGOBA JOSEPH INTERVIEWER
MAKUMBI CHRIZESTON INTERVIEWER
MAYANJA WINNIE INTERVIEWER
MUSHABE DENIS INTERVIEWER
MUWANIKA DAVID INTERVIEWER
NAJJUUKO HABIBAH INTERVIEWER
NAMAKULA MOREEN INTERVIEWER
NAMBOZO SANDRA INTERVIEWER
NAMBOZO IRENE JOY INTERVIEWER
NAMUGENYI JOANITA INTERVIEWER
NINSIIMA AULARIA INTERVIEWER
NALWOGA SARAH INTERVIEWER
OCHEN DENIS INTERVIEWER
OCHEN ALFRED INTERVIEWER
ODIRU FLORENCE INTERVIEWER
OTIMAMULA JUDE INTERVIEWER
PARIO ROBERT ALLEN INTERVIEWER
RUGYEMA ABRAHAM LINCON INTERVIEWER
WALYOMU SARAH INTERVIEWER
KABAGAMBE JOHN INTERVIEWER
The survey collected background information on all usual household members in the selected household. Within the household, some members were eligible for the individual women and men's questionnaire. For the eligible individuals to be interviewed, these were selected based on the KISH Grid as earlier mentioned. Household members to answer the domestic violence module were selected based on the female to male ratio of three to one. That is, for every 10 females interviewed for domestic violence, three males were interviewed. This is to account for the fact that females are more likely to experience domestic violence than their male counterparts. As such, 2,714 women and 1,217 men were eligible and administered the individual questionnaire relating to various gender aspects including domestic violence.
A total of 250 enumeration areas were sampled and had to be visited and 242 enumeration areas were visited. Attached, Annex C is the list of sampled enumeration areas.
NAMES DESIGNATION
1. AJIDIRU BRENDA SUPERVISOR
2. GIMUI PETER SUPERVISOR
3. KAKAIRE HALIMA SUPERVISOR
4. KATABAAZI ALEXANDER SUPERVISOR
5. KAYONDO FRANCIS SUPERVISOR
6. MUJWARA DEO SUPERVISOR
7. NAVUGA ROSETTE SUPERVISOR
8. OKELLO JAMES SUPERVISOR
9. OMODO JUDE SUPERVISOR
10. RUTAKUNDIRA EDDIE SUPERVISOR
11. BIRYABAREMA JUDITH OFFICE EDITOR
12. NAIGAGA IRENE OFFICE EDITOR
13. ACHAYO TEDDY INTERVIEWER
14. AKERA BENSON INTERVIEWER
AKOL JANE INTERVIEWER
AMUNYO EZEKIEL INTERVIEWER
ANDEBO ROBERT INTERVIEWER
ARINAITWE JUDITH INTERVIEWER
ASIO LAURA BASEMERA INTERVIEWER
AVUTIA HARRIET INTERVIEWER
AWIO FLORENCE INTERVIEWER
AYUB ISABIRYE INTERVIEWER
BATEETA JUSTINE INTERVIEWER
BUSINGYE JONES INTERVIEWER
ISABIRYE ALLAN INTERVIEWER
KAKEETO HENRY INTERVIEWER
KARUNGI SHARIFAH ALLEN INTERVIEWER
KASIMBI WILLY INTERVIEWER
KASUMBA JOSEPH MARY INTERVIEWER
KAYAGA PROSSY INTERVIEWER
KEMBABAZI INNOCENT INTERVIEWER
KIMAKA JULIUS INTERVIEWER
KYOMUGISHA BEATRICE INTERVIEWER
MAGOBA JOSEPH INTERVIEWER
MAKUMBI CHRIZESTON INTERVIEWER
MAYANJA WINNIE INTERVIEWER
MUSHABE DENIS INTERVIEWER
MUWANIKA DAVID INTERVIEWER
NAJJUUKO HABIBAH INTERVIEWER
NAMAKULA MOREEN INTERVIEWER
NAMBOZO SANDRA INTERVIEWER
NAMBOZO IRENE JOY INTERVIEWER
NAMUGENYI JOANITA INTERVIEWER
NINSIIMA AULARIA INTERVIEWER
NALWOGA SARAH INTERVIEWER
OCHEN DENIS INTERVIEWER
OCHEN ALFRED INTERVIEWER
ODIRU FLORENCE INTERVIEWER
OTIMAMULA JUDE INTERVIEWER
PARIO ROBERT ALLEN INTERVIEWER
RUGYEMA ABRAHAM LINCON INTERVIEWER
WALYOMU SARAH INTERVIEWER
KABAGAMBE JOHN INTERVIEWER
Deviations from the Sample Design
Following previous surveys by UBoS such as the 2004 Northern Uganda Survey (NUS) and the 2005/06 Uganda National Household Survey (UNHS), the GPS also covered households that are resident in Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) camps. For households in IDP camps, a sample of 15 households per EA/IDP Camp were selected and surveyed.
Response Rate
Although the target at the survey design stage was to cover 4500 households, the total number enumerated was 4,291 giving a response rate of 95.4 per cent.
Weighting
Self-weighted
Data Collection
Dates of Data Collection
| Start | End |
|---|---|
| 2009-07-09 | 2009-02-22 |
Data Collection Mode
Face-to-face [f2f]
Supervision
Interviewing was conducted by teams of both male and female interviewers with a total of 10 supervisors.
Data Collection Notes
A total of 53 fieldworkers were recruited and trained at the Grand imperial Hotel from 06/07/09 up to 11/07/09. Most of the trainees had worked as interviewers, supervisors or office editors with UBOS in various surveys. Attached as Annex A is the list of participants who trained as field workers.
The training of interviewers involved lectures and mock interviews among the trainees themselves. The resource persons consisted of UBOS staff, the External consultant (Margaret Kasembe), National consultant (Kabananukye Kabann) and MoGLSD staff. Attached, as Annex B is the training Timetable which was followed.
According to arrangements, it was planned that interviewers go to the field immediately they are through with the training, due to logistical problems they had to set off on 20/07/09 and spend in the field a maximum of 22 days depending on the coverage.
The training of interviewers involved lectures and mock interviews among the trainees themselves. The resource persons consisted of UBOS staff, the External consultant (Margaret Kasembe), National consultant (Kabananukye Kabann) and MoGLSD staff. Attached, as Annex B is the training Timetable which was followed.
According to arrangements, it was planned that interviewers go to the field immediately they are through with the training, due to logistical problems they had to set off on 20/07/09 and spend in the field a maximum of 22 days depending on the coverage.
Data Collectors
| Name | Abbreviation | Affiliation |
|---|---|---|
| Uganda Bureau Of Statistics | UBOS | Ministry of Finance and Economic Development |
Questionnaires
Questionnaires
The following questionnaires were administered to the respondents in all EAs:
1. Individual Questionnaire: -
The purpose of this module was to collect relevant information on GBV experiences for males and females at household level. This had two questionnaires;
v The individual Questionnaire - Male, to be administered to male respondents
v The individual Questionnaire -female, to be administered to female respondents.
2. The Institutional Questionnaire
This Questionnaire was administered to various institutions which deal with issues or cases of gender based violence. These include Police, Judiciary, health centres, for the Probation officer and Local Council1 Community leaders.
1. Individual Questionnaire: -
The purpose of this module was to collect relevant information on GBV experiences for males and females at household level. This had two questionnaires;
v The individual Questionnaire - Male, to be administered to male respondents
v The individual Questionnaire -female, to be administered to female respondents.
2. The Institutional Questionnaire
This Questionnaire was administered to various institutions which deal with issues or cases of gender based violence. These include Police, Judiciary, health centres, for the Probation officer and Local Council1 Community leaders.
Data Processing
Data Editing
Immediately after the fieldworkers set off to field, two people among the trained fieldworkers were retained at office to carry out the editing of the questionnaires which were brought back from the field before entering the data. These were employed for one month.
Access policy
Contacts
| Name | Affiliation | URL | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Executive Director | UBOS | ubos@ubos.org | www.ubos.org |
Confidentiality
Confidentiality of respondents is guaranteed by Article 19 of The Uganda Bureau of Statistics Act, 1998.
Before being granted access to the dataset, all users have to formally agree:
1. To make no copies of any files or portions of files to which s/he is granted access except those authorized by the data depositor.
2. Not to use any technique in an attempt to learn the identity of any person, establishment, or sampling unit not identified on public use data files.
3. To hold in strictest confidence the identification of any establishment or individual that may be inadvertently revealed in any documents or discussion, or analysis. Such inadvertent identification revealed in her/his analysis will be immediately brought to the attention of the data depositor.
Access conditions
ACCESS CONDITIONS
The dataset is available as a Public Use Dataset. It is
accessible to all for statistical and research purposes only, under the following terms and conditions:
1.The data and other materials will not be redistributed or sold to other individuals, institutions, or organizations without the written agreement of Uganda Bureau of Statistics.
2.The data will be used for statistical and scientific research purposes only. They will be used solely for reporting of aggregated information, and not for investigation of specific individuals or organizations.
3.No
attempt will be made to re-identify respondents, and no use will be made of the identity of any person or establishment discovered inadvertently. Any such
discovery would immediately be reported to Uganda Bureau of Statistics.
4. No
attempt will be made to produce links among datasets provided by Uganda Bureau
of Statistics, or among data from Uganda Bureau of Statistics and other datasets
that could identify individuals or organizations. 5. Any books, articles, conference
papers, theses, dissertations, reports, or other publications that employ data
obtained from Uganda Bureau of Statistics will cite the source of data in
accordance with the Citation Requirement provided with each dataset. 6. An
electronic copy of all reports and publications based on the requested data will be
sent to Uganda Bureau of Statistics. 7. The original collector of the data, Uganda
Bureau of Statistics, and the relevant funding agencies bear no responsibility for
use of the data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses.
The dataset is available as a Public Use Dataset. It is
accessible to all for statistical and research purposes only, under the following terms and conditions:
1.The data and other materials will not be redistributed or sold to other individuals, institutions, or organizations without the written agreement of Uganda Bureau of Statistics.
2.The data will be used for statistical and scientific research purposes only. They will be used solely for reporting of aggregated information, and not for investigation of specific individuals or organizations.
3.No
attempt will be made to re-identify respondents, and no use will be made of the identity of any person or establishment discovered inadvertently. Any such
discovery would immediately be reported to Uganda Bureau of Statistics.
4. No
attempt will be made to produce links among datasets provided by Uganda Bureau
of Statistics, or among data from Uganda Bureau of Statistics and other datasets
that could identify individuals or organizations. 5. Any books, articles, conference
papers, theses, dissertations, reports, or other publications that employ data
obtained from Uganda Bureau of Statistics will cite the source of data in
accordance with the Citation Requirement provided with each dataset. 6. An
electronic copy of all reports and publications based on the requested data will be
sent to Uganda Bureau of Statistics. 7. The original collector of the data, Uganda
Bureau of Statistics, and the relevant funding agencies bear no responsibility for
use of the data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses.
Citation requirements
"Uganda Bureau of Statistics, Northern Uganda Social Action Fund - Youth Opportunites Baseline Survey 2008 (NUSAF - YOP 2008), Version 1.0 of the public use dataset (February 2009), provided by the Uganda National Data Archive. www.ubos.org/nada"
Access authority
| Name | Affiliation | URL | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Executive Director | UBOS | ubos@ubos.org | www.ubos.org |
Disclaimer and copyrights
Disclaimer
The user of the data acknowledges that the Uganda Bureau of Statistics and the relevant funding agency(ies) bear no responsibility for use of the data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses.
Copyright
(c)2009, Uganda Bureau of Statistics
Metadata production
DDI Document ID
DDI-UGA-UBOS-GBV-2009-v01
Producers
| Name | Abbreviation | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deborah Kalibbala | UBOS | Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development | Documentation of the Survey |
Date of Metadata Production
2011-08-16
DDI Document version
Version 1.0