1/3/2018 FY 14: Gender-based violence among stateless and national populations in Cote d'Ivoire Despite demographic differences between stateless and national participants, there were no differences in terms of lifetime GBV victimization or perpetration. Violence victimization was generally high: one-third of women experienced violence during childhood, 40% reported lifetime physical or sexual IPV, and 20% reported lifetime physical or sexual non-partner violence during adulthood, with no differences by stateless or nationality status. Experiences of violence victimization were generally correlated with experiences of statelessness, as stateless women who reported any lifetime experience of violence were more likely to be to have seasonal or infrequent employment and have ever been married without their consent, relative to those without lifetime experiences of violence. Similarly, 49% of men reported any violence victimization during childhood and 25% reported any physical or sexual violence victimization during adulthood, with no difference by nationality status. While there was no statistically significant difference, stateless men who report lifetime violence victimization tended to report being employed in seasonal or infrequent jobs and having a partner who used alcohol. One-quarter of men reported lifetime physical or sexual IPV perpetration and 6% reported any physical or sexual violence against a woman who was not their partner/spouse, but IPV and non-partner violence perpetration was not associated with statelessness or nationality status. Limited data prohibited an assessment of whether there were significant differences in access to care among stateless and national population. However, significant differences in access to care did exist between the two populations, suggesting these same issues would translate to care for experiences of GBV. Stateless men and women were more likely to report difficulty getting money for medical advice or treatment, be inhibited by distance to health facilities, and to report concerns about deportation when accessing healthcare relative to national populations, suggesting critical barriers to use of health services. The findings presented in this study show marked similarities and differences when compared to a recent and related survey of GBV among national and stateless populations in the Dominican Republic. In the Dominican Republic, statelessness has emerged recently due to the reinterpretation of laws pertaining to citizenship of children born to immigrants, which has rendered stateless a large population of Dominicans of Haitian descent. Though the mechanisms of statelessness are different, findings from both studies from Cote d’Ivoire and the Dominican Republic highlight significant disparities in basic rights, such as access to education, register children as nationals, open a bank account, legally marry and divorce, purchase land and/or housing, and gain legal, formal employment. A stark contrast, however, was the difference in the relative prevalence of GBV; in the Dominican Republic, stateless women were more likely to experience gender-based violence as children or adults than national women, whereas in Cote d’Ivoire, such a difference did not exist. This is surprising, given that other studies of women living in displacement or as immigrants tend to have higher risk of GBV than their national counterparts. It may be a valid finding that stateless women in Cote d’Ivoire are at equal risk of GBV or it may an artifact of under-reporting of GBV by minority women who are concerned about potential outcomes of reporting GBV. Nonetheless, both studies found that stateless women who experience GBV have low access to healthcare and protection services. Also noteworthy was the finding that stateless persons in both countries reported avoiding healthcare because of fear of deportation, despite the fact that stateless persons in Cote d’Ivoire are reportedly not at risk of deportation. Ultimately, GBV is high in both countries and access to appropriate services to address GBV among stateless persons is exceedingly limited. Limitations: These study findings should be interpreted in light of several limitations. First, the majority of persons encountered during the survey were at-risk for stateless rather than truly stateless. The at-risk for statelessness faced a myriad of obstacles that prevented them from obtaining their documents, namely: unable to afford to fees associated with processing birth certificate and/or nationality certificates; not aware of the importance of having legal documents; did not know how or where to go to register for documentations; and not having the proper documentations from their parents to show proof of citizenship. As this study is focused on stateless persons and not on at-risk populations, we have dedicated a significant effort to maximize our chances to obtain the desired sample for the study by: committing more time on the field for data collection; traveling to remote locations where stateless persons are known to reside; and reaching out to key stakeholders (regional prefects/sub-prefects, village leaders and community leader before the survey and during the survey) to raise awareness of the study to inform the target population to be available for the study. Second, we conducted household sampling in the context of multiple challenges. At the time of the survey, there were observations of recent governmental officials forced relocation of stateless persons living in or near one the largest national parks in the region, Marahoue National Park. There were significant rumors and confusion of potential deportation of stateless person by governmental officials. Community members sometimes indicated concern that the study team might have been sent by immigration officials. As a result, this made the sampling difficult due to fear among the target population. We aimed to overcome this by ensuring all data that were collected were anonymous and working with local promoters and community members to explain the purpose of the study. Hiring of staff that were from the area and who spoke the same local dialect and understood the situations faced by the communities also helped to improve response rates. Third, we collected data during the daytime to ensure staff safety. This, however, reduced our response rates among men, who were often out of the house during the daytime for work in the plantations. This also reduced our response rate of women of Muslim religious background, which prohibited them from speaking to anyone not from the community without the permission of the husband, a large number of whom were not available during the daytime hours of the survey work. Conducting data collection during the weekends, however, facilitated recruitment of more male and female participants. Fourth, some locations where stateless persons are known to reside are in remote localities near the border of Liberia are difficult to access to road conditions that are not passable. Finally, no sampling frame exists for stateless persons in Cote d’Ivoire that would allow for probability-based sampling, which would provide representative GBV prevalence estimates. We overcame this challenge by collecting data among stateless and neighborhood-matched national persons who were residing in the same areas. This matched approach to sampling allowed us to control for unmeasured confounders related to socio-economic status and geographic distances of stateless and national participants. Further, the sample size was powered to detect difference in GBV experience by nationality status, but was not powered to assesses differences in terms of access to healthcare for GBV, which are reported by smaller numbers of individuals. However, significant differences in terms of general access to healthcare were observed and likely translate to care for GBV among stateless women and men. Conclusions and recommendations: https://www.state.gov/j/prm/policyissues/prmfund/276832.htm 11/27