For seven organisations/groups the contact details were out of date, so for example the phone number was no longer active or the organisation was no longer located at the given address.
One organisation returned the letter inviting them to participate in the study. It is unknown whether the letter was returned due to re-location of organisation, or the closure of the organisation, or some other reason.
The main reason why a large number (18) of the selected organisations were unable to be interviewed for the mapping survey was because the researcher was unable to establish contact with the appropriate person (despite numerous attempts) within the timeframe of the project. This was either because the appropriate contact was not available when calls were made or simply because no response to the initial invitation was ever received.
Upon contact nine of the organisations/groups stated that they were unable or did not wish to be involved in the study. Five organisations/groups stated that time constraints of their work prevented them from becoming involved in the study. For four organisations, the contact person felt that the study was not relevant to them or the communities within which they worked, as they reported that forced marriage was not an issue for their communities.
The remaining six organisations/groups that were contacted gave a positive response to the questionnaire stating their wish to be involved. However mitigating circumstances (e.g. person unavailable at agreed time due to workload, named person going on maternity leave) meant that the interviews were never completed.
Tower Hamlets and Birmingham
42 agencies were contacted in Tower Hamlets, of which interviews were conducted with 30 organisations. 33 organisations were contacted in Birmingham, of which interviews were conducted with 25. The mechanisms for drawing up the sample were similar to those used in Manchester, although it proved easier to obtain the Tower Hamlets and Birmingham samples than that in Manchester. The reasons for non response in Tower Hamlets and Birmingham were again similar to Manchester and included the following:
Refused to participate because claimed that study did not fall within its remit (3)
Refused to participate because of lack of time (2)
Relevant person not available to speak (1)
No reason given for refusal (5)
1 Marianne Hester is Project Manager for the research, Khatidja Chantler and Geetanjali Gangoli are co-ordinators of the Manchester and Bristol teams respectively and are listed alphabetically. The other researchers and advisers are listed alphabetically. Dr Melanie McCarry and Dr Nicole Westmarland contributed to the first phase of the research.
2 Belgium, Sweden and Latvia also have 18 as the minimum age of a sponsor or spouse entering the country.
4 See Appendix 4, Table 1. Passengers given leave to enter the United Kingdom as husbands (1), wives (1) or for marriage, Indian sub-continent, 2003-2005, Source: Home Office.
5 We have chosen to ‘name’ the survivors interviewed by identifiers that indicate the location of the interview and gender of the individual. Thus MW1 = woman interviewed in Manchester; THW1= woman interviewed in Tower Hamlets; THM1 = man interviewed in Tower Hamlets; BRW1 = woman interviewed in Birmingham; BRM1 = man interviewed in Birmingham.
6 See footnote 4 for key to identifiers.
7 This experience is of course consistent with that of women survivors of domestic violence who are not always able to articulate their experiences as abuse at the point when they are experiencing it.
8 Fleeing within the country of origin would not have been possible as women are not allowed to work, or to obtain a flat without signed permission from either the husband or father.
9 34 of the 38 survivors interviewed answered this question.
11 The Danish Government has recently implemented a similar set of resource intensive measures, with the commitment of DKr 5 million per annum (equivalent to £5 million per annum in the UK when exchange rates and relative population size are taken into account).
12 This included a suggestion of access to airport staff who may be able to prevent a journey from taking place at the last minute.