INTRODUCTION
The second report of Data Integration for Acknowledging Risks and Protecting Children from Violence project – DORA – offers a detailed analysis concerning the current situation of violence against children¹ in Italy, with some international comparisons. Our approach has been to build upon the methodology outlined in the first report², measuring violence through its principal domains:
- Homicide of a child;
- Physical Violence against a child (including chemical abuse, shaken baby syndrome, dual harm, isolating a child, female genital mutilation);
- Psychological violence against a child (including witnessing violence, bullying and cyberbullying, stalking and cyberstalking);
- Sexual violence against a child (including cyber violence, exploitation of children in prostitution, child pornography, and sexual grooming);
- Neglect of a child and pathologies of care (including Munchausen syndrome by proxy);
- Child trafficking and child labour exploitation (including abduction of a child, sale of a child), forced marriage (and early marriage).
In the first report, we defined core indicators for each domain, which, if measured, could provide insights into the reality of violence and its various characteristics, including the victims, the modalities, the disclosure of the phenomenon, the characteristics of the perpetrators, and the risk factors. We also indicated the main sources available in Italy in order to measure it.
In this report, we use several sources:
- The population surveys carried out by Istat, such as the Italian Victimization Survey (Citizens’ Safety Survey), the Violence against Women Survey (Women’s Safety Survey), the Survey on Children and Boys, and the Multipurpose Survey – Aspects of Everyday Life;
- Administrative data collections from the Ministry of Interior and Ministry of Health;
- Data collection on the protection system, including the Survey on Social Services (conducted by AGiA, Cismai, Terre des Hommes);
- The SIRIT register of the Department of Equal Opportunity, focused on trafficking in human beings;
- Registers’ data collection, such as:
- The helpline for children (Telefono Azzurro);
- The helpline for women (1522);
- Data from shelters and anti-violence centers.
Other minor sources are used to describe specific topics. However, as the report shows, the analysis of data from the utilized sources does not allow for a comprehensive measurement of either the indicators or violence against children. The available measures appear fragmented. They assist in identifying certain forms of violence and provide an initial understanding but often capture only the tip of the iceberg.
Furthermore, some domains are thoroughly explored, with multiple measures of similar types. For instance, physical violence is documented through two distinct surveys, each providing different perspectives:
- One survey focuses on young people aged 14-17 years, capturing data on physical assault through a victimization survey.
- Another survey, focusing on violence against women, provides information on physical violence inflicted by both partners and non-partners, specifically targeting women aged 16-17 years. This latter survey offers a more nuanced and comprehensive assessment of physical violence and includes retrospective questions on childhood experiences of violence reported by parents.
Consequently, the available information forms a fragmented mosaic. The estimation of violence against children (VAC) relies on diverse data sources targeting different demographics – varying by sex and age – and employing varying levels of specificity. Additionally, some age groups remain inadequately addressed, particularly the youngest, where available data primarily stem from police reports, protection systems, or social and health services. These sources often reflect only the most visible aspect of the phenomenon. Some domains analyze data through a gender perspective.
Moreover, the surveys are not conducted annually and refer to different time periods. This temporal variation further complicates the analysis, as the data collected are not uniformly aligned, adding another layer of fragmentation to the overall picture.
For some domains, it is possible to measure certain indicators with a sufficient degree of accuracy, such as bullying within psychological violence or witnessing violence in a familiar context. However, it is important to note that certain aspects of psychological violence, such as insults and humiliations experienced by children within the family, remain completely hidden.
It can be assessed that VAC appears to be measurable only in its visible part, also thanks to registers. These databases provide interesting figures, but their use for statistical purposes presents numerous challenges.
Generally, it can be asserted that the age groups below eleven, and in some cases fourteen, are largely unknown, except for the more extreme cases that come to the attention of social and health services (and even in these cases, only the peak of the iceberg is visible). There is a clear need for the development of appropriate tools capable of capturing such hidden and highly sensitive phenomena.
All these issues—concerning the lack of information, the quality of available sources, and the difficulty in reaching vulnerable and hard-to-reach populations of minors—will be detailed in the third report of the DORA project, which, starting from a gap analysis of the available data sources, aims to propose potential solutions.
This report aims to describe violence suffered by children, quantify it, and illustrate its dynamics. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that other topics are essential in framing children’s well-being. As reported in the first report, Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE), such as educational poverty, child labour, and child poverty, are strategic in understanding the context of violence and preventing VAC itself, as they represent important risk factors.
The report does not include international comparisons, as the methods for measuring violence against children (VAC) across Europe vary significantly. Some countries rely on police statistics, while others use surveys. Without harmonization of tools, comparing such disparate data would be imprudent. Nevertheless, the chapter on international data highlights results achieved by various agencies, such as UNICEF and WHO, and provides some intriguing research insights.
