GSI Surveys Paper - Long Version

Technical background paper
April 27th, 2015.
Using surveys to estimate prevalence of modern slavery at a national

level: experience and lessons learnt.
The challenge and priority of measurement
Numerous studies have noted the need for research on modern slavery to include research
on prevalence: how often does this crime occur within any given population?1 Without a
baseline on this one fundamental point, it becomes very difficult if not impossible to
measure progress in the prevention or response to this crime.
Like any crime, measuring modern slavery presents many complexities. First, there are
definitional challenges: what is included, what is not? Second, modern slavery is a hidden
crime, at least part of the diagnosis of which requires understanding complex human
relationships. Whereas the absence of something concrete like stolen goods from a
burglary can be clearly seen, deception and coercion can be much more subtle. Third,
offenders typically target vulnerable populations, many of whom have no incentive to come
forward, and at least some of who may have normalised their experiences of extreme
discrimination. Taken together, these factors make it a safe assumption that existing levels
of reported crime bear little relation to the experience of actual crime in the population.
These challenges are not unique to modern slavery. For example, similar challenges were
faced by advocates and policy makers wanting to respond in an informed, proportionate
way to gender-based violence in the 1970s.2 In the absence of clear crime statistics at a time
before these crimes were widely understood, researchers turned to random sample
population surveys to better capture previously under-reported or even unreported
instances of sexual violence and domestic violence, among other relatively hidden crime
types.3 Household surveys are now widely used in that context.
In 2014, Walk Free commenced trials of random sample, household surveys to estimate the
prevalence of modern slavery at the national level. The methodology is in its infancy and
requires refinement. However, early indications are that this methodology provides great
Bales K & Datta M, Slavery in Europe: Part 1, Estimating that dark figure, Human Rights Quarterly, vol. 35 (2013), 817-829:
http://www.kevinbales.net/uploads/1/1/4/2/1142278/hrq_datta-bales.pdf; Zhang S.X, Spiller M.W, Finch B.K & Qin Y, Estimating Labor
Trafficking among Unauthorized Migrant Workers in San Diego,The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, May
2014, 653: 65-86; De Cock, M, Directions for national and international data collection on forced labour, International Labour
Organization Working Paper 30, Geneva, Switzerland
2
Kilpatrick D.G, What is Violence Against Women? Defining and Measuring the Problem, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, vol. 19, No. 2
(2004), pp. 1209-1234: http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/19/11/1209.full.pdf; Krug E. G, Mercy J.A, DFahlberf L.L & Zwi A.B, The world
report on violence and health, The Lancet, vol. 360 (2002): http://www.ayamm.org/english/Violence%20against%20women%204.pdf;
(see also World report on violence and health, (chapter 9): http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2002/9241545615_eng.pdf?ua=1
3 Biderman A and Reiss A.J, On Exploring the Dark Figure of Crime, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 1
(114), 1967: 375; Group of Experts on Gender Statistics, Towards international standards for data collection and statistics on violence
against women, Conference of European Statisticians, 11-12 September 2006,Geneva:
http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/stats/documents/ece/ces/ge.30/2006/7.e.pdf

April 27th, 2015.
promise for measuring the previously unmeasurable. This paper summarises the
methodology used and the early results.
The measurement process
As a new organisation in 2013, Walk Free was faced with conflicting advice and views about
terminology. On one view, the language of human trafficking was felt to be the dominant
term in use, reflecting a UN Protocol. On another view, the terms of forced labour or
slavery were thought to be better understood and more intuitive, allowing better
community understanding of the crime being described. To ensure its core concept was
inclusive, in its early months of operations, Walk Free took a strategic decision to use the
neutral, cross-mandate term of modern slavery. It was explained that this term was
intended to cover all conduct that could be variously described as human trafficking, forced
labour, slavery or slavery like practices. The intention was for the term modern slavery to
balance the need to be inclusive of different organisations working on this issue, while also
having a level of conceptual clarity reflecting the legal terminology that sits behind it.
In 2014, the Walk Free Foundation partnered with Gallup Inc. to trial using the World Poll as
the vehicle for surveys of modern slavery at the national level. This trial was undertaken
with the knowledge that the ILO had undertaken a number of high quality national and
sector level surveys in previous years. The objective was to build on that experience while
also endeavouring to find ways to scale the survey process up, without requirement of
Government involvement.
The Gallup World Poll was selected as the survey vehicle because of its global coverage,
methodology and consistency of quality survey delivery. Used by The World Bank, The
United Nations, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the
International Labour Organisation,4 the World Poll survey data are representative of 95
percent of the worlds adult population. In the World Poll, face to face or telephone
surveys5 are conducted across households6 in more than 160 countries and in over 140
languages.7 The target sample is the entire civilian, non-institutionalised population, aged 15
and older. With the exception of areas which are scarcely populated or present a threat to
the safety of interviewers, samples are probability based and nationally representative. The
questionnaire is translated into the major languages of each country, and in-depth training
is conducted with field staff, who are also provided with a standardised training manual.
Quality control procedures ensure that correct samples are selected and the correct person
is randomly selected in each household.
In the first year of its partnership, Walk Free and Gallup Inc. conducted random sample
surveys in seven countries: Brazil, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Nepal, Nigeria, Russia and Pakistan.
4
Gallup World Poll, Client Services, accessed 20 April 2015: http://www.gallup.com/services/170945/world-poll.aspx

Countries for the Walk Free Foundation survey were selected from those where face to face interviewing was an option.
6 To be eligible, a household has to have its own cooking facilities, which could be anything from a standing stove in the kitchen to a small
fire in the courtyard.
7 A detailed description of the World Poll methodology is available online:
http://www.gallup.com/strategicconsulting/156923/worldwide-research-methodology.aspx
5

April 27th, 2015.
These countries were chosen as the pilot sites for several reasons. First, each of these
countries is considered to be source countries, with significant populations of returned
migrant workers. This increased the likelihood that surveys might identify returned migrant
workers who had been subjected to modern slavery in their labour or other migration
overseas. Second, the Gallup methodology in each of these countries is delivered through
face to face surveys as opposed to phone surveys, which are not used. This increased the
opportunity for surveyors to read the people they were interviewing, to observe where
clarification is required, and to build a level of rapport.
Cognitive testing
The first step was the development of a set of pilot questions to be subjected to cognitive
testing in a sample of countries. The initial set of questions were developed in consultation
with the GSI Expert Working Group8 and Gallup Inc. and then refined through cognitive
testing. The test questions focused on identifying situations that fell into two broad
categories: unfree labour, and forced marriage. An initial question for each was developed,
followed by a second question that then tested for key indicators of lack of choice or
consent.
The initial set of questions sought to capture a range of
scenarios that could be classified as modern slavery. The
questions focused on isolating situations where an
individuals freedom had been restricted in order to exploit
them. Cognitive testing of the WFF questions in six countries
(Indonesia, Nepal, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Russia, and Pakistan)
showed that respondents generally understood the
questions, recalled the information being sought, wanted to
provide the information, and could respond in the format
required. Testing highlighted some specific issues that led to
redefining the family as immediate family, improving the
clarity of questions, and introducing follow up questions
about forms of coercion and consent to marry, in order to
Cognitive testing in Ethiopia
filter out false positives. Specifically, the network size was
redefined from household to family and included
only self plus living immediate family members,
excluding uncles, aunts and cousins. The survey
questions were amended to be based on a network
sampling frame. That is, it was decided to use family
rather than household as the reference group, in
order to increase the likelihood of identifying victims
in a random sample survey. The new questions
required surveyors to collect the number of currently
8
The Expert Working Group is a convening of anti-slavery and methodology experts who come together to examine and build on the
Global Slavery Index methodology.

April 27th, 2015.
living children and cousins and/or parents.

Testing also found there were several questions that required follow up, or prompts to
verify the nature of the situation. In particular,
Cognitive testing in Indonesia
adding follow up questions to verify the nature
of coercion employed in forced labour
situations, be it abuse of a position of vulnerability, confinement, isolation, debt bondage or
otherwise. Similarly, the testing found the debt bondage question needed to be simplified,
and more guidance provided to ensure that the debt was owed to an employer, and that it
is the employer forcing them to repay the debt. In respect of the cultural sensitivities
associated with forced marriage, it was suggested that the introductory question be about
arranged marriage, and the follow up about consent and age as the indicators of forced
marriage.
2014 Surveys: Brazil, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Nepal, Nigeria, Russia and Pakistan
Following cognitive testing, the survey questions were refined. The survey instrument was
designed around a central set of questions, including:
1. Have you or has anyone in your immediate family ever been forced to work by an
employer?
2. Have you or has anyone in your immediate family ever been forced to work by an
employer to repay a debt with that employer?
3. Have you or has anyone in your immediate family ever been offered one kind of
work, but then were forced to do something else and not allowed to leave?
4. Have you or has anyone in your immediate family ever been forced to marry?
Where a respondent answered yes to any of these four questions on behalf of themselves
or an immediate family member, they were then asked a series of follow up questions to
capture more information about the experience, including when and where the experience
occurred. A copy of the survey instrument is at Appendix 1.
The questions were designed to gather as much information as possible about experiences
of modern slavery within the sample. However, decisions had to be made about cut off
points (for example, would we count one person recounting another persons experience
that took place many years in the past). In order to minimise the possibility of false
positives, the estimates account for people who, either in relation to their own experience,
or on behalf of a family member, answered yes to any of the forced labour questions AND
had been coerced, or yes to the forced marriage question and answered no to the follow
up question regarding consent. Experiences were only included if they occurred in the five
years preceding the survey.
These questions were then added to the Gallup World Poll in 2014, in Brazil, Ethiopia,
Indonesia, Nepal, Nigeria, Russia and Pakistan. Table 1 sets out the sample sizes and
4

April 27th, 2015.
coverage in each of the survey countries; and the languages used in the survey process in
those countries.
Table 1: Sample size and exclusions across WFF survey countries
Sample Excluded
size
area as % of
population
Excluded areas
Languages used in
surveys
1000
Province of Gilgit Baltistan,

Azad Jammu & Kashmir
(AJK)
Urdu
Indonesia 1000
None
Bahasa Indonesian
Brazil
1007
None
Portuguese
Nigeria
1000
4.5
Ethiopia
1004
3.4
Nepal
1050
Russia
2000
Pakistan
5.0
Three states of the North

East region (Adamawa,
Borno and Yobe)
English
Hausa
Igbo
Pidgin
Yoruba
Six of the nine Zones of the Afan Oromo
Somali region (Degehabur, Amharic
Warder, Korahe, Fik, Gode, Tigrigna
Afder)
None
Nepali
Nenets, Yamalo-Nenets
and Chukotsk regions,
Chechnya, Ingushetia,
Dagestan, Adygeya,
Kabardino-Balkaria,
Karachaevo-Cherkessie,
North Ossetia
Russian
Results and lessons learnt

All seven surveys conducted identified cases of modern slavery. Given interviews were
undertaken with only 10009 people across an entire country, without any effort to target
hot spots or vulnerable populations, this result is quite extraordinary in itself. Table 2
Except for Russia, where the sample size included 2000 participants.

April 27th, 2015.
outlines the number of people who answered yes to modern slavery questions, and the
sample size for each country.
Table 2: Unweighted responses to modern slavery questions
Number answering yes to % answering yes

P5, P6, P7 or P16, to P5, P6, P7 or Sample size
unweighted
P16
Pakistan
0.9
1000
Indonesia
0.7
1000
Brazil
0.3
1007
Nigeria
0.3
1000
Ethiopia
0.9
1004
Russia
40
2.0
2000
Nepal
20
1.9
1050
Based on these random sample surveys, the proportion of the population estimated to be
enslaved in each country were calculated and are shown in Table 3. Note the last row of
Table 3, which lists the population proportion estimated enslaved for these seven countries
surveyed in the 2014 Gallup World Poll. Indonesia, for example, has a figure of
0.002857564, which means our estimates indicate that about 0.0028, or .28 percent of the
Indonesian population is in slavery. Table 3 also details comparable interpretations for other
figures.
Table 3: Estimated number of people in modern slavery in the general population based on Walk Free
Foundation surveys
Est. number Population

of people in
modern
slavery
Proportion of Lower
the
estimate
population in
modern
slavery
792,000
182,142,594
0.004348242
1,876,085 3,879,654
Indonesia 714,007
249,865,631
0.002857564
214,276
Pakistan
Upper
estimate
2,962,798
6

April 27th, 2015.
Brazil
155,356
200,361,925
0.000775377
45,006
956,804
Nigeria
834,228
173,615,345
0.000474998
660,612
1,528,689
Ethiopia
137,768
94,100,756
0.001464048
295,604
766,108
Nepal
228683
27,797,457
0.0082
200,886
534,455
Russia
1,049,756
143,499,861
0.00731538
906,256
1,623,755
Qatar
21,552
1,589,050
0.1356
Saudi
Arabia
31,319
10,729,123
0.002919
Malaysia
91,034
13,503,100
0.0048
Analysis of the survey results present the difficult challenge of where to count the
experience of modern slavery: in the country of exploitation, or the country where the
migrant has returned to. While it had been anticipated that survey results would indicate
experiences of modern slavery overseas, only two of the seven country-wide random
sample surveys of modern slavery provided information on nationals who had experienced
modern slavery outside of their home country. Given how widely reported cross-border or
transnational forms of modern slavery have been reported in each of the survey countries,
this suggests the surveys are under-representing the scale of the problem.
Survey data for Ethiopia and Nepal identified victims of modern slavery in three countries:
Qatar, Malaysia and Saudi Arabia. In Nepal and Ethiopia, it would have been a
misrepresentation to limit the estimates for modern slavery in those two countries just to
nationals who had experienced modern slavery within their own country. Accordingly, the
final estimates of modern slavery for Ethiopia and Nepal take account of the likely
proportions of migrant workers exploited overseas. The results were estimated to be as
follows:
31,319 Ethiopians enslaved in Saudi Arabia

18,820 Ethiopians and 2,732 Nepalese enslaved in Qatar, for a total of 21,552 persons
91,034 Nepalese enslaved in Malaysia
As we conduct more surveys, and the accuracy of our measures are strengthened, the
estimated number of people living in slavery may change. This is not necessarily an
indication of an increase in prevalence, rather that our estimates are becoming more
accurate. For example, the estimate for Indonesia increased from 210,970 in 2013, to
714,007 in 2014. However, the estimate for Brazil decreased by over 50,000. This is
7

April 27th, 2015.
primarily due to the improved methodology, and more accurate data. The random-sample
surveys have allowed us to provide a more precise measurement of the number of people
enslaved.
Current survey activity
As we work to improve the accuracy of the prevalence estimates, in 2015 the Walk Free
Foundation has again partnered with Gallup Inc. to conduct an additional 19 random sample
surveys. These are being conducted in Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Mexico, Myanmar,
Philippines, Poland, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, South Africa, Bolivia, Hungary, Mauritania,
Tunisia, Ghana, Dominican Republic, Chile, and Guatemala.
Pre-testing of the surveys is
only occurring in Mauritania
for the 2015 estimates. While
the final analysis has not been
conducted, the pre-test data
have revealed a high number
of cases at the hard-end of
slavery, namely traditional or
historic forms of chattel
slavery. Data from other
countries are still in the field.
As we move forward with the
survey programme, we will continue to collaborate with organisations doing similar work.
This year, the USAID are running a survey in Guatemala, with which we will be able to
compare estimates. Going forward, we are eager to collaborate with organisations in the
sector on innovative estimation methodologies, and to increase data sharing processes and
systems.
Survey sites, 2015
All organisations working to end modern slavery whether this crime is locally called human
trafficking, forced labour or slavery - desperately need stronger, and more accurate data to
better inform and target their prevention and reduction efforts. Taking into account other
sampling methods and different contexts, random sample surveys undertaken at scale
represent a positive step forward, to improve our collective understanding of the extent of
modern slavery.

April 27th, 2015.
Appendix: Gallup survey instrument

(READ:) I am going to read several questions about some situations that may have
happened to you or to anyone within your immediate family. I'd like you to provide
me with the responses that best represent the situation of everyone in your
immediate family, which includes yourself, your parents, your spouse or partner,
your siblings, and your children, if applicable. I will then ask you some follow-up
questions about the answers you provide. Please remember that all of the
information you provide is completely confidential. Let's get started.
P1. [P1]
Is your birth father living?
Yes
1
No
2
(DK)
3
(Refused)
4
No
2
(DK)
3
(Refused)
4
P2. [P2]
Is your birth mother living?
Yes
1
P3. [P3]
How many LIVING brothers and sisters do you have? (Interviewer:
Respondent should include ALL sons or daughters of a parent,
including half-siblings.)
CIRCLE ONE
RESPONSE:
Write in:
____________________
None
97+
(DK)
(Refused)
00
97
98
99

April 27th, 2015.
P4. [P4]
How many LIVING sons and daughters do you have?
CIRCLE ONE
RESPONSE:
Write in:
____________________
None
97+
(DK)
(Refused)
00
97
98
99
P5. [P5]
Have you or has anyone in your immediate family ever been forced to work by
an employer? (Interviewer: "Immediate family" includes the respondent's
spouse/partner, children, parents, and siblings.)
Yes
1
No
2
(DK)
3
(Refused)
4
P6. [P6]
Have you or has anyone in your immediate family ever been forced to work by
an employer to repay a debt with that employer? (Interviewer: The debt
must have been owed to the employer by the respondent or the
respondent's immediate family. The employer must have forced the
debtor to repay the debt with labor, which could have been provided by
the debtor and/or the debtor's immediate family.)
Yes
1
No
2
(DK)
3
(Refused)
4
P7. [P7]
Have you or has anyone in your immediate family ever been offered one kind
of work, but then were forced to do something else and not allowed to leave?
Yes
1
No
2
(DK)
3
(Refused)
4
(If code 1 [Yes] to ANY in P5, P6, or P7, Continue;

Otherwise, Skip to Read before P16)
10

April 27th, 2015.
P8. [P8]
Could you please tell me who in your immediate family was in any of these
situations? Please start with the person who experienced any of these
situations most recently. You don't have to tell me their names, just refer to
them by their relationship to you; for example, it could be you, your spouse or
partner, your son, daughter, brother, sister, mother, or father. (Allow EIGHT
responses)
(Interviewer: Probe for each relationship:) Did anyone else in your
immediate family experience any of the situations mentioned above? How
about your [self, spouse or partner, son, daughter, brother, sister, mother, or
father]? (Interviewer: Only include each person ONCE. The respondent
should NOT include persons other than the relatives mentioned above.)
Sel Spouse/Partn Chil Paren Siblin (NA (DK (Refuse
f
er
d
t
g
)
)
d)
P8A.
[P8A
]
P8B.
[P8B
]
P8C.
[P8C
]
P8D.
[P8D
]
P8E.
[P8E
]
P8F.
[P8F
]
P8G.
[P8G
]
P8H.
[P8H
]
1st
perso
n
2nd
perso
n
3rd
perso
n
4th
perso
n
5th
perso
n
6th
perso
n
7th
perso
n
8th
perso
n
(If code 7, 8, or 9 in P8A, Skip to Read before P16;

Otherwise, Continue)
(READ:) Now, I'm going to ask you for a little more information.
11

April 27th, 2015.
(INTERVIEWER: Ask P9-P15 for the first person the respondent

mentioned in P8 - the person listed in P8A. If the respondent mentioned
more than one person in P8, ask P9-P15 about the first person, then go
back and ask P9-P15 about the second person and so on until all
persons mentioned in P8 have been accounted for.)
P9. [P9]
GENDER: (Interviewer: Code gender based on response in P8.) [(If
necessary, READ:) What is the gender of your (response in P8)?]
P9A.
[P9A]
P9B.
[P9B]
P9C.
[P9C]
P9D.
[P9D]
P9E.
[P9E]
P9F.
[P9F]
P9G.
[P9G]
P9H.
[P9H]
1st
person
2nd person
3rd person
4th person
5th person
6th person
7th person
8th person
Male
Female
(NA)
(DK)
(Refused)
12

April 27th, 2015.
P10. [P10]
How old [are you/is your (response in P8)] now? (Open ended and code
actual age) (If respondent is answering questions about himself/herself,
insert age from D2 and do not ask)
P10A.
[P10A]
P10B.
[P10B]
P10C.
[P10C]
P10D.
[P10D]
P10E.
[P10E]
P10F.
[P10F]
P10G.
[P10G]
P10H.
[P10H]
1st person
2nd person
3rd person
4th person
5th person
6th person
7th person
8th person
96+
(NA)
(DK)
(Refused)
96
97
98
99
96
97
98
99
96
97
98
99
96
97
98
99
96
97
98
99
96
97
98
99
96
97
98
99
96
97
98
99
13

April 27th, 2015.
P11. [P11]
When did this situation involving forced labor last happen to [you/your
(response in P8)]? (Read 1-4)
Less
than 1
year
ago
P11A.
[P11A]
P11B.
[P11B]
P11C.
[P11C]
P11D.
[P11D]
P11E.
[P11E]
P11F.
[P11F]
P11G.
[P11G]
P11H.
[P11H]
1st
person
2nd
person
3rd
person
4th
person
5th
person
6th
person
7th
person
8th
person
More
1 to 5 6 to 10
than 10
years years
(NA) (DK) (Refused)
years
ago
ago
ago
P12. [P12]
In what country did this last happen to [you/your (response in P8)]? (Open
ended and code from file)
P12A.
[P12A]
P12B.
[P12B]
P12C.
[P12C]
P12D.
[P12D]
P12E.
[P12E]
P12F.
[P12F]
P12G.
[P12G]
P12H.
[P12H]
1st person
2nd person
3rd person
4th person
5th person
6th person
7th person
8th person
Other
(DK)
(Refused)
903
998
999
903
998
999
903
998
999
903
998
999
903
998
999
903
998
999
903
998
999
903
998
999
14

April 27th, 2015.
P13. [P13]
What type of work [were you/was your (response in P8)] forced to do most
recently? (Open ended and code)
Manual
Prostitu
Oth
labor/Fac
Drug
Dome
Farmi tion/Sex
er
tory/Con
productio Begg Sal
N D Refuse
stic/S
ng/Fis
ual
(Wri
struction
n/sales/tra ing es
A K
d
ervice
hing exploita
te
/Manufac
fficking
tion
in)
turing
P13
A.
[P13
A]
P13
B.
[P13
B]
P13
C.
[P13
C]
P13
D.
[P13
D]
P13
E.
[P13
E]
P13
F.
[P13
F]
P13
G.
[P13
G]
P13
H.
[P13
H]
1st
pe
rs
on
2nd
pe
rs
on
3rd
pe
rs
on
4th
pe
rs
on
5th
pe
rs
on
6th
pe
rs
on
7th
pe
rs
on
8th
pe
rs
on
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
96 97 98
99
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
96 97 98
99
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
96 97 98
99
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
96 97 98
99
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
96 97 98
99
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
96 97 98
99
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
96 97 98
99
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
96 97 98
99
15

April 27th, 2015.
P14. [P14]
What country [do you/does your (response in P8)] currently live in? (Open
ended and code from file) (If respondent is answering questions about
himself/herself, autocode country and do not ask)
P14A.
[P14A]
P14B.
[P14B]
P14C.
[P14C]
P14D.
[P14D]
P14E.
[P14E]
P14F.
[P14F]
P14G.
[P14G]
P14H.
[P14H]
1st person
2nd person
3rd person
4th person
5th person
6th person
7th person
8th person
Other
(DK)
(Refused)
903
998
999
903
998
999
903
998
999
903
998
999
903
998
999
903
998
999
903
998
999
903
998
999
16

April 27th, 2015.
P15_1. [P15_1]
You mentioned that [you were/your (response in P8) was] forced to work by
an employer. How did the employer keep [you/your (response in P8)] from
quitting that work? (Open ended and code) (Allow FIVE responses)
[(Probe if necessary:) Anything else?]
(Record first response in P15_1A and subsequent responses in the rows
below)
Phys
ical
viole
nce
P15_
1A.
[P15
_1A]
P15_
1B.
[P15
_1B]
P15_
1C.
[P15
_1C]
P15_
1D.
[P15
_1D]
P15_
1E.
[P15
_1E]
P15_
1F.
[P15
_1F]
P15_
1G.
[P15
_1G]
P15_
1H.
1st
per
son
2nd
per
son
3rd
per
son
4th
per
son
5th
per
son
6th
per
son
7th
per
son
8th
per
Withhel
Locke
Afraid
Thre Thre
Too far
d
d in
that
ats ats
With
from h
passpor
work
employe
of
of
held
ome
t or
or
r would
viol legal
wag
and
other
living
hurt
enc acti
es
nowher
docume
quart
his/her
e
on
e to go
nts
ers
family
Ot
her
N D Refus
(Wr
A K ed
ite
in)
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
96
9 9
7 8
99
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
96
9 9
7 8
99
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
96
9 9
7 8
99
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
96
9 9
7 8
99
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
96
9 9
7 8
99
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
96
9 9
7 8
99
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
96
9 9
7 8
99
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
96
9 9
7 8
99
17

April 27th, 2015.
Phys
ical
viole
nce
[P15
_1H]
Withhel
Locke
Afraid
Thre Thre
Too far
d
d in
that
ats ats
With
from h
passpor
work
employe
of
of
held
ome
t or
or
r would
viol legal
wag
and
other
living
hurt
enc acti
es
nowher
docume
quart
his/her
e
on
e to go
nts
ers
family
Ot
her
N D Refus
(Wr
A K ed
ite
in)
son
18

April 27th, 2015.
P15_2. [P15_2]
quitting that work? (Open ended and code)
(Second response)
Phys
ical
viole
nce
P15_
1A.
[P15
_1A]
P15_
1B.
[P15
_1B]
P15_
1C.
[P15
_1C]
P15_
1D.
[P15
_1D]
P15_
1E.
[P15
_1E]
P15_
1F.
[P15
_1F]
P15_
1G.
[P15
_1G]
P15_
1H.
[P15
_1H]
1st
per
son
2nd
per
son
3rd
per
son
4th
per
son
5th
per
son
6th
per
son
7th
per
son
8th
per
son
Locke
Afraid
Thre
Too far
Thre
Withheld
d in
that
Oth
ats
With
from h
ats
passport
work
employe er
of
held
ome
N D Refu
of
or other
or
r would (Wr
legal
wag
and
A K sed
viole
docume
living
hurt
ite
actio
es
nowher
nce
nts
quart
his/her in)
n
e to go
ers
family
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
96
9 9
7 8
99
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
96
9 9
7 8
99
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
96
9 9
7 8
99
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
96
9 9
7 8
99
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
96
9 9
7 8
99
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
96
9 9
7 8
99
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
96
9 9
7 8
99
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
96
9 9
7 8
99
19

April 27th, 2015.
P15_3. [P15_3]
(Third response)
Phys
ical
viole
nce
P15_
1A.
[P15
_1A]
P15_
1B.
[P15
_1B]
P15_
1C.
[P15
_1C]
P15_
1D.
[P15
_1D]
P15_
1E.
[P15
_1E]
P15_
1F.
[P15
_1F]
P15_
1G.
[P15
_1G]
P15_
1H.
[P15
_1H]
1st
per
son
2nd
per
son
3rd
per
son
4th
per
son
5th
per
son
6th
per
son
7th
per
son
8th
per
son
Locke
Afraid
Thre
Too far
Thre
Withheld
d in
that
Oth
ats
With
from h
ats
passport
work
employe er
of
held
ome
N D Refu
of
or other
or
r would (Wr
legal
wag
and
A K sed
viole
docume
living
hurt
ite
actio
es
nowher
nce
nts
quart
his/her in)
n
e to go
ers
family
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
96
9 9
7 8
99
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
96
9 9
7 8
99
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
96
9 9
7 8
99
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
96
9 9
7 8
99
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
96
9 9
7 8
99
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
96
9 9
7 8
99
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
96
9 9
7 8
99
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
96
9 9
7 8
99
20

April 27th, 2015.
P15_4. [P15_4]
(Fourth response)
Phys
ical
viole
nce
P15_
1A.
[P15
_1A]
P15_
1B.
[P15
_1B]
P15_
1C.
[P15
_1C]
P15_
1D.
[P15
_1D]
P15_
1E.
[P15
_1E]
P15_
1F.
[P15
_1F]
P15_
1G.
[P15
_1G]
P15_
1H.
[P15
_1H]
1st
per
son
2nd
per
son
3rd
per
son
4th
per
son
5th
per
son
6th
per
son
7th
per
son
8th
per
son
Locke
Afraid
Thre
Too far
Thre
Withheld
d in
that
Ot
ats
With
from h
ats
passport
work
employe her
of
held
ome
N D Refu
of
or other
or
r would (Wr
legal
wag
and
A K sed
viole
docume
living
hurt
ite
actio
es
nowher
nce
nts
quart
his/her in)
n
e to go
ers
family
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
96
9 9
7 8
99
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
96
9 9
7 8
99
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
96
9 9
7 8
99
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
96
9 9
7 8
99
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
96
9 9
7 8
99
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
96
9 9
7 8
99
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
96
9 9
7 8
99
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
96
9 9
7 8
99
21

April 27th, 2015.
P15_5. [P15_5]
(Fifth response)
Phys
ical
viole
nce
P15_
1A.
[P15
_1A]
P15_
1B.
[P15
_1B]
P15_
1C.
[P15
_1C]
P15_
1D.
[P15
_1D]
P15_
1E.
[P15
_1E]
P15_
1F.
[P15
_1F]
P15_
1G.
[P15
_1G]
P15_
1H.
[P15
_1H]
1st
per
son
2nd
per
son
3rd
per
son
4th
per
son
5th
per
son
6th
per
son
7th
per
son
8th
per
son
Locke
Afraid
Thre
Too far
Thre
Withheld
d in
that
Ot
ats
With
from h
ats
passport
work
employe her
of
held
ome
N D Refu
of
or other
or
r would (Wr
legal
wag
and
A K sed
viole
docume
living
hurt
ite
actio
es
nowher
nce
nts
quart
his/her in)
n
e to go
ers
family
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
96
9 9
7 8
99
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
96
9 9
7 8
99
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
96
9 9
7 8
99
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
96
9 9
7 8
99
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
96
9 9
7 8
99
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
96
9 9
7 8
99
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
96
9 9
7 8
99
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
96
9 9
7 8
99
22

April 27th, 2015.
(Interviewer: Repeat P9-P15 for each person mentioned in P8, and then
Continue)
(READ:) Now I will ask you about a certain type of marriage that you or
someone in your immediate family may have experienced. Again, please
include yourself, your parents, your spouse or partner, your siblings, and your
children, if applicable.
P16. [P16]
Have you or has anyone in your immediate family ever been forced to marry?
Yes
No
(DK)
(Refused)
CIRCLE ONE
RESPONSE:
1
2
3
4
ROUTE:
(Continue)
(Skip to Read befor

FSU1/WP7216)
23

April 27th, 2015.
P17. [P17]
Could you please tell me who in your immediate family has ever been forced
to marry? Please start with the person who experienced this most recently.
You don't have to tell me their names, just refer to them by their relationship to
you; for example, it could be you, your spouse or partner, your son, daughter,
brother, sister, mother, or father. (Allow EIGHT responses)
[(Interviewer: Probe for each relationship:) Did anyone else in your
immediate family experience this kind of situation?] (Interviewer: The
respondent should NOT include persons other than the relatives
mentioned above.)
Sel Spouse/Partn Chil Paren Siblin (NA (DK (Refuse
f
er
d
t
g
)
)
d)
P17A.
[P17A
]
P17B.
[P17B
]
P17C.
[P17C
]
P17D.
[P17D
]
P17E.
[P17E
]
P17F.
[P17F
]
P17G
.
[P17
G]
P17H.
[P17H
]
1st
perso
n
2nd
perso
n
3rd
perso
n
4th
perso
n
5th
perso
n
6th
perso
n
7th
perso
n
8th
perso
n
(If code 7, 8, or 9 in P17A, Skip to Read before FSU1/WP7216;

Otherwise, Continue)
24

April 27th, 2015.
(INTERVIEWER: Ask P18-P21 for the first person the respondent

mentioned in P17 - the person listed in P17A. If the respondent
mentioned more than one person in P17, ask P18-P21 about the first
person, then go back and ask P18-P21 about the second person and so
on until all persons mentioned in P17 have been accounted for.)
P18. [P18]
GENDER: (Interviewer: Code gender for each person based on response
in P17.) [(If necessary, READ:) What is the gender of your (response in
P17)?]
P18A.
[P18A]
P18B.
[P18B]
P18C.
[P18C]
P18D.
[P18D]
P18E.
[P18E]
P18F.
[P18F]
P18G.
[P18G]
P18H.
[P18H]
1st person
2nd person
3rd person
4th person
5th person
6th person
7th person
8th person
Male
Female
(NA)
(DK)
(Refused)
25

April 27th, 2015.
P19. [P19]
How old [are you/is your (response in P17)] now? (Open ended and code
actual age) (If respondent is answering questions about himself/herself,
insert age from D2 and do not ask)
P19A.
[P19A]
P19B.
[P19B]
P19C.
[P19C]
P19D.
[P19D]
P19E.
[P19E]
P19F.
[P19F]
P19G.
[P19G]
P19H.
[P19H]
1st person
2nd person
3rd person
4th person
5th person
6th person
7th person
8th person
96+
(NA)
(DK)
(Refused)
96
97
98
99
96
97
98
99
96
97
98
99
96
97
98
99
96
97
98
99
96
97
98
99
96
97
98
99
96
97
98
99
P20. [P20]
How old [were you/was your (response in P17)] at the time of the forced
marriage? (Open ended and code actual age)
P20A.
[P20A]
P20B.
[P20B]
P20C.
[P20C]
P20D.
[P20D]
P20E.
[P20E]
P20F.
[P20F]
P20G.
[P20G]
P20H.
[P20H]
1st person
2nd person
3rd person
4th person
5th person
6th person
7th person
8th person
96+
(NA)
(DK)
(Refused)
96
97
98
99
96
97
98
99
96
97
98
99
96
97
98
99
96
97
98
99
96
97
98
99
96
97
98
99
96
97
98
99
26

April 27th, 2015.
P21. [P21]
Did [you/your (response in P17)] consent to the marriage?
P21A.
[P21A]
P21B.
[P21B]
P21C.
[P21C]
P21D.
[P21D]
P21E.
[P21E]
P21F.
[P21F]
P21G.
[P21G]
P21H.
[P21H]
1st
person
2nd person
3rd person
4th person
5th person
6th person
7th person
8th person
Yes
No
(NA)
(DK)
(Refused)
(Interviewer: Repeat P18-P21 for each person mentioned in P17, and

then Continue)
27

GSI Surveys Paper - Long Version

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

GSI Surveys Paper - Long Version

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Technical background paper

April 27th, 2015.

Using surveys to estimate prevalence of modern slavery at a national

Technical background paper

Gallup World Poll, Client Services, accessed 20 April 2015: http://www.gallup.com/services/170945/world-poll.aspx

Technical background paper

Technical background paper

living children and cousins and/or parents.

Technical background paper

Province of Gilgit Baltistan,

Three states of the North

Results and lessons learnt

Technical background paper

Table 2: Unweighted responses to modern slavery questions

Number answering yes to % answering yes

Est. number Population

Technical background paper

31,319 Ethiopians enslaved in Saudi Arabia

Technical background paper

Technical background paper

Appendix: Gallup survey instrument

Technical background paper

(If code 1 [Yes] to ANY in P5, P6, or P7, Continue;

Technical background paper

(If code 7, 8, or 9 in P8A, Skip to Read before P16;

Technical background paper

(INTERVIEWER: Ask P9-P15 for the first person the respondent

Technical background paper

Technical background paper

Technical background paper

Technical background paper

Technical background paper

Technical background paper

Technical background paper

Technical background paper

Technical background paper

Technical background paper

Technical background paper

(Skip to Read befor

Technical background paper

(If code 7, 8, or 9 in P17A, Skip to Read before FSU1/WP7216;

Technical background paper

(INTERVIEWER: Ask P18-P21 for the first person the respondent

Technical background paper

Technical background paper

(Interviewer: Repeat P18-P21 for each person mentioned in P17, and

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen