47
An assessment of voluntary and community sector activities tackling female genital mutilation in the UK 17 March 2009
An assessment of voluntary and community sector activities tackling female genital mutilation in the UK 17 March 2009
1
About the Women’s Resource Centre The Women’s Resource Centre (WRC) is a charity which supports women’s organisations to be more effective and sustainable. We provide training, information, resources and one-to-one support on a range of organisational development issues. We also lobby decision makers on behalf of the women’s not-for-profit sector for improved representation and funding. Our members work in a wide range of fields including health, violence against women, employment, education, rights and equality, the criminal justice system and the environment. They deliver services to and campaign on behalf of some of the most marginalised communities of women. There are over ten thousand people working or volunteering for our members, who support almost half a million individuals each year. For more information about this report or WRC, contact: Tania Pouwhare Head of Policy Women’s Resource Centre 33-41 Dallington Street London EC1V 0BB Tel: 020 7324 3030 Email: [email protected] www.wrc.org.uk
2
Contents Key findings and recommendations .................................................................4 Introduction.........................................................................................................9
Female genital mutilation ...........................................................................9
Specialist FGM services in the UK .............................................................9
About this report.......................................................................................10 Methodology......................................................................................................11 About the respondents.....................................................................................12
Respondent categories ............................................................................12
Equalities-led organisations .....................................................................13
Fields of work ...........................................................................................14
Service users ...........................................................................................14
Location of organisations and coverage...................................................16
Income .....................................................................................................18 Current providers..............................................................................................20
Current activities ......................................................................................20
Partnership working .................................................................................21
Preventative work and awareness raising................................................21
Number of service users ..........................................................................22
Future activities ........................................................................................23
Challenges ...............................................................................................25
Supporting providers ................................................................................27 Potential providers ...........................................................................................29
Potential activities ....................................................................................29
Partnership working .................................................................................30
Potential funding ......................................................................................30
Challenges ...............................................................................................31
Supporting providers ................................................................................32
3
Non-VCS providers ...........................................................................................33
Current activities ......................................................................................33
Partnership working .................................................................................34
Preventative work and awareness raising................................................34
Number of service users ..........................................................................34
Future activities ........................................................................................35
Challenges ...............................................................................................35
Supporting providers ................................................................................35 Appendix A: Clinics ..........................................................................................36 Appendix B: Survey..........................................................................................39
4
Key findings and recommendations Who responded to the survey? Given there are so few specialist1 anti-female genital mutilation (FGM) voluntary and community organisations in the UK, the survey elicited a good response – a total of 39 responses were analysed in this report. Of respondents:
• 56% were voluntary and community organisations (VCOs) currently delivering any FGM-related support, services and activities. Four of these respondents were FGM specialist VCOs.
• 31% were VCOs that are interested in or have the potential to deliver activities in the future.
• 13% were non-voluntary and community sector (VCS) respondents currently delivering services. These respondents are a doctor, a local authority, a consultant and FGM health clinics.
Organisations from the women’s and/or black, Asian, minority ethnic and refugee (BAMER) sectors were well represented in the assessment. Three quarters of respondents are VCOs from these sectors. Twelve per cent of respondents were Somali groups. There were three ‘African’ organisations and a Kurdistan women’s organisation responded. A further twelve per cent of respondents were refugee and asylum organisations, half of whom specifically focussed on women. Over half of all respondents were based in London (51%), followed by Scotland and the West Midlands (13% each). Most respondents deliver services and activities in many different fields. Most respondents worked in the violence against women (VAW) field – 62% on domestic violence and 51% on sexual violence. Just under half were working in education, and 44% in the health field. Most respondents identified ‘Women’ (90%) as beneficiaries, followed by ‘Children’ (56%), BAME people (54%) and ‘Refugees and Asylum Seekers’ (51%). Based on income, most respondent organisations were small, with some medium sized organisations. Fort-two per cent of respondents had an annual income in
1 Defined here as organisations whose primary, if not sole, focus is FGM
5
2007/08 of £100,000, 79% of which were BAMER organisations.2 Almost a quarter (24%) had an income of £10,000 or less, most of whom were current providers of FGM-related activities. Where were responding organisations based, and which areas did they cover? Over half of all respondents were based in London (51%), followed by Scotland and the West Midlands (13% each). Thirty-six per cent of all respondents covered their local area only (i.e. borough or county), 15% covered several local areas in their region and 15% worked UK-wide. By definition, UK-, England- and Scotland-wide organisations could work in/cover any local authority areas within the boundary, and pan-London organisations covered all 33 London boroughs. Respondents that worked in one or a few areas were asked to name the local authority area that their organisation worked in or covered. The most frequently named London boroughs were: Brent; Hammersmith and Fulham; Islington; Kensington and Chelsea; and Southwark. Outside of London, the most frequently mentioned local authority areas were: Birmingham; Northamptonshire County; and Coventry. Scottish respondents named seven (of the 32) Scottish local authority areas. What activities and services are currently being delivered? The most frequent activities being delivered by current providers (both VCS and non-VCS providers) were: awareness raising (81%); advice and information (74%); referrals/signposting (59%); and preventative work (59%). High numbers of both VCS and non-VCS providers were delivering advice and information services (73% of VCS and 80% of non-VCS providers) and awareness raising activities (77% of VCS and 100% of non-VCS providers). Only one VCS respondent provided financial support to survivors of FGM and only the two health clinics delivered medical treatments. Non-VCS respondents were more likely than VCS providers to deliver training for professionals (health workers, teachers, front-line staff in statutory agencies and VCOs etc), develop resources and provide referrals and signposting.
2 Includes BAMER women’s organisations
6
Chart A: Percentage of respondents delivering type of service
26%
74%
30%
52%
41%
15%
59%
41%
4%
37% 37%
81%
59%
19%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Cou
nsellin
g/ther
apy fo
r sur
vivo
rs
Advice
and
info
rmat
ion
Advoc
acy
for s
urvivo
rs
Trainin
g fo
r pro
fess
iona
ls
Gro
up wor
k/su
ppor
t for
sur
vivo
rs
Med
ical t
reat
men
t for
sur
vivo
rs
Ref
erra
ls/sig
n po
sting
Res
ourc
es (e
.g. g
uide
s, p
amph
lets e
tc)
Finan
cial s
uppo
rt fo
r surv
ivor
s
Res
earc
h
Policy and
‘voice
’ rep
rese
ntat
ion
to d
ecision m
akers
Awar
enes
s ra
isin
g
Preve
ntat
ive
wor
k
Oth
er
Chart B: Percentage of respondents delivering type of service by category
23%
73%
27%
41% 41%
0%
55%
36%
5%
32%
36%
77%
55%
23%
40%
80%
40%
100%
40%
80% 80%
60%
0%
60%
40%
100%
80%
0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Counsellin
g/ therapy fo
r survi
vors
Adv ice and in
formatio
n
Advocacy f
or surv ivo
rs
T raining for p
rofessionals
Group work /support f
or surv ivo
rs
Medical tr
eatment fo
r survi
vors
Referrals /s ign pos tin
g
Resources (
e.g. guides , p
amphlets etc )
F inancial s
upport for s
urvivors
Research
Policy a
nd ‘voice
’ represe
ntation to
dec ision m
akers
Awareness ra
is ing
Preventat ive w
ork Other
VCS
providers
Non-VCS
providers
7
The majority of providers worked in partnership (in some way) with a range of statutory agencies, statutory-led forums and VCOs to deliver activities. This included joint funding, joint delivery of activities and referral pathways.
Preventative work and awareness raising was targeted at the public and third sectors and FGM-practicing communities, particularly women.
Despite the capacity of respondents, high numbers of beneficiaries were reported. In particular, over 1,000 women and 2,560 health and other professionals benefited from activities from January to December 2008. VCS providers were significantly more likely to work with girls and young women and other VCOs, than non-VCS providers. What future activities were identified? Potential providers identified advice and information services (83%) and awareness raising activities (83%) as possible services they could deliver. Three quarters were interested in referrals and signposting. There was also strong interest in delivering counselling/therapy, advocacy, group support (for survivors), resources and undertaking research. Current VCS providers were more likely to report a range of activities they would like to deliver in the future than current non-VCS providers. In particular, these respondents identified:
• Awareness raising and training for statutory and VCO workers.
• Awareness raising in practicing communities.
• Conducting research.
• Provision of counselling. Both VCS and non-VCS providers identified the need for medical treatments, and in particular, community based de-infibulation services. What challenges were respondents facing? Respondents in all three provider categories reported many of the same challenges in maintaining and/or developing activities. Key issues raised by all respondents were funding, lack of awareness of FGM in the public and third sectors, lack of capacity and reaching and engaging FGM-practicing communities. Overwhelmingly, funding was the top challenge facing providers, even the statutory agencies.
8
Lack of awareness and understanding amongst statutory and third sector workers was the second biggest challenge facing current VCS and non-VCS providers. Potential providers were less likely to identify this as a challenge. Potential providers identified lack of capacity as their second biggest challenge, and current VCS providers identified it as their third. Challenges in reaching and engaging FGM-practicing communities, especially women and girls were also identified by all three cohorts. What were respondents’ support needs? Respondents were asked to identify any support organisations may need to help maintain and/or develop activities. Again, funding was a key issue as were staffing issues (the need for more capacity, training and professional development etc). Potential providers were more likely to identify the need for training, resource materials and information to enable appropriate referrals and sign posting. Where to from here? The survey was purposefully short in order to elicit as many responses to the survey as possible, particularly given the limited resources and timeframe of the assessment. Although clear themes have emerged, particularly in relation to potential activities that could be funded and support needs of current and new providers, a meeting of organisations (that responded to this assessment and others) may be beneficial to gather greater detail and/or help prioritise issues. The Foundation for Women's Health, Research and Development (FORWARD) is a strategic, highly regarded, leading organisation in the FGM field (further demonstrated by the fact they were mentioned by many respondents in this assessment). We suggest that FORWARD would be well placed to undertake and/or facilitate any further work.
9
Introduction
Female genital mutilation According to the World Health Organisation, female genital mutilation (FGM): “…comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons”.3 It includes clitoridectomy, excision, infibulation; and other harmful procedures such as pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterising the genital area. FGM is recognised in the UK and internationally as a violation of women’s and girls’ human rights, a symptom of women’s inequality and a form of violence against women. The Foundation for Women's Health Research and Development (FORWARD) is the UK’s leading voluntary and community organisation (VCO) working in the FGM field. Their research found that 66,000 women in the UK have had their genitals mutilated and 23,000 girls in England and Wales under the age of 15 are at risk of FGM.4
Specialist FGM services in the UK Map of Gaps 2 found that the no new specialist FGM services have been established since 2007. The research found that of the 15 specialist services mapped, all were located in England (three quarters in London), and 12 are health clinics in the statutory sector (focusing on the gynaecological or antenatal consequences of FGM). There are few community-based services and there are no specialist FGM services in Scotland or Wales, or in five of the eight Government Office regions in England.5
3 See: www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/
4 Dorkenoo, E., Morison, L. and Macfarlane, A. (2007) A Statistical Study to Estimate the Prevalence of
Female Genital Mutilation in England and Wales Summary Report. Foundation for Women's Health Research and Development: London www.forwarduk.org.uk/download/96 5 Coy, M., Kelly, L. and Foord, J. (2008) Map of Gaps 2: The postcode lottery of Violence Against Women
support services in Britain. End Violence Against Women and Equality and Human Rights Commission: London
10
About this report In January 2009, a group of independent funders approached the Women’s Resource Centre (WRC) to undertake an assessment of VCOs in the UK currently undertaking any anti-FGM work or have the potential and interest to engage in this area in the future. Given that there are so few specialist FGM VCOs, it was predicted that the majority of respondents to the assessment would be women’s and/or black, Asian and minority ethnic and refugee (BAMER) organisations, particularly those working in the health and violence against women fields. It was also anticipated that many respondents may be supporting women and girls affected by, or at risk of, FGM in an ad-hoc way through the provision of other non-FGM related services and activities. In January and February 2009, an on-line survey was disseminated through WRC’s and others’ networks. The purpose of the survey was to assess:
• Who are the organisations currently, or interested in, providing activities;
• Where these organisations are based and the geographical areas they cover;
• What type of services organisations provide or would like to deliver in the future; and
• Challenges facing, and support needed by, organisations. A list of clinics is included as appendix A.
11
Methodology An on-line survey6 was publicised through WRC’s enewsletter, website and contacts, including other umbrella organisations in the women’s, health, violence against women, BAMER and asylum sectors across the UK. As well as on-line, the survey was available in other formats and respondents also had the option of completing the survey with a WRC staff member over the phone. However, all responses were received through the on-line method. The survey was open from 13 January to 17 February 2009. Of the 79 on-line responses started, 39 were included in the final analysis. Incomplete responses were discounted (n=34), as were duplicate responses from the same organisation (n=2) and responses where no relevant activities were being delivered and the respondent had no interest in doing so in the future (n=4). The survey was aimed specifically at the voluntary and community sector (VCS), but five responses from non-VCOs were received. The non-VCS responses were from workers in two FGM clinics and a local authority, a doctor and a consultant. The qualitative data was analysed thematically – comments addressing the same or similar issues were grouped together to determine key themes. The results of the survey are presented by category – current or potential – because of the different questions asked of each group. Responses from non-VCS respondents are presented in a separate chapter. The survey is attached as Appendix C.
6 Through the web-based survey service, SurveyMonkey (www.surveymonkey.com)
12
About the respondents Of the 79 on-line responses started, 39 were analysed in this assessment. Incomplete (n=34) and duplicate (n=2) responses, and those that did not meet the criteria (n=4) were discounted. The survey was aimed specifically at the VCS. However, five respondents were not VCOs: workers in two FGM clinics and a local authority, a doctor and a consultant. Respondents were asked to provide information about:
• General information about their organisation as whole (not just FGM-related activities).
• Specific FGM-related support, activities and services This chapter analyses data about the whole organisation, rather than specific FGM-related activities (which are dealt with in following chapters). However, the information is often disaggregated by category type (‘current’, ‘potential’ and ‘non-VCS’ providers) as described below.
Respondent categories At the start of the survey, respondents were asked to identify whether they were currently delivering FGM-related activities and if not, were they interested in and have the potential to do so in the future. ‘Current’ providers and ‘potential’ providers were given different questions. The 39 responses were grouped into the following categories: 1. Current providers = 22 responses
VCS organisations currently providing services and activities. This includes non-FGM specialist organisations who have provided support to any women and/or girls who have experienced, or are at risk of, FGM through the provision of other non-FGM related services and activities.
2. Non-VCS respondents currently providing activities = 5 responses Non-VCOs currently working on FGM issues (such as statutory health clinics).
3. Potential providers = 12 responses Organisations that are interested in and have the potential to deliver services and activities in the future, but are not currently doing so.
13
The majority of respondents were currently delivering activities and services. Chart 1: Percentage of respondents by provider category
56%31%
13%
Current providers
Potential providers
Non-VCS providers
Equalities-led organisations Responding organisations were assessed as being ‘led by’ any specific equalities group. As expected, women’s and BAMER organisations were the main respondents to the survey, particularly BAMER women’s organisations. ‘Generalist’ organisations included all other responding organisations which are not ‘led by and for’ a specific equalities group. The five non-VCO respondents were included in the ‘Generalist’ category. Table 1: Number of respondents by category and equalities strand
Current
providers Potential providers
Non-VCS providers TOTAL
Women's organisations (excluding BAMER women’s organisations) 4 7 11
BAMER women's organisations
6 3 9
BAMER organisations (excluding women's) 8 1 9
LGBT organisations 0 1 1
Generalist organisations 4 0 5 9
TOTAL 22 12 5 39
Of all VCS respondents, 12% were Somali organisations. Three respondents identified as being ‘African’ focussed and a Kurdistan women’s organisation (which supported women from Kurdish and Middle Eastern communities) also responded. Twelve per cent of respondents were specifically refugee and asylum organisations, half of whom specifically focus on women.
14
Fields of work Respondents were asked to identify which ‘fields’ they work in. On average, organisations were providing activities and services in three different fields, ranging from one to eight fields. Most respondents were working in the VAW field. Just under half were working in education and 44% in the health field. Chart 2: Percentage of respondents identifying field of work
44%
28% 31%
51%
62%
10%
49%
18%
8%
18% 18%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Heal
th (g
enera
l)
Sex
ual h
ealth
Men
tal h
ealth
Sxu
al vio
lenc
e
Dom
estic v
iole
nce
Em
ploy
men
t
Edu
catio
n
Hous
ing
Subst
ance m
isuse
Crim
inal
just
ice s
yste
mO
ther
‘Other’ fields included:
• Family support and parenting.
• Asylum.
• Community empowerment and leadership.
• Advocacy.
• Trafficking.
• Prostitution.
• Research.
• Equality and diversity.
Service users Respondents were asked to indicate if they worked specifically with any of the given equalities groups. They were asked to only identify groups that represented ¾ or more of their service users/beneficiaries. However, most organisations identified any equalities groups that were beneficiaries, or could access their
15
service, regardless of whether they constituted the majority of service users as stated in the question. Most organisations identified women as beneficiaries, followed by children, BAME people and refugees/asylum seekers. Chart 3: Percentage of respondents stating that beneficiaries are from equalities strand
90%
13%
56% 54% 51%
8% 8%13%
5%10%
3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
16
Location of organisations and coverage Over half of all respondents were based in London (51%), followed by Scotland and the West Midlands (13% each). Chart 4: Percentage of respondents by region/country where organisation is based
8%
8%
3%
3%
51%
13%
3%
13% East Midlands
East of England
North East
North West
London
West Midlands
Yorkshire and the Humber
Scotland
Table 2: Number of respondents by category and region/country where organisation is based
Region/country where organisation is based:
Current providers
Potential providers
Non-VCS providers TOTAL
East Midlands 3 3
East of England 2 1 3
North East 1 1
North West 1 1
London 11 6 3 20
West Midlands 1 2 2 5
Yorkshire and the Humber
1 1
Scotland 2 3 5
TOTAL 22 12 5 39
There were no responses from organisations in Wales and Northern Ireland, and the South West and South East English regions, despite targeting VAW and women’s health organisations in these areas. All of the Scottish responses were from Women’s Aid refuges, most likely because the survey was disseminated by Scottish Women’s Aid to its members.
17
As anticipated, most respondents were based in London. However, it was expected that the proportion of London respondents would be higher given that London has the highest BAME population in the UK, as well as the largest BAMER and women’s sectors. Sixty-one per cent of BAMER organisations were based in London. The Map of Gaps research also found that three quarters of specialist services are based in London. Thirty-six per cent of all respondents covered their local area only i.e. (borough or county), 15% covered several local areas in the region and 15% worked UK-wide. Chart 5: Percentage of respondents by coverage
36%
15%10%
8%
3%
3%
15%
10%
Local area (borough, county etc)
Across several local areas (w ithin
a region)
Regional
UK local areas and overseas
England-w ide
Scotland-w ide
UK-w ide
UK-w ide and overseas
Of respondents working ‘UK-wide and overseas’, 71% were based in London as were 67% of ‘UK-wide’ organisations. Sixty per cent of non-VCS respondents (all were local public bodies) covered their local area only, compared to 41% of all VCS respondents. Respondents were asked to list the local authority areas covered/worked in.7 Specific local authority areas named by all respondents were:
7 By definition, UK-, England- and Scotland-wide organisations could work in/cover any local authority areas
within the boundary, and pan-London organisations cover all 33 London boroughs
18
Table 3: Local authority areas named by respondents
London boroughs: Cities, county, district and unitary authorities in England (outside London):
Scotland:
Barking and Dagenham Basildon Angus
Barnet Birmingham (x2) Dundee
Brent (x3) Braintree East Lothian
Ealing Brentwood Fife
Greenwich Bristol Perth and Kinross
Hammersmith and Fulham (x3) Chelmsford Mid-Lothian
Haringey Colchester West Lothian
Harrow Coventry (x2)
Hounslow Greater Manchester
Islington (x2) Maldon
Kensington and Chelsea (x2) Newcastle-under-Lyme
Lewisham Northampton
Southwark (x3) Northamptonshire County (x2)
Sutton Nottingham City
Westminster Nottinghamshire County
Stafford
Staffordshire Moorlands
Stockton-on-Tees
Stoke-on-Trent
Tendring
Thurrock
Income Only the annual incomes of VCOs were analysed, as the large annual incomes of NHS services (non-VCS) would skew results.8 Based on income, most respondent organisations were small, with some medium sized organisations. Fort-two per cent of all respondents had an annual income in 2007/08 of £100,000, 79% of which were BAMER organisations.9 Almost a quarter (24%) of all respondents had an income of £10,000 or less, most of whom were current providers.
8 However, one of the clinics noted that it is an unfunded service within general obstetric services
9 Includes BAMER women’s organisations
19
Table 4: Number of respondents by category and income band
Annual income band Current
providers Potential providers
TOTAL
£10,000 or less 6 2 8
£10,001 - £50,000 2 1 3
£50,001 - £70,000 1 2 3
£70,001 - £100,000 0 0 0
£100,001 - £150,000 2 1 3
£150,001 - £200,000 3 1 4
£200,001 - £250,000 3 1 4
£250,001 - £300,000 0 1 1
£300,001 - £500,000 2 0 2
£500,001 - £1 million 1 1
More than £1 million 0 1 1
Not sure 2 2 4
TOTAL 22 12 34
Chart 5: Percentage of respondents by annual income band
24%
9%
9%
0%9%12%
12%
3%
6%
3%
3%
12%
£10,000 or less
£10,001 - £50,000
£50,001 - £70,000
£70,001 - £100,000
£100,001 - £150,000
£150,001 - £200,000
£200,001 - £250,000
£250,001 - £300,000
£300,001 - £500,000
£500,001 - £1 million
More than £1 million
Not sure
20
Current providers This chapter looks specifically at FGM-related support, services and activities provided by ‘current’ VCS providers. Twenty-two respondents were categorised as ‘current’ providers i.e. VCOs currently providing any FGM-related support, services and activities. These respondents include FGM specialist VCOs, but are mostly non-FGM specialist organisations (such as organisations where women and girls have initially presented to the organisation seeking support for non-FGM related services and activities).
Current activities Respondents were asked about the type of FGM-related services and activities they had provided. Awareness-raising and advice and information were the most identified activities, followed by referrals/signposting and preventative work. Over one third of respondents have worked at a policy level on FGM. None of these respondents provided medical treatment for survivors. Chart 6: Percentage of respondents delivering type of service
23%
73%
27%
41% 41%
0%
55%
36%
5%
32%36%
77%
55%
23%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Cou
nsellin
g/th
erap
y fo
r sur
vivo
rs
Adv
ice
and
info
rmatio
n
Adv
ocac
y fo
r su
rvivo
rs
Tra
inin
g fo
r pr
ofes
siona
ls
Gro
up wor
k/su
ppor
t for
sur
vivo
rs
Med
ical t
reat
men
t for
sur
vivo
rs
Ref
erra
ls/sig
n po
sting
Res
ourc
es (e
.g. g
uide
s, p
amph
lets etc
)
Finan
cial sup
port fo
r survivor
s
Res
earc
h
Policy and
‘voice
’ rep
rese
ntat
ion to
dec
ision m
akers
Awar
enes
s ra
isin
g
Preve
ntat
ive wor
k
Other
21
‘Other’ services and activities were:
• Being involved in the development of statutory health services such as clinics.
• Family support for those fleeing FGM.
• Supporting positive integration of individuals and communities affected by FGM into new communities.
• Legal advice and representation on asylum claims.
• Community engagement and work with young people to improve access to services and entitlements.
• Legal support.
• Providing weekly forums for women (where FGM is often discussed).
• Organising FGM specialist organisations to deliver awareness raising programmes and trainings.
One respondent manages a 'Fund for Grassroots Activism to End FGM' which comprises 24 grassroots groups in 16 African countries. The average, respondents delivered four different types of activities, ranging from one to 12.
Partnership working Sixty-eight per cent of respondents were working in partnership with other organisations in some way. ‘Partnership working’ ranged from joint delivery of activities to referral pathways. Partners included statutory agencies and statutory-led forums (such as Primary Care Trusts, Children Safeguarding Boards, domestic violence forums, Social Services and the NHS) and a wide range of VCOs, including specialist FGM organisations.
Preventative work and awareness raising One in three respondents delivered activities aimed at preventing FGM, and 44% provided awareness raising activities. These activities were targeted at a number of audiences including:
• Front-line workers in statutory agencies such as doctors, midwives, nurses, teachers, social workers, Social Services staff, the police and health workers.
22
• Voluntary and community organisations.
• Women, girls, young people, men, religious leaders, refugees and asylum seekers from FGM practicing communities. Communities specifically named were Somali (six mentions), Sudanese and Kurdish communities.
One respondent gave a detailed description of their awareness raising work, including initiatives such as volunteer community champions, peer mentors and local campaigning:
“Over the last ten months, our work has been focused on changing this cultural belief. We now have in place five trained volunteer community champions and developed a peer mentoring scheme whose responsibility is to drive an awareness and educational campaign at grass roots level and help sufferers manage the long-term health and psychological effects of their condition within the Somali community across West London. We have links with FORWARD and are planning to join the campaign to form a youth council who will represent the voice of girls and boys from the Somali community in our local area. To consolidate and add value to our ongoing outreach campaign, we are seeking to employ a part-time outreach coordinator whose work will strengthen our capacity to better support our work concerning FGM.”
Number of service users Respondents were asked to provide approximate numbers of beneficiaries that the organisation worked with from January 2008 to December 2008. The number of organisations providing data on the different beneficiary categories varied. This may be due to lack of data or that the beneficiary category is not relevant. Therefore, the number of respondents providing information is given for each category. Even though the data is limited, it is clear that large numbers of beneficiaries are benefiting from activities and services, particularly health workers and other professionals, and women and girls who have experienced or are at risk of FGM. Table 5: Number of respondents per beneficiary category
Beneficiary category Number of
respondents to question
Total number of beneficiaries
Women who have experienced or are at risk of FGM (aged 18 years or older)
17 457
Girls and young women who have experienced or are at risk of FGM (up to
15 563
23
Beneficiary category Number of respondents to question
Total number of beneficiaries
17 years old)
Other voluntary and community organisations
13 160
Health and other professionals (e.g. nurses, doctors, social workers, teachers etc)
13 1,790
Government/policy decision makers 8 158
Other (such as ethnic communities) 55 2
Future activities Respondents were asked about services they plan, or would like, to deliver in the future. The need for these services were identified through research, mapping gaps in services, needs assessments with women and girls, professionals and front-line staff and requests for support (unmet needs).
• Awareness raising and training for front-line staff in statutory agencies and VCOs (7 mentions):
“Long-term funding to provide training and information to front-line staff, in particular midwives, health visitors and teachers (who change all the time).”
“National Rape Crisis (England and Wales), would like to be able to run FGM workshops and training regionally, and at national conference. Funding limitations stops this happening.”
• Awareness raising in practicing communities, including extending reach to other practicing communities and working especially with women and girls at risk (5 mentions):
“This is one of the most hidden issues – a taboo – that is difficult to talk about in our community. We want to raise awareness, to talk about it, and help girls and women who [are at risk].”
“Targeted services are very crucial in order to respond to the needs of the young girls before they start their own families.”
• Conducting research (3 mentions)
“We would like to get involved in psycho-social research on FGM and related issues surrounding FGM.”
• Counselling, including group and peer counselling (3 mentions)
24
“We would like to continue to deliver counselling services for victims as well as those who may wish to be defibulated. We would like to also offer counselling to young people considering "designer vaginas" and explaining possible implications of this.”
Two respondents (both Rape Crisis centres) have written reports on counselling for FGM survivors (on appropriateness and need). One of the respondents stated that:
“Having been trained in the issues facing women around FGM and on working with interpreters, and counselling staff are now able to work with this client group. However, we found that counselling, the service we were looking at providing, was not the priority need for the majority of these women and girls.”
• Medical treatment for women and girls (3 mentions)
“Feedback from women and girls is that they want local clinics with specifically trained specialists.”
“We would like to continue to deliver counselling services for victims as well as those who may wish to be defibulated.”
“Reconstruction is also very much sought after following our workshops.”
• Holding a conference on FGM (2 mentions)
• Advisory services (2 mentions), including drop-in information, advice and guidance sessions delivered by the local Sexual Assault Referral Centre
• Producing resources, such as information materials (2 mentions) “There seems to be a growing number of young people who would like to access information but on a more discreet level because of their families.”
• Raising the public profile of FGM
“We would like to increase the financial support and visibility of the work of our partners across Africa.”
• Medico-legal reports
• Community leadership programme
25
Challenges Respondents were asked to identify the three biggest challenges facing organisations in their work on FGM. As to be expected, most respondents identified funding as one of their three biggest challenges. Forty per cent identified it as their number one challenge. Challenges identified were:
• Funding (14 mentions).
“Limited funding which has resulted in high staff turn over.”
“Funding is a very important and challenging issue – without it we can't do much.”
“Funds to spend time and pay for specialists to deliver information.”
• Lack of awareness and understanding amongst statutory and third sector workers (8 mentions).
“Understanding of FGM by practitioners at the point of receiving a referral (especially GP practices).”
“Reluctance of front-line professionals to undertake training - GPs in particular are not keen.”
“Lack of commitment on behalf of non-BME agencies to learn about the issue.”
• Sustaining and/or developing organisational capacity, particularly addressing staffing issues (5 mentions).
“[We have] one member of staff dealing with the issue i.e. running workshops, advocating, attending meetings etc.” “[We need] time to do it justice, as it [FGM] is one in a host of other issues we work on.”
“Have not got a specific, specialised, culturally appropriate worker.”
• Discrimination, including bigotry, racism, sexism, violence against women etc (5 mentions).
• Pro-FGM groups and individuals (5 mentions).
26
“Increasing resistance in some communities to the successes of anti-FGM work.”
• Engagement with and awareness raising in FGM-practicing communities (5 mentions).
“The need to engage with pastors and preachers running the many local prayer groups, and men in the community.”
“It is an area that needs to be very sensitively approached as most women and girls do not believe it is an abuse and that is the biggest change that needs to occur, change in attitude and culture, huge.”
“Some women are resisting leaving their traditional and cultural attitudes towards FGM and some of them don’t want to talk about FGM.”
• Lack of interest, support and cooperation from public bodies, including lack of political will from the government to support anti-FGM services (5 mentions). In particular, the Department of Health and Home Office were specifically named by two respondents.
“The lack of government coordination demonstrates lack of commitment to respond to this issue”
• Other (4 mentions). One organisation identified gaps in knowledge and experience in working with Kurdish and Middle Eastern women on FGM and that “there is no history of work or achievement on this field we can build on, we have to start from scratch.” Another organisation identified that the brutality of FGM leaves women and girls traumatised and reluctant to engage with services for fear of having to remember their experiences.
• Lack of services including sustained interventions, secondary support services, targeted services (e.g. young people) etc (3 mentions).
• Stigma and taboo surrounding FGM (3 mentions).
“Taboo - reluctance to talk about the issue. Enabling women/girls to challenge the taboo.”
“Stigma and shame of speaking out.”
27
• Asylum policy, such as legal case law regarding FGM and difficulty in obtaining medico-legal reports to use as evidence in asylum cases (2 mentions).
• Lack of information and resources available for organisations and individuals.
• Language barriers.
Supporting providers Respondents were asked about any support their organisations may need to help maintain or develop their FGM work.
• Overwhelmingly, better investment (funding) in FGM-related activities was most cited (15 mentions), including funds specifically for FGM work.
• Staffing was the next most mentioned support need (5 mentions). This included training for staff and also funding to employ more staff to increase the capacity of the organisation.
• Better joint working and links between and within the public and third sectors was identified (4), including funding to build the capacity of VCOs to effectively do this.
“We need a pragmatic approach to stop this brutal procedure in and outside the country. Many women are suffering today because of this cultural approach to satisfy men. It is against the law, religion and [humanity]. We believe that working together we could make a difference. I don’t think there [are links] between the groups who provide services to stop FGM. We would like a yearly conference for organisations working on this issue. Please link us with any other organisations that deal with FGM in the East London Region.”
“Global Women and Talented Artists would like to work in partnership with others to help address the issues pertaining to and related to FGM and also strengthen positive community action and try to identify barriers and find solutions to improving wellbeing of communities practising FGM.”
“FGM work in the UK has grown over the past few years and FORWARD has seen an increase in requests to support training. However the absence of a strategy from the national government means that work is not effectively coordinated and programme lessons are not captured adequately.” “This is a brilliant idea to get information of current FGM services, funding and work taking place.”
28
• Respondents identified research and information as a support need (4 mentions).
“The strategy for this work should link voluntary sector with health care providers in order to sustain the confidence of the beneficiaries.”
• Commitment from decision-makers was also identified (2 mentions).
“International mobilisation to increase awareness about FGM as a human rights violation.”
29
Potential providers Twelve respondents (31% of all respondents) were categorised as ‘potential providers’ – VCOs who are interested in or have the potential to deliver FGM-related support, services and activities.
Potential activities Respondents were asked to identify services and activities that their organisation was interested in delivering, or could potentially deliver, in the future. Eighty-three per cent of respondents stated that they would be interested in providing advice and information, and a further 83% were interested in delivering awareness raising activities. Three quarters were interested in referring and sign posting to appropriate organisations. Chart 7: Percentage of respondents by type of service that they could potentially deliver
42%
83%
42%
25%
42%
0%
75%
42%
0%
42%
25%
83%
25%
8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
30
‘Other’ issues including working with women asylum seekers in raising awareness of the problems experienced (by women seeking asylum) after fleeing threats of FGM. Needs were identified through feedback from service users and professionals (such as lawyers), knowledge of the VAW sector and research. Two organisations stated that they did not expect to support large numbers of women in the future, but felt it was important that their organisations are prepared and able to appropriately support women.
“We are a violence against women support organisation, but have had very little contact with FGM survivors as we are located in a rural area. It is likely that we will come into contact with FGM survivors at some point but do not foresee supporting large numbers.”
“At the moment we have not been approached by anyone requesting support or information on this area, but have attended presentations so are aware of the scale of the problem.”10
Partnership working Half of respondents stated that they would prefer to work in partnership with other organisations to deliver activities. Some of the organisations already have good relationships with organisations that could be potential partners in future FGM activities.
Potential funding None of the organisations had identified any potential funding to deliver services and activities. However, comments from respondents indicate that, as yet, no funding had been sought. One respondent stated that the organisation would like to prioritise the development of services once current funding issues are addressed:
“We are considering approaching a local organisation who has a women's support group. Our funding situation is insecure at present but when core funding is addressed it would be a priority development to research incidence, demand and type of support needed locally.”
10
This organisation was a Somali community group
31
Challenges ‘Potential providers’ were asked to describe the three biggest challenges facing their organisations in delivering potential services and activities. There was significant overlap in challenges identified by current and potential providers. As with current providers, funding was the most identified issue, with half of respondents ranking it their top challenge. However, funding was closely followed by lack of capacity. Half of respondents identified it as their second biggest challenge.
• Funding (10 mentions).
“Current level of resources for undertaking necessary research and supporting individuals to speak out.”
• Lack of organisational capacity, such as time to develop services, build partnerships etc. However, most comments were about the need for more staff (including specialist staff) and staff training (9 mentions).
“Linked professionals having time to attend [meetings etc] - service providers are always really, really busy.”
“Developing our own understanding of the FGM agenda, developing and sharing expertise with other organisations and tailoring support and training.”
• Need for information and resources, especially for organisations developing FGM-related services (3 mentions).
“We have no information base.”
“Lack of awareness of support organisations to sign post to.”
• Need for better joint working and links between organisations (3 mentions).
• Reaching and engaging women who have experienced FGM or are from FGM-practicing communities (3 mentions).
“Identifying the women and girls who may benefit from counselling support - rape and sexual violence are under reported and it has taken years to build the reputation of our service as a safe space and for women to self refer.”
• Lack of awareness and understanding amongst statutory and third sector workers.
32
“The practice of FGM is a criminal activity in our country. Organisations supporting women and girls need to raise their own and others’ awareness, incorporate [FGM] into existing training, deliver specialist training in conjunction with the experts etc.”
“FGM is common practice in Somalia, and although things are becoming better, the practice is still common so there is real need to tackle [the issue] here in the UK and Somalia due to its negative impact on women lives.”
• Attitudes towards FGM.
• Lack of interest, support and cooperation from public bodies.
Supporting providers Respondents were asked about any support their organisations may need to help develop their FGM work.
• Training (4 mentions).
• Resource materials, including training toolkits for organisations, and information on support organisations to enable appropriate sign posting (4 mentions).
• Funding, including core funding (3 mentions).
• More staff time.
• Support with ICT.
• Networking with other organisations to share best practice and knowledge.
• User input in to the development of services.
• Access to client group.
33
Non-VCS providers The survey was aimed specifically at the VCS, but five responses from non-VCOs were received. These were responses two FGM clinics, a local authority, a well-known doctor in the FGM field and a consultant who has undertaken FGM-related work in a London borough. The non-VCS respondents answered the same survey questions as those in the ‘current provider’ category.
Current activities All respondents delivered training for professionals and awareness raising. The non-VCS providers were the only respondents to provide medical treatment, as two of the five respondents were health clinics.11 Chart 8: Percentage of respondents delivering type of service
40%
80%
40%
100%
40%
80% 80%
60%
0%
60%
40%
100%
80%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Cou
nsellin
g/ther
apy fo
r sur
vivo
rs
Advice
and
info
rmat
ion
Advoc
acy
for s
urvivo
rs
Trainin
g fo
r pro
fess
iona
ls
Gro
up wor
k/su
ppor
t for
sur
vivo
rs
Med
ical t
reat
men
t for
sur
vivo
rs
Ref
erra
ls/sig
n po
sting
Res
ourc
es (e
.g. g
uide
s, p
amph
lets e
tc)
Finan
cial s
uppo
rt fo
r surv
ivor
s
Res
earc
h
Policy and
‘voice
’ rep
rese
ntat
ion
to d
ecision m
akers
Awar
enes
s ra
isin
g
Preve
ntat
ive
wor
k
11
Acton African Well Woman Centre has set up a community-based, midwifery-led, de-infibulation service
34
Partnership working Four of the five respondents work closely with other agencies and organisations. These include local authorities, the police, health workers, child protection workers, schools, VCOs and Social Services. The Acton African Well Woman Centre is a pilot project funded by Ealing Primary Care Trust in partnership with Queen Charlotte's hospital.
Preventative work and awareness raising Target audiences for preventative work and awareness raising included communities practising FGM and front-line workers in statutory agencies and VCOs. In one of the clinics, all women booking for a pregnancy-related visit are informed of the FGM Act 2003 and are referred to Health Visitors for further support. Documentation is made in paediatric notes of all female children born to mothers with FGM to allow continued surveillance.
Number of service users Respondents were asked to provide approximate numbers of service users worked with from January 2008 to December 2008.
As with current providers, large numbers of beneficiaries are benefiting from activities and services, particularly health workers and other professionals and women. Table 6: Number of respondents per beneficiary category
Beneficiary category Number of respondents to question
Total number of beneficiaries
Women who have experienced or are at risk of FGM (aged 18 years or older)
4 601
Girls and young women who have experienced or are at risk of FGM (up to 17 years old)
2 6
Other voluntary and community organisations
3 37
Health and other professionals (e.g. nurses, doctors, social workers, teachers etc)
4 770
Government/policy decision makers 2 120
35
Future activities De-infibulation services, including community based services and leaflets for care following the procedure (including pelvic floor exercise) were named by the two clinics as activities they would like to deliver in the future.
“We knew that women preferred local anaesthetic and felt that they would benefit from going to a GP surgery out in the community rather than having to go to hospital for de-infibulation. This feedback came from talking to women.”
Community research and training and education for health professionals were also identified.
Challenges Again, many challenges identified by non-VCS respondents were the same as those noted by the other provider categories. Four of the five respondents identified funding to continue services as their biggest challenge. This was followed by lack of awareness amongst staff (3 mentions) and difficulties in reaching women and effectively publicising services (both health clinics identified this). Other challenges identified were the inconsistency of support services, the lack of a comprehensive local policy, lack of time to dedicate to services and service development, and concerns that FGM is not a political priority. One respondent also stated that there is a reluctance to “tackle 'cultural' issues”.
Supporting providers Respondents were asked about any support their organisations may need to help develop their FGM work. Support needs identified were:
• Funding (3 mentions).
• Staffing issues including dedicated workers, the provision of culturally sensitive training, and supporting staff to report as opposed to them fearing being termed racist (3 mentions).
• Awareness raising in the community such as drop-in sessions in Southall and leaflets being disseminated to community centres, libraries, hairdressers, mosques etc.
• Details and information about a prosecution under the FGM Act 2003.
• Statutory requirements for all health care professionals to have FGM training.
3
6
Ap
pen
dix
A:
Cli
nic
s
Clin
ic d
eta
ils w
ere
ta
ken
fro
m F
OR
WA
RD
’s w
eb
site
20
/02
/09
: w
ww
.fo
rwa
rdu
k.o
rg.u
k/r
eso
urc
es/s
up
po
rt/w
ell-
wo
ma
n-c
linic
s
Na
me
of
cli
nic
A
dd
res
s
Te
l:
Op
en
ing
ho
urs
C
on
tac
t:
Em
ail:
Afr
ican W
ell
Wom
en’s
Clin
ic
c/o
Ante
na
tal C
linic
8
th F
loor
Gu
y’s
& S
t. T
hom
as’s
Hospita
l Lam
beth
Pa
lace R
d
Lond
on S
E1 7
EH
020 7
18
8 6
872
Mond
ay –
Fri
da
y,
9am
– 4
pm
C
om
fort
Mom
oh
MB
E
com
fort
.mom
oh@
gstt.n
hs.u
k
Afr
ican W
ell
Wom
en’s
Clin
ic
Ante
nata
l C
linic
C
entr
al M
idd
lesex H
ospital
Acto
n L
an
e
Park
Ro
ya
l Lond
on N
W10 7
NS
020 8
96
3 7
177
020 8
96
5 5
733
Frida
y, 9
am
– 1
2pm
K
am
al S
heha
ta
Iskander
kam
al.shehata
iskander@
nw
lh.n
hs.u
k
Afr
ican W
ell
Wom
en’s
Clin
ic
Ante
nata
l C
linic
N
ort
hw
ick P
ark
& S
t. M
ark
’s
Hospital
Watford
Rd
Harr
ow
M
iddle
sex H
A1
3U
J
020 8
86
9 2
870
Frida
y, 9
am
– 5
pm
Jeanett
e
Carlsson
Afr
ican W
ell
Wom
en’s
Clin
ic
Whittingto
n H
ospital
Level 5
Hig
hgate
Hill
Lond
on N
19 5
NF
020 7
28
8 3
482
ext. 5
954
Last W
ednesda
y o
f every
month
, 9
am
–
5pm
Jo
y C
lark
e o
r S
ham
sa A
hm
ed
joy.c
lark
e@
wh
ittingto
n.n
hs.u
k
Wom
en’s
&
You
ng P
eo
ple
’s
Serv
ices
Sylv
ia P
ankhurs
t H
ealth C
entr
e
Mile
End H
ospital
Bancro
ft R
d
Lond
on E
1 4
DG
0207
37
7 7
898
0207
37
7 7
870
Mond
ay –
Fri
da
y,
9am
– 5
pm
D
r. G
eeth
a
Subra
mania
n
(Consultant
Gyna
ecolo
gis
t)
geeth
a.s
ubra
mania
n@
thpct.nhs.u
k
Afr
ican W
om
en’s
C
linic
Univ
ers
ity C
olle
ge H
osp
ita
l H
untle
y S
t Lond
on W
C1E
6D
H
020 7
38
7 9
300
ext. 2
531
Mond
ay a
ftern
oo
n
Malig
aye
Bik
oo
(Clin
ical
Nurs
e S
pecia
list)
malig
aye
.bik
oo@
uclh
.nhs.u
k
3
7
Na
me
of
cli
nic
A
dd
res
s
Te
l:
Op
en
ing
ho
urs
C
on
tac
t:
Em
ail:
Multi-C
ultura
l A
nte
nata
l C
linic
Liv
erp
ool W
om
en’s
Hospita
l C
row
n S
t Liv
erp
ool L8 7
SS
0151
70
2 4
085
0771
75
1 6
134
Mond
ay –
Fri
da
y,
8:3
0am
– 4
:30pm
D
orc
as A
keju
(S
pecia
list
Mid
wife)
dorc
as.a
keju
@lw
h.n
hs.o
rg
Gyna
ecolo
gy &
M
idw
ifery
D
epart
ment
Chels
ea &
Westm
inste
r H
ospita
l 3
rd F
loor
369 F
ulh
am
Rd
Lond
on S
W10 9
NH
0207
75
1 4
488
Tuesda
y, 1
0am
–
6:3
0pm
,
Secon
d T
hurs
da
y o
f every
month
, 3:3
0pm
– 6
:30pm
(b
y
appo
intm
ent o
nly
)
Gubb
y A
yid
a
(Obste
tric
s
Serv
ice D
irecto
r)
gubb
y.a
yid
a@
che
lwest.
nhs.u
k
Gyna
ecolo
gy &
M
idw
ifery
D
epart
ment
St. M
ary
’s H
osp
ita
l P
raed
St
Lond
on W
1 1
NY
020 7
88
6 6
691
020 7
88
6 1
443
020
886
67
63
Judith
Rob
bin
s o
r S
iste
r H
an
y
foong.h
an@
imperial.nhs.u
k
Princess o
f W
ale
s W
om
en’s
U
nit
Labo
ur
Ward
B
irm
ingham
Heart
lands H
ospita
l B
ord
esle
y G
reen
East
Birm
ingham
B9 5
SS
0121
42
4 0
730
0798
98
1 4
207
Thurs
da
y a
nd F
rid
ay
Alli
so
n H
ughes o
r T
ere
sa B
all
alli
son.h
ug
hes@
heart
ofe
ng
lan
d.n
hs.u
k
Afr
ican W
ell
Wom
en’s
S
erv
ices
Oliv
er
Ro
ad M
ed
ical C
en
tre
Gro
und F
loor
75 O
liver
Rd
Le
yto
n
Lond
on E
10 5
NF
0208
43
0 7
381
0777
07
3 0
600
Dro
p-I
n T
hurs
da
y
10am
– 3
pm
Jennifer
Bourn
e
(Specia
list N
urs
e)
Dr.
Fadum
a
Hussein
(C
om
munity
Health A
dvis
or)
Le
yla
Hussein
(Y
outh
Outr
each
W
ork
er)
jennifer.
bo
urn
e@
wf-
pct.nhs.u
k
fadum
a.h
ussein
@w
f-pct.nh
s.u
k
leyla
.hussein
@w
f-pct.n
hs.u
k
Afr
ican W
om
en’s
C
linic
Wom
en &
Health
4 C
aro
l S
t C
am
den
Lond
on N
W1 O
HU
020 7
48
2 2
786
Wom
en c
an s
elf r
efe
r fo
r serv
ices
Malig
aye
Bik
oo
(CN
S)
malig
aye
.bik
oo@
uclh
.nhs.u
k
Acto
n A
fric
an
Well
Wom
en
Centr
e
35-6
1 C
hurc
h R
oad
Lond
on W
3 8
QE
0773
09
7 7
38
Tuesda
y, 2
pm
– 5
pm
S
elf r
efe
rral fo
r fr
ee
confidentia
l serv
ices
Julia
Alb
ert
(M
idw
ife a
nd
pro
ject le
ad)
julie
tja
lbert
@gm
ail.
com
3
8
Na
me
of
cli
nic
A
dd
res
s
Te
l:
Op
en
ing
ho
urs
C
on
tac
t:
Em
ail:
Ha
ya
t A
rteh
(Health A
dvocate
)
Min
ority
Eth
nic
W
om
en’s
&
Girl’s
Clin
ic
Charl
otte K
eel H
ea
lth C
entr
e
Se
ym
our
Ro
ad
Easto
n
Bristo
l B
S5 O
UA
0117
90
2 7
100
Dro
p-I
n L
ast
Wednesda
y o
f every
m
onth
, 9:3
0am
–
12pm
Dr.
Hila
ry C
oo
ling
39
Appendix B: Survey
Are you a voluntary and community organisation or project addressing the issue of female genital mutilation (FGM)? Or perhaps your organisation is interested in developing activities and services in this area? The Women’s Resource Centre has been asked by a group of independent charitable funders to conduct an assessment of voluntary and community organisations and projects in the UK who are:
� Interested in or have the potential to services and activities to address FGM; or
� Currently working in this area. We want to ensure that as many appropriate organisations as possible respond to this survey. If you know of any organisations that would be interested in this survey, please forward it to them or contact us. The survey should take 20 minutes to complete. WRC aims to be accessible and inclusive. This survey is available in other formats and can also be completed over the phone. The survey closes Tuesday 17 February at 3pm. If you would like to respond to the survey, but think you may have problems meeting the deadline, please contact us. ● A report on the survey results will be available in February 2009. All information will be anonymous. The report will be sent to all respondents and will be available to download from www.wrc.org.uk. For more information, or to request the survey in a different format or complete the survey over the phone, please contact: Tania Pouwhare Head of Policy Women’s Resource Centre Email: [email protected] Ph: 020 7324 3030 www.wrc.org.uk
4
0
Question
Options
Note
s
A.
Is y
ou
r o
rga
nis
atio
n c
urr
en
tly d
oin
g a
ny
wo
rk in
th
e F
GM
fie
ld?
•
Ye
s
•
No
If ‘Y
es’, s
urv
ey t
ake
s
resp
ond
ent
to Q
A1.
If
‘N
o’, s
urv
ey t
ake
s
resp
ond
ent
to Q
B b
elo
w.
B.
Is y
ou
r o
rga
nis
atio
n in
tere
ste
d in
or
ha
s
the
po
ten
tia
l to
wo
rk in
th
e F
GM
fie
ld?
•
Ye
s
•
No
If ‘N
o’, s
urv
ey t
ake
s
resp
ond
ent
to a
me
ssage
e
nd
ing t
he
su
rve
y.
If ‘Y
es’, s
urv
ey t
ake
s
resp
ond
ent
to Q
B1.
Re
sp
on
de
nt
‘A’
qu
es
tio
ns
:
A1
. W
hat
typ
es o
f F
GM
se
rvic
es/a
ctivitie
s
do
es y
ou
r o
rga
nis
atio
n d
eliv
er?
C
ho
ose a
ny o
f th
e fo
llow
ing o
ptio
ns th
at a
re
ap
plic
ab
le
•
Co
un
se
llin
g/t
he
rap
y f
or
su
rviv
ors
•
Ad
vic
e a
nd
info
rma
tion
•
Ad
vo
ca
cy f
or
su
rviv
ors
•
Tra
inin
g fo
r p
rofe
ssio
na
ls
•
Gro
up
wo
rk/s
up
po
rt fo
r su
rviv
ors
•
Me
dic
al tr
ea
tme
nt fo
r su
rviv
ors
•
Re
ferr
als
/sig
n p
ostin
g
•
Re
so
urc
es (
e.g
. gu
ides,
pam
ph
lets
etc
)
•
Fin
an
cia
l sup
po
rt f
or
su
rviv
ors
•
Re
se
arc
h
•
Po
licy a
nd
‘vo
ice
’ re
pre
se
nta
tio
n t
o
de
cis
ion
ma
ke
rs
•
Aw
are
ne
ss r
ais
ing
•
Pre
ve
nta
tive
wo
rk
•
Oth
er
Co
mm
ents
:
Mu
ltip
le a
nsw
ers
allo
we
d.
4
1
Question
Options
Note
s
A2
. D
o y
ou
de
live
r a
ny o
f th
e
se
rvic
es/a
ctivitie
s in
pa
rtn
ers
hip
with
oth
ers
?
Fre
e t
ext.
A3
. A
pp
rox
ima
tely
ho
w m
an
y o
f th
e
follo
win
g s
erv
ice
use
r/b
eneficia
ry g
rou
ps d
id
yo
ur
org
an
isa
tio
n w
ork
with
fro
m J
an
ua
ry
20
08
to D
ecem
be
r 2
008
?
Le
ave
bla
nk if
no
t a
pp
lica
ble
•
Wom
en w
ho
ha
ve
expe
rie
nce
d o
r a
re
at
risk o
f F
GM
(a
ged
18
ye
ars
or
old
er)
•
Girls
an
d y
ou
ng w
om
en
wh
o h
ave
e
xp
erie
nce
d o
r a
re a
t risk o
f F
GM
(u
p
to 1
7 y
ea
rs o
ld)
•
Oth
er
vo
lun
tary
an
d c
om
mu
nity
org
an
isa
tio
ns
•
He
alth
an
d o
the
r p
rofe
ssio
na
ls (
e.g
. n
urs
es, d
octo
rs,
so
cia
l w
ork
ers
, te
ache
rs e
tc)
•
Go
ve
rnm
ent/
po
licy d
ecis
ion
ma
ke
rs
•
Oth
er
Co
mm
ents
:
A4
. If y
ou
r o
rga
nis
ation
doe
s p
reve
nta
tive
w
ork
an
d/o
r a
wa
ren
ess r
ais
ing,
wh
o a
re
yo
ur
targ
et
au
die
nce
/s?
Fre
e t
ext.
A5
. A
re t
he
re a
ny F
GM
se
rvic
es/a
ctivitie
s
tha
t yo
u w
ou
ld lik
e to
de
live
r in
th
e f
utu
re?
If s
o, h
ow
ha
ve
yo
u id
en
tifie
d th
e n
ee
d?
Fre
e t
ext.
A6
. W
hat
are
the
th
ree b
igge
st
ch
alle
nge
s
facin
g y
ou
r o
rga
nis
ation
in
its
wo
rk o
n F
GM
? •
1:
•
2:
•
3:
Co
mm
ents
:
A7
. W
hat
sup
po
rt m
ight
yo
ur
org
an
isa
tio
n
Fre
e t
ext.
Aft
er
this
qu
estio
n,
4
2
Question
Options
Note
s
ne
ed
to h
elp
ma
inta
in o
r d
eve
lop
its
FG
M
wo
rk?
re
sp
ond
ent
take
n to
‘F
ina
l qu
estio
ns fo
r a
ll re
sp
ond
ents
’ se
ction
Re
sp
on
de
nt
‘B’
qu
esti
on
s:
B1
. W
hat
are
the
se
rvic
es/a
ctivitie
s t
hat
yo
ur
org
an
isa
tio
n is in
tere
ste
d in
de
live
rin
g,
or
co
uld
po
ten
tia
lly d
eliv
er,
in
th
e f
utu
re?
•
Co
un
se
llin
g/t
he
rap
y f
or
su
rviv
ors
•
Ad
vic
e a
nd
info
rma
tion
•
Ad
vo
ca
cy f
or
su
rviv
ors
•
Tra
inin
g fo
r p
rofe
ssio
na
ls
•
Gro
up
wo
rk/s
up
po
rt fo
r su
rviv
ors
•
Me
dic
al tr
ea
tme
nt fo
r su
rviv
ors
•
Re
ferr
als
/sig
n p
ostin
g
•
Re
so
urc
es (
e.g
. gu
ides,
pam
ph
lets
etc
)
•
Fin
an
cia
l sup
po
rt f
or
su
rviv
ors
•
Re
se
arc
h
•
Po
licy a
nd
‘vo
ice
’ re
pre
se
nta
tio
n t
o
de
cis
ion
ma
ke
rs
•
Aw
are
ne
ss r
ais
ing
•
Pre
ve
nta
tive
wo
rk
•
Oth
er
Co
mm
ents
:
Mu
ltip
le a
nsw
ers
allo
we
d.
B2
. H
ow
ha
s y
ou
r o
rgan
isa
tio
n a
sse
sse
d th
e
ne
ed
fo
r th
e id
entifie
d s
erv
ice
s a
nd
a
ctivitie
s?
E.g
. fe
ed
back f
rom
se
rvic
e u
se
rs
or
sta
ff,
ne
ed
s a
sse
ssm
ents
, re
se
arc
h e
tc
Fre
e t
ext.
B3
. W
hat
are
the
th
ree b
igge
st
ch
alle
nge
s
facin
g y
ou
r o
rga
nis
ation
in
de
live
rin
g t
he
id
en
tified
sup
po
rt s
erv
ice
s/a
ctivitie
s?
•
1:
•
2:
•
3:
Fre
e t
ext
ne
xt
to e
ach
h
ead
ing.
4
3
Question
Options
Note
s
Co
mm
ents
:
B4
. Is
yo
ur
org
an
isa
tion
co
nsid
erin
g/p
lan
nin
g to
de
live
r F
GM
se
rvic
es o
r a
ctivitie
s in
pa
rtne
rsh
ip w
ith
o
the
rs?
Fre
e t
ext.
B5
. H
as y
ou
r o
rga
nis
atio
n id
en
tifie
d a
ny
po
ssib
le fu
nd
ing f
or
FG
M s
erv
ice
s/a
ctivitie
s?
F
ree
te
xt.
B6
. W
hat
sup
po
rt m
ight
yo
ur
org
an
isa
tio
n
ne
ed
to h
elp
de
ve
lop its
FG
M w
ork
?
Fre
e t
ext.
Aft
er
this
qu
estio
n,
resp
ond
ent
take
n to
‘F
ina
l qu
estio
ns fo
r a
ll re
sp
ond
ents
’ se
ction
Fin
al
qu
es
tio
ns
fo
r a
ll r
es
po
nd
en
ts:
Na
me
of
pe
rso
n c
om
ple
tin
g t
his
su
rve
y
Fre
e t
ext.
Po
sitio
n
Fre
e t
ext.
Na
me
of
org
an
isa
tio
n
Fre
e t
ext.
Ad
dre
ss
Fre
e t
ext.
Po
stc
od
e
Fre
e t
ext.
Em
ail
Fre
e t
ext.
Ph
one
nu
mb
er
F
ree
te
xt.
Website
ad
dre
ss (
if y
ou
r o
rga
nis
atio
n h
as
on
e)
F
ree
te
xt.
Whic
h o
f th
e fo
llow
ing o
ption
s b
est
de
scrib
es th
e g
eo
gra
ph
ica
l co
ve
rage
of
yo
ur
org
an
isa
tio
n?
•
Lo
ca
l a
rea
•
Bo
rou
gh
or
co
un
ty
•
Re
gio
na
l
•
Co
un
try-w
ide
•
UK
-wid
e
•
Inte
rna
tio
na
l
On
ly o
ne
an
sw
er
allo
we
d
4
4
Question
Options
Note
s
•
Work
in
bo
th U
K a
rea
s a
nd
inte
rna
tio
na
lly
•
Oth
er
Whic
h lo
ca
l au
tho
rity
are
a(s
) d
oe
s y
ou
r o
rga
nis
atio
n w
ork
in
?
Fre
e t
ext.
Whic
h o
f th
e fo
llow
ing f
ield
s d
oe
s y
ou
r o
rga
nis
atio
n w
ork
in
?
Ch
oo
se a
ny o
f th
e fo
llow
ing o
ptio
ns th
at a
re
ap
plic
ab
le
•
He
alth
(ge
ne
ral)
•
Se
xu
al a
nd
re
pro
du
ctive
hea
lth
•
Me
nta
l he
alth
•
Se
xu
al vio
len
ce
•
Do
me
stic v
iole
nce
•
Em
plo
ym
en
t
•
Ed
ucatio
n a
nd
tra
inin
g
•
Ho
usin
g/h
om
ele
ssn
ess
•
Dru
g a
nd
alc
oh
ol
•
Crim
ina
l ju
stice
syste
m
•
Oth
er
Mu
ltip
le a
nsw
ers
allo
we
d
What w
as t
he
to
tal in
co
me f
or
yo
ur
org
an
isa
tio
n in
200
7/0
8?
C
ho
ose f
rom
the
fo
llow
ing in
co
me b
an
ds
•
£1
0,0
00 o
r le
ss
•
£1
0,0
01 -
£50
,00
0
•
£5
0,0
01 -
£70
,00
0
•
£7
0,0
01 -
£10
0,0
00
•
£1
00
,001
- £
150
,00
0
•
£1
50
,001
- £
200
,00
0
•
£2
00
,001
- £
250
,00
0
•
£2
50
,001
- £
300
,00
0
•
£3
00
,001
- £
500
,00
0
•
£5
00
,001
- £
1 m
illio
n
•
Mo
re t
han
£1
mill
ion
On
ly o
ne
an
sw
er
allo
we
d
4
5
Question
Options
Note
s
•
No
t su
re
Do
es y
ou
r o
rga
nis
ation
wo
rk s
pe
cif
ica
lly
with
an
y o
f th
e fo
llow
ing e
qu
alit
ies g
rou
ps?
C
ho
ose o
nly
th
e g
roups t
ha
t re
pre
se
nt
¾ o
r m
ore
of
yo
ur
se
rvic
e u
se
rs/b
eneficia
rie
s
Fo
r e
xa
mp
le, a
n o
rga
nis
atio
n fo
r yo
un
g
dis
ab
led w
om
en w
ou
ld c
ho
ose
:
•
‘Wom
en
and
/or
girls
’
•
‘Ch
ildre
n a
nd
yo
un
g p
eo
ple
’ a
nd
•
‘Dis
ab
led
pe
op
le’
•
Wom
en a
nd
/or
girls
•
Me
n
•
Ch
ildre
n a
nd
yo
un
g p
eo
ple
•
Bla
ck,
Asia
n a
nd
min
ority
eth
nic
peo
ple
•
Re
fuge
es a
nd
asylu
m s
ee
ke
rs
•
Dis
ab
led
pe
op
le
•
Le
sb
ian
, ga
y a
nd
bis
exu
al pe
op
le
•
Tra
ns p
eo
ple
•
Pe
op
le f
rom
spe
cific
faith
/re
ligio
us
gro
up
s
•
Work
ing c
lass p
eo
ple
•
Old
er
peo
ple
•
Gyp
sie
s a
nd
Tra
ve
llers
•
Oth
er
•
No
t su
re
•
We a
re a
gen
era
list
org
an
isa
tio
n th
at
ha
s s
erv
ice
use
rs/b
eneficia
rie
s f
rom
a
wid
e r
an
ge
of
gro
up
s
Co
mm
ents
:
Mu
ltip
le a
nsw
ers
allo
we
d
An
y f
ina
l com
me
nts
?
Fre
e t
ext.
The
Wom
en
's R
eso
urc
e C
en
tre is
co
ndu
ctin
g t
his
su
rve
y o
n b
eh
alf o
f a
gro
up
of
inde
pen
de
nt, c
ha
rita
ble
UK
fu
nde
rs w
ho
m
ay w
ish
to
co
nta
ct
yo
ur
org
an
isa
tio
n f
or
furt
he
r in
form
atio
n t
o h
elp
the
m in
th
eir
de
cis
ion
ma
kin
g a
bou
t fu
nd
ing t
his
are
a o
f w
ork
. P
lea
se
in
dic
ate
th
at
yo
u a
re h
ap
py f
or
•
Ye
s,
I am
ha
pp
y t
o b
e c
on
tacte
d
•
No
, p
lea
se
do
n't
co
nta
ct
me
4
6
Question
Options
Note
s
WR
C to
pa
ss th
e c
on
tact
de
tails
yo
u h
ave
giv
en
to
th
e g
rou
p o
f fu
nd
ers
. W
e w
ill n
eve
r p
ass y
ou
r co
nta
ct d
eta
ils t
o a
no
the
r p
art
y
Tha
nk y
ou
fo
r com
ple
tin
g t
his
su
rve
y. W
e a
ppre
cia
te th
e t
ime t
aken
! A
re
po
rt o
n th
e s
urv
ey r
esu
lts w
ill b
e a
va
ilab
le in
Ma
rch
20
09.
All
info
rma
tion
will
be
an
on
ym
ou
s.
The
re
po
rt w
ill b
e s
en
t to
all
respo
nd
ents
an
d w
ill b
e a
va
ilab
le t
o d
ow
nlo
ad f
rom
ww
w.w
rc.o
rg.u
k.
If y
ou
ha
ve
an
y q
ue
rie
s a
bou
t th
e s
urv
ey,
or
wo
uld
lik
e t
o f
ind
ou
t m
ore
abo
ut th
e W
om
en
’s R
eso
urc
e C
en
tre
, p
lea
se
co
nta
ct:
T
an
ia P
ou
wh
are
H
ea
d o
f P
olic
y
Wom
en
’s R
eso
urc
e C
en
tre
E
ma
il: ta
nia
@w
rc.o
rg.u
k
Ph
: 02
0 7
32
4 3
030
w
ww
.wrc
.org
.uk
