U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

National Institute of Justice

Historical Overview of U.S. Policy and Legislative 

Responses to Honor-Based Violence, Forced Marriage, 

and Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting 

Marieke Brock, Researcher

Emma Buckthal, Attorney Advisor

September 2018

A Report Prepared by the Federal Research Division, Library of Congress, Under an Interagency Agreement with 

the Office of the Director, National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

NCJ 252841
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs

810 Seventh St. N.W. 

Washington, DC 20531

David B. Muhlhausen, Ph.D.

Director, National Institute of Justice

This and other publications and products of the National Institute of Justice can be found at:

National Institute of Justice

Strengthen Science • Advance Justice

nij.ojp.gov

Office of Justice Programs

Building Solutions • Supporting Communities • Advancing Justice

OJP.gov

The National Institute of Justice is the research, development, and evaluation agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. NIJ’s 

mission is to advance scientific research, development, and evaluation to enhance the administration of justice and public safety.

The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice 

Assistance; the Bureau of Justice Statistics; the Office for Victims of Crime; the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention; and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking.

Opinions or conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position or 

policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

               

   

Historical Overview of U.S. Policy and Legislative

Responses to Honor‐Based Violence, Forced Marriage,

and Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting

A Report Prepared by the 

Federal Research Division, Library of Congress, 

Under an Interagency Agreement with the 

Office of the Director, National Institute of Justice, 

Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice 

September 2018 

Researcher: Marieke Brock

Attorney Advisor: Emma Buckthal

70 Years of Research Services to the Federal Government

1948 – 2018
   

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Preface 

0. PREFACE

Within the U.S. Department of Justice, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is the research, 

development, and evaluation agency tasked with responding to administration priorities, as well 

as providing the criminal justice community with accurate, qualitative, and quantitative research.

In addition to these analytical efforts, NIJ funds the creation of field tools and technology that 

may help reduce crime, mitigate recidivism, and promote justice. In the summer of 2018, NIJ 

contracted the Federal Research Division (FRD) within the Library of Congress for research and 

analytical support to aid its response to Section 11 of Executive Order 13780, Protecting the 

Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, which was issued on March 6, 2017, 

by President Donald J. Trump. This particular section directs the government to increase its 

transparency with the American people and to improve its policies and procedures by collecting 

(and making public) information on the numbers and types of acts of gender-based violence, 

including so-called “honor killings,” by foreign nationals living in the United States. 

The goal of this report is to support law enforcement’s ability to understand and accurately 

identify acts of gender-based violence in the United States that are rooted in cultural practices. 

This report represents a high-level analysis, comprising a concise global historical perspective 

of the practices that promulgate honor-based violence, forced marriage, and female genital 

mutilation/cutting; a current snapshot of gender-based violence in the United States; and an 

overview of existing responses to these forms of violence across the federal government. 

The analysis in this report is based on a literature review of peer-reviewed research published in 

current periodicals and scholarly journals, as well as online. Additional resources include reports, 

trainings, and websites published by advocacy groups, national governments, and international 

organizations. The main body of the report, which lays out the research findings by the type of 

violence and lists current government efforts, is followed by a series of appendices that support 

its contents. 

FRD provides customized research and analytical services on domestic and international topics 

to agencies of the U.S. government, the District of Columbia, and authorized federal contractors 

on a cost-recovery basis. This report represents an independent analysis by FRD and the author, 

who sought to adhere to accepted standards of scholarly objectivity. It should not be considered 

an expression of an official U.S. government position, policy, or decision.

This project was supported by Contract No. DJO-NIJ-18-RO-0111 awarded by the National 

Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, 

and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author and 

do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice. 

Federal Research Division 1 
   

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Tables of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS
 

0. PREFACE......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 

1. KEY FINDINGS .............................................................................................................................................................. 6 

1.1. General ................................................................................................................................................................... 6 

1.2. Honor-Based Violence...................................................................................................................................... 6 

1.3. Forced Marriage.................................................................................................................................................. 7 

1.4. Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting .............................................................................................................. 7 

1.5. Overview of Approaches in the United States ........................................................................................ 7 

2. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................... 9 

3. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND DEFINITIONS .......................................................................................... 10 

4. HONOR-BASED VIOLENCE ................................................................................................................................... 12 

4.1. In the United States........................................................................................................................................ 15 

4.2. Legislative Responses .................................................................................................................................... 16 

5. FORCED MARRIAGE................................................................................................................................................. 17 

5.1. In the United States........................................................................................................................................ 20 

5.2. Legislative Responses .................................................................................................................................... 22 

6. FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION/CUTTING ...................................................................................................... 23 

6.1. In the United States........................................................................................................................................ 26 

6.2. Legislative Responses .................................................................................................................................... 29 

7. OVERVIEW OF APPROACHES IN THE UNITED STATES ..............................................................................31 

7.1. Health Sector .................................................................................................................................................... 32 

7.1.1. Policy and Resources .............................................................................................................................. 32 

7.1.2. Activities and Initiatives ......................................................................................................................... 32 

7.1.3. Training ........................................................................................................................................................ 33 

7.1.4. Data Collection .......................................................................................................................................... 33 

7.2. Education Sector.............................................................................................................................................. 33 

7.2.1. Policy and Resources .............................................................................................................................. 33 

7.2.2. Activities and Initiatives ......................................................................................................................... 33 

7.2.3. Training ........................................................................................................................................................ 34 

7.2.4. Data Collection .......................................................................................................................................... 34 

7.3. Social Services Sector .................................................................................................................................... 34 

7.3.1. Policy and Resources .............................................................................................................................. 34 

7.3.2. Activities and Initiatives ......................................................................................................................... 34 

7.3.3. Training ........................................................................................................................................................ 35 

7.3.4. Data Collection .......................................................................................................................................... 36 

7.4. Criminal Justice Sector .................................................................................................................................. 36 

Federal Research Division 2 
7.4.1. Policy and Resources .............................................................................................................................. 36 

7.4.2. Activities and Initiatives ......................................................................................................................... 37 

7.4.3. Training ........................................................................................................................................................ 38 

7.4.4. Data Collection .......................................................................................................................................... 38 

8. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................................ 39 

9. APPENDIX I. Overview of Approaches in Select Destinations .................................................................40 

9.1. Honor-Based Violence and Forced Marriage ....................................................................................... 40 

9.2. Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting ........................................................................................................... 43 

10. APPENDIX II. Baseline Data for Select Destinations .................................................................................. 46 

10.1. Honor-Based Violence ................................................................................................................................ 46 

10.2. Forced Marriage ............................................................................................................................................ 47 

10.3. Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting ......................................................................................................... 49 

11. APPENDIX III. International/Regional Laws Specifically Addressing Violence against 

Women.............................................................................................................................................................................. 51 

12. APPENDIX IV. State Laws Specifically Addressing Forced Marriage...................................................56 

13. APPENDIX V. State Laws Specifically Addressing Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting ................58 

14. APPENDIX VI. Warning Signs of Forced Marriage ..................................................................................... 62 

15. APPENDIX VII. Recommended Practices for Interviewing Victims of Honor-Based 

Violence ............................................................................................................................................................................ 63 

16. APPENDIX VIII. Recommended Practices for Interviewing Victims of Female Genital 

Mutilation/Cutting ........................................................................................................................................................ 65 

17. APPENDIX IX. Training Resources in the United States........................................................................... 66 

17.1. Honor-Based Violence ................................................................................................................................ 66 

17.2. Forced Marriage ............................................................................................................................................ 66 

17.3. Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting ......................................................................................................... 67 

18. APPENDIX X. Additional Resources on Canadian, U.K., and U.S. Approaches................................69 

18.1. Honor-Based Violence ................................................................................................................................ 69 

18.2. Forced Marriage ............................................................................................................................................ 69 

17.8. Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting ......................................................................................................... 70 

19. REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................................. 71 

20. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................................................................... 76 

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Regions/Countries with a High Prevalence of Honor-Based Violence.................................. 14 

Figure 2. Global Prevalence of Forced Marriage .............................................................................................. 19 

Figure 3. Top Origins for Victims/Perpetrators of Forced Marriage in Germany and 

the United Kingdom.................................................................................................................................................... 20 

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Tables of Contents 

Federal Research Division 3 
Figure 4. Prevalence of FGM/C in African and Middle Eastern Countries .............................................. 25 

Figure 5. Prevalence of FGM/C in Senegal ......................................................................................................... 26 

Figure 6. Highest State Populations at Risk of FGM/C .................................................................................. 27 

Figure 7. Highest State Populations at Risk of FGM/C as Percentage of Total 

At-Risk Population....................................................................................................................................................... 28 

Figure 8. Evaluation of State Laws Specifically Addressing FGM/C .......................................................... 30 

Figure 9. Interaction of Victims’ Social and Potential Support Systems .................................................. 31 

Figure 10. Warning Signs of Forced Marriage .................................................................................................. 62 

Figure 11. Recommendations for Interviewing Victims of Honor-Based Violence ............................. 63 

Figure 12. Recommendations for Recording Incidents of Honor-Based Violence .............................. 64 

TABLE OF TABLES

Table 1. Services Provided by National/Local Advocacy Organizations .................................................. 35 

Table 2. Top Destinations for Immigrants from Select Countries with a High Prevalence 

of Honor-Based Violence .......................................................................................................................................... 41 

Table 3. Top Destinations for Immigrants from Select Countries with a High Prevalence 

of Forced Marriage ...................................................................................................................................................... 41 

Table 4. Top Destinations for Immigrants from Select Countries with a High Prevalence 

of FGM/C......................................................................................................................................................................... 44 

Table 5. Prosecutions/Convictions of FGM/C Cases in Europe ................................................................... 44 

Table 6. Top Origins for Immigrants from Select Countries with a High Prevalence of 

Honor-Based Violence Settling in the United States ...................................................................................... 46 

Table 7. Top Origins for Immigrants from Select Countries with a High Prevalence of 

Honor-Based Violence Settling in Germany ...................................................................................................... 47 

Table 8. Top Origins for Immigrants from Select Countries with a High Prevalence of 

Honor-Based Violence Settling in the United Kingdom ............................................................................... 47 

Table 9. Top Origins for Immigrants from Select Countries with a High Prevalence of 

Honor-Based Violence Settling in France ........................................................................................................... 47 

Table 10. Top Origins for Immigrants from Select Countries with a High Prevalence of 

Forced Marriage Settling in the United States.................................................................................................. 48 

Table 11. Top Origins for Immigrants from Select Countries with a High Prevalence of 

Forced Marriage Settling in the United Kingdom ........................................................................................... 48 

Table 12. Top Origins for Immigrants from Select Countries with a High Prevalence of 

Forced Marriage Settling in Italy............................................................................................................................ 48 

Table 13. Top Origins for Immigrants from Select Countries with a High Prevalence of 

Forced Marriage Settling in France ....................................................................................................................... 49 

Table 14. Top Origins for Immigrants from Select Countries with a High Prevalence of 

FGM/C Settling in the United States..................................................................................................................... 49 

Table 15. Top Origins for Immigrants from Select Countries with a High Prevalence of 

FGM/C Settling in the United Kingdom ............................................................................................................... 49 

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Tables of Contents 

Federal Research Division 4 
Table 16. Top Origins for Immigrants from Select Countries with a High Prevalence 

of FGM/C Settling in Italy.......................................................................................................................................... 50 

Table 17. Top Origins for Immigrants from Select Countries with a High Prevalence 

of FGM/C Settling in France..................................................................................................................................... 50 

Table 18. Regional Laws Specifically Addressing Gender-Based Violence ............................................. 55 

Table 19. State Laws Specifically Addressing Forced Marriage .................................................................. 56 

Table 20. State Laws Specifically Addressing FGM/C ..................................................................................... 58 

Table 21. Recommendations for Interviewing Victims of FGM/C .............................................................. 65 

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Tables of Contents 

Federal Research Division 5 
1. KEY FINDINGS

1.1. General







Honor-based violence can occur as domestic, psychological, or sexual abuse; acid attacks 

or another kind of disfigurement; forced abortion, marriage, or suicide; female genital 

mutilation/cutting (FGM/C); blackmail; death threats; assault; or captivity. This type of 

violence is often committed collectively by multiple perpetrators and condoned by the 

community. Although these acts are usually carried out by men, women can be involved 

either tacitly or actively. Typically, women and girls are the targets of the violence. 

Honor-based violence is not associated with any one religion. 

–	 Although it is prevalent in Muslim-majority countries in Africa, the Middle East, 

and South Asia, honor-based violence predates Islam and does not exist solely 

among Muslims. 

–	 Honor killings are also reported among Christians, Hindus, and Sikhs; forced 

marriages are also practiced by Hindus and Sikhs; and FGM/C is conducted by 

Christians, Jews, and adherents of traditional African religions. 

In cultures with unwritten honor codes, men’s honor can be acquired and augmented. 

Yet with women’s honor tied to their chastity before marriage and fidelity after, women 

can only lose honor. This honor is lost through the violation of societal rules/norms or 

by becoming the object of gossip. 

1.2. Honor‐Based Violence











Honor-based violence is traditionally practiced in parts of Africa and Asia, as well as 

in some Middle Eastern and European countries. 

Honor killings are often a last resort. Sometimes staged as accidents or suicides, 

these concealed homicides/forced suicides are difficult to investigate. 

Evidence-based knowledge about honor crimes is hampered by a lack of empirical data. 

For example, it is currently unknown whether honor killings are more or less frequent 

among immigrant communities in industrialized nations as compared to their countries 

of origin. It is also unknown whether and how these honor codes weaken during the 

acculturation process following migration to the United States. 

Research on honor crimes in the United States is scant, but available data suggest that 

they are more likely to involve fathers and intimate partners than other male relatives. 

This stands in contrast to situations in origin countries where a brother is more likely to 

commit a violent crime on behalf of the family. 

At this time, the United States has no federal or state law addressing honor-based 

violence as a crime distinct from other types of assault, abuse, or homicide. However, 

some prosecutors have attempted to use honor as an illustration of motive in premeditated crimes. 

Responses to Gender-Based Violence	 Key Findings 

Federal Research Division 6 
1.3. Forced Marriage











Many behavior indicators of forced marriage resemble those of domestic violence. 

Little research has been carried out on forced marriage in the United States; nearly all 

studies to date are from Europe, where the issue is widely recognized and a number of 

countries have enacted legislation against it. 

A lack of legal protections against violence and an insufficient availability of social 

services were factors in the decision to marry among a group of young, female African 

immigrants in New York City. The girls reported facing immense pressure from their 

parents, guardians, friends, and extended families, and ultimately felt they had no other 

option. 

There is no federal law addressing forced marriage in the United States. 

Though ten U.S. states and one territory have passed criminal laws addressing forced 

marriage, these laws are problematic as they fail to address the complicated dynamics 

and subtly coercive nature of forced marriage, hold the variety of perpetrators involved 

accountable, and empower the authorities to intervene before the marriage takes place. 

1.4. Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting









FGM/C occurs in at least 30 countries but is most prevalent in the eastern, northeastern, 

and western regions of Africa. Eight countries in particular have prevalence rates greater 

than 85 percent: Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Guinea, Mali, Sierra Leone, Somalia, and Sudan. 

The extended family is typically involved in decision-making about FGM/C, but unlike 

other forms of honor-based violence, it is the women who are responsible for making 

the practical arrangements. 

No data exist on the number of U.S. residents who have undergone the procedure, either 

in the United States or abroad, in any given year. However, immigration data show that 

40 percent of the at-risk population lives in five metro areas: Los Angeles, Minneapolis– 

St. Paul, New York, Seattle, and Washington, DC. 

The United States has federal legislation against the practice of FGM/C, as do 27 states. 

–	 Michigan is the only state to be recognized as having a strong law based on its 

holistic approach that includes educational initiatives for communities, teachers, 

and law enforcement professionals. 

1.5. Overview of Approaches in the United States

 At the federal level, all health-sector programs are currently focused on addressing 

FGM/C. 

–	 One government agency has developed training for health professionals on 

FGM/C while several NGOs have developed trainings for honor-based violence, 

forced marriage, and FGM/C. 

Responses to Gender-Based Violence	 Key Findings 

Federal Research Division 7 






In the education sector, no federal-level programs exist to address any form of honorbased violence, but NGOs have developed trainings and guidance on forced marriage 

and FGM/C for education professionals. 

Several national social services organizations work directly with victims and potential 

victims of forced marriage and FGM/C. These organizations also interface with law 

enforcement professionals and policymakers. The trainings currently available in this 

sector address honor-based violence, forced marriage, and FGM/C. 

Most activities at the federal level within the criminal justice and immigration sector 

address FGM/C, but some agencies also have regulations or initiatives specific to 

forced marriage and other forms of domestic violence that can be honor-based. 

Trainings designed for law enforcement professionals address this violence, forced 

marriage, and FGM/C. 

Responses to Gender-Based Violence	 Key Findings 

Federal Research Division 8 
Responses to Gender-Based Violence Introduction 

2. INTRODUCTION

In an effort to help improve criminal justice professionals’ ability to understand and accurately 

identify incidents of gender-based violence in the United States that are rooted in the cultural 

practices of particular immigrant communities, this report provides an overview of honor-based 

violence, forced marriage, and female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C). It begins with a 

concise global history of these three interrelated practices, a description of how they are 

typically carried out in the modern era, and a snapshot of what is known about these practices 

in the United States. In order to effectively describe these practices, the report includes a general 

overview of the concept of honor and its protection. A set of definitions is provided. 

Additionally, this report briefly describes the experiences of other industrialized nations that 

regularly receive immigrants from countries where communities of people practice these types 

of violence. The inclusion of this discussion is intended to provide a benchmark against which 

the United States can measure and develop its own response. This report also emphasizes the 

multi-sectoral response typically necessary for prevention and intervention, and is intended to 

assist collaborations between those in the criminal justice and immigration field and other 

professionals working in health, education, and social services. 

Given the report’s focus on the policy and legislative responses to honor-based violence, forced 

marriage, and FGM/C within the United States, the information on the various approaches used 

by these countries is described in section 9, appendix I. In particular, the author compares and 

contrasts the experiences of Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. This section 

is set against a backdrop of immigration data analyzed by the author, who looked at specific 

populations within specific nations (see section 10, appendix II). 

Along with these approaches, the appendices detail the relevant international and regional laws 

addressing violence against women, as well as the state laws that focus on forced marriage and 

FGM/C (see sections 11–13, appendices III–V). There is also guidance on identifying victims of 

forced marriage and recommended practices for interviewing victims of honor-based violence 

and FGM/C (see sections 14–16, appendices VI–VIII). The author further provides a list of current 

training resources in the United States, as well as materials on Canadian and U.K. activities that 

may inform future U.S. efforts (see sections 17–18, appendices IX–X). 

Federal Research Division 9 
   

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Historical Background and Definitions 

3. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND DEFINITIONS

The concept of honor varies widely across cultures, but one shared characteristic is its link to the 

collective. Honor is engrained in the norms and values of each particular community, meaning it 

represents the entire family, clan, or tribe, rather than the individual.1 This contrasts sharply with 

other cultural tendencies that emphasize individualism and personal rights. In societies where 

perceptions of individuals are conceived within the context of their roles in an extended family 

or community, girls are socialized to be obedient, whereas boys are socialized to monitor the 

behavior of women and girls.2 An exception to this male-centered collective gatekeeping is 

found in FGM/C-practicing societies, where older women, rather than men or boys, ensure the 

continuation of this particular practice.3 

The defense of this collective honor can 

become violent and result in death, but 

honor-related violence does not always 

manifest in physical ways (see sidebar). 

Honor-based violence, which is different 

from other forms of gender-based or 

intimate partner violence, aims to 

preserve cultural, religious, or social 

norms or traditions. It therefore most 

often manifests as forms of control over 

women and girls. Moreover, honor-based 

violence is often deliberate, committed 

collectively, and condoned by the community. It typically involves multiple perpetrators and 

though it is usually carried out by male members of the family or community, women can be 

involved either tacitly or actively. Women and girls are most often the targets of this violence; 

occasionally men and boys are victims too. However, female-on-male violence is rare. 

Scholars outside practicing communities conceptualize honor-based violence as a crime in 

a variety of ways: a means of preserving power among men, a manifestation of patriarchal 

systems, a mechanism to control women’s sexual purity and behavior, a violation of human 

rights, a non-legal punishment, a health problem, and a moral dilemma. Research also reveals 

that honor-based violence cannot be associated with any one religion and that no reason exists 

to associate religiosity with such acts. Although prevalent in Muslim-majority countries in Africa, 

the Middle East, and South Asia, this type of violence predates Islam and exists among followers 

of other world religions. For example, honor killings are also reported by Christians, Hindus, and 

Sikhs; forced marriages are also practiced by Hindus and Sikhs; and FGM/C is conducted by 

Christians, Jews, and adherents of traditional African religions.4 

Some scholars emphasize that relying on cultural explanations of honor-based violence is 

problematic because it stigmatizes communities.5 Additionally, in the realm of domestic and

intimate partner violence, confusing culture with patriarchy should be avoided as the latter 

varies between cultures. For example, dowries, FGM/C, female infanticide, foot-binding,

Honor‐based violence can occur as domestic,

psychological, or sexual abuse; acid attacks or

another kind of disfigurement; forced abortion,

marriage, or suicide; female genital mutilation/

cutting; blackmail; death threats; assault; or

captivity. Killing under the pretext of honor is  

an extreme form of honor‐based violence.

Bhanbhro, Cronin de Chavez, and Lusambili, “Honour Based

Violence,” 202–3.

Federal Research Division 10 
                                                           

Responses to Gender-Based Violence	 Historical Background and Definitions 

polygamy, marriage by capture, and the forced use of purdah* are patriarchal customs, not 

culture.6 Yet it is a challenge to strike the delicate balance between respecting a group’s right 

to maintain its cultural identity and traditions while protecting individual group members from 

human rights violations perpetrated in the name of faith and tradition. As one victim of forced 

marriage notes, “Cultural acceptance does not mean this is acceptable. It’s not part of my or 

anyone’s culture to be abused.”7 

Further complicating matters, the terms used to describe honor-based violence can be as varied 

in meaning as the conceptualizations and explanations. For the purposes of this report, the 

following terms are defined as: 



















Honor, Honor-Based, and Honor-Related Violence. A collection of practices used to 

control behavior within families or other social groups to protect perceived cultural or 

religious values or honor systems. Such violence can occur when perpetrators believe a 

relative or group member has shamed the family/community by violating certain norms. 

Honor Killing. A homicide motivated by the perpetrator’s belief that the victim has 

brought shame or dishonor upon the family for violating perceived cultural/religious 

values or honor systems. 

Forced Suicide. A suicide that is the result of outside pressure or homicides that are 

staged to appear as suicides. 

Domestic Violence. Any crime of violence committed by a current/former spouse or 

intimate partner, parent of a child in common, or other person protected by the family 

violence laws of the relevant jurisdiction. 

Gender-Based Violence. Violence resulting from power inequalities based on gender 

roles, which is almost always perpetrated against women and girls. This kind of violence 

results or is likely to result in physical, psychological, or sexual harm. 

Culture-Based Violence. The justification or legitimization of direct or structural 

violence based on cultural and societal aspects, such as religion and ideology. Genderbased violence can occur within culture-based violence, but culture-based violence is not 

gender-focused. 

Forced Marriage. A marriage conducted without the consent of one or both parties 

where duress is a factor. 

Arranged Marriage. A marriage in which both parties consent to family or third-party 

assistance in choosing a spouse. 

Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C). The cultural practice of partially or 

completely removing the external genitalia of women and girls for non-medical reasons. 

Some scholars prefer to use “female circumcision” or “female genital cutting” as ways to 

address the topic in a more neutral fashion. 

*

 Purdah is the Hindu and Islamic practice of gender segregation—women often live in separate quarters, avoid 

contact with men who are not their relatives, and wear enveloping clothing, such as head scarves and veils, to 

conceal themselves while in public. 

Federal Research Division 11 
 

 

                                                            

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Honor-Based Violence

4. HONOR‐BASED VIOLENCE

Honor-based violence is a means of addressing a range of perceived dishonorable acts and 

behaviors, such as pre-marital sex, pregnancy out of wedlock, adultery, homosexuality, and 

incest, as well as marrying without parental consent or marrying outside the community.8 The 

practice dates back to Babylonian times when, in 1750 BCE, the Code of Hammurabi made a 

woman’s virginity the property of her entire family.9 

Three core beliefs are at the heart of honor-based violence: the family’s reputation, status, and 

image (i.e., its honor) are of utmost importance; the behavior of female family members has a 

direct impact on that honor; and if a woman or girl is perceived to be acting in a way that could 

bring shame on the family, she must be punished for the family to regain or preserve its honor. 

Depending on the transgression, she may be shunned by her family or community, or held in 

isolation and treated violently until her family believes its honor has been restored. In some 

cases, this honor does not return until the victim is killed.10 

A defining characteristic of honor killings is the legitimacy gained through collective support. 

Perpetrators do not typically express remorse because they, and the community, believe they 

are justified in the abuse. That belief separates this type of homicide from most intimate partner 

killings.11 However, honor killings are a subset of violence against women and do share some 

attributes with domestic abuse. Unlike more typical intimate partner assaults, however, honorbased violence is often carried out by more than one individual through “a group campaign of 

harassment and violence.”12 

Although a majority or plurality of the individuals living in regions that practice honor-based 

violence are Muslim, these killings predate Islam and represent extra-judicial punishment. They 

are not a part of Sharia law. Moreover, this type of violence also occurs among non-Muslims, 

including Christians in Middle Eastern countries and Sikhs in India and the West.13 However, 

some people have used passages from the Quran to justify certain behaviors related to honor 

violence.* 

These religious-based justifications can lead women to condone belief systems that can be 

interpreted as supporting honor violence, of which they are the primary victims. For example, a 

study in Turkey found that within cultures of honor, women endorsing traditional gender roles 

and religious teachings that equate spiritual purity with submission to men are more likely to 

accept honor-based beliefs. Although men enforce the honor code, these values persist in part 

because of women’s endorsement.14 

Regardless of which family or community is espousing these honor-based beliefs, the violence 

follows certain trends: 

The majority of victims are women and girls, but men and boys can be victimized too.15 

* For example, some passages in the Quran define gender roles in ways that subjugate women. According to these

verses, women should obey their husbands and men are instructed to protect and provide for the female members

of their families.

Federal Research Division 12 
Likewise, though honor-based violence is typically perpetrated by male family members 

(e.g., fathers, uncles, and brothers), female family members may also engage in acts of 

violence against the victim.16 

Mothers, sisters, and other female relatives are rarely present for honor killings, but they 

may be involved in the decision or preparation of such an incident. 

The collective execution of the violence by family members is condoned and openly 

welcomed by the local community. In fact, communities exert strong social pressure on 

families to kill or ostracize transgressors, ultimately rewarding families by restoring their 

social prestige. This social approval reaches an institutional level in some communities 

with strong tribal structures, such as those in Iraqi Kurdistan and Pakistan. 

Tribal councils lend legitimacy to honor killings and protect perpetrators from police.17 

Practicing societies in parts of northern Africa and western and central Asia share the structural 

and cultural factors that gave rise to the perceived necessity of honor killing, the most extreme 

form of honor-based violence. These factors include: 

















Honor killings are often a last resort. Such killings

are sometimes staged as accidents or concealed as

suicides. Others are forced suicides connected to
 

family honor.
 

Oberwittler and Kasselt, “Honor Killings,” 655, 659.

Patriarchal control of women and their sexuality; however, it should be noted that 

this is also a core motive for other forms of gender-based violence. 

Economic, political, and social functions that are fulfilled by patrilineal family clans. 

Willingness and ability to carry out violence to defend one’s interest. 

Valuing women’s sexual purity as an economic benefit in marriage and an important 

symbol for the family in general.18 

Historically, in cultures operating with unwritten honor codes, failing to protect a woman’s purity
 

weakened the family’s stature. Societies were dominated by patrilineal, extended family clans 

with highly differentiated gender roles, and marriages were typically arranged. Within these 

environments, male honor could be acquired and augmented, but female honor—being tied to 

a woman’s chastity before marriage and fidelity after—could only be lost. This gender imbalance 

continues to exist, with a woman’s honor lost through rule violations or by becoming the object 

of gossip.19
 

Most honor code transgressions, 

however, do not lead to murder (see 

sidebar). Other sanctions are often used 

to mitigate the situation and preserve the 

family’s honor. For example, depending 

on the issue or how much the situation 

has escalated, available solutions include 

negotiated compensation; marriage, 

which is likely to be forced; detention at home; and ostracism from the community. 

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Honor-Based Violence 

Federal Research Division 13 
As shown in figure 1, these options are traditionally practiced in the following regions and 

countries: 









Africa (Morocco, Nigeria, Somalia, and Sudan).

Asia (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Iran, Nepal, Pakistan, Turkey,

and Uzbekistan).

Middle East (Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestinian Territories, Qatar,

Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen).

Europe (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Georgia).20 

                   

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Honor-Based Violence

Figure 1. Regions/Countries with a High Prevalence of Honor‐Based Violence

Source: Based on information from Bernard, Combating Honour Crimes in Europe, 11; Oberwittler and Kasselt, “Honor 

Killings,” 652. 

Some scholars also include European nations, like Spain, that border the Mediterranean Sea, 

as well as Latin and South American cultures for sharing basic features with honor cultures in 

the Middle East (e.g., valuing male toughness, avenging insults to reputation, and demanding 

female obedience, subordination, modesty, and sexual purity).21 Honor killings appear nonexistent in some countries (Oman) and less frequent in others (Algeria and Tunisia). However, 

the absence of reliable data makes it impossible to relate these variations to differences in 

cultural or structural conditions.22 

A number of European countries have also experienced honor crimes among their immigrant 

populations. The first cases were recorded in the 1960s and 1970s, coinciding with the first wave

of immigrants from Morocco and Turkey.23 A distinct feature of honor killings in Europe is the 

families’ strong link to their home regions/villages.24 Many immigrants seek to strengthen their 

community traditions after moving to a Western country, fearing that their children will move 

Federal Research Division 14 
 

 

       

 

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Honor-Based Violence

away from the model in which they themselves were raised. Arranged marriage is one of the 

most controversial customs for second-, third-, and fourth-generation immigrants, and a refusal 

to comply could be a factor in the increasing number of honor crimes in Europe.25 

At least one study, however, indicates that honor-based violence exists among specific groups 

of immigrant populations, such as those who were born in their countries of origin and are 

lower status or face difficulty integrating. A 2011 investigation in Germany, for example, found 

122 perpetrators of honor killings, 91 percent of whom were born outside Germany; 80 percent 

of those perpetrators were younger than 30. The killings were also limited to a marginalized 

“ethnic underclass” of low-status migrants with little education. Almost no cases involved betterintegrated, middle-class immigrant families.26 

In the contemporary era, U.N. Population Fund estimates from the year 2000 place the annual 

incidence of women and girls murdered in the name of honor at about 5,000. This oft-cited 

figure is both out of date and likely inaccurate. Victim advocates believe the number is at least 

four times higher. However, reliable country-level data do not exist, leaving researchers and 

NGOs to use newspaper reports to patch together data in order to estimate prevalence.27 

Because the scientific knowledge of honor crimes is hampered by a lack of empirical data, the 

potential for systematic analyses is very much restricted. For example, it is currently unknown 

whether honor killings are less frequent among expatriate immigrant communities than in their 

home countries. It is also unknown whether or how the honor code may lose its grip during the 

acculturation process following migration.28 

4.1. In the United States

Research on honor crimes in the United States is also lacking as academic studies on the subject 

typically focus on foreign cases. In an effort to help address this gap, researchers affiliated with 

the criminal justice programs of three U.S. universities published a study in 2016 attempting to 

look at all known honor crimes in the United States between January 1, 1990 and December 31, 

2014.29 The researchers’ methodology, however, highlights the pitfalls typically faced by those 

seeking to catalog this information. For example, they relied on the National Consortium for the 

Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism’s U.S. Extremist Crime Database, which may be 

biased toward a certain population of immigrants. Moreover, many of the identified cases may 

be instances of domestic violence couched in “honor” language by the perpetrator, rather than 

honor crimes carried out according to traditional norms. 

The researchers used open-source data captured within the database to explore whether an 

offender’s motivation was limited to a victim’s sexual behavior or if it included autonomy on 

the part of the victim, such as becoming too independent or westernized. To meet the team’s 

inclusion criteria, the victim must have been targeted for actual or perceived behavior deemed 

shameful by the perpetrator, such as wearing makeup, dating or having male friends, resisting 

a forced marriage, or seeking a divorce; the perpetrator must have been motivated by a need to 

protect/regain his own perceived lost honor or that of his family/community; and he must have 

believed the victim’s death would accomplish a social goal.30 

Federal Research Division 15 
   

 

 

 

 

 

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Honor-Based Violence

Between January 1990 and December 2014, the researchers identified 16 crimes that satisfied 

these criteria. These cases had 40 victims, largely because numerous extended family members 

were targeted along with the primary victim. The most frequent victim was a daughter, followed 

by a current wife, niece, or estranged wife.31 Nine cases resulted in the deaths of children by a 

father or stepfather. The motivation in five of those instances was the daughter’s behavior— 

becoming too westernized, resisting an arranged marriage, and dating a non-Muslim. In the 

remaining four cases, children were murdered because of their mother’s behavior. 

Other cases involved a man murdering his estranged wife because their daughter was dating a 

non-Muslim, not because of the marital separation; a man murdering his pregnant wife, as well 

as his mother- and sister-in-law, as the wife refused to convert to Islam; and a man murdering 

his mother, two nieces, infant son, and pregnant wife because they disrespected him by not 

converting to Islam with him.32 

According to this study, honor crimes in the United States—such as the 2009 death of Noor 

Almaleki (see textbox)—are more likely to involve fathers and intimate partners as perpetrators 

than other male relatives, which differs from the situation in some origin countries. For example, 

brothers did not commit any of these honor killings, yet in Jordan they account for 60 percent 

of perpetrators. Prior research has shown that extended family members are actively involved in 

carrying out honor crimes, but this study found that in the United States, the extended family is 

more likely to be victimized.33 

4.2. Legislative Responses

No federal or state law currently exists addressing honor violence as a crime distinct from other 

types of assault, abuse, or homicide. 

Prosecuting an Honor Crime: The Death of Noor Almaleki 

Noor Almaleki arrived in the United States from Iraq with her family at age four and grew up in Phoenix, 

Arizona. In October 2009, her father, Faleh Almaleki, ran down Noor and her friend, 43-year-old Amal 

Khalaf, in a parking lot with his SUV. Noor died from her injuries in November 2009; Amal survived. 

Noor’s father expected her to obey his orders or risk beatings. He considered it inappropriate for her to 

socialize with boys, wear jeans, or post photos of herself on social media. The family tried unsuccessfully 

to arrange a marriage between Noor and a relative in Iraq, and after her 20th birthday, she moved out of 

the family home. Her parents harassed her until she returned. Noor then ran away to stay with Amal, a 

long-time family friend, and began dating Amal’s son. 

After her death, Noor’s father was charged with first-degree murder, aggravated assault, and leaving the 

scene of a serious injury accident. Prosecutors argued for first-degree murder on the basis that Noor’s 

death was premeditated as an honor killing. However, the jury found Faleh guilty of the lesser charge of 

second-degree murder. He was sentenced to 34 1⁄2 years in prison for killing Noor and gravely injuring 

Amal. 

Source: CBS News, “Was Noor Almaleki the Victim of an Honor Killing?”; Pesta, “An American Honor Killing.” 

Federal Research Division 16 
   

 

 

Responses to Gender-Based Violence	 Forced Marriage 

5. FORCED MARRIAGE

Forced marriage occurs when a marriage is conducted without the consent of one or both 

parties and duress is a factor.34 It is often conflated with arranged marriage but in that tradition, 

both parties freely consent (unless at least one party is still a minor) to receive assistance from 

family members or third parties in identifying a prospective spouse and the ultimate decision 

about whether, when, and whom to marry rests entirely with the bride and groom.35 When child 

marriages (unions where one or both parties is not yet 18) are arranged, they are essentially 

forced because minors are unable to give consent.36

The line between arranged and forced 

marriage, however, can become blurry; 

it is possible for a marriage to begin as 

arranged, but become forced.37 For this 

reason, some victim advocates view the 

practices along a continuum of 

“persuasion” that stretches between a 

mild request and severe abuse, or can be 

differentiated according to the degree of urging involved to overcome a bride’s (or groom’s) 

resistance.38 Forms of associated coercion can include physical and sexual violence; threatening 

behavior; isolation and imprisonment; abduction; psychological and social pressure, including 

emotional blackmail; restrictions on lifestyles, such as limits on movement, association, dress, 

education, and career choices; oppressive financial control; and other demeaning, humiliating, 

and controlling behavior (see sidebar).39 





















Forced marriage is not always recognized as a

form of gender‐based violence because men can

also be victims; however, many of the behavioral

indicators of forced marriage resemble those of

domestic violence.

A variety of motivations help perpetuate forced marriages. Within certain cultural traditions, 

marriage is a union of families, not just individuals. Practicing communities may also use it as a 

means to: 

Control the sexuality of women, girls, and those with nontraditional sexual orientations;

Control unwanted behavior, such as using alcohol or drugs, wearing makeup, or

behaving in an otherwise westernized manner;

Prevent unsuitable relationships (e.g., those outside the family’s ethnic, cultural, religious,

or caste group);

Protect the family’s honor or cultural/religious ideals;

Respond to peer group or family pressure and to strengthen family ties;

Achieve financial gain;

Ensure that land, property, and wealth remain in the family;

Ensure care for a person with special needs when parents or existing caregivers are no

longer able to fulfill that role;

Assist with claims for lawful residence and citizenship; and

Fulfill long-standing family commitments.40

Federal Research Division 17 
Responses to Gender-Based Violence Forced Marriage 

For example, daughters may be forced into nonconsensual marriages to preserve the family’s 

honor and the girl’s marriageability within an ethnic community. Immigrant families can also 

bear the burdens of responsibility for extended family members living in developing or conflictridden countries. Marriage can be seen as a solution to poverty or persecution because it can 

include a dowry or enable a loved one to lawfully migrate to a Western country.41 In the context 

of immigration, parents’ fear of children becoming westernized is further reason to push them 

to marry young.42 

Additionally, in some communities, the role of marriage as a rite of passage is considered an 

important element of cultural tradition. For instance, although there is no indication that all 

or even most African immigrant communities in the United States engage in forced marriage, 

a survey of such migrants living in New York City found a pervasive perception of unchanging 

socio-cultural norms that contributed to the practice. This perception added to the hopelessness 

many young women reported feeling while they resisted the pressure or coercion to marry. One 

participant stated, “Most Africans or Fulanis [an ethnic group in West Africa], the parents don’t 

let the girls go to school. They have to get married. They think marriage is, like, the only place 

for women.” Another survey respondent summed up the problem saying, “I’m gonna be 20 

soon and I have to get married. It’s the tradition. You can’t change that.”43 

An argument that forms the basis of both forced and arranged marriages is that elder family 

members know the ways of the world better and the young must obey them. As such, many 

young women may feel they have no option but to submit to their families’ wishes.44 Religion 

may also be used to give the pressure to marry a specific person more weight. In the words of 

one victim, if you resist, “Not only are you going to be upsetting your parents, but you’re also 

going to be displeasing God. That’s really—for people who are religious, that’s really a big deal. 

Nobody wants to take that risk.”45 Parents may also threaten to withdraw financial support or 

commit suicide. The possibility of bringing shame on the family may be reiterated or 

emphasized.46 

Forced marital unions are predominantly practiced by communities in Africa, the Middle East, 

and South Asia, including among Buddhists and Hindus. Some European communities, such as 

those in parts of Greece and Italy, also promote the practice. According to scholars, this occurs 

where these marriages were historically practiced among the upper classes and continues within 

specific religious sects, including in the United States.47 

Among Africans, forced marriage is not limited to northern countries. According to the Sauti 

Yetu Center for African Women, a community organization in New York City, Burkina Faso, 

Guinea, Mali, Niger, and Sierra Leone are among the 20 countries with high rates of forced 

marriage (see fig. 2). For example, in Mali, 65 percent of women aged 20–24 are married by age 

18, and 25 percent are married by age 15. Those figures increase, respectively, to 70 percent and 

36 percent for women in Niger.48 

Federal Research Division 18 
       

 

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Forced Marriage 

Figure 2. Global Prevalence of Forced Marriage

Source: Glinski, Sexton, and Meyers, Child, Early, and Forced Marriage Resource Guide, 4. 

Limited data on the prevalence of forced marriage exist at the national level in Europe. What 

figures are collected come from population-based surveys, administrative and civil society data, 

or qualitative research. Germany, for example, collects crime statistics on forced marriage, while 

the United Kingdom maintains statistics on protective orders that prevent perpetrators from 

contacting victims, but neither France, the Netherlands, nor Sweden have any police or judicial 

statistics on forced marriages.49 

An analysis of the U.K. judicial data reveals that since mid-2009, around 130 protection orders 

have been issued each year to victims. In 2012, Germany recorded 56 cases of forced marriage, 

but had only convicted one perpetrator as of 2014. These types of crime data may represent the 

tip of the iceberg; German statistics show that counseling centers were approached 3,443 times 

in 2008 for issues related to forced marriage and the United Kingdom’s Forced Marriage Unit 

reports that it provided advice or support to 1,500 people in England and Wales in 2012.50 

Based on the information from the United Kingdom and Germany, the origin countries of the 

victims and perpetrators tend to be specific (see fig. 3). For example, the majority of the U.K. 

cases involve South Asian families: 47 percent are from Pakistan, 11 percent from Bangladesh, 

and 8 percent from India. In Germany, most victims have an immigrant background although 

32 percent are born in Germany, followed by 23 percent in Turkey, and 8 percent in the Western 

Balkans (e.g., Kosovo, Montenegro, and Serbia).51 

Federal Research Division 19 
                       

     

Responses to Gender-Based Violence	 Forced Marriage 

Figure 3. Top Origins for Victims/Perpetrators of Forced Marriage in Germany and

the United Kingdom

Source: Based on information from E.U. Agency for Fundamental Rights, Addressing Forced Marriage in the E.U., 14. 

Research found that forced marriages are likely to occur in the following contexts in Germany: 

Both people are living in Germany, usually sharing the same cultural background;

One spouse, usually from the immigrant family’s country of origin, is brought to

Germany for the express purpose of marriage and may be attempting to obtain

a visa through the German spouse (i.e., an “import marriage”); and

A person normally living in Germany is taken abroad, typically to the country of origin,

and forced to marry in a so-called “holiday marriage.”

These instances are most prevalent among 17- to 25-year-olds in Middle Eastern, North African, 

and South Asian migrant communities where arranged marriages are common.52 

5.1. In the United States

Unlike Europe, research on forced marriage in the United States has been limited to efforts by 

several small nonprofit foundations.53 Despite being home to at least 3 million immigrants from 

countries where forced marriage is practiced, the only national-level prevalence statistics are the 

result of a 2011 survey by the Tahirih Justice Center that focused on whether service providers 

received cases of forced marriage from immigrant communities.54 







Federal Research Division 20 
 

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Forced Marriage 

This 47-state survey included 500 legal/social service providers, law enforcement professionals, 

child protective service staff, and other individuals in contact with victims. The respondents 

reported receiving up to 3,000 known and suspected cases of forced marriage in the two years 

prior to the survey, approximately 1,500 per year.55 These cases involved victims representing a 

variety of faiths, as well as 56 countries of origin. Still, 67 percent of the respondents noted that 

not all cases are identified, which masks a significant “hidden population” of victims. A majority

of the respondents also stated their agencies were not equipped to properly handle cases of 

forced marriage.56 

Similarly, the results from nearly 7,800 valid responses to a 2013 Urban Institute survey—carried 

out with grant funding from the U.S. Department of Justice—indicated that victims of forced 

marriage vary in terms of their ages, income levels, genders, and countries of origin. While 

they were fairly evenly spread across age groups, most victims (67 percent) were in the lowest 

income level ($0 to $49,000) and half lived in suburban environments. Some service providers 

reported working with more women than men, but suggested this might be because most of 

their services are designed for victims of gender-based crimes. Their clients also represented 

Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, the Philippines, and Sudan, as well as several South Asian countries.57 

That same year, the AHA Foundation (named for founder Ayaan Hirsi Ali) conducted interviews 

with 100 randomly chosen students of Middle Eastern, North African, and South Asian descent 

at a number of City University of New York campuses. Analysis of the interviews shows that the 

most prevalently represented countries were Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan, which mirrors the 

findings of the United Kingdom’s Forced Marriage Unit. The survey also found that 45 percent 

of the forced marriage victims were born in the United States; 75 percent identified as Muslim, 

then Hindu (9 percent), Pentecostal Christian (7 percent), Coptic Christian (5 percent), and Sikh 

(4 percent); and 69 percent were between the ages of 18 and 21.58 

Another survey of African immigrants living in New York City, conducted by Sauti Yetu, found 

that marriage was one of the most prevalent issues respondents had to contend with as they 

pursued their educational goals. These survey participants, 30 women from Burkina Faso, 

Gambia, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Mali, Mauritania, and Sierra Leone, typically believed they needed 

to postpone marriage to access an education. Most of their parents did not object to education, 

but thought the decision should be worked out with the girls’ future husbands. If their education 

prospects diminished, these young women became more open to the idea of marriage.59 

Of these 30 survey participants, only two were not already married and reported they had not 

been pressured to find a husband. The women often said they felt immense pressure from their 

parents, guardians, friends, and extended families in the United States and abroad. Most did 

not want to lose their relationships with their families, cultures, or communities, and so felt there 

was no other option open to them but a marriage. Additionally, a lack of legal protections and 

an insufficient availability of social services were factors in their decisions to marry.60 

Some research has also shown a correlation between intimate partner violence and forced 

marriage. Individuals subjected to or threatened with forced marriage may be exposed to 

other emotional, physical, psychological, and sexual abuses, including isolation, kidnapping, 

or murder.61 This complicates accurate identification of forced marriage in the United States. 

Federal Research Division 21 
   

 

 

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Forced Marriage 

For example, a survey of 12 South Asian community organizations published in 2011 found 

that in the preceding five years, 83 percent had worked with women who had faced retaliation 

through forced marriages. These victims, however, struggled to describe their experiences, often 

using “arranged marriage” instead. This suggests that victims of forced marriage may not 

identify themselves as such, but may come forward seeking a remedy for domestic violence 

or sexual assault. Unless a case manager or agency screens for forced marriage, it may not 

be apparent that the abuse is an extension of the practice.62 Other barriers victims face when 

attempting to access services in the United States include a fear of shame or violent reprisals, 

a concern about criminalizing or harming family members, and a lack of specialized services 

that focus on and provide culturally sensitive solutions.63 

5.2. Legislative Responses

In the United States, there is no federal law addressing forced marriage. Marriage is traditionally 

regulated at the state level and the related laws vary widely. While some states do criminalize 

forced marriage, victims, survivors, and advocates often face inconsistent or nonexistent laws.64 

To date, ten U.S. states and one U.S. territory have passed laws addressing forced marriage 

(see table 19 in section 12, appendix IV). Yet legal scholars argue these laws “are antiquated 

and fail to address the complicated dynamics characteristic of forced marriage.” Statutes crafted 

without a nuanced understanding of the practice fall short because they fail to address its subtly 

coercive nature or fail to hold the variety of perpetrators involved accountable. Moreover, they 

fail to empower the authorities to intervene before a marriage takes place.65 

Laws proscribing assault, fraud, and kidnapping—all ancillary criminal acts that can occur in the 

process of forcing a marriage—may provide grounds for prosecution, but they are not designed 

to address the unique needs and circumstances of the victims. Without specific legislation, these 

victims and their advocates have difficulty accessing compensation funds, witness protection 

programs, shelters, child protective services, free counseling and medical care, and other critical 

supports. 

For example, a rape charge against a victim’s spouse may not lead to appropriate services, such 

as shelter from angry family members for purportedly shaming them. Protection order statutes, 

which require victims to produce convincing evidence of past abuses, were not crafted with 

forced marriage in mind. As a result, judges may be precluded from issuing an order, even when 

so inclined, because it may not be possible to illustrate such abuse in a forced marriage case.66 

Analysis of the state laws that do exist against forced marriage in the United States shows they 

often include the terms “force,” “menace,” and “compel” to describe the practice. Only one state 

(Maryland) explicitly includes “coercion” in its definition, while one uses “fraud” (Mississippi) and 

two use “abduction” (Minnesota and Washington, DC). In the majority of the states, anyone can 

be considered a perpetrator, but in Minnesota, parents, guardians, and others with legal custody 

over a child are excluded from this category. In some states, namely Maryland and Virginia, the 

law explicitly notes that the perpetrator must willingly seek to forcefully marry the victim 

themselves or marry the victim to someone else. In half of the states, anyone can be a victim, 

but in others, men are not protected. A few states also have age requirements. For example, in 

Minnesota, a victim must be less than 18 years old, but in Mississippi, the victim must be older 

than 14. Lastly, only five states have language providing support to at-risk victims.67 

Federal Research Division 22 
     

 

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting

6. FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION/CUTTING

Female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) is the cultural practice of partially or totally removing 

the external genitalia of women and girls for non-medical reasons. Some audiences prefer to 

use the phrase “female circumcision,” which is how practicing cultures refer to it, but this is 

disfavored in other circles for drawing an inaccurate comparison with male circumcision. Still 

others use “female genital cutting,” but this is also criticized as normalizing the procedure. The 

term “mutilation,” however, becomes problematic when members of FGM/C-practicing cultures 

do not view themselves as “mutilated.”68 

The World Health Organization (WHO) classifies the procedure according to type: 









Type 1 (Sunna, Tradition). Often referred to as clitoridectomy, this is the partial or total

removal of the clitoris (a small, sensitive, and erectile part of the female genitalia), and in

very rare cases, only the prepuce (the fold of skin surrounding the clitoris).

Type 2 (Khafd, Reduction). Often referred to as excision, this is the partial or total

removal of the clitoris and the labia minora (the inner folds of the vulva), with or

without excision of the labia majora (the outer folds of the vulva).

Type 3 (Pharonic, Sudanese). Often referred to as infibulation, this is the narrowing

of the vaginal opening through the creation of a covering seal. The seal is formed by

cutting and repositioning the labia minora or labia majora, sometimes through stitching,

with or without removal of the clitoris.

Type 4. This includes all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for nonmedical purposes (e.g., pricking, piercing, incising, scraping, or cauterizing the genital

area).69 

Scholars continue to debate the origins of FGM/C. However, it is known to predate Christianity 

by at least half a century. Greek historian Herodotus described female circumcision in Egypt in 

the fifth century BCE, reporting that he believed the custom originated there or in Ethiopia; he 

also noted that the Phoenicians and Hittites performed FGM/C. Strabo, a Greek geographer, 

wrote about excision in Egypt in 25 BCE. As for why people may have carried out this practice, 

a Greek papyrus dated 163 BCE mentions girls being circumcised when receiving their dowries, 

and Philo, a Greek philosopher who died in the first century, reported that the cutting of women 

corresponded with the onset of their menstrual flow.70 

Speculation continues over the reasons for FGM/C. Scholars have considered population control, 

particularly in areas with few natural resources, and control over women’s sexuality as possible 

explanations for how this practice began and developed. Whatever its origin, FGM/C survives 

today, transcending religion, socioeconomic status, and geography. It is reinforced by customs 

and beliefs about marriageability, rites of passage, and maintaining girls’ chastity and hygiene.71 

Although some practicing groups use religion to justify the procedure, none exists that requires 

cutting. For example, neither the Quran nor the Bible prescribe it. Moreover, religious groups are 

among the organizations actively working to eliminate FGM/C. Yet as Mary E. Laiser—head of 

the Women’s Programme in the North Central Diocese of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in 

Tanzania—points out, traditions are stronger than faith, regardless of the religion practiced.72 

Federal Research Division 23 
 

The extended family is typically involved in

decision‐making about FGM/C, but unlike other

forms of honor‐based violence, it is the women

(having been cut themselves) who are responsible

for the practical arrangements.

WHO, Eliminating Female Genital Mutilation, 5.

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting 

In some places, FGM/C is an important part of cultural identity for women and girls, imparting 

a sense of pride, coming of age, and community membership. Buttressing these feelings are the 

celebrations, public recognitions, and gifts that accompany the actual procedure. The practice is 

also typically upheld by local authorities, including tribal or religious leaders, circumcisers, and 

some medical personnel. Moreover, in many practicing cultures, the expectation that men will 

only marry circumcised women is common. A proper marriage is often essential for economic 

and social security, as well as fulfilling local ideals of womanhood and femininity. Girls may want 

the procedure themselves because of social pressure from their peers, and because of a fear of 

stigmatization and rejection if they do not follow the tradition.73 

Where FGM/C is widely practiced, it is 

supported by both men and women 

(see sidebar) and anyone who departs 

from the norm faces condemnation, 

harassment, and even ostracism. For 

these reasons, it can be difficult for 

families to abandon the practice without 

the support of the community. It 

therefore continues even when it is 

known to cause harm to girls. Ultimately, the social benefits rank higher for families than the risk 

of physical harm.74 

As of 2008, the WHO estimated that 3 million girls are at risk of FGM/C each year.75 According to 

UNICEF, the U.N. Children’s Fund, the practice occurs in 30 countries but is most prevalent in the 

eastern, northeastern, and western regions of Africa; some countries in Asia and the Middle East; 

and among certain immigrant communities in North America and Europe.76 

A new addition to the list of countries that collect data on incidence rates is Indonesia, which 

found a 49 percent prevalence rate among girls aged 0–11 years in 2013. FGM/C is also known 

to occur in Colombia, India, Malaysia, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, but no 

nationally representative data is available. The U.S. State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual 

also includes a list of 30 countries where FGM/C is currently practiced, but this list differs from 

UNICEF’s. For example, it includes the Democratic Republic of Congo, but not Indonesia.77 

The WHO ranks the prevalence of FGM/C in eight African countries (Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, 

Guinea, Mali, Sierra Leone, Somalia, and Sudan) as “nearly universal” since the national estimates 

exceed 85 percent. Four countries (Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Gambia, and Mauritania) have high 

prevalence at 60–85 percent, and five countries (Chad, Ivory Coast, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, and 

Liberia) have medium prevalence of 30–40 percent. Low prevalence (0.6–28.2 percent) has been 

estimated in ten countries (Benin, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Ghana, Niger, Senegal, 

Togo, Uganda, Tanzania, and Yemen).78 UNICEF ranks these countries slighly differently and 

includes Iraq (see fig. 4). 

Federal Research Division 24 
                     

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting

Figure 4. Prevalence of FGM/C in African and Middle Eastern Countries

Source: UNICEF, Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting, 26. 

FGM/C prevalence rates are estimated using large-scale national surveys of women aged 15–49. 

However, as prevalence varies considerably between regions, the national estimates obscure the 

marked variation in different parts of most countries.79 In Senegal, to pick just one example, the 

national prevalence rate for FGM/C is 26 percent. But when breaking this figure down by region, 

one can see that the rates vary from as low as 1 percent in Diourbel to as high as 92 percent in 

Kedougou (see fig. 5). 

Federal Research Division 25 
             

         

 

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting

Figure 5. Prevalence of FGM/C in Senegal

Source: UNICEF, Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting, 30. 

FGM/C procedures are nearly always carried out on minors.80 In most countries with a known 

prevalence rate, girls are often subjected to cutting before the age of five. However, this practice 

also varies widely. For example, in the Central African Republic, Chad, Egypt, and Somalia, at 

least 80 percent of girls are cut after the age of five, but before they turn 14.81 Conversely, in 

Sudan, FGM/C is performed early—between four and eight years old—to leave time for a proper 

marriage. Ages 10 and 11 are considered too late because girls are typically married between 

ages 12 and 14. A girl must be ready before she gets married “because you will never hear that 

there is some lady that got married first and did surgery later,” says Aban Laamatjok, originally 

from Malakal, South Sudan but now a U.S. resident living in Nebraska. However, a woman might 

undergo the procedure as an adult if she marries into a community that practices it.82 

6.1. In the United States

Some U.S. immigrants from FGM/C-practicing countries reportedly try to sustain the procedure 

either by having their daughters cut locally or by returning to their countries of origin, a strategy 

referred to as “vacation cutting.” However, no data exist on the numbers of women or girls who 

have actually undergone the procedure, either in the United States or abroad, in any given year. 

According to a study published in 2012, the best estimate placed 513,000 women and girls in 

the United States at risk for FGM/C or its consequences.83 

The researchers based this estimate on the national prevalence rates reported for immigrants’ 

countries of origin but, as noted, incidence can vary considerably by geographic area and other 

factors, such as ethnicity. The figures could also just be outdated. Additionally, a large number 

of people migrate to the United States from countries, like Indonesia and India, where FGM/C 

is known to occur but a lack of clarity about the prevalence exists. Moreover, estimates such as 

Federal Research Division 26 
 

 

 

                 

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting

these assume people behave the same way in the United States as they would at home, 

discounting assimilation, differences in education and other socioeconomic factors, and 

U.S. laws that ban the practice.84 

Though this study did provide an important update to previous estimates of risk, it did not 

provide any information on the extent to which FGM/C is actually practiced in the United States 

or the degree to which things change after immigrants arrive from their home countries.85 

Of those at risk, another study in 2013 found that nearly all were from African countries. The 

majority, 55 percent, were from just three countries—Egypt, Ethiopia, and Somalia. One-third 

were girls younger than 18. While some of these girls were born in countries with high FGM/C 

prevalence rates, most were U.S.-born children of parents from high-prevalence countries.86 

Delving into this information further, it becomes apparent that, as in their home countries, the 

number of women and girls at risk varies widely across states. For example, in 2013, three-fifths 

of this population lived in eight states: California, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, 

Texas, Virginia, and Washington. California had the largest at-risk population, followed by New 

York and Minnesota (see figs. 6 and 7). Minnesota, however, has a disproportionate number of 

women and girls at risk because of its large Somali population, which was estimated to exceed 

31,000 in 2013. Forty percent of the at-risk population lived in five metro areas: Los Angeles, 

Minneapolis-St. Paul, New York, Seattle, and Washington, DC.87 

Figure 6. Highest State Populations at Risk of FGM/C

56,872 

48,418 

44,293 

33,087 31,820 31,023 30,830 

25,000 24,320 

0 

10,000 

20,000 

30,000 

40,000 

50,000 

60,000 

Source: Based on information from Mather and Deldman-Jacobs, “Women and Girls at Risk.” 

Federal Research Division 27 
Figure 7. Highest State Populations at Risk of FGM/C as Percentage of Total  

At‐Risk Population

Source: Based on information from Mather and Deldman-Jacobs, “Women and Girls at Risk.” 

11.2% 

9.6% 

8.7% 

6.5% 6.3% 6.1% 6.1% 

4.9% 4.8% 

0.0% 

2.0% 

4.0% 

6.0% 

8.0% 

10.0% 

12.0% 

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting

Although FGM/C prevalence rates are steady or declining in many African countries, the number 

of women and girls at risk in the United States is expected to rise as the foreign-born population 

increases.88 For example, the total number of women and girls at risk increased by 224 percent 

between 1990 and 2012, with the increase much greater among those younger than 18.89 Data 

from the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration show that 

27,000 women and girls from the Central African Republic, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iraq, Sierra Leone, 

Somalia, and Sudan resettled in the United States in 2014 and 2015. Of course, it is unknown 

how many belong to FGM/C-practicing communities and are truly at risk or have already been 

cut.90 Moreover, though there is a strong possibility that first-generation girls are more likely to 

undergo FGM/C than their second-generation counterparts, no data exist in the United States to 

support this hypothesis. However, a systematic review of FGM/C studies in Europe did find that 

second-generation girls “run relatively little risk of undergoing FGM/C.” If that holds true in the 

United States, then an increase in the population of women and girls from FGM/C-practicing 

countries may not translate to an increase in girls actually undergoing the procedure.91 

Parents, especially mothers, may be against carrying out FGM/C on their daughters, but may 

face significant resistance from more conservative family members who wish to see the tradition 

continue. According to one advocacy group in the United States, mothers may send daughters 

to visit their homelands to become better acquainted with their families/cultures not knowing 

that, once there, an FGM/C procedure may occur. In other cases, family members may abduct 

a daughter against the parents’ will or a mother may refuse to sign paperwork that would allow 

a U.S.-born daughter to travel abroad in an effort to prevent other family members, such as the 

father, from taking her to be cut. U.S.-born daughters may also face the risk of FGM/C in cases 

where one or both parents is undocumented and receives final deportation orders.92 

Federal Research Division 28 
   

 

 

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting 

6.2. Legislative Responses

 

 

Passing FGM/C Legislation: The 

Detainment of Fauziya Kassindja 

Fauziya Kassindja was born in Togo in 

1977 but fled her country at age 17 to 

avoid a marriage she didn’t want and 

FGM/C. 

Seeking refuge in the United States, 

she was initially detained for two years, 

but granted asylum in June 1996, 

marking the first time FMG/C was 

recognized as a form of persecution. 

Media coverage of Kassindja’s case 

coincided with congressional efforts to 

pass legislation banning FGM/C. As a 

result, support for measures in the bill 

increased. 

In September 1996, Congress passed 

the Federal Prohibition of Female 

Genital Mutilation Act, the first federal 

law criminalizing the procedure. 

Source: Dugger, “U.S. Grants Asylum”; 

Dugger, “New Law Bans.” 

Of the three issues discussed in this report, the only 

federal legislation currently in force addresses FGM/C. In 

1996, Congress passed the Federal Prohibition of Female 

Genital Mutilation Act, making it illegal to perform the 

procedure on girls younger than 18 in the United States 

(see textbox). Congress amended this law in 2013 with 

the Transport for Female Genital Mutilation Act, which 

criminalized the act of knowingly transporting a girl out 

of the country for FGM/C.93 

In April 2017, in the first case to be prosecuted under 

these laws, the U.S. Department of Justice indicted two 

Detroit-area doctors and one co-conspirator, alleging 

participation in a scheme to perform FGM/C on minors, 

transportation of those minors across state lines, and 

obstruction of justice. The FBI’s Detroit Division and 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland 

Security Investigations office investigated the case with 

support from the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Eastern 

District of Michigan; the Fraud Section of the Justice 

Department’s Criminal Division, and the Criminal 

Investigative Division within the FBI’s International 

Human Rights Unit. The team found that 

Dr. Jumana Nagarwala and Dr. Fakhruddin Attar, and his wife Farida, had carried out FGM/C 

procedures on at least six girls, aged between six and eight years old, in Attar’s medical office 

in Livonia, Michigan.94 Two of the girls had traveled from Minnesota for the procedure.95 

A federal judge in Detroit dropped one of the charges against the two doctors in January 2018, 

ruling that Nagarwala and Attar did not “commit conspiracy to transport a minor with the intent 

to engage in criminal sexual activity.” U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman explained that “the 

facts alleged in the indictment do not support this charge because, as a matter of law, [FGM/C,] 

while a prohibited criminal act, is not ‘criminal sexual activity.’” According to media coverage of 

the case, Nagarwala denied that a crime was committed, but rather that she had performed a 

religious custom on girls from her Muslim sect, the India-based Dawoodi Bohra.96 

At the state level, 27 states have passed anti-FGM/C laws since 1995 (see table 20 in section 

13, appendix V).97 Some states, like Illinois and Tennessee, require service providers to report 

occurrences of FGM/C to the authorities. Others rely on mandatory reporting for child abuse, 

which could include the practice. And still more states have passed provisions criminalizing 

vacation cutting and performing FGM/C on adults as well as children.98 

Federal Research Division 29 
              

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting

The AHA Foundation analyzed these laws and granted only Michigan a grade of “A,” due to 

its holistic approach, which is meant to stop practitioners and families from pursuing FGM/C, 

as well as its implementation of educational initiatives about the practice for communities, 

teachers, and law enforcement professionals (see fig. 8).99 

Figure 8. Evaluation of State Laws Specifically Addressing FGM/C

Source: AHA Foundation, Why We Hesitate, 8. 

Federal Research Division 30 
             

                   

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Overview of Approaches in the United States 

7. OVERVIEW OF APPROACHES IN THE UNITED STATES

Victims and potential victims of all three types of gender-based violence discussed in this report 

live within a dynamic social system consisting of family, community, and culture. This system 

interacts with another one comprising representatives from potential support systems who, with 

proper training, can provide protection from, intervention in, and prevention of these crimes. 

Penetrating the primary system may prove difficult for members of the health, education, social 

services, and criminal justice sectors who are attempting to reach the victims. Likewise, victims 

may have trouble contacting these service providers. As shown in figure 9, each element plays 

a role vis-à-vis the victim, but ideally all will work together to address, prevent, and collect data 

on honor-based violence, forced marriage, and female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C). Those 

involved in these issues around the world agree that intervention and prevention efforts should 

be well-coordinated and multi-sectoral. However, the United States has yet to develop such a 

unified strategy. 

Figure 9. Interaction of Victims’ Social and Potential Support Systems

A federal response to gender-based violence among immigrant populations living in the United 

States requires coordinated efforts by multiple agencies, each with their own mission and focus, 

but overlapping responsibilities. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), for 

example, is responsible for administering research, establishing guidelines and programs, and 

issuing grants that address public health issues. Similarly, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) 

is responsible for disseminating information on these issues to the relevant authorities.100 With 

regard to criminal justice, three agencies—the U.S. Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, 

and State—share responsibility: Homeland Security and State are responsible for providing 

Federal Research Division 31 
     

       

 

       

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Overview of Approaches in the United States 

information on the health/legal consequences of FGM/C to certain visa recipients, while 

Homeland Security and Justice share responsibility for investigating and prosecuting such 

crimes. Information on state-level responses to these issues is spotty and deserves a deeper 

exploration than this report can provide. 

7.1. Health Sector

A victim of honor-based violence, forced marriage, or FGM/C may interact with health 

professionals in a variety of ways. She may attend regular checkups with a primary care provider 

or gynecologist, seek prenatal care while pregnant, visit a school nurse, or go to an emergency 

room. She may not be open about any violence in her life or the violence may seem normal to 

her. As such, health providers need to know the clues to look for and the correct questions to 

ask (see figs. 10–12 in sections 14–15, appendices VI–VII, and table 21 in section 16, appendix 

VIII). However, if they suspect violence or the potential for it, the providers may not be required 

to report it, depending on the state they are in. Similarly, the providers may or may not have 

adequate connections with other types of services to which they could potentially refer the 

victim. 

7.1.1. Policy and Resources

To date, there is scant federal policy for the health sector regarding gender-based violence. 

HHS’s Administration for Children and Families, for example, has no policy documents related 

to honor-based violence or honor killings on its website. Likewise, while it has an archived blog 

post on forced marriage dated August 2013, it appears to have no related policy documents.101 

The most current policy letter related to FGM/C, which is posted on the administration’s Office 

of Refugee Resettlement website, is dated July 2015. The letter outlines the practice, its health 

consequences, and its illegality in the United States. It also provides directions on how to access 

additional information and links to resources from other government agencies and NGOs.102 

7.1.2. Activities and Initiatives

Although HHS appears to have little in the way of policy statements on any of these issues, it 

has and continues to implement programs to address forced marriage and FGM/C. In the past, 

this included projects addressing child, early, and forced marriage under the department’s Ethnic 

Community Self-Help Program. Today, its Office of Women’s Health is running the CommunityCentered Healthcare and Prevention Project, which awarded $6 million in grant funding to eight 

organizations to address gaps and problems in FGM/C-related healthcare services for women 

and girls living in the United States over the three-year grant period, which ends in 2019.103 

Along with these grants, HHS recommends health screenings for newly arrived refugees, which 

can be accessed through comprehensive primary and behavioral care at community health 

centers. It also maintains a website containing contact information for those seeking additional 

resources or support for FGM/C-related concerns. The department has noted that in the two 

years prior to February 2016, more than 100,000 individuals visited the site. Additionally, its 

National Institutes of Health have funded research to help inform immigrant-focused medicine, 

highlighting FGM/C for healthcare providers.104 

Federal Research Division 32 
   

     

     

       

       

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Overview of Approaches in the United States 

At the state level, the New York Department of Health addresses FGM/C on its website with 

information describing the practice, its various types, and who is at risk, as well as the health 

and legal consequences.105 It also published a reference card for healthcare providers, which 

describes FGM/C and related issues, and outlines communication guidelines and physician 

obligations.106 

Locally, in Washington, DC, the Global Woman P.E.A.C.E. Foundation (GWPF) is a nonprofit 

organization focused on FGM/C. It operates in several sectors, including health, and provides 

rehabilitation services like restorative surgery to women who have undergone the procedure.107 

7.1.3. Training

The AHA Foundation has developed trainings for healthcare professionals on honor-based 

violence, forced marriage, and FGM/C. Additional training concerning FGM/C is provided by 

the Justice Department’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (see section 17, 

appendix IX). 

7.1.4. Data Collection

In 2017, the Honor Our Bodies, Educate Our Community, Respect Our Heritage (HER) Initiative, 

an HHS Community-Centered Healthcare and Prevention Project grant recipient in Portland, 

Maine, developed survey instruments to gauge how women affected by FGM/C experience 

healthcare related to childbirth, as well as the knowledge and attitudes of healthcare providers 

treating these women. Given the lack of local information about the practice, which is typical 

across the United States, the initiative’s evaluations help address the need for a baseline of 

FGM/C-related attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions.108 

7.2. Education Sector

Educators, including teachers, counselors, and school nurses, come into regular contact with 

young women and girls who may be at a particularly high risk for honor-based violence, forced 

marriage, or FGM/C, making them a first line of defense. However, like healthcare professionals, 

those working in education need to know which clues to look for and how to intervene without 

further endangering the potential victims. 

7.2.1. Policy and Resources

While ED, like HHS, does not appear to have any policy statements related to honor-based 

violence or forced marriage, its Office of Elementary and Secondary Education shared a copy of 

an FGM/C fact sheet created by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) on the 

archived website for the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. However, while the fact sheet 

explains the federal response to FGM/C, it does not clarify ED’s role in that response.109 

7.2.2. Activities and Initiatives

Research did not identify any federal-level programs for the education sector addressing honorbased violence, forced marriage, or FGM/C. 

Federal Research Division 33 
   

     

       

       

       



Responses to Gender-Based Violence	 Overview of Approaches in the United States 

7.2.3. Training

With regard to forced marriage, the Tahirih Justice Center includes a tip sheet for educators in 

its resource toolkit. The tip sheet provides information about warning signs and best practices 

for those working with students who have disclosed concerns about forced marriage. 

As for FGM/C, education-sector professionals can consult a toolkit created by the GWPF’s Kids 

Reach Program in partnership with the Council of the Great City Schools. Based on a community 

needs assessment, the toolkit is designed to educate school officials on preventing the practice 

while maintaining cultural sensitivity. It helps them identify risk factors, identify those who have 

undergone the procedure, confirm incidences of FGM/C, identify steps following confirmation, 

and decide when and when not to act. See section 17, appendix IX for more information. 

7.2.4. Data Collection

Research has not identified any data collection efforts on honor-based violence, forced 

marriage, or FGM/C in the education sector. 

7.3. Social Services Sector

Organizations within the social services sector provide potentially critical support to victims. 

These groups can help victims of any of the three types of gender-based violence discussed in 

this report meet immediate basic needs so they are no longer dependent on the perpetrators. 

Social services organizations can also refer victims to other support systems (e.g., healthcare 

providers, educator networks, and criminal justice professionals) as appropriate, connecting 

them with more targeted help. In addition to working directly with victims, some groups work 

with policymakers to help ensure or improve victims’ protections and access to services. People 

working in this sector need to be familiar with practicing cultures and the unique circumstances 

of honor-based violence. 

7.3.1. Policy and Resources

At the state level, Georgia’s implementation plan for the Violence against Women Act addresses 

honor-based violence and forced marriage as part of its domestic violence programs. It urges 

providers to “be aware of culturally relevant forms of violence impacting teens, e.g., forced 

marriages, honor killings/honor violence, and views on pre-marital sex or rape,” but provides 

nothing beyond that statement.110 

7.3.2. Activities and Initiatives

As previously noted, several national and local advocacy organizations are leading the way in 

addressing gender-based violence: 

The AHA Foundation is a national organization working to address honor-based 

violence, forced marriage, and FGM/C. It does not provide direct services to victims, but 

works closely with policymakers, law enforcement professionals, social services providers, 

and local communities.111 

Federal Research Division 34 
 

   

Responses to Gender-Based Violence	 Overview of Approaches in the United States 

 The Tahirih Justice Center is a national nonprofit headquartered in Falls Church, Virginia,

that has assisted people fleeing violence since 1997. It provides direct services to victims,

engages in policy advocacy, and trains law enforcement, legal, and medical professionals;

counselors and educators; and community and religious leaders. The center addresses all

three forms of honor-based violence, but specializes in forced marriage with its Forced

Marriage Initiative.112 

 Sauti Yetu is a community-based organization working with African immigrant women

and families in the New York City metropolitan area and nationally. Its priority foci are

violence against women and girls, early forced marriage, reproductive justice, FGM/C,

education and school, and youth and migration. With regard to FGM/C, Sauti Yetu

provides supportive counseling for circumcised women and girls who request it,

facilitates discussions between mothers and daughters about the practice, and trains

service providers, particularly those in the child welfare system. The group also engages

in awareness activities, advocacy to reduce stigma and discrimination, and community

outreach. Under its domestic violence program, Sauti Yetu provides crisis intervention,

counseling, legal assistance, referrals to shelters, and other services.113 

 Global Woman P.E.A.C.E. Foundation is a local nonprofit organization based in

Washington, DC, that focuses on FGM/C. In addition to educating women and girls on

gender-based violence, it supports victims’ individual health concerns and promotes

physical and mental healing with services such as restorative surgery and physical

therapy.114 

A comparison of these organizations’ services is provided in table 1. 

Table 1. Services Provided

Organization Scope 

by National/Local Advocacy

Issues	 

Honor Forced FGM/C Violence Marriage 

Organizations

Programs 

Awareness Training Campaigns 

Direct 

Services 

AHA Fdn National Yes Yes Yes Yes 

(Online) Yes No

Tahirih Justice 

Center National Yes Yes Yes Yes 

(On-Site) Yes Yes 

Sauti Yetu National; 

Local (NY) No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Global Woman 

P.E.A.C.E. Fdn Local (DC) No No Yes Yes 

(On-Site) Yes Yes 

7.3.3. Training

Of these four organizations, the Tahirih Justice Center and Sauti Yetu provide training for social 

services providers, including healthcare, education, and law enforcement professionals. The 

former helps frontline advocates develop a necessary awareness of the unique challenges facing 

victims of forced marriage, while the latter enables service providers to better support girls who 

may be potential victims of early marriage or already married. Sauti Yetu also provides training 

and technical assistance to agencies like borough-based child protective services and courts, as 

well as those focused on domestic violence and sexual assault. 

Federal Research Division 35 
     

       

       

 

                                                            

 

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Overview of Approaches in the United States 

All other trainings identified for this sector address FGM/C. In addition to the four organizations 

listed above, these trainings are provided by the Justice Department’s Office of Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention and the Michigan Coalition to End Domestic and Sexual Violence. 

See section 17, appendix IX for more details. 

7.3.4. Data Collection

The AHA Foundation, Sauti Yetu, and Gangashakti published studies about forced marriage in 

the United States in 2012 and 2013, respectively.115 The Urban Institute (in partnership with the 

Justice Department’s Office of Justice Programs) released a similar study in 2018.116 

7.4. Criminal Justice Sector

A victim of honor-based violence may directly engage those in the criminal justice sector or 

someone may seek help on her behalf. However, she may wish to avoid interacting with these 

professionals because of cultural or other barriers. In such cases, a victim may not be completely 

honest about her situation. As a result, individuals working in this field need to know the signs 

to look for and the best practices to follow to engage effectively with this population of victims. 

7.4.1. Policy and Resources

Though there is no federal law addressing forced marriage, some government agencies have 

internal regulations about the practice. For example, the U.S. State Department’s Foreign Affairs 

Manual defines forced marriage as “a violation of fundamental human rights” and a “form of 

child abuse” when it involves minors, as a child will presumably be subjected to nonconsensual 

sex.117 The manual details procedures for responding to U.S. citizens who are at risk of being 

sent abroad for forced marriages, but notes the department cannot intervene domestically.118 

The Violence against Women Act and several visa categories provide relief for immigrants who 

are victims of honor-based violence and FGM/C. The act, for example, allows them “to petition 

for legal status in the United States without relying on abusive U.S. citizen or lawful permanent 

resident family members to sponsor their Adjustment of Status applications.” While the visas 

do not specifically list honor-based violence, forced marriage, or FGM/C as “qualifying crimes,” 

these incidents are similar enough that they might be accepted. For instance, the U visa (10,000 

of which are issued each year) strengthens the ability of law enforcement agencies to detect, 

investigate, and prosecute crimes against immigrants and protect victims of mental and physical 

abuse. Similarly, the T visa (5,000 of which are issued annually) is designed for victims of severe 

human trafficking. However, though some elements of forced marriage are similar to human 

trafficking, a commercial element must be present*

 for a victim to qualify for this visa.119 

*

 A human rights attorney consulted by the author strongly disagrees with this analysis that T visas will not work 

for victims of forced marriage because of the need for a commercial element. In their experience, T visas have been 

successful in cases where the victim is a labor- or sex-trafficking victim by virtue of the de minimis commercial value. 

Federal Research Division 36 
       

 

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Overview of Approaches in the United States 

In the case of asylum, forced marriage is not recognized by the United States as a form of 

gender-based persecution. However, beatings, rape, FGM/C, verbal abuse, isolation, and severe 

economic disadvantage do constitute persecution for asylum purposes and are all commonly 

associated with forced marriage.120 

As for FGM/C, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, along with the Justice Department’s 

Human Rights and Special Prosecution Section, released a memorandum in November 2014 

addressing the recently amended federal criminal statute. The memo included an attached 

newsletter discussing efforts to uncover violations, which was intended to assist prosecutors 

in case they received FGM/C-related referrals from law enforcement agencies. However, few 

instances have been reported. Local law enforcement and child protection officials suggest this 

is because immigrant communities are unlikely to report the procedure due to cultural norms, 

victims are reluctant to betray their community or family, and victims are concerned about an 

impact on their or their family’s immigration status.121 

Around that same time, USAID posted the U.S. government’s response to FGM/C on its website. 

The response explains FGM/C; who is at risk; the legal, programmatic, and policy responses to 

the procedure in the United States; and how the government is addressing the issue globally. In 

particular, it informs certain travelers and immigrants of the federal law through U.S. embassies 

and consulates in countries where FGM/C is practiced.122 

Then in January 2017, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published its “Female 

Genital Mutilation or Cutting (FGM/C) Outreach Strategy” in accordance with recommendations 

put forth by the U.S. Government Accountability Office in a 2016 review of the federal response. 

The strategy outlines target outreach areas, stakeholders, and key messages based on the 

government’s position, and lists currently available outreach activities, resources, and products. 

It also lays out planned activities in training, outreach, and interagency coordination.123 

At the state level, the sixth edition of New York’s Lawyer’s Manual on Domestic Violence: 

Representing the Victim includes a chapter titled “Emerging Issues: FGM, Forced Marriage, 

Honor Violence and Trafficking.”124 

7.4.2. Activities and Initiatives

In July 2017, DHS began a pilot program at New York City’s John F. Kennedy International 

Airport based on Operation Limelight, which was conducted by the U.K. Metropolitan Police 

Service and Border Force at London’s Heathrow Airport. Operation Limelight USA is designed by 

the Human Rights Violators and War Crimes Center within Homeland Security Investigations— 

a component of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement—to deter the practice of FGM/C 

through training, outreach, and enforcement. After completing FGM/C-related training, special 

agents inform passengers traveling to high-prevalence countries about U.S. law banning the 

practice and the potential criminal/immigration consequences of transporting a child for the 

purpose of performing the procedure. The discussions with passengers are intended to educate 

families and provide them with means to report cases and receive victim assistance where 

appropriate.125 

Federal Research Division 37 
DHS and its partners launched two more Operation Limelight USA programs in June 2018, at 

the start of summer vacation, as girls are reportedly at higher risk for “vacation cutting” during 

the holidays. Agents from the FBI and Homeland Security Investigations began operations at 

Virginia’s Dulles International Airport, and in New Jersey, U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

agents joined in carrying out the program at Newark Liberty International Airport. Of these two 

efforts, the three-day program at Dulles reached passengers on nine international flights that 

connected to hubs or reached destinations in high-prevalence areas.126 Similar data for the 

Newark operation was not provided. 

7.4.3. Training

As previously noted, women and girls may be eligible for asylum or refugee status based on 

honor-based violence. DHS personnel working with these populations receive extensive training 

on adjudicating such claims. Likewise, the Justice Department’s Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention provides training on FGM/C to members of the law enforcement 

community. 

Of the four advocacy organizations highlighted in earlier sections, the Tahirih Justice Center 

provides law enforcement training on forced marriage while the AHA Foundation focuses on 

FGM/C. In Washington, DC, the GWPF provides law enforcement training through its Kids Reach 

Shield Program, which was developed to educate officers on FGM/C and its consequences, and 

to provide them with resources to support victims via prevention, protection, and prosecution. 

The training manual for Kids Reach Shield includes information about FGM/C, understanding the 

practice, cultural sensitivity, and additional resources. The GWPF notes that this training manual 

“provides guidance to the various roles police officers can perform to encourage the cessation 

of [FGM/C].”127 See section 17, appendix IX for more information. 

7.4.4. Data Collection

With regard to data collection efforts on gender-based violence by organizations within the 

criminal justice sector, research discovered two—both funded by components of the U.S. 

Department of Justice. The Office of Justice Programs, for example, used 2013 grant funding to 

support a research project on forced marriage by the Urban Institute, while the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics funded research in 2014 to evaluate existing data on honor-based violence in the 

United States.128 

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Overview of Approaches in the United States 

Federal Research Division 38 
 

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Conclusion 

8. CONCLUSION

Honor-based violence, forced marriage, and female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) are 

three types of gender-based violence rooted in the practices of particular cultures. As this report 

illustrates, however—and contrary to popular opinion—these ancient practices are not limited to 

any one religion. In fact, they are not based on any specific religious doctrine at all. Instead, what 

connects the communities committing such acts of violence are beliefs concerning the concept 

of honor. In these areas, the family’s reputation, status, and image (i.e., its honor) are of utmost 

importance. The behavior of female family members has a direct impact on this honor and if a 

woman or girl is perceived to be acting in a way that could bring shame on the family, she must 

be punished for the family to regain or preserve its honor. 

By sharing honor-based motivations, these three practices can be intertwined. For example, 

violent crimes such as harassment, threats, and even murder can develop in a forced marriage 

situation. Similarly, a woman or girl may be forced to undergo FGM/C when marrying into a 

culture that practices the procedure. 

Situations involving honor-based violence and forced marriage can be difficult to identify and 

distinguish from the more typical incidents of domestic and intimate partner violence seen in 

the United States. Victims and potential victims of FGM/C can also be hard to identify as those

around them may not be equipped to interpret certain behavior changes that can precede or 

follow the procedure. For these reasons, it is critical that professionals working with victims in 

both intervention and prevention capacities develop a sound knowledge base around these 

types of violence, as well as develop a set of tools for mounting effective responses. 

Moreover, experts around the world agree that intervention and prevention efforts related to 

honor-based violence, forced marriage, and FGM/C should be well-coordinated and include 

multiple sectors. Professionals working in the health, education, social services, and criminal 

justice fields can best address these cases if they work together. 

In the United States, most efforts at the national level address FGM/C, which happens to be 

the only type of honor-based violence that has been criminalized under federal law. That said, 

government agencies involved in criminal justice have taken steps to minimize all three types of 

violence addressed in this report. This activity includes passing legislation; issuing related policy 

guidance; launching topic-specific programs and trainings; and collecting incidence data. Yet it 

is this last activity that continues to hamper response efforts both nationally and internationally. 

To date, the lack of consistent data on honor-based violence, forced marriage, and FGM/C has 

made it difficult for countries to evaluate their progress in addressing these crimes. 

Federal Research Division 39 
             

 

         

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Appendix I. Overview of Approaches in Select Countries 

9. APPENDIX I. Overview of Approaches in Select Destinations

Comprehensive data on honor-based violence, forced marriage, and female genital mutilation/ 

cutting (FGM/C) do not exist at the national level in the industrialized countries that typically 

receive at-risk immigrants. It is therefore impossible to evaluate how well any given nation is 

responding these issues. To take a closer look at the situation, the author created a baseline 

data set to identify which nations receive the largest proportions of immigrants and from which 

countries (see section 10, appendix II). She also gathered information on which countries have 

passed legislation related to these kinds of gender-based violence, and reviewed literature to 

get a sense of which countries appear to be responding well and which may be falling short. 

Overall, the author found that immigrant population size does not reflect the nature of the 

country’s response. For example, the United States receives the majority of immigrants but is 

in the early stages of developing coordinated, comprehensive, and strategic responses to these 

types of violence. The Netherlands, however, does not appear among the top three destinations 

for any of these issues, yet scholars have identified the country as having developed the most 

promising responses. 

Sociologists Gökçe Yurdakul and Anna C. Korteweg, from Humboldt University in Berlin and the 

University of Toronto, respectively, posit that gender-based violence within Western immigrant 

communities should be understood in the context of the destination country’s culture and 

politics, the ongoing racialization of immigrants in the West, and the changing gender relations 

within both the communities and the rest of society. In their research, Yurdakul and Korteweg 

found that discussions of gender equality in policy documents, news media, and parliamentary 

debates regarding honor-based violence, honor killings, and forced marriage range from 

exclusionary to inclusionary.129 

Exclusionary trends depict certain immigrant populations (e.g., Muslims) as outsiders who need 

to be carefully monitored by federal authorities. In the typical view of the majority population, 

these communities have “bad” gender equality practices that must be corrected by “integration 

policies.” In contrast, societies exhibiting inclusionary trends accept immigrants as full members 

of society, creating the possibility for immigrant participation in governance. In these scenarios, 

immigrants become resources in policy-making, as well as the implementation process. Muslims 

and other minority communities are seen as people who can become full, active citizens, not just 

as subjects of persecution who deserve protection.130 

Although these trends can operate simultaneously, Yurdakul and Korteweg note the tendency 

toward exclusion in Germany, inclusion in the Netherlands, and ambivalence in the United 

Kingdom in debates concerning immigrants and gender-based violence.131 This framework 

provides a helpful guideline for evaluating these countries’ approaches to such violence among 

their immigrant populations. 

9.1. Honor‐Based Violence and Forced Marriage

Most immigrants leaving countries that traditionally practice honor-based violence settle in the 

United States, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Looking only at Europe, the top three are 

Federal Research Division 40 
Germany, the United Kingdom, and France (see table 2). As for immigrants from countries that 

practice forced marriage, the vast majority settle in the United States, then the United Kingdom 

and Italy. Again, when looking at just Europe, France rounds out the top three (see table 3). 

                       

       

 

Table 2. Top Destinations for Immigrants from Select Countries with a High

Prevalence of Honor‐Based Violence

Including United States Excluding United States 

Destination
 % Total % Total # of Immigrants # of Immigrants Immigrant Pop. Immigrant Pop. 

United 

States 5,175,405 32 — —

Germany 2,710,636 17 2,710,636 24 

United 

Kingdom 1,758,108 11 1,758,108 16

France — — 1,547,027 14 

All Others 6,772,932 40 5,225,905 46 

TOTAL 16,417,081 100 11,241,676 100 

 

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Appendix I. Overview of Approaches in Select Countries 

NOTE: These figures include the following high-prevalence countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Bahrain, Bangladesh, 

Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Egypt, Georgia, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, 

Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Palestinian Territories, Sudan, Syria, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, and 

Yemen. 

                       

       

Table 3. Top Destinations for Immigrants from Select Countries with a High

Prevalence of Forced Marriage

Including United States Excluding United States 

Destination
 % Total % Total # of Immigrants # of Immigrants Immigrant Pop. Immigrant Pop. 

United 

States 16,595,922 79 — —

United 

Kingdom 1,979,857 9 1,979,857 45 

Italy 561,090 3 561,090 13

France — — 395,015 9 

All Others 1,869,368 9 1,474,353 33 

TOTAL 21,006,237 100 4,410,315 100 

NOTE: These figures include the following high-prevalence countries: Bangladesh, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Central African 

Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Malawi, Mali, Mexico, Mozambique, 

Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, South Sudan, and Tanzania. 

Despite not being a top destination in either category, the Netherlands has been implementing 

strategic initiatives regarding such crimes since 2005, after two highly publicized murders: a high 

school student was murdered by her father in 2003 while on vacation in Turkey, and a woman 

was shot and killed by her husband in front of a women’s shelter in 2004.132 

The Netherlands’ first strategic initiative, the Program Against Honor-Related Violence 

(2005–10), focused on prevention, protection, and prosecution. The prevention pillar involved 

immigrant organizations and emphasized educating service providers on the particular contexts 

Federal Research Division 41 
in which domestic violence, violence against women, and honor-based violence occur. Shelters 

and law enforcement covered protection, with law enforcement also handling prosecution 

alongside the public prosecutor. None of these groups operated in isolation as the initiative 

required them to work together, exchange information, and develop strategies.133 

In 2013, the Netherlands adopted a new national policy plan that addressed honor-based 

violence, forced marriage, and marital abandonment as part of a government-wide approach 

on violence in dependency relationships. The E.U. Agency for Fundamental Rights identified the 

Dutch approach as a “promising practice” for its comprehensiveness. In addition to developing 

a national cooperation and coordination mechanism, the agency highlighted: 







The multimedia campaign targeting Dutch youth to raise awareness about human rights

nals working with young people to help

ols were also urged to include selfir curricula.

and the freedom to choose a partner.

Education and training activities for professio

identify those at risk of forced marriage. Scho

determination and other relevant topics in the

Discussions of forced marriage, marital captivity, and marital abandonment with

potentially affected by forced marriage. These conversations aimed to

mmunal mindset regarding the

communities 

change the co

practice.134 Creating the Forced Marriage Unit: 

The Death of Rukhsana Naz 

Rukhsana Naz was 19 years old when 

she was killed for “dishonoring” her 

family. Four years earlier, they had 

arranged a marriage between her and 

a man in Pakistan that she had only 

seen twice. Eventually, they had two 

children, who were 18 months and 3 

years old at the time of her death. 

Since the age of 12, Rukhsana had 

carried on a secret affair with a man

who was also in an arranged marriage. 

When she became pregnant with his 

child, she wished for a divorce from 

her husband, who refused. 

Rukhsana’s mother tried to force her 

to have an abortion; when she refused, 

her mother assaulted her hoping to 

cause a miscarriage. Seven months 

later, when a doctor confirmed it was 

too late for an abortion, Rukhsana’s 

mother held her legs down while a

brother strangled her. 

In 1999, a year after Rukshana’s death, 

they were each sentenced to life in

prison. 

Source : Hall, “Life for ‘Honour’ Killing.” 

In the United Kingdom, the 1998 death of Rukhsana Naz 

 

Responses to Gender-Based Violence	 Appendix I. Overview of Approaches in Select Countries 

(see textbox) caused NGOs to pressure the government, 

resulting in the Home Office establishing a working 

group on forced marriage in 1999. The group included 

members from various NGOs and produced a report 

entitled A Choice by Right, which continues to inform the 

country’s policy approaches. The report framed the 

discussion of honor-based violence and honor killing 

through the lens of forced marriage, linking the practice 

to women’s rights. It also impelled the Foreign and 

Commonwealth Office to establish the Community 

Liaison Unit in 2000, which became the Forced Marriage 

Unit in 2005. The unit, which continues to be part of the 

Foreign and Commonwealth Office, operates in 

conjunction with the Home Office, assisting British 

citizens abroad (and sometimes legal residents) who are 

forced into marriage.135 

By 2012, the United Kingdom had criminalized forced 

marriage, but not without criticism. The overwhelming 

majority of the country’s immigrants from places 

identified as practicing it come from India, Pakistan, 

and Bangladesh (see table 8 in section 10, appendix II). 

Federal Research Division 42 
 

     

 

 

 

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Appendix I. Overview of Approaches in Select Countries 

As such, the critiques argued that the law created the perception that South Asian communities 

were potential criminals in the eyes of the authorities, rather than citizens who may be in need 

of services.136 

In Germany, the 2005 death of Hatun Sürücü (see textbox) prompted increased legislative 

activity against forced marriage and robust discussion of honor-based violence, but did not 

lead to the creation of prevention or intervention activities.137 Instead of instituting trainings 

or providing targeted resources to newly arrived immigrants, policymakers responded by 

attempting to introduce immigration restrictions and by passing legislation that criminalized 

forced marriage as an explicit form of coercion.138 Six years later, in 2011, the German parliament 

repealed the law and replaced it with the Act to Combat Forced Marriages and to Better Protect 

Victims of Forced Marriage. This act made forced marriage punishable by up to five years’ 

imprisonment, but did not provide for any other programs to address the issue.139 However, 

Germany does have civil procedures in place that may help prevent forced marriages. 

In Germany, the registrar is obligated to refuse to cooperate if it is obvious that one party 

is being forced into marriage by threat. Similarly, in Sweden, the two parties are required 

to complete an examination of impediments to marriage by the Swedish Tax Agency, which 

notifies the public prosecutor in instances of forced or unauthorized child marriage.140 

Criminalizing Forced Marriage: The Death of Hatun Sürücü 

Born in Berlin to a Turkish-Kurdish family, Hatun Sürücü was 16 when she was forced to marry her cousin; 

the couple had one child together. After they were divorced, Hatun lived independently with her son in a 

Berlin suburb, embracing a Western lifestyle. During this time, her family suspected she was having affairs 

outside of marriage. In February 2005, Hatun’s 18-year-old brother shot her three times in the head at a
 

Berlin bus stop for “dishonoring” the family.
 

Five months later, the Berlin Public Prosecutor’s office charged Hatun’s three brothers with murder. In
 

September 2005, the youngest, Ayhan, confessed to the crime. In April 2006, he was sentenced to prison 

and his brothers were acquitted of charges of conspiracy. Upon Ayhan’s release in July 2014, Germany 

immediately deported him to Turkey. 

Source: Biehl, “The Death of a Muslim Woman”; Bax, “A Crime and Its Consequences.” 

9.2. Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting

Most migrants leaving countries with high prevalence rates of FGM/C for select industrialized 

nations settle in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Italy. As with honor-based violence 

and forced marriage, when looking at European countries only, France rounds out the top three 

(see table 4). 

Federal Research Division 43 
Table 4. Top Destinations for Immigrants from Select Countries with a High

Prevalence of FGM/C

Including United States Excluding United States 

Destination
 % Total # of Immigrants Immigrant Pop. 

% Total # of Immigrants Immigrant Pop. 

United 

States 742,803 39 — — 

United 

Kingdom 254,343 13 254,343 22 

Italy 195,792 10 195,729 17 

France — — 191,027 16 

All Others 720,396 38 529,369 45 

TOTAL 1,913,271 100 1,170,468 100 

 

 

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Appendix I. Overview of Approaches in Select Countries 

NOTE: These figures include the following high-prevalence countries: Burkina Faso, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, 

Gambia, Guinea, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Sierra Leone, Somalia, and Sudan. 

Several U.N. treaties and resolutions (see section 11, appendix III) have helped establish 

baselines for national responses to FGM/C, and as immigration has brought the practice to 

Europe, these responses have varied according to the criminal justice systems and concepts of 

citizenship and community in each country.141 Like the responses to honor-based violence and 

forced marriage, the size of the immigrant population appears to be unrelated to the nature of 

the response. 

Twelve developed nations with large populations from countries where FGM/C is practiced 

have passed laws criminalizing the practice, including the United States, the United Kingdom, 

and Italy. France, however, has not—relying instead on existing criminal law.142 France is also the 

only country to have prosecuted dozens of people for FGM/C—reportedly up to 42 prosecutions 

resulting in 100 convictions (see table 5).143 

Table 5. Prosecutions/Convictions of FGM/C Cases in Europe

Country # of Cases Reported Total Prosecutions Total Convictions 

France — 29–42 100 

Italy — 3 1 

Norway 36* None None 

Sweden 80†

 2 2 

United Kingdom 29‡ Unclear None§ 

*

 In 2017, 31 feared cases, 3 suspected cases, and 2 discovered cases of FGM/C were reported. †

 In 2014, 60 cases were discovered at one school. An additional 20 cases were reported in 2017. ‡

 These cases were referred to Crown Prosecution Services between 2010 and 2016. 

§

 All cases ended in acquittals.
 

Source: Based on information provided by the Law Library of Congress. 

While France has applied a strong criminal justice response to cases of FGM/C, the Netherlands 

has—as with its response to honor-based violence and forced marriage—focused on preventive 

measures by engaging affected communities and deploying a multidisciplinary approach called 

Ketenaapak. This “chain approach” is at the core of the Dutch response, providing a five-step 

Federal Research Division 44 
Responses to Gender-Based Violence Appendix I. Overview of Approaches in Select Countries 

guide on when, how, and to whom to report concerns. In this system, reporting is centralized, 

with 20 designated child and family abuse centers, each staffed with experts to conduct risk 

assessments and support safeguarding measures. Observers believe the success of Ketenaapak 

is embedded in a sense of empowerment, community involvement, and parental support (e.g., 

helping them protect their daughters rather than treating them as potential perpetrators).144 

In contrast, the United Kingdom has no central authority to coordinate its multiagency approach 

and faces a significant lack of training and guidance, especially around mandatory reporting for 

healthcare workers, teachers, and social services providers. For example, researchers observed 

that the 2013 intercollegiate recommendations on FGM/C contained contradictory policies on 

reporting adult survivors, saying that all women should be referred to the police and that such 

referrals should only be considered with the women’s consent.145 

Since July 2015, all of the acute healthcare trusts within the United Kingdom’s National Health 

Service have been required to submit information on victims to the FGM/C Enhanced Dataset; 

5,391 new cases were reported between 2016 and 2017.146 However, though healthcare is the 

main entry point for support, women who have undergone FGM/C are often only engaged once 

pregnant. As a result, maternity services are an avenue for facilitating access to support systems. 

Yet overreliance on these services disregards the needs of women who are not pregnant or of 

childbearing age. From the victims’ perspective, many are reluctant to access these services due 

to fears of negative reactions from healthcare providers or their own discomfort.147 

Elsewhere in Europe, Spain’s Catalonia region follows a model similar to Ketenaapak—training 

healthcare providers and other professionals, and linking them with potentially affected families. 

As with the Dutch approach, trainees felt “empowered by knowledge” to discuss FGM/C. And in 

Normandy, France, information on the procedure has been added to its education curriculum in 

a way that avoids stigmatizing particular communities and children. 

Federal Research Division 45 
           

   

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Appendix II. Baseline Data for Select Countries 

10. APPENDIX II. Baseline Data for Select Destinations

In the absence of truly global baseline data for any type of gender-based violence, the author 

consulted several sources to compile snapshots of select destinations and the origins for their 

at-risk immigrant populations. For honor-based violence, the chosen countries were those 

identified by scholars as traditionally perpetrating these crimes. For forced marriage, the 

selected countries were those with the highest prevalence rates of child marriage and the 

highest absolute numbers of child marriage incidence, according to the U.N. Children’s Fund 

(UNICEF). For female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C), she used UNICEF’s list of the countries 

with the highest reported prevalence rates for the procedure. 

When selecting the destinations, the author chose those most likely to be peers of the United 

States. However, instead of simply looking at all nations in the European Union, for example, 

which excludes peers like Norway, she selected high- and middle-income countries in Western 

Europe along with Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. Since the report focuses primarily on 

European nations, the analysis presented here limits the comparisons to the United States and 

the top three destinations in Europe. Also, please note that the percentages in these tables do 

not always total 100 percent due to rounding. 

10.1. Honor‐Based Violence

As noted in section 9, appendix I, most of the migrants leaving countries that traditionally 

practice honor-based violence settle in the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, and 

France. These immigrant populations, however, come from a variety of countries. As shown in 

tables 6–9, the majority of those emigrating to the United States and the United Kingdom come 

from India, while Germany’s largest pool comes from Turkey and France’s comes from Morocco. 

Table 6. Top Origins for Immigrants from Select Countries with a High Prevalence

of Honor‐Based Violence Settling in the United States

Origin # of Immigrants % of Total Immigrant Pop. 

India 2,307,909 45 

Iran 402,700 8

Turkey 373,059 7 

All Others 2,091,737 40 

TOTAL 5,175,405 — 

NOTE: These figures include the following select high-prevalence countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Bahrain, 

Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Egypt, Georgia, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, 

Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Palestinian Territories, Sudan, Syria, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, 

and Yemen. 

Federal Research Division 46 
Table 7. Top Origins for Immigrants from Select Countries with a High Prevalence

of Honor‐Based Violence Settling in Germany

Origin # of Immigrants % of Total Immigrant Pop. 

Turkey 1,661,588 61 

Bosnia and Herzegovina 200,510 7 

Iran 137,995 5 

All Others 710,543 26 

TOTAL 2,710,636 — 

NOTE: These figures include the following high-prevalence countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Bahrain, Bangladesh, 

Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Egypt, Georgia, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, 

Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Palestinian Territories, Sudan, Syria, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, and 

Yemen. 

Table 8. Top Origins for Immigrants from Select Countries with a High Prevalence

of Honor‐Based Violence Settling in the United Kingdom

Origin # of Immigrants % of Total Immigrant Pop. 

India 836,524 48 

Bangladesh 228,353 13

Somalia 119,953 7 

All Others 573,278 33 

TOTAL 1,758,108 — 

NOTE: These figures include the following select high-prevalence countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Bahrain, 

Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Egypt, Georgia, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, 

Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Palestinian Territories, Sudan, Syria, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, 

and Yemen. 

Table 9. Top Origins for Immigrants from Select Countries with a High Prevalence

of Honor‐Based Violence Settling in France

Origin # of Immigrants % of Total Immigrant Pop. 

Morocco 940,552 61 

Turkey 301,950 20

Cambodia 64,306 4 

All Others 240,219 16 

TOTAL 1,547,027 — 

     

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Appendix II. Baseline Data for Select Countries 

NOTE: These figures include the following high-prevalence countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Bahrain, Bangladesh, 

Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Egypt, Georgia, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, 

Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Palestinian Territories, Sudan, Syria, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, and 

Yemen. 

10.2. Forced Marriage

The United States is the top destination for the vast majority of migrants leaving places with 

high rates of forced marriage as well (see section 9, appendix I). In Europe, the United Kingdom 

has the largest proportion of immigrants from such countries. As with honor-based violence, 

these immigrant populations vary. For example, Mexico is the top origin country for the United 

States (see table 10). The United Kingdom and Italy receive their largest proportions from India, 

while France becomes home to those from the Democratic Republic of Congo (see tables 11– 

13). 

Federal Research Division 47 
                       

                 

 

 

                       

               

 

 

                       

             

 

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Appendix II. Baseline Data for Select Countries 

Table 10. Top Origins for Immigrants from Select Countries with a High

Prevalence of Forced Marriage Settling in the United States

Origin # of Immigrants % of Total Immigrant Pop. 

Mexico 12,683,066 76 

India 2,307,909 14 

Pakistan 370,353 2 

All Others 1,234,594 7 

TOTAL 16,595,922 — 

NOTE: These figures include the following select high-prevalence countries: Bangladesh, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Central 

African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Malawi, Mali, Mexico, 

Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, South Sudan, and Tanzania. 

Table 11. Top Origins for Immigrants from Select Countries with a High Prevalence

of Forced Marriage Settling in the United Kingdom

Origin # of Immigrants % of Total Immigrant Pop. 

India 836,524 42 

Pakistan 529,324 27 

Bangladesh 228,353 12 

All Others 385,656 19 

TOTAL 1,979,857 — 

NOTE: These figures include the following select high-prevalence countries: Bangladesh, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Central 

African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Malawi, Mali, Mexico, 

Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, South Sudan, and Tanzania. 

Table 12. Top Origins for Immigrants from Select Countries with a High

Prevalence of Forced Marriage Settling in Italy

Origin # of Immigrants % of Total Immigrant Pop. 

India 138,802 25 

Brazil 106,040 19 

Bangladesh 98,743 18 

All Others 217,505 39 

TOTAL 561,090 — 

NOTE: These figures include the following high-prevalence countries: Bangladesh, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Central African 

Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Malawi, Mali, Mexico, Mozambique, 

Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, South Sudan, and Tanzania. 

Federal Research Division 48 
                       

           

     

                       

               

 

                       

             

 

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Appendix II. Baseline Data for Select Countries 

Table 13. Top Origins for Immigrants from Select Countries with a High Prevalence

of Forced Marriage Settling in France

Origin # of Immigrants % of Total Immigrant Pop. 

Democratic Republic of Congo 77,889 20 

Mali 76,703 19 

Brazil 58,276 15 

All Others 182,147 46 

TOTAL 395,015 — 

NOTE: These figures include the following high-prevalence countries: Bangladesh, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Central African 

Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Malawi, Mali, Mexico, Mozambique, 

Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, South Sudan, and Tanzania. 

10.3. Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting

As with honor-based violence and forced marriage, most migrants leaving countries with high 

prevalence rates for FGM/C settle in the United States. In Europe, the top three countries are 

the United Kingdom, Italy, and France (see section 9, appendix I). Like the other two types of 

gender-based violence, these immigrants come from a variety of countries. As seen in tables 

14–17, the top countries of origin for the United States, the United Kingdom, Italy, and France 

are, respectively, Ethiopia, Somalia, Egypt, and Mali. 

Table 14. Top Origins for Immigrants from Select Countries with a High

Prevalence of FGM/C Settling in the United States

Origin # of Immigrants % of Total Immigrant Pop. 

Ethiopia 217,913 29 

Egypt 185,131 25 

Somalia 91,501 12 

All Others 248,258 33 

TOTAL 742,803 — 

NOTE: These figures include the following select high-prevalence countries: Burkina Faso, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, 

Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Sierra Leone, Somalia, and Sudan. 

Table 15. Top Origins for Immigrants from Select Countries with a High Prevalence

of FGM/C Settling in the United Kingdom

Origin # of Immigrants % of Total Immigrant Pop. 

Somalia 119,953 47 

Egypt 39,980 16 

Sierra Leone 32,613 13 

All Others 61,797 24 

TOTAL 254,343 — 

NOTE: These figures include the following select high-prevalence countries: Burkina Faso, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, 

Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Sierra Leone, Somalia, and Sudan. 

Federal Research Division 49 
                       

           

 

                       

           

 

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Appendix II. Baseline Data for Select Countries 

Table 16. Top Origins for Immigrants from Select Countries with a High

Prevalence of FGM/C Settling in Italy

Origin # of Immigrants % of Total Immigrant Pop. 

Egypt 110,398 56 

Ethiopia 30,935 16 

Eritrea 13,832 7 

All Others 40,564 21 

TOTAL 195,729 — 

NOTE: These figures include the following high-prevalence countries: Burkina Faso, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, 

Gambia, Guinea, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Sierra Leone, Somalia, and Sudan. 

Table 17. Top Origins for Immigrants from Select Countries with a High

Prevalence of FGM/C Settling in France

Country of Origin # of Immigrants % of Total Immigrant Pop. 

Mali 76,703 40 

Egypt 31,407 16 

Guinea 30,667 16 

All Others 52,250 27 

TOTAL 191,027 — 

NOTE: These figures include the following high-prevalence countries: Burkina Faso, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, 

Gambia, Guinea, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Sierra Leone, Somalia, and Sudan. 

Federal Research Division 50 
           

   

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Appendix III. International and Regional Laws 

11. APPENDIX III. International/Regional Laws Specifically Addressing Violence

against Women

This appendix provides an overview of the international and regional legal instruments that 

promote and support the development of national legislation addressing violence against 

women. Experts consider such laws key to creating a uniform response to incidents of honorbased violence, forced marriage, and female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C). 

The United Nations categorizes violence against women into three types: family violence, 

community violence, and state violence. Migrant women can suffer family violence in the form 

of domestic or honor-based violence, and community violence in the form of FGM/C.148 As such, 

the United Nations has issued several human rights instruments, documents, and measures over 

the years, and has created topical agencies like the Special Rapporteur on Violence against 

Women, to address these forms of violence. These treaties, resolutions, and reporting bodies 

influence, assist, and monitor states developing their own national legislation and responses. 

           

             

         

                 

                 

   

International treaties obligate the signatories to

respond to the issues that the treaties address,

which may include passing/strengthening national

laws. In the case of the CEDAW, however, the

United States is the only signatory which has not

ratified the convention.

The U.N. Convention on the Elimination 

of All Forms of Discrimination against 

Women (CEDAW), which was adopted in 

1979, is the foundational human rights 

treaty that has helped nations around the 

world develop legislation to counteract 

the inequalities that women face, 

including those that make them 

vulnerable to honor-based violence, 

forced marriage, and FGM/C. As a legal instrument, it codifies the nations’ obligations in this 

regard, “ranging from the development of greater equality in state laws as they impact men and 

women to targeting ‘culture and tradition as influential forces shaping gender roles and family 

relations.’” Article 2 of the treaty condemns discrimination against women in all forms. Parties 

to the treaty are required to implement measures to end discrimination (see sidebar). Moreover, 

the article mandates that the pace of policy change be pursued diligently.149 

Although the convention does not explicitly address honor-based violence, CEDAW 

General Recommendation No. 12 (1989) obligates parties to protect women from “violence 

of any kind occurring within the family.” Because honor is often used as a defense or partial 

defense for crimes against women, the United Nations advocates for legislation ensuring these 

incidents will be punished as severely as other crimes.150 In fact, it first explicitly targeted honor 

crimes in 1992 by calling for the removal of any legal provisions for a defense of honor in cases 

of assault and homicide of female family members.151 In 2000, the U.N. General Assembly issued 

Comment No. 28 on “Equality of Rights between Men and Women,” in which its Human Rights 

Committee noted that leaving perpetrators of so-called honor crimes unpunished constitutes a 

serious violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, particularly Articles 6, 

14, and 26.152 In 2008, CEDAW General Recommendation No. 26 clarified that protection against 

gender-based violence extends to migrants.153 

Federal Research Division 51 
In the early 2000s, the U.N. General Assembly issued several resolutions urging states to 

continue developing their responses to honor-related violence. For example, UNGA Resolution 

55/66 (2001), “Working towards the Elimination of Crimes against Women Committed in the 

Name of Honour,” calls on states to: 











Intensify efforts to prevent and eliminate crimes against women committed in the 

name of honor by using legislative, educational, social, and other measures, and by 

involving chiefs; educators; public, religious, and traditional leaders; and the media 

in awareness campaigns; 

Increase the knowledge and understanding among service providers of the causes 

and consequences of crimes committed against women in the name of honor; 

Establish, strengthen, and facilitate support services, such as safe shelters, counseling, 

legal aid, and rehabilitation/reintegration into society; 

Create, strengthen, and facilitate institutional mechanisms that allow victims and others 

to report crimes in a safe and confidential manner; and 

Gather and disseminate statistical information on crimes committed in the name of 

honor.154 

Then, in 2003 and 2005, respectively, UNGA Resolutions 57/179, “Working towards the 

Elimination of Crimes against Women Committed in the Name of Honour,” and 59/165, 

“Working towards the Elimination of Crimes against Women and Girls in the Name of Honour,” 

called on states to introduce similar measures to eliminate such violence. These included prompt 

and thorough investigations of honor crimes; case documentation and effective prosecution/ 

punishment of perpetrators; and awareness-raising activities.155 

Beginning around 2008, the CEDAW Committee assisted in the drafting of the U.N. Handbook 

for Legislation on Violence against Women.

156 The most recent version of the handbook was 

published in 2012.157 It provides guidance on the types of provisions that should be included in 

domestic violence frameworks and stresses the importance of developing laws specifically about 

migrant victims. For example, it calls for states to acknowledge that “violence against women 

may constitute persecution and that complainants/survivors of such violence should constitute 

a particular social group for the purposes of asylum law.”158 

Along with CEDAW, additional international treaties obligate nations to respond to instances of 

forced marriage as the practice affects both men and women. Article 16(2) of the 1948 Universal 

Declaration of Human Rights stipulates that marriage shall be entered into only with the “free 

and full consent of the intending spouses.” Together, this declaration and the International 

Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights constitute the 

International Bill of Human Rights.159 

To address FGM/C, the U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution in 2002 on traditions and 

customs that affect the health of women and girls. This resolution called on states to adopt 

national measures prohibiting practices like FGM/C. A few years later, the U.N. Commission on 

the Status of Women adopted a series of resolutions on ending FGM/C between 2007 and 2010. 

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Appendix III. International and Regional Laws 

Federal Research Division 52 
                                                            

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Appendix III. International and Regional Laws 

Within that timeframe, ten U.N. agencies* signed an interagency statement on eliminating 

the practice.160 Then, in 2011, the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child issued General 

Comment No. 13, stating that children should be free from harmful practices, including 

FGM/C.161 

At the regional level, the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the 

Rights of Women in Africa, more commonly known as the Maputo Protocol, took effect in 2005. 

Article 5 of the protocol states that nations should take measures to eliminate FGM/C and other 

traditional practices that are harmful to women.162 To date, 24 of the 29 countries on the African 

continent where FGM/C is practiced have enacted decrees related to the procedure.163 As with 

the U.N. statements, Article 6 of the protocol notes that national legislation should “guarantee 

that no marriage shall take place without the free and full consent of both parties.”164 

In Europe, the foundational legal instrument providing protection against domestic violence is 

the European Convention on Human Rights, which supports establishing a variety of explicit and 

implicit protections for migrant victims. All E.U. member states are party to the 1953 convention. 

In 2002, the Council of Europe—the leading human rights body in the region—adopted 

Recommendation No. 5, mandating member states to “introduce, develop, and/or improve 

where necessary, national policies against violence.”165 The following year, the council issued 

Assembly Resolution 1327 on honor crimes, establishing clear principles for member states. In 

particular, the resolution called on states to: 













Amend national immigration laws to allow women at risk of honor crimes to obtain 

residence permits; 

Enforce legislation more effectively to penalize all crimes committed in the name 

of honor and to ensure that allegations of violence and abuse are treated as serious 

criminal matters; 

Ensure such crimes are effectively/sensitively investigated and prosecuted; 

Disallow an invocation of honor as a mitigating factor or justification of crime; 

Take necessary measures to implement laws related to these crimes, including providing 

training for policymakers, law enforcement professionals, and the judiciary; and 

Strengthen the female presence in law enforcement and the judiciary.166 

In 2004, the Stockholm Platform for Action to Combat Honour Related Violence in Europe called 

for better collaboration across Europe, making several recommendations to the European Union: 

 Strengthen support and rehabilitation mechanisms available to victims, such as social, 

health, legal, and educational support; safe housing and shelters; support lines and 

counseling services; and information campaigns; 

*

 These ten agencies are the Economic Commission for Africa; Joint U.N. Programme on HIV/AIDS; Office of the U.N. 

High Commissioner for Human Rights; Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees; U.N. Children’s Fund; U.N. 

Development Fund for Women; U.N. Development Programme; U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; 

U.N. Population Fund; and World Health Organization. 

Federal Research Division 53 




Coordinate the work of European police offices and other institutions, particularly in 

regard to protecting European citizens at risk of honor crimes in third-party countries 

and prosecuting perpetrators who take refuge or commit crimes in third-party countries; 

and 

Grant asylum on the grounds of gender persecution.167 

The emphasis on developing comprehensive national responses continued in 2009 with a 

report published by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. It noted that over 

the previous twenty years, honor crimes had become increasingly common, especially in France, 

Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Turkey. Because of this finding, 

the report proposed that “measures to protect victims and prevent so-called honour crimes” 

be implemented, and asked states that had yet to do so to create and put into effect national 

action plans to combat violence against women, including crimes in the name of honor.168 

Likewise, a 2009 recommendation by the assembly on the need to combat honor crimes asked 

the council’s Committee of Ministers to develop a comprehensive strategy. Directed toward E.U. 

member states, the resolution asked countries to: 













Create national action plans to combat violence against women, including quality 

education and training for people in all sectors; 

Begin dialogue with religious authorities in an effort to facilitate cooperation; 

Conduct awareness campaigns and establish helpline numbers; 

Create a database to compile statistics; 

Teach law enforcement and the judiciary about violence in the name of honor; and 

Support and finance NGOs that work with immigrant communities.169 

Europe took more steps toward criminalizing actions related to honor violence in 2011, seeking 

to harmonize divergent state systems in a number of areas.170 In April, the European Parliament 

urged countries “to recognize rape and sexual violence against women, particularly within 

marriage and intimate informal relationships and/or where committed by male relatives, as 

a crime in cases where the victim did not give consent, to ensure that such offences result in 

automatic prosecution, and to reject any reference to cultural, traditional or religious practices 

as a mitigating factor in cases of violence against women, including so-called ‘crimes of honour’ 

and female genital mutilation.”171 

The Council of Europe then adopted the Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence 

against Women and Domestic Violence, also known as the Istanbul Convention, which set forth 

minimum standards related to migration and asylum.172 The treaty obligated its 47 signatories 

to criminalize physical, psychological, and sexual violence; honor crimes; forced marriage and 

sterilization; and FGM/C.173 As of 2014, only eight E.U. member states*

 have ratified this treaty; 

however, that is the number needed for it to go into effect.174 The council is currently monitoring 

the convention’s implementation.175 

                                                            

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Appendix III. International and Regional Laws 

*

 The eight countries are Austria, Denmark, France, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden. 

Federal Research Division 54 
           

 

 

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Appendix III. International and Regional Laws 

Table 18 provides a clear and quick comparison of the types of gender-based violence these 

regional instruments cover. 

Table 18. Regional Laws Specifically Addressing Gender‐Based Violence

Regional Laws Honor-Based Violence Forced Marriage FGM/C 

Maputo Protocol X X 

European Convention 

on Human Rights X 

Stockholm Platform X 

Istanbul Convention X X X 

Yet despite all of these laws, the United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women 

has concluded that all states, including those in the European Union, are deficient in meeting 

their CEDAW obligations. They found that all E.U. member states have increasing numbers of 

migrants, but only some provide gender-specific immigration benefits, such as asylum for 

victims of gender-based or domestic violence.176 

At the state level, six European countries have specific criminal law provisions addressing 

FGM/C: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Others, namely 

Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, and the Netherlands 

forbid the practice under general criminal statutes. As of 2004, Portugal and Ireland were two 

countries holding ongoing conversations about including a specific provision for FGM/C in their 

penal codes; Portugal adopted such legislation in 2015.177 

Within individual countries, debate exists regarding the need to develop specific legislation for 

FGM/C or whether existing criminal laws are sufficient to prosecute. No case has reached a court 

in countries with a specific law, though France and Italy have prosecuted several cases of FGM/C. 

Between 1988 and 2004, for example, France prosecuted 31 cases and Italy prosecuted two.178 

This raises questions about the utility of specific provisions, but also raises questions about why 

France is so different. 

Though they have not yet prosecuted any cases of FGM/C, Sweden and the United Kingdom 

were the first nations to develop specific provisions (in 1982 and 1985, respectively). Both laws 

have been amended several times since then.179 Austria, Belgium, Denmark, and Spain enacted 

their laws in the early 2000s.180 

With the exception of Finland, Greece, Luxembourg, and Portugal, these laws apply the principle 

of extraterritoriality—meaning parents can be prosecuted for having their daughters undergo 

FGM/C outside the country of residence. This principle first came into effect in the United 

Kingdom in March 2004. In Sweden, the principle of double incrimination was removed from 

the law in 1999, making any case of FGM/C performed on a girl living in Sweden (e.g., citizens, 

refugees, residents, etc.) before then legal, as long as the procedure was performed in a country 

that did not criminalize the practice.181 

Federal Research Division 55 
             

             

Responses to Gender-Based Violence	 Appendix IV: State Laws on Forced Marriage 

12. APPENDIX IV. State Laws Specifically Addressing Forced Marriage

As discussed in section 5.2, few states specifically address forced marriage in their criminal 

statutes. Table 19, however, presents the information for the ten states and one territory that do. 

Listing the states in alphabetical order, it includes the year each law was originally enacted, the 

law’s location within each state’s code, and key points (as well as shortcomings) in the language. 

Table 19. State Laws Specifically Addressing Forced Marriage

Year No. State Citation(s) Key Points Enacted 





1 California 2011 Cal. Pen. Code § 265. 

Excludes male victims, minors. 





























Excludes preventative terms or 

consequences for attempting, 

aiding, abetting, or conspiring 

to force a person to marry. 

Hampers law enforcement 

efforts to prevent or hold all 

participants accountable. 

Falls under statute on 

District of 2 2014 D.C. Stat. § 22-2705. Columbia 

prostitution. 

Lacks language about coercive 

tactics used by perpetrators. 

Falls under statute on human 3 Florida 2015 Fla. Stat. Ann. § 787.06(3)(a). trafficking. 

Falls under statute on human 

trafficking and prostitution. Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law 4 Maryland 2014 § 11-303. Enables law enforcement to 

intervene when sufficient 

evidence exists. 

Only applies to minors. 

Does not consider victim’s 

parents/guardian as 

perpetrators. 

5 Minnesota 2015 Minn. Stat. § 609.265. Lacks provision for additional 

facilitator. 

Hampers law enforcement 

efforts to prevent or hold all 

6 Mississippi 2012 Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-1. 

participants accountable. 

Excludes minors under 14; 

very limited statute. 

Prevents law enforcement 

efforts to take preventive 

measures or intervene. 

Applies to all victims. 

Excludes consequences for 7 Nevada 2015 Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 201-300. aiding or abetting an effort to 

force a person to marry. 

8 Oklahoma 2015 Okla. Stat. Ann. Tit. 21 § 1117-19. 

 Excludes male victims. 

Prevents law enforcement 

efforts to take preventive 

measures or intervene. 



Federal Research Division 56 
No. State Year

Enacted Citation(s) Key Points

 Excludes male victims. 

9 U.S. Virgin 

Islands 2014 V.I.C. Tit. 14 § 1301.  Prevents law enforcement 

efforts to take preventive 

measures or intervene. 

10 Virginia 2015 Va. Code § 18.2-355.  Falls under prostitution statute. 

11 West 

Virginia 2015 W. Va. Code Ann. § 61-2-14. 



Applies to all victims. 

Could apply to facilitators. 

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Appendix IV: State Laws on Forced Marriage 

Federal Research Division 57 
             

           

 

 

1 

3 

Responses to Gender-Based Violence	 Appendix V. State Laws on FGM/C 

13. APPENDIX V. State Laws Specifically Addressing Female Genital Mutilation/

Cutting

As noted in section 6.2, nearly triple the number of states/territories that have laws specifically 

addressing forced marriage have criminal statutes concerning female genital mutilation/cutting 

(FGM/C). Table 20 highlights the key points, and some shortcomings, for each of the 27 laws. As 

with table 19 in section 12, appendix IV, it also includes the year each law was enacted and its 

legal citation. 

It is important to note that both New York and Texas have two laws listed, as there are sections 

focused on FGM/C in their health laws as well. Also, the first law was passed in North Dakota 

nearly 25 years ago. The most recent law was passed in New Hampshire during the summer of 

2018; it will officially be enacted in January 2019. 

Table 20. State Laws Specifically Addressing FGM/C

Year(s) No. State Citation(s) Key Points Enacted 

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-513, 13-705,  Only applies to minors under 18. Arizona 2014 13-1214, 13-3620.	  Bans “vacation cutting.” 

 Only applies to minors under 18. 

 Parent/guardian and circumciser 

are subject to prosecution. 2 California 1997 Cal. Pen. Code § 273a, 273.4.  Includes provisions for 

community education and 

outreach. 

 Only applies to minors under 16. 

 Parent/guardian and circumciser 

are subject to prosecution. 

 Cultural/ritual reason and/or Colorado 1999 Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-6-401. consent are not a defense. 

 Includes provisions for 

community education and 

outreach. 

 Only applies to minors under 18. 

 Parent/guardian and circumciser 

4 Delaware 1996 Del. Code Ann. Tit. 11 § 780. are subject to prosecution. 

 Cultural/ritual reason and/or 

consent are not a defense. 

 Only applies to minors under 18. 

 Parent/guardian and circumciser 

are subject to prosecution. Florida 2007 Fla. Stat. Ann. § 794.08.  Bans “vacation cutting.” 

 Cultural/ritual reason and/or 

consent are not a defense. 

 Only applies to minors under 18. 

 Parent/guardian and circumciser 

are subject to prosecution. 6 Georgia 2005 Ga. Code Ann. § 16-5-27.  Bans “vacation cutting.” 

 Cultural/ritual reason and/or 

consent are not a defense. 

Federal Research Division 

5 

58 






































Only applies to minors under 18. 

Parent/guardian and circumciser 

are subject to prosecution. 

Bans “vacation cutting.” 

Cultural/ritual reason and/or 

consent are not a defense. 

Includes provisions for 

community education and 

outreach. 

Cultural/ritual reason and/or 

consent are not a defense. 























7 

9 

Responses to Gender-Based Violence	 Appendix V. State Laws on FGM/C 

Year(s) No. State Citation(s) Key Points Enacted 

Parent/guardian and circumciser 

are subject to prosecution. 

Cultural/ritual reason and/or 

consent are not a defense. 

Only applies to minors under 18. 

Parent/guardian and circumciser 

are subject to prosecution. 

Bans “vacation cutting.” 

Cultural/ritual reason and/or 

consent are not a defense. 

Only applies to minors under 18. 

Parent/guardian and circumciser 

are subject to prosecution. 

Bans “vacation cutting.” 

Cultural/ritual reason and/or 

consent are not a defense. 

Only applies to minors under 18. 

Parent/guardian and circumciser 

are subject to prosecution. 

Cultural/ritual reason and/or 

consent are not a defense. 

Illinois 1998 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/12-34. 

8 Kansas 2013 Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-5431. 

Louisiana 2012 La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:34.1. 

Md. Code Ann., Health-Gen. § 

20-601, 20-602. 10 Maryland 1998	 

Mich. Comp. Laws 1931 PA 328 

§ 136, 1978 PA 368 § 9159. 11 Michigan 2017 

12	 Minnesota 1995 Minn. Stat. § 144.3872, 609.2245. Includes provisions for 

community education and 

outreach. 

Only applies to minors under 16. 

Parent/guardian and circumciser 

13 Missouri 2000 Mo. Rev. Stat. § 568.065. are subject to prosecution. 

Cultural/ritual reason and/or 

consent are not a defense. 

Only applies to minors under 18. 

Parent/guardian and circumciser 

are subject to prosecution. 14 Nevada 1997 Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 200.5083. Bans “vacation cutting.” 

Cultural/ritual reason and/or 

consent are not a defense. 

Only applies to minors under 18. 

Parent/guardian and circumciser New 15 2019 N.H. Rev. Stat. § 632-A:10-d. Hampshire are subject to prosecution. 

Cultural/ritual reason and/or 

consent are not a defense. 

Federal Research Division 59 


























































Responses to Gender-Based Violence	 Appendix V. State Laws on FGM/C 

Year(s) No. State Citation(s) Key Points Enacted 

 Only applies to minors under 18. 

Parent/guardian and circumciser 

New are subject to prosecution. 16	 2014 N.J. Stat. § 2C:24-10. Jersey	 Bans “vacation cutting.” 

Cultural/ritual reason and/or 

consent are not a defense. 

Only applies to minors under 18. 

Parent/guardian and circumciser 

are subject to prosecution. 

17 New York 1997; 2015 Health Law § 207(k). consent are not a defense. 

N.Y. Pen. Law § 130.85; N.Y. Pub. Cultural/ritual reason and/or 

Includes provisions for 

community education and 

outreach. 

Only applies to minors under 18. North 18 1995 N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-36-01. Cultural/ritual reason and/or Dakota consent are not a defense. 

Cultural/ritual reason and/or 19 Oklahoma 2009 Okla. Stat. Ann. Tit. 21 § 760. consent are not a defense. 

Only applies to minors under 18. 

Parent/guardian and circumciser 

are subject to prosecution. 

Cultural/ritual reason and/or 20 Oregon 1999 Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.207. consent are not a defense. 

Includes provisions for 

community education and 

outreach. 

Rhode 21 1996 R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-5-2. Island 

Parent/guardian and circumciser 

are subject to prosecution. 

Only applies to minors under 18. 

Parent/guardian and circumciser 

South S.D. Codified L. §§ 22-18-37, 22	 2015 Dakota	 22-18-38, 22-18-39. 

are subject to prosecution. 

Bans “vacation cutting.” 

Cultural/ritual reason and/or 

consent are not a defense. 

Cultural/ritual reason and/or 23 Tennessee 1996 Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-110. consent are not a defense. 

Only applies to minors under 18. 

Parent/guardian and circumciser Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 153.502; 

24 Texas 1999; 2017 Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. 

§ 167.001. 

are subject to prosecution. 

Bans “vacation cutting.” 

Cultural/ritual reason and/or 

consent are not a defense. 

Only applies to minors under 18. 

25	 Virginia 2017 Va. Code §§ 8.01-42.5, 18.2-51.7. Parent/guardian and circumciser 

are subject to prosecution. 

Only applies to minors under 18. 

Parent/guardian and circumciser West 26 1999 W. Va. Code Ann. § 61-8D-3A. are subject to prosecution. Virginia Cultural/ritual reason and/or 

consent are not a defense. 

Federal Research Division 60 
Responses to Gender-Based Violence	 Appendix V. State Laws on FGM/C 

Year(s) No. State Citation(s) Key Points Enacted 

 Only applies to minors under 18. 

27	 Wisconsin 1996 Wis. Stat. Ann. § 146.35.  Cultural/ritual reason and/or 

consent are not a defense. 

Federal Research Division 61 
             

             

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Appendix VI. Warning Signs of Forced Marriage 

14. APPENDIX VI. Warning Signs of Forced Marriage

Figure 10 comes from the United Kingdom’s Multi-Agency Practice Guidelines: Handling Cases 

of Forced Marriage, which was published by the Cabinet Office in 2014. As it shows, the warning 

signs of forced marriage may be observed in several aspects of a victim’s life: how they behave 

at work or school, how health issues present, and how they have engaged with or been engaged 

by the police. A victim’s family history may also hold important clues for those around them. 

Figure 10. Warning Signs of Forced Marriage

Federal Research Division 62 
               

   

                 

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Appendix VII. Interviewing Victims of HBV 

15. APPENDIX VII. Recommended Practices for Interviewing Victims of Honor‐

Based Violence

The following two figures were derived from information in the monograph, Honor-Based 

Violence: Policing and Prevention, a policing textbook used in the United Kingdom that was 

written by Karl Anton Roberts, Gerry Campbell, and Glen Lloyd. Figure 11 outlines several 

recommendations for law enforcement to consider when responding to reports of honor-based 

violence, including cases of forced marriage and female genital mutilation/cutting. Similarly, 

figure 12 outlines a number of recommendations to consider when recording these incidents. 

Figure 11. Recommendations for Interviewing Victims of Honor‐Based Violence

RESPONDING TO 

FIRST REPORT 

Police may be called to an incident,

yet such reporting is often a last

resort.

•

•Police may receive reports from

other sectors: health, education,

and social services.

VICTIM CONCERNS 

•

•

•

Can they trust law enforcement?

Will they be believed?

Will support be given to the

perpetrator(s)?

ATTITUDES AND 

BEHAVIORS WHEN 

RESPONDING and take them seriously.

•

•

•

Be professional, courteous, and

supportive.

Listen carefully to the allegations

Assure victims that perpetrator(s)

will not be supported.

Federal Research Division 63 
                 

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Appendix VII. Interviewing Victims of HBV 

Figure 12. Recommendations for Recording Incidents of Honor‐Based Violence

Recording Incidents of 

Honor-Based Violence 

Flag it as an incident of 

honor-based violence. 

Record it as a crime or 

crime-related incident. 

Flag it for monitoring 

purposes and to assign the 

case to most appropriate 

investigative unit. 

Record all details of the 

incident. 

Record the actions, 

allegations, and details of 

all parties; limit access to 

the recorded allegations. 

Federal Research Division 64 
                 

               































 

 

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Appendix VIII. Interviewing Victims of FGM/C 

16. APPENDIX VIII. Recommended Practices for Interviewing Victims of Female

Genital Mutilation/Cutting

Table 21 compiles the key points of the AHA Foundation’s training curriculum on female genital 

mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) for law enforcement professionals, educators, and services providers. 

A human rights attorney consulted by the author took this training. The author used their notes 

to put these recommendations together. 

Table 21. Recommendations for Interviewing Victims of FGM/C

Actions Considerations

Prepare Interview 

Prepare for long/multiple interactions, which are necessary to build trust and

gain access to detailed information.

Ensure the victim feels safe by respecting her choices, rights, and wishes.

Encourage the victim to ask for breaks and offer breaks repeatedly; if in an

unfamiliar space, give the victim a tour of the surroundings and identify the

nearest restroom.

Identify community actors who may be allies/enablers or ambivalent about

the procedure. However, be cautious as community organizations may fear

consequences if they take a position against FGM/C.

Locate skilled translators and interpreters who do not support FGM/C and are

outside the victim’s community; consider confidentiality agreements.

Research the victim’s home country/region, as well as her community, ethnic,

and religious groups.

Consider the victim’s and her community’s migration to the United States and

how the cultures may vary.

Understand the victim’s need to weigh their personal safety with cultural

integrity and communal integration. Identify Barriers Identify safety concerns such as housing access, financial support, and

immigration security.

Listen Actively 

Realize that most victims will prefer to speak with a woman as it is culturally

inappropriate for them to speak with a man.

Consider any needs that may be based on demographics. For example,

younger victims may prefer talking to someone younger than their parents

and someone of the same race/ethnicity may make a victim more comfortable

OR more scared (due to confidentiality concerns). Also consider potential

barriers related to class.

Ensure the meeting location is quiet, confidential, and comfortable, as well as

easy to move around. Avoid formal/threatening places like police stations or

courthouses.

Balance questions between open and closed formats.

Interpret Situation Expect the victim to feel a variety of emotions, including anger, ambivalence,

betrayal, coercion, hostility, and shame.

Consider Safety Plan 

 Devise a number of options, while considering the victim’s immigration status.

Think about whether the victim should stay or go and any potential tracking/

surveillance measures that may help.

Educate Victim 

Recognize the fact that the victim may not fully understand everything that

has happened. Share information about FGM/C around the world, the related

health risks, and where to get help.

Federal Research Division 65 
               

   

     

Responses to Gender-Based Violence	 Appendix IX. Training Resources in the U.S. 

17. APPENDIX IX. Training Resources in the United States

This appendix includes information on several training courses on gender-based violence that 

are provided by organizations located in the United States. The trainings are grouped by issue 

and listed alphabetically within those groups. Each entry details how to access the training and 

provides a description of how the training is organized and the themes it emphasizes. 

17.1. Honor‐Based Violence

AHA Foundation. “Honor Violence and Forced Marriage Training.” Accessed August 27, 2018. 

https://www.theahafoundation.org/online-training/honor-violence-and-forced-marriage/ 

This online curriculum aids professionals who are likely to encounter victims of honor-based 

violence in learning how to recognize, prevent, and address such violence or forced marriage. 

It consists of six lessons and several quizzes that should take about an hour to complete. The 

course objectives include: 







Defining honor violence and forced marriage. 

Distinguishing between honor violence and intimate partner violence. 

Identifying best practices for investigating cases of honor violence/forced marriage 

and for working with victims. 

17.2. Forced Marriage

AHA Foundation. “Honor Violence and Forced Marriage Training.” Accessed August 27, 2018. 

https://www.theahafoundation.org/online-training/honor-violence-and-forced-marriage/ 

This online curriculum aids professionals who are likely to encounter victims of honor-based 

violence in learning how to recognize, prevent, and address such violence or forced marriage. 

It consists of six lessons and several quizzes that should take about an hour to complete. The 

course objectives include: 







Defining honor violence and forced marriage. 

Distinguishing between honor violence and intimate partner violence. 

Identifying best practices for investigating cases of honor violence/forced marriage 

and for working with victims. 

Tahirih Justice Center. Forced Marriage Initiative. “Resources: Training & Resource Toolkit.” Accessed 

August 27, 2018. https://preventforcedmarriage.org/forced-marriage-resource-toolkit-forservice-providers/. 

In addition to organizing community awareness, professional training, and public education 

campaigns, the Tahirih Justice Center—through its Forced Marriage Initiative—helps frontline 

professionals develop the necessary awareness of the unique challenges facing victims of forced 

marriage. Its resources include a “Forced Marriage 101” webinar, tip sheets for educators and 

overseas travelers who may be at risk, an overview of U.S. state laws addressing forced marriage, 

and a series of country profiles highlighting the relevant laws and customary practices related to 

forced marriage. 

Federal Research Division 66 
 

     

Responses to Gender-Based Violence	 Appendix IX. Training Resources in the U.S. 

The objectives of these resources are: 

Providing guidance on screening for and identifying potential warning signs/indicators 

of forced marriage. 

Highlighting the nature and scope of forced marriage in the United States. 

Illustrating best practices for providing culturally responsive services to victims and those 

who may be at risk. 







17.3. Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting

AHA Foundation. “Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C) Training for Professionals Working 

with Victims and Communities.” Accessed August 27, 2018. https://www.theahafoundation. 

org/online-training/female-genital-mutilationcutting-fgmc-training-for-professionals-work 

ing-with-victims-and-communities/. 

As with the foundation’s training on honor-based violence and forced marriage, this course 

assists service providers in engaging clients, victims, or persons at risk of FGM/C in a culturally 

sensitive manner. The first few lessons focus on what FGM/C is, the health issues related to the 

practice, and the state of FGM/C in the United States. However, the bulk of the lessons center on 

best practices for working with victims and there are three hypothetical studies, designed to help 

these professionals put the theories into practice. 

American School Health Association. “Female Genital Mutilation & Cutting: Strategies for Education 

and Prevention.” Accessed August 27, 2018. http://www.ashaweb.org/news-events/webinars/ 

female-genital-mutilation-cutting-strategies-for-education-and-prevention/. 

This webinar, a collaboration between the Global Woman P.E.A.C.E. Foundation and the U.S. 

Departments of Education and Justice, provides school health professionals and educators with 

“the essential information needed to understand [FGM/C] and the risk [it poses] to girls and 

families.” In particular, the webinar focuses on: 











Detailing the four types of FGM/C, the reasons it is performed, the people performing 

the procedure, and the ages at which most girls are cut. 

Identifying the girls most at risk and looking for signs that FGM/C may have occurred. 

Explaining the practice of “vacation cutting.” 

Knowing the applicable federal and state laws, when reporting is mandatory, and how 

to report, as well as the penalties for FGM/C and vacation cutting. 

Discussing FGM/C in culturally sensitive ways with girls and families to encourage the 

sharing of information, and providing services for the children, if necessary. 

Council of the Great City Schools, with Global Woman P.E.A.C.E. Foundation. FGM/C Prevention: 

A Resource for U.S. Schools. Washington, DC: Council of the Great City Schools, n.d. https:// 

www.cgcs.org/cms/lib/DC00001581/Centricity/Domain/4/FGMC-CGCS-interactive%20final. 

pdf. 

In addition to defining FGM/C, the cultural reasons for the practice, and its short- and long-term 

health effects, this guide highlights several prevention strategies, such as engaging the school 

community and collaborating with local organizations. It also provides a suggested process for 

building a response protocol within the school/school district. 

Federal Research Division 67 
                                                            

Responses to Gender-Based Violence	 Appendix IX. Training Resources in the U.S. 

Global Woman P.E.A.C.E. Foundation. “Kids Reach Program.” Accessed August 27, 2018. http://global 

womanpeacefoundation.org/kid-reach-2/. 

Designed to educate police officers in the Washington, DC metropolitan area on the practice 

of FGM/C and its consequences, this in-person training gives officers the resources needed to 

support victims and those at risk through prevention, protection, and prosecution. The manual, 

like many of the other resources listed, includes information on addressing FGM/C in a culturally 

sensitive way.* 

Michigan Coalition to End Domestic and Sexual Violence. “Female Genital Mutilation Training: 

Starting the Conversation.” Accessed August 27, 2018. https://portal.mcedsv.org/trainings? 

cid=2&ceid=203&cerid=0&cdt=7%2f12%2f2018&erid=622641&trid=259c6f03-b7e0-4763­

89c7-15d121ceeed2.” 

This training, which is held periodically in Southfield, Michigan, is funded by the Michigan Crime

Victims Service Commission through a grant under the 1984 Victims of Crime Act. It centers 

on helping “advocates and legal professionals understand the root causes and complexity of” 

FGM/C, while also detailing ways in which these individuals can help victims and those at risk. 

U.S. Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention. “Keeping Kids Safe: Preventing Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting in the United 

States.” March 18, 2015. https://www.gvsu.edu/cms4/asset/903124DF-BD7F-3286-FE3330AA 

44F994DE/female_genital_mutilation_cutting_in_the_us.pdf. 

A joint effort by the Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, Sanctuary for Families, and the U.S. 

Departments of Education and Justice, this presentation details multiple aspects of FGM/C. 

Its overall objectives are: 







Increasing awareness and understanding of the FGM/C-related issues young women

and girls may face in the United States and abroad.

Providing information on the physical, psychological, and emotional effects of FGM/C;

tools and resources to identify and prevent FGM/C; and tips for reporting persons at risk

for FGM/C.

Explaining the legal consequences of FGM/C as a crime and form of reportable child

abuse.

* To date, the Global Woman P.E.A.C.E. Foundation has conducted trainings with the Loudoun County (VA) Sheriff’s

Office and the Fairfax County (VA) Police Department. It has also scheduled a training with the Montgomery County

(MD) Police Department, including its Child Protective Services unit.

Federal Research Division 68 
                 

   

     

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Appendix X. Additional Resources 

18. APPENDIX X. Additional Resources on Canadian, U.K., and U.S. Approaches

This appendix compiles additional resources, mostly from the United Kingdom, on addressing 

honor-based violence, forced marriage, and female genital mutilation/cutting. These resources 

include official government policy documents and guidelines, policing textbooks, and academic 

research reports. The target audiences include policymakers and professionals in health, 

education, social services, and criminal justice sectors. 

18.1. Honor‐Based Violence

———.

———.

———.

———.

Canada. Calgary Domestic Violence Collective. “Shame & Honour-Based Violence Awareness Tool.” 

Accessed August 27, 2018. http://cdvc.ca/shame-and-honour-based-violence-awarenesstool/. 

United Kingdom. Chishty, Mak. Honour-Based Abuse, Forced Marriage, and Female Genital 

Mutilation: A Policing Strategy for England, Wales, and Northern Ireland—Eradicating 

Honour-Based Abuse, Forced Marriage, and Female Genital Mutilation Together. London: 

National Police Chiefs’ Council, December 2015. http://www.npcc.police.uk/Publication/Final 

%20NPCC%20HBA%20strategy%202015%202018December%202015.pdf. 

 College of Policing. “Major Investigation and Public Protection: Forced Marriage and HonourBased Abuse.” Last modified January 5, 2017. https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/ 

major-investigation-and-public-protection/forced-marriage-and-honour-based-violence/. 

 Crown Prosecution Service. “Honour-Based Violence and Forced Marriage: Guidance on 

Identifying and Flagging Cases.” June 2014. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/honourbased-violence-and-forced-marriage-guidance-identifying-and-flagging-cases. 

 Roberts, Karl Anton, Gerry Campbell, and Glen Lloyd. Honor-Based Violence: Policing and 

Prevention, Advances in Police Theory and Practice Series. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2014. 

https://www.crcpress.com/Honor-Based-Violence-Policing-and-Prevention/Roberts-Camp 

bell-Lloyd/p/book/9781466556652. 

 Woodward, Catherine. “Policing Honour-Based Violence within the U.K.: The Importance 

of an Honour-Based Violence Risk Assessment Tool and the Validity of ‘DASH.’ PhD diss., 

Canterbury Christ Church University, School of Law, Criminal Justice, and Computing, June 

2015. http://library.college.police.uk/docs/theses/WOODWARD-honour-based-violence2015.pdf. 

18.2. Forced Marriage

United Kingdom. Greater Manchester Police. “Forced Marriage.” Last updated November 1, 2017. 

http://www.gmp.police.uk/live/Nhoodv3.nsf/section.html?readform&s=F9AE08C3D47F28 

C380258091004C6F8B. 

———. Her Majesty’s Government. Multi-Agency Practice Guidelines: Handling Cases of Forced 

Marriage. London: Cabinet Office, June 2014. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/govern 

ment/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/322307/HMG_MULTI_AGENCY_PRAC 

TICE_GUIDELINES_v1_180614_FINAL.pdf. 

———. Her Majesty’s Government. The Right to Choose: Multi-Agency Statutory Guidance for 

Dealing with Forced Marriage. 2d ed. London: Foreign and Commonwealth Office, January 

2010. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attach 

ment_data/file/70194/forced_marriage-right-to-choose.pdf. 

Federal Research Division 69 
———.

———.

———.

———.

     

 Hutchinson, Anne-Marie. “Lessons for the U.S. from U.K. Experiences and Forced Marriage 

Protection Order and Abusive Transnational Marriages.” Webinar hosted by Heather Heiman, 

Manager, Forced Marriage Initiative, Tahirih Justice Center, n.d. http://preventforcedmarriage. 

org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Lessons-from-the-UK-on-FMPOs-and-Abusive-IntlMarriages-with-Anne-Marie-Hutchinson.pdf. 

 National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers (NASWUWT). Guidance on 

Forced Marriage. Birmingham: NASWUWT, n.d. https://www.nasuwt.org.uk/uploads//upload 

ed/7a49c441-8819-4478-8482c82926ff5d24.pdf. 

 Virtual College. “Awareness of Forced Marriage: Free Online Course.” Accessed August 27, 

2018. https://www.virtual-college.co.uk/resources/free-courses/awareness-of-forcedmarriage. 

 West Yorkshire Police. “Forced Marriage.” Accessed August 27, 2018. https://www.westyork 

shire.police.uk/forcedmarriage. 

United States. Glinski, Alison M., Magnolia Sexton, and Lis Meyers. Child, Early, and Forced Marriage 

Resource Guide. Washington, DC: Banyan Global, September 2015. https://www.usaid.gov/ 

documents/1865/child-early-and-forced-marriage-resource-guide. 

———.

———.

———.

———.

———.

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Appendix X. Additional Resources 

17.8. Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting

United Kingdom. College of Policing. “Major Investigation and Public Protection: Female Genital 

Mutilation.” Last modified September 23, 2016. https://www.app.college.police.uk/appcontent/major-investigation-and-public-protection/female-genital-mutilation/. 

 Home Office. “Female Genital Mutilation: Resource Pack.” Last updated May 13, 2016. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/female-genital-mutilation-resource-pack/ 

female-genital-mutilation-resource-pack. 

 Home Office. Mandatory Reporting of Female Genital Mutilation: Procedural Information. 

October 20, 2015; last updated December 1, 2016. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/ 

government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/573782/FGM_Mandatory_Report 

ing_-_procedural_information_nov16_FINAL.pdf. 

 House of Commons. Home Affairs Committee. Female Genital Mutilation: Abuse Unchecked, 

HC 390. London: House of Commons, September 15, 2016. https://publications.parliament. 

uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmhaff/390/390.pdf. 

 McCracken, Katie, Sarah Priest, Ana FitzSimons, and Nicky Stanley. National FGM Centre: An 

Evaluation. London: Department of Education, January 2017. https://assets.publishing.service. 

gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/585158/National_female_ 

genital_mutilation_centre_evaluation.pdf. 

 Social Care Institute for Excellence. “Female Genital Mutilation Training Course.” Last updated 

September 2017. https://www.scie.org.uk/training/children/female-genital-mutilation. 

United States. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. U.S. Customs and Immigration Services. 

“Female Genital Mutilation or Cutting (FGM/C) Outreach Strategy.” January 2017. https:// 

www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Humanitarian/Special%20Situations/DHS_FGM_ 

Outreach_Plan_-_Final_-_1-17-17.pdf. 

Federal Research Division 70 
Responses to Gender-Based Violence References 

19. REFERENCES

1 Sadiq Bhanbhro, Anna Cronin de Chavez, and Adelaide Lusambili, “Honour Based Violence as a Global Public Health 

Problem: A Critical Review of Literature,” International Journal of Human Rights in Healthcare 9, no. 3 (2016): 202, 

http://shura.shu.ac.uk/11838/. 2 Vidya Sri and Darakshan Raja, Voices from the Frontline: Addressing Forced Marriage within the United States (n.p.: 

Gangashakti, 2013), 3, https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/violenceagainstwomen/files/vidyasri_voicesfromthefront 

line.pdf.
 3 World Health Organization (WHO), Eliminating Female Genital Mutilation: An Interagency Statement; OHCHR, 

UNAIDS, UNDP, UNECA, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNHCR, UNICEF, UNIFEM, WHO (Geneva: WHO Press, 2008), 6, http:// 

www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/fgm/9789241596442/en/. 4 Bhanbhro, Cronin de Chavez, and Lusambili, “Honour Based Violence,” 202–4. 5 Bhanbhro, Cronin de Chavez, and Lusambili, “Honour Based Violence,” 203. 6 Remla Parthasarathy, “Identifying and Depicting Culture in Intimate Partner Violence Cases,” Buffalo Journal of 

Gender, Law, and Social Policy 22 (2013–14): 77. 7 Julia Alanen, “Custom or Crime? (Part I of IV) Catalysts and Consequences of Forced Marriage,” American Journal 

of Family Law 29, no. 4 (Winter 2016): 235, SSRN (2747668). 8 Bhanbhro, Cronin de Chavez, and Lusambili, “Honour Based Violence,” 202. 9 Sophie Bernard, ed., Combating Honour Crimes in Europe: Manual for Policy Makers, Institutions, and Civil Society
 

(Lausanne, Switzerland: Surgir Foundation, 2012), 10, https://www.scribd.com/document/117201143/CombatingHonor-Crimes-in-Europe-Manual-for-Policy-Makers-SURGIR. 10 Parthasarathy, “Identifying and Depicting Culture,” 87. 

11 Dietrich Oberwittler and Julia Kasselt, “Honor Killings,” in The Oxford Handbook of Gender, Sex, and Crime, 

ed. Rosemary Gartner and Bill McCarthy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 655. 12 Parthasarathy, “Identifying and Depicting Culture,” 86. 

13 Oberwittler and Kasselt, “Honor Killings,” 659. 

14 Peter Glick et al., “Why Do Women Endorse Honor Beliefs? Ambivalent Sexism and Religiosity as Predictors,” 

Sex Roles 75, no. 11–12 (2016): 544, 551, doi: 10.1007/s11199-015-0550-5.
 15 Bhanbhro, Cronin de Chavez, and Lusambili, “Honour Based Violence,” 198. 16 Parthasarathy, “Identifying and Depicting Culture,” 87. 

17 Oberwittler and Kasselt, “Honor Killings,” 654. 

18 Oberwittler and Kasselt, “Honor Killings,” 657. 

19 Oberwittler and Kasselt, “Honor Killings,” 653. 

20 Oberwittler and Kasselt, “Honor Killings,” 652; Bernard, Combating Honour Crimes in Europe, 11. 21 Glick et al., “Why Do Women Endorse Honor Beliefs?,” 545. 22 Oberwittler and Kasselt, “Honor Killings,” 665. 

23 Bernard, Combating Honour Crimes in Europe, 11. 24 Oberwittler and Kasselt, “Honor Killings,” 659. 

25 Bernard, Combating Honour Crimes in Europe, 15. 26 Oberwittler and Kasselt, “Honor Killings,” 662. 

27 Bhanbhro, Cronin de Chavez, and Lusambili, “Honour Based Violence,” 199; Oberwittler and Kasselt, “Honor 

Killings,” 657–58. 

28 Oberwittler and Kasselt, “Honor Killings,” 665. 

29 Brittany E. Hayes, Joshua D. Freilich, and Steven M. Chermak, “An Exploratory Study of Honor Crimes in the United 

States,” Journal of Family Violence 31, no. 3 (2016): 303–5, doi: 10.1007/s10896-016-9801-7.
 30 Hayes, Freilich, and Chermak, “An Exploratory Study,” 305, 307. 31 Hayes, Freilich, and Chermak, “An Exploratory Study,” 307. 

32 Hayes, Freilich, and Chermak, “An Exploratory Study,” 308–9; Jason Meisner, “Man Sentenced to Life for Killing 

5 Family Members,” Chicago Tribune, May 4, 2011, http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-05-04/news/ct-metquintuple-murder-sentence-20110504_1_demond-larry-twanda-thompson-keyshai-fields. 33 Hayes, Freilich, and Chermak, “An Exploratory Study,” 310–11. 

34 United Kingdom, Crown Prosecution Service, “Honour-Based Violence and Forced Marriage,” revised June 28, 2018, 

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/honour-based-violence-and-forced-marriage.
 35 Alanen, “Custom or Crime? (Part I of IV),” 227. 

36 Alison M. Glinski, Magnolia Sexton, and Lis Meyers, Child, Early, and Forced Marriage Resource Guide (Washington, 

DC: Banyan Global, September 2015), 4, https://www.usaid.gov/documents/1865/child-early-and-forced-marriageresource-guide. 

37 Alanen, “Custom or Crime? (Part I of IV),” 228. 

38 Sri and Raja, Voices from the Frontline, 4. 39 Meredith Dank et al., Exploratory Research into the Intersection of Forced Marriage, Intimate Partner Violence, and 

Sexual Violence, January 2018, 4, https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/251485.pdf; Alanen, “Custom or Crime? 

(Part I of IV),” 240fn80. 

Federal Research Division 71 
Responses to Gender-Based Violence References 

40 Alanen, “Custom or Crime? (Part I of IV),” 229–30. 

41 Alanen, “Custom or Crime? (Part I of IV),” 230–1. 

42 Dank et al., Exploratory Research, 8. 43 Sauti Yetu Center for African Women and Families, A Closer Look at Forced and Early Marriage in African Immigrant 

Communities in New York City, Occasional Report 3 (New York: Sauti Yetu, 2012), 9, http://victimsofcrime.org/docs/ 

nat-conf-2013/handout-2.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
 44 Sri and Raja, Voices from the Frontline, 3–4. 45 Dank et al., Exploratory Research, 8. 46 Alanen, “Custom or Crime? (Part I of IV),” 228. 

47 Sri and Raja, Voices from the Frontline, 3; Kerstin Braun, “‘I Don’t Take This Man to Be My Lawfully Wedded 

Husband’: Considering the Criminal Offense of ‘Forced Marriage’ and Its Potential Impact on the Lives of Girls and 

Young Women with Migrant Backgrounds in Germany,” German Law Journal 16, no. 4 (2015): 847, https://germanlaw 

journal.squarespace.com/s/GLJ_Vol_16_No_04_Braun.pdf. 48 Sauti Yetu, A Closer Look, 2. 49 E.U. Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), Addressing Forced Marriage in the E.U.: Legal Provisions and Promising 

Practices (Vienna, Austria: FRA, 2014), 7, 11–12, https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra-2014-forced-marriageeu_en.pdf.pdf. 

50 FRA, Addressing Forced Marriage in the E.U., 7.
 51 FRA, Addressing Forced Marriage in the E.U., 14. 52 Braun, “‘I Don’t Take This Man,’” 854. 

53 Anthony Marcus et al., Is Forced Marriage a Problem in the United States? (New York: AHA Foundation, 2012), 

2, https://www.theahafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/AHA_Forced-Marriage-Report.pdf. 54 Marcus et al., Is Forced Marriage a Problem in the United States?, 3; Sri and Raja, Voices from the Frontline, 8.
 55 Dank et al., Exploratory Research, 2. 56 Sri and Raja, Voices from the Frontline, 8. 57 Dank et al., Exploratory Research, 12, 24. 58 Marcus et al., Is Forced Marriage a Problem in the United States?, 4 59 Sauti Yetu, A Closer Look, 4, 5, 10–11. 60 Sri and Raja, Voices from the Frontline, 8. 61 Dank et al., Exploratory Research, 2–3. 62 Sri and Raja, Voices from the Frontline, 9. 63 Dank et al., Exploratory Research, 3. 64 Elizabeth M. Landau, “Custom or Crime? (Part II of IV) Legal Remedies for Forced Marriage Victims and Survivors,”
 

American Journal of Family Law 30, no. 1 (Spring 2016): 46, http://preventforcedmarriage.org/wp-content/uploads/ 

2016/05/Elizabeth-Landau_Custom-or-Crime-II.pdf. 

65 Landau, “Custom or Crime? (Part II of IV),” 47, 49–50. 

66 Landau, “Custom or Crime? (Part II of IV),” 49–51. 

67 Sri and Raja, Voices from the Frontline, 7. 68 Rosemarie Skaine, Female Genital Mutilation: Legal, Cultural, and Medical Issues (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & 

Company, 2005), 8. 

69 WHO, “Fact Sheet: Female Genital Mutilation,” January 31, 2018, http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ 

female-genital-mutilation; Skaine, Female Genital Mutilation, 8 70 Skaine, Female Genital Mutilation, 16. 71 Skaine, Female Genital Mutilation, 16–17. 72 Skaine, Female Genital Mutilation, 29. 73 WHO, Eliminating Female Genital Mutilation, 6.
 74 WHO, Eliminating Female Genital Mutilation, 5–7. 75 WHO, Eliminating Female Genital Mutilation, 1.
 76 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: Existing Federal Efforts to Increase 

Awareness Should be Improved, GAO-16-645 (Washington, DC: GAO, June 2016), 6, https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/ 

678098.pdf. 

77 GAO, Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting, 6, 15, 51. 78 WHO, Eliminating Female Genital Mutilation, 5.
 79 WHO, Eliminating Female Genital Mutilation, 4.
 80 WHO, Eliminating Female Genital Mutilation, 1.
 81 GAO, Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting, 8.
 82 Skaine, Female Genital Mutilation, 2, 15. 83 Howard Goldberg et al., “Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting in the United States: Updated Estimates of Women and 

Girls at Risk, 2012,” Public Health Reports 131, no. 2 (March–April 2016): 2, 4, doi: 10.1177/003335491613100218. 84 Goldberg et al., “Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting in the United States,” 6–7. 85 Goldberg et al., “Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting in the United States,” 7. 86 Mark Mather and Charlotte Deldman-Jacobs, “Women and Girls at Risk of Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting 

in the United States,” Population Reference Bureau, February 5, 2016, https://www.prb.org/us-fgmc/.
 

Federal Research Division 72 
 

Responses to Gender-Based Violence References 

87 Mather and Deldman-Jacobs, “Women and Girls at Risk.”
 88 Mather and Deldman-Jacobs, “Women and Girls at Risk.”
 89 Goldberg et al., “Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting in the United States,” 4. 90 GAO, Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting, 21. 91 Goldberg et al., “Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting in the United States,” 4–5. 92 Archana Pyati and Claudia De Palma, Female Genital Mutilation in the United States: Protecting Girls and Women 

in the U.S. from FGM and Vacation Cutting (New York: Sanctuary for Families, 2013), 9–10, http://wcchr.com/sites/ 

default/files/fgm_in_the_us-_sancuary_for_families_2.pdf.
 93 Goldberg et al., “Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting in the United States,” 2. 94 U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Michigan, “Three Indicted for Female
 

Genital Mutilation,” April 26, 2017, https://www.justice.gov/usao-edmi/pr/three-indicted-female-genital-mutilation; 

Associated Press, “1 Charge Dismissed in Detroit Female Genital Mutilation Case,” Pioneer Press (St. Paul), January 

15, 2018, https://www.twincities.com/2018/01/15/1-charge-dismissed-in-detroit-female-genital-mutilation-case/.
 95 Associated Press, “1 Charge Dismissed.” 

96 Associated Press, “1 Charge Dismissed.” 

97 Goldberg et al., “Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting in the United States,” 2; GAO, Female Genital Mutilation/ 

Cutting, 12. 98 GAO, Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting, 12. 99 AHA Foundation, Why We Hesitate to Protect Girls from FGM in the United States, May 21, 2018, 7, https://www.
 

theahafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Why-we-hesitate-to-protect-girls-from-FGM-in-the-UnitedStates.pdf.
 100 GAO, Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting, 2.
 101 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families, “Life, Liberty, and 

the Pursuit of Happiness,” ACR Archive (blog), August 22, 2013, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/archive/blog/2013/08/lifeliberty-and-the-pursuit-of-happiness. 

102 HHS, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Refugee Resettlement, “Female Genital Mutilation 

and Cutting (FGM/C),” State Letter 15-08, July 24, 2015, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/resource/state-letter-15-08. 103 HHS, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, “HHS Awards $6 Million to Improve Female Genital CuttingRelated Health Care Services for Women and Girls in the United States,” July 20, 2016, https://www.hhs.gov/ash/
 

about-ash/news/2016/hhs-awards-6-m-improve-female-genital-cutting-related-health.html. 104 U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), “Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: United States 

Government’s Response,” last updated February 4, 2016, https://www.usaid.gov/news-information/fact-sheets/ 

female-genital-mutilation-cutting-usg-response.
 105 New York Department of Health, “New York State Raises Awareness about Female Circumcision (FC),” last revised 

November 2016, https://www.health.ny.gov/community/adults/women/female_circumcision/.
 106 New York Department of Health, “Female Genital Mutilation/Female Circumcision Reference Card for Health Care
 

Providers,” last revised November 2016, https://www.health.ny.gov/community/adults/women/female_circumcision/ 

providers.htm. 

107 Global Woman P.E.A.C.E. Foundation (GWPF), “Our Mission,” accessed August 25, 2018, http://globalwomanpeace 

foundation.org/our-mission/. 

108 HER Initiative, Maine Community and Clinical Perspectives on FGM/C (Augusta: Partnerships for Health, 2017), 4, 

http://nebula.wsimg.com/fa68c984f2a13a7521a57acf9e7a059c?AccessKeyId=D694163055C1F9022730&disposition= 

0&alloworigin=1. 

109 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, “Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: 

United States Government’s Response,” last modified July 15, 2015, https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ 

oese/oshs/female-genital-mutilation-factsheet.html. 

110 Shontel Wright and Betty Barnard, 2014–2016 Services*Training*Officers*Prosecution (S.T.O.P.) Violence against 

Women Act (VAWA) Implementation Plan (Atlanta: Georgia Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, n.d.), 152, http://
 

cjcc.georgia.gov/sites/cjcc.georgia.gov/files/GA%202014-2016%20STOP%20VAWA%20Implementation%20Plan.pdf. 111 AHA Foundation, “About Us,” accessed September 14, 2018, https://www.theahafoundation.org/. 112 Tahirih Justice Center, “About Us,” accessed September 14, 2018, https://www.tahirih.org/about-us/; Tahirih Justice 

Center, “Forced Marriage Protection,” accessed September 14, 2018, https://www.tahirih.org/what-we-do/direct-ser 

vices/forced-marriage-protection/. 

113 Sauti Yeti, “Our Issues,” accessed September 14, 2018, http://www.sautiyetu.us/issues; Sauti Yeti, “Preventing 

Female Genital Cutting (FGC),” accessed September 14, 2018, http://www.sautiyetu.us/services-preventing-femalegenital-cutting-fgc.
 114 GWPF, “Our Mission”; GWPF, “Healing,” accessed September 14, 2018, http://globalwomanpeacefoundation.org/ 

healing/.
 115 Marcus et al., Is Forced Marriage a Problem in the United States?; Sri and Darakshan Raja, Voices from the 

Frontline; Sauti Yetu, A Closer Look. 116 Dank et al., Exploratory Research. 117 Landau, “Custom or Crime? (Part II of IV),” 46; Alanen, “Custom or Crime? (Part I of IV),” 235. 118 Landau, “Custom or Crime? (Part II of IV),” 46. 

Federal Research Division 73 
Responses to Gender-Based Violence References 

119 Landau, “Custom or Crime? (Part II of IV),” 52–53. 120 Landau, “Custom or Crime? (Part II of IV),” 53. 121 GAO, Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting, 22fn43, 24–25. 122 USAID, “Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting.” 123 U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Immigration Services, “Female Genital Mutilation 

or Cutting (FGM/C) Outreach Strategy,” January 2017, https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Humanitarian/ 

Special%20Situations/DHS_FGM_Outreach_Plan_-_Final_-_1-17-17.pdf. 124 Dorchen A. Leidholdt and Sayoni Maitra,”Emerging Issues: FGM, Forced Marriage, Honor Violence and Trafficking,” 

in Lawyer’s Manual on Domestic Violence: Representing the Victim, 6th ed., eds. Mary Rothwell Davis, Dorchen A. 

Leidholdt, and Charlotte A. Watson, 287–301 (New York: Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, 

First Department and New York State Judicial Committee on Women in the Courts, 2015), http://ww2.nycourts.gov/ 

sites/default/files/document/files/2018-07/DV-Lawyers-Manual-Book.pdf. 125 DHS, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, “ICE Pilots FGM Outreach Program at JFK Airport,” July 12, 2017, 

https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ice-pilots-fgm-outreach-program-jfk-airport; DHS, U.S. Immigration and Customs
 

Enforcement, “ICE Brings Fight against Female Genital Mutilation to Washington’s International Air Hub,” June 15,
 

2018, https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ice-brings-fight-against-female-genital-mutilation-washingtons-internation 

al-air-hub.
 126 DHS, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, “ICE Brings Fight”; Jonathan Mizrahi, “ICE Targets Female Genital 

Mutilation through Operation Limelight USA,” CNS News (Reston, VA), June 26, 2018, https://www.cnsnews.com/ 

news/article/jonathan-mizrahi/ice-targets-female-genital-mutilation-through-operation-limelight-usa. 127 GWPF, “Kids Reach Program,” accessed August 27, 2018, http://globalwomanpeacefoundation.org/kid-reach-2/.
 128 Landau, “Custom or Crime? (Part II of IV),” 47; Cynthia Helba et al., Report on Exploratory Study into Honor 

Violence Measurement Methods—Appendixes (Rockville, MD: Westat, November 26, 2014), https://www.ncjrs.gov/ 

pdffiles1/bjs/grants/248880.pdf. 

129 Gökçe Yurdakul and Anna C. Korteweg, “Gender Equality and Immigrant Integration: Honor Killing and Forced 

Marriage Debates in the Netherlands, Germany, and Britain,” Women’s Studies International Forum 41, no. 3 (2013): 

204–5, doi: 10.1016/j.wsif.2013.07.011. 

130 Yurdakul and Korteweg, “Gender Equality and Immigrant Integration,” 205. 131 Yurdakul and Korteweg, “Gender Equality and Immigrant Integration,” 205. 132 Yurdakul and Korteweg, “Gender Equality and Immigrant Integration,” 206. 133 Yurdakul and Korteweg, “Gender Equality and Immigrant Integration,” 206–7. 134 FRA, Addressing Forced Marriage in the E.U., 32. 135 Yurdakul and Korteweg, “Gender Equality and Immigrant Integration,” 210–11. 136 Yurkadul and Korteweg, “Gender Equality and Immigrant Integration,” 212. 137 Braun, “‘I Don’t Take This Man,’” 848. 138 Yudakul and Korteweg, 209–10; Braun, “‘I Don’t Take This Man,’” 849. 139 Braun, “‘I Don’t Take This Man,’” 849. 140 FRA, Addressing Forced Marriage in the E.U., 20. 141 Helen Baillot et al., “Addressing Female Genital Mutilation in Europe: A Scoping Review of Approaches to 

Participation, Prevention, Protection, and Provision of Services,” International Journal for Equity in Health 17, 

no. 21 (2018): 12, doi: 10.1186/s12939-017-0713-9. 

142 Marge Berer, “The History and Role of the Criminal Law in Anti-FGM Campaigns: Is the Criminal Law What 

is Needed, At Least in Countries Like Great Britain?,” Reproductive Health Matters 23, no. 46 (2015): 147, 149, 

doi: 10.1016/j.rhm.2015.10.001. 

143 Based on information provided by the Law Library of Congress; Berer, “The History and Role of the Criminal Law,”
 

147. 

144 Baillot et al., “Addressing Female Genital Mutilation in Europe,” 7, 9. 145 Baillot et al., “Addressing Female Genital Mutilation in Europe,” 10; Royal College of Midwives et al., Tackling FGM 

in the U.K.: Intercollegiate Recommendations for Identifying, Recording, and Reporting (London: Royal College of 

Midwives, 2013), 16, https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/news/tackingfgmuk.pdf. 146 United Kingdom, National Health Service, “Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) Annual Report 2016/17 [PAS],” July 4, 

2017, https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/female-genital-mutilation/female-genitalmutilation-fgm-annual-report-2016-17-pas; AHA Foundation, Why We Hesitate, 5. 147 Baillot et al., “Addressing Female Genital Mutilation in Europe,” 11. 148 Mimi E. Tsankov and Nadia T. Helm, “United Against Gender Violence: Europeans Struggle to Provide Protection 

for Migrants,” Denver Journal of International Law and Policy 42, no. 2 (2014): 169, SSRN (2522996). 149 Tsankov and Helm, “United Against Gender Violence,” 167–68. 150 Tsankov and Helm, “United Against Gender Violence,” 171–72. 151 Oberwittler and Kasselt, “Honor Killings,” 664. 152 Bernard, Combating Honour Crimes in Europe, 21. 153 Tsankov and Helm, “United Against Gender Violence,” 172. 154 Bernard, Combating Honour Crimes in Europe, 20. 155 Bernard, Combating Honour Crimes in Europe, 20. 

Federal Research Division 74 
Responses to Gender-Based Violence References 

156 Tsankov and Helm, “United Against Gender Violence,” 173. 157 U.N. Women, Handbook for Legislation on Violence against Women (New York: U.N. Women, 2012), http://www.
 

unwomen.org/-/media/headquarters/attachments/sections/library/publications/2012/12/unw_legislation-handbook 

%20pdf.pdf?la=en&vs=1502. 

158 Tsankov and Helm, “United Against Gender Violence,” 173–74. 159 Braun, “‘I Don’t Take This Man,’” 851. 160 WHO, Eliminating Female Genital Mutilation. 161 U.N. Children’s Fund (UNICEF), Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: A Statistical Overview and Exploration of the 

Dynamics of Change (New York: UNICEF, July 2013), 11–13, https://www.unicef.org/cbsc/files/UNICEF_FGM_report_
 

July_2013_Hi_res.pdf. 

162 African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights 

on the Rights of Women in Africa, July 11, 2003, http://www.achpr.org/instruments/women-protocol; UNICEF, Female
 

Genital Mutilation/Cutting, 11–12. 163 UNICEF, Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting, 9.
 164 African Commission, Protocol. 165 Tsankov and Helm, “United Against Gender Violence,” 173–75. 166 Bernard, Combating Honour Crimes in Europe, 18. 167 Bernard, Combating Honour Crimes in Europe, 19. 168 Bernard, Combating Honour Crimes in Europe, 23. 169 Bernard, Combating Honour Crimes in Europe, 18. 170 Tsankov and Helm, “United Against Gender Violence,” 175. 171 Bernard, Combating Honour Crimes in Europe, 17. 172 Tsankov and Helm, “United Against Gender Violence,” 176. 173 Bernard, Combating Honour Crimes in Europe, 17. 174 Tsankov and Helm, “United Against Gender Violence,” 176; FRA, Addressing Forced Marriage in the E.U., 7, 51. 175 Bernard, Combating Honour Crimes in Europe, 17. 176 Tsankov and Helm, “United Against Gender Violence,” 183, 187. 177 Els Leye and Jessika Deblonde, Legislation in Europe Regarding Female Genital Mutilation and the Implementation 

of the Law in Belgium, France, Spain, Sweden, and the U.K. (Ghent, Belgium: Ghent University, International Centre for 

Reproductive Health, April 2004), 8–9, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.566.5262&rep=rep1
 

&type=pdf. 

178 Leye and Deblonde, Legislation in Europe, 7–8. 179 Leye and Deblonde, Legislation in Europe, 9; Berer, “The History and Role of the Criminal Law,” 150; Katherine 

Brown, David Beecham, and Hazel Barrett, “The Applicability of Behaviour Change in Intervention Programmes 

Targeted at Ending Female Genital Mutilation in the E.U.: Integrating Social Cognitive and Community Level 

Approaches,” Obstetrics and Gynecology International (2013): 3, doi: 10.1155/2013/324362. 180 Leye and Deblonde, Legislation in Europe, 9. 181 Leye and Deblonde, Legislation in Europe, 8–9. 

Federal Research Division 75 
   

 

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Selected Bibliography 

20. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Protocol to the African Charter on Human and 

Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa. July 11, 2003. http://www.achpr.org/instru 

ments/women-protocol/. 

AHA Foundation. Why We Hesitate to Protect Girls from FGM in the United States. May 21, 2018. 

https://www.theahafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Why-we-hesitate-toprotect-girls-from-FGM-in-the-United-States.pdf. 

Alanen, Julia. “Custom or Crime? (Part I of IV) Catalysts and Consequences of Forced Marriage.” 

American Journal of Family Law 29, no. 4 (Winter 2016): 227–48. SSRN (2747668). 

Associated Press. “1 Charge Dismissed in Detroit Female Genital Mutilation Case.” Pioneer Press 

(St. Paul), January 15, 2018. https://www.twincities.com/2018/01/15/1-charge-dismissedin-detroit-female-genital-mutilation-case/. 

Baillot, Helen, Nina Murray, Elaine Connelly, and Natasha Howard. “Addressing Female Genital 

Mutilation in Europe: A Scoping Review of Approaches to Participation, Prevention, 

Protection, and Provision of Services.” International Journal for Equity in Health 17, 

no. 21 (2018). doi: 10.1186/s12939-017-0713-9. 

Bax, Daniel. “A Crime and Its Consequences.” die tageszeitung, February 7, 2015. http://www.taz. 

de/!5021214/. 

Berer, Marge. “The History and Role of the Criminal Law in Anti-FGM Campaigns: Is the Criminal Law 

What is Needed, At Least in Countries Like Great Britain?” Reproductive Health Matters 23, 

no. 46 (2015): 145–57. doi: 10.1016/j.rhm.2015.10.001. 

Bernard, Sophie, ed. Combating Honour Crimes in Europe: Manual for Policy Makers, Institutions, and 

Civil Society. Lausanne, Switzerland: Surgir Foundation, 2012. https://www.scribd.com/docu 

ment/117201143/Combating-Honor-Crimes-in-Europe-Manual-for-Policy-Makers-SURGIR. 

Bhanbhro, Sadiq, Anna Cronin de Chavez, and Adelaide Lusambili. “Honour Based Violence as 

a Global Public Health Problem: A Critical Review of Literature.” International Journal of 

Human Rights in Healthcare 9, no. 3 (2016): 198–215. http://shura.shu.ac.uk/11838/. 

Biehl, Jody K. “The Death of a Muslim Woman.” Spiegel Online, March 2, 2005. http://www.spiegel. 

de/international/the-death-of-a-muslim-woman-the-whore-lived-like-a-german-a-344374. 

html. 

Braun, Kerstin. “‘I Don’t Take This Man to Be My Lawfully Wedded Husband’: Considering the 

Criminal Offense of ‘Forced Marriage’ and Its Potential Impact on the Lives of Girls and 

Young Women with Migrant Backgrounds in Germany.” German Law Journal 16, no. 4 

(2015): 845–70. https://germanlawjournal.squarespace.com/s/GLJ_Vol_16_No_04_Braun. 

pdf. 

Brown, Katherine, David Beecham, and Hazel Barrett. “The Applicability of Behaviour Change 

in Intervention Programmes Targeted at Ending Female Genital Mutilation in the E.U.: 

Integrating Social Cognitive and Community Level Approaches.” Obstetrics and Gynecology 

International (2013). doi: 10.1155/2013/324362. 

CBS News. “Was Noor Almaleki the Victim of an Honor Killing?” 48 Hours, September 1, 2012. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/was-noor-almaleki-the-victim-of-an-honor-killing/5. 

Federal Research Division 76 
Responses to Gender-Based Violence Selected Bibliography 

Dank, Meredith, Hanna Love, Sino Esthappan, and Janine Zweig. Exploratory Research into the 

Intersection of Forced Marriage, Intimate Partner Violence, and Sexual Violence. January 

2018. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/251485.pdf. 

Dugger, Celia W. “New Law Bans Genital Cutting in United States.” New York Times, October 12, 

1996. https://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/12/nyregion/new-law-bans-genital-cutting-inunited-states.html. 

———. “U.S. Grants Asylum to Woman Fleeing Genital Mutilation Rite.” New York Times, June 14, 

1996. https://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/14/nyregion/us-grants-asylum-to-woman-fleeinggenital-mutilation-rite.html. 

Equality Now. “Factsheet: Female Genital Mutilation in the United States.” September 2017. https:// 

d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/equalitynow/pages/216/attachments/original/1527088790/ 

FGMintheUS_factsheet_Sept2017.pdf?1527088790. 

E.U. Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA). Addressing Forced Marriage in the E.U.: Legal Provisions 

and Promising Practices. Vienna, Austria: FRA, 2014. https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ 

fra-2014-forced-marriage-eu_en.pdf.pdf. 

Glick, Peter, Nuray Sakallı-Uğurlu, Gülçin Akbaş, Īrem Metin Orta, and Suzan Ceylan. “Why Do 

Women Endorse Honor Beliefs? Ambivalent Sexism and Religiosity as Predictors.” Sex Roles 

75, no. 11–12 (2016): 543–54. doi: 10.1007/s11199-015-0550-5. 

Glinski, Alison M., Magnolia Sexton, and Lis Meyers. Child, Early, and Forced Marriage Resource 

Guide. Washington, DC: Banyan Global, September 2015. https://www.usaid.gov/documents/ 

1865/child-early-and-forced-marriage-resource-guide. 

Global Woman P.E.A.C.E. Foundation (GWPF). “Does Your State Have a Law Against FGM?” January 

16, 2018. http://globalwomanpeacefoundation.org/2018/01/16/does-your-state-have-a-lawagainst-fgm/. 

———. “GWPF Offers FGM Training to Fairfax County Law Enforcement.” May 1, 2018. http://global 

womanpeacefoundation.org/2018/05/01/gwpf-offers-fgm-training-to-fairfax-county-lawenforcement/. 

Goldberg, Howard, Paul Stupp, Ekwutosi Okoroh, Ghenet Besera, David Goodman, and Isabella 

Danel. “Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting in the United States: Updated Estimates of Women 

and Girls at Risk, 2012.” Public Health Reports 131, no. 2 (March–April 2016): 340–7. doi: 10. 

1177/003335491613100218. 

Hall, Sarah. “Life for 'Honour' Killing of Pregnant Teenager by Mother and Brother.” Guardian, 

May 25, 1999. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/may/26/sarahhall. 

Hayes, Brittany E., Joshua D. Freilich, and Steven M. Chermak. “An Exploratory Study of Honor Crimes 

in the United States.” Journal of Family Violence 31, no. 3 (2016): 303–14. doi: 10.1007/s108 

96-016-9801-7. 

Helba, Cynthia, Matthew Bernstein, Mariel Leonard, and Erin Bauer. Report on Exploratory Study into 

Honor Violence Measurement Methods—Appendixes. Rockville, MD: Westat, November 26, 

2014. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/248880.pdf. 

HER Initiative. Maine Community and Clinical Perspectives on FGM/C. Augusta: Partnerships for 

Health, 2017. http://nebula.wsimg.com/fa68c984f2a13a7521a57acf9e7a059c?AccessKey 

Id=D694163055C1F9022730&disposition=0&alloworigin=1. 

Federal Research Division 77 
Responses to Gender-Based Violence Selected Bibliography 

Landau, Elizabeth M. “Custom or Crime? (Part II of IV) Legal Remedies for Forced Marriage Victims 

and Survivors.” American Journal of Family Law 30, no. 1 (Spring 2016): 46–57. http://prevent 

forcedmarriage.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Elizabeth-Landau_Custom-or-Crime-II.pdf. 

Leidholdt, Dorchen A., and Sayoni Maitra.”Emerging Issues: FGM, Forced Marriage, Honor Violence 

and Trafficking.” In Lawyer’s Manual on Domestic Violence: Representing the Victim, 6th ed., 

edited by Mary Rothwell Davis, Dorchen A. Leidholdt, and Charlotte A. Watson, 287–301. 

New York: Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Department and 

New York State Judicial Committee on Women in the Courts, 2015. http://ww2.nycourts.gov/ 

sites/default/files/document/files/2018-07/DV-Lawyers-Manual-Book.pdf. 

Leye, Els, and Jessika Deblonde. Legislation in Europe Regarding Female Genital Mutilation and the 

Implementation of the Law in Belgium, France, Spain, Sweden, and the U.K. Ghent, Belgium: 

Ghent University, International Centre for Reproductive Health, April 2004. http://citeseerx. 

ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.566.5262&rep=rep1&type=pdf. 

Marcus, Anthony, Popy Begum, Alana Henninger, Laila Alsabahi, Engy Hanna, Lisa RobbinsStathas, and Ric Curtis. Is Forced Marriage a Problem in the United States? New York: 

AHA Foundation, 2012. https://www.theahafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/ 

03/AHA_Forced-Marriage-Report.pdf. 

Mather, Mark, and Charlotte Deldman-Jacobs. “Women and Girls at Risk of Female Genital 

Mutilation/Cutting in the United States.” Population Reference Bureau. February 5, 2016. 

https://www.prb.org/us-fgmc/. 

Meisner, Jason. “Man Sentenced to Life for Killing 5 Family Members.” Chicago Tribune, May 4, 2011. 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-05-04/news/ct-met-quintuple-murder-sentence-20 

110504_1_demond-larry-twanda-thompson-keyshai-fields. 

Mizrahi, Jonathan. “ICE Targets Female Genital Mutilation through Operation Limelight USA.” CNS 

News (Reston, VA), June 26, 2018, https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/jonathan-mizrahi/ 

ice-targets-female-genital-mutilation-through-operation-limelight-usa. 

New York Department of Health. “Female Genital Mutilation/Female Circumcision Reference Card for 

Health Care Providers.” Last revised November 2016. https://www.health.ny.gov/community/ 

adults/women/female_circumcision/providers.htm. 

———. “New York State Raises Awareness about Female Circumcision (FC).” Last revised November 

2016. https://www.health.ny.gov/community/adults/women/female_circumcision/. 

Oberwittler, Dietrich, and Julia Kasselt. “Honor Killings.” In The Oxford Handbook of Gender, Sex, 

and Crime, edited by Rosemary Gartner and Bill McCarthy, 652–70. Oxford: Oxford University 

Press, 2014. 

Parthasarathy, Remla. “Identifying and Depicting Culture in Intimate Partner Violence Cases.” Buffalo 

Journal of Gender, Law, and Social Policy 22 (2013–14): 71–104. 

Pesta, Abigail. “An American Honor Killing.” Marie Claire, July 8, 2010. https://www.marieclaire.com/ 

sex-love/news/a4986/honor-killings-in-america/. 

Royal College of Midwives, Royal College of Nursing, Royal College of Obstetricians and 

Gynaecologists, Equality Now, and Unite the Union. Tackling FGM in the U.K.: Intercollegiate 

Recommendations for Identifying, Recording, and Reporting. London: Royal College of 

Midwives, 2013. https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/news/tackingfgmuk.pdf. 

Federal Research Division 78 
———. 

———. 

———. 

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Selected Bibliography 

Pyati, Archana, and Claudia De Palma. Female Genital Mutilation in the United States: Protecting Girls 

and Women in the U.S. from FGM and Vacation Cutting. New York: Sanctuary for Families, 

2013. http://wcchr.com/sites/default/files/fgm_in_the_us-_sancuary_for_families_2.pdf. 

Sauti Yetu Center for African Women and Families. A Closer Look at Forced and Early Marriage in 

African Immigrant Communities in New York City, Occasional Report 3. New York: Sauti Yetu, 

2012. http://victimsofcrime.org/docs/nat-conf-2013/handout-2.pdf?sfvrsn=2. 

Skaine, Rosemarie. Female Genital Mutilation: Legal, Cultural, and Medical Issues. Jefferson, NC: 

McFarland & Company, 2005. 

Sri, Vidya, and Darakshan Raja. Voices from the Frontline: Addressing Forced Marriage Within the 

United States. n.p.: Gangashakti, 2013. https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/violenceagainst 

women/files/vidyasri_voicesfromthefrontline.pdf. 

Tsankov, Mimi E., and Nadia T. Helm. “United Against Gender Violence: Europeans Struggle to 

Provide Protection for Migrants.” Denver Journal of International Law and Policy 42, no. 2 

(2014): 163–245. SSRN (2522996). 

United Kingdom. Crown Prosecution Service. “Honour-Based Violence and Forced Marriage.” Revised 

June 28, 2018. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/honour-based-violence-and-forcedmarriage. 

National Health Service. “Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) Annual Report 2016/17 [PAS].” 

July 4, 2017. https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/femalegenital-mutilation/female-genital-mutilation-fgm-annual-report-2016-17-pas. 

U.N. Children’s Fund (UNICEF). Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: A Statistical Overview and 

Exploration of the Dynamics of Change. New York: UNICEF, July 2013. https://www.unicef. 

org/cbsc/files/UNICEF_FGM_report_July_2013_Hi_res.pdf. 

U.N. Women. Handbook for Legislation on Violence against Women. New York: U.N. Women, 2012. 

http://www.unwomen.org/-/media/headquarters/attachments/sections/library/publications/ 

2012/12/unw_legislation-handbook%20pdf.pdf?la=en&vs=1502. 

U.S. Agency for International Development. “Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: United States 

Government’s Response.” Last updated February 4, 2016. https://www.usaid.gov/newsinformation/fact-sheets/female-genital-mutilation-cutting-usg-response. 

U.S. Department of Education. Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. “Female Genital Mutilation/ 

Cutting: United States Government’s Response.” Last modified July 15, 2015. https://www2. 

ed.gov/about/offices/list/oese/oshs/female-genital-mutilation-factsheet.html. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Administration for Children and Families. “Life, 

Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” ACR Archive (blog), August 22, 2013. https://www. 

acf.hhs.gov/archive/blog/2013/08/life-liberty-and-the-pursuit-of-happiness. 

Administration for Children and Families. Office of Refugee Resettlement. “Female Genital 

Mutilation and Cutting (FGM/C),” State Letter 15-08. July 24, 2015. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ 

orr/resource/state-letter-15-08. 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health. “HHS Awards $6 Million to Improve Female 

Genital Cutting-Related Health Care Services for Women and Girls in the United States.” 

July 20, 2016. https://www.hhs.gov/ash/about-ash/news/2016/hhs-awards-6-m-improvefemale-genital-cutting-related-health.html. 

Federal Research Division 79 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security. U.S. Customs and Immigration Services. “Female Genital 

Mutilation or Cutting (FGM/C) Outreach Strategy.” January 2017. https://www.uscis.gov/ 

sites/default/files/USCIS/Humanitarian/Special%20Situations/DHS_FGM_Outreach_Plan_­

_Final_-_1-17-17.pdf. 

———. 

———. 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “ICE Brings Fight against Female Genital 

Mutilation to Washington’s International Air Hub.” June 15, 2018. https://www.ice.gov/ 

news/releases/ice-brings-fight-against-female-genital-mutilation-washingtons-interna 

tional-air-hub. 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “ICE Pilots FGM Outreach Program at JFK 

Airport.” July 12, 2017. https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ice-pilots-fgm-outreach-pro 

gram-jfk-airport. 

U.S. Department of Justice. U.S. Attorney’s Office. Eastern District of Michigan. “Three Indicted for 

Female Genital Mutilation.” April 26, 2017. https://www.justice.gov/usao-edmi/pr/three-in 

dicted-female-genital-mutilation. 

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: Existing Federal 

Efforts to Increase Awareness Should be Improved, GAO-16-645. Washington, DC: GAO, 

June 2016. https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/678098.pdf. 

World Health Organization (WHO). Eliminating Female Genital Mutilation: An Interagency Statement; 

OHCHR, UNAIDS, UNDP, UNECA, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNHCR, UNICEF, UNIFEM, WHO. Geneva: 

WHO Press, 2008. http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/fgm/9789241596442/ 

en/. 

———. “Fact Sheet: Female Genital Mutilation.” January 31, 2018. http://www.who.int/news-room/ 

fact-sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation. 

Wright, Shontel, and Betty Barnard. 2014–2016 Services*Training*Officers*Prosecution (S.T.O.P.) 

Violence against Women Act (VAWA) Implementation Plan. Atlanta: Georgia Criminal Justice 

Coordinating Council, n.d. http://cjcc.georgia.gov/sites/cjcc.georgia.gov/files/GA%202014­

2016%20STOP%20VAWA%20Implementation%20Plan.pdf. 

Yurdakul, Gökçe, and Anna C. Korteweg. “Gender Equality and Immigrant Integration: Honor Killing 

and Forced Marriage Debates in the Netherlands, Germany, and Britain.” Women’s Studies 

International Forum 41, no. 3 (2013): 204–14. doi: 10.1016/j.wsif.2013.07.011. 

Responses to Gender-Based Violence Selected Bibliography 

Federal Research Division 80