Estimation of girls at risk of female genital mutilation in the European Union : step-by-step guide.
Date: 2015-11-17
Institutions: European Institute for Gender Equality
Subjects: EU Member State, human rights, sexual discrimination, sexual mutilation, sexual violence

Estimation of girls at risk  

of female genital mutilation  

in the European Union

Step-by-step 
guide

The European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) is an autonomous body of the European Union, established to contribute to 
and strengthen the promotion of gender equality, including gender mainstreaming in all EU policies and the resulting national 
policies, and the fight against discrimination based on sex, as well as to raise EU citizens’ awareness of gender equality. 

Further information can be found on the EIGE’s website (http://www.eige.europa.eu). 

The report does not necessarily reflect the opinion or position of the European Institute for Gender Equality and no respon-
sibility is taken by any persons for the use of the information contained in this publication. Neither the European Institute for 
Gender Equality nor any person acting on its behalf can be held responsible for any use made of the information contained 
in this publication. 

Gedimino pr. 16 LT-01103 

Vilnius 

LITHUANIA 

Tel. +370 52157444 

E-mail: eige.sec@eige.europa.eu 

http://www.eige.europa.eu 

http://www.twitter.com/eurogender 

http://www.facebook.com/eige.europa.eu 

http://www.youtube.com/eurogender

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your  
questions about the European Union.

Freephone number (*):  
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers  
or these calls may be billed.

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.

PDF

Paper

MH0215094ENN

10.2839/04777

978-92-9218-660-9 

MH0215094ENC

10.2839/48544

978-92-9218-661-6 

© European Institute for Gender Equality, 2015 
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Italy

Printed on elemental chlorine-free bleached PaPer (ecf)

Estimation of girls at risk of 
female genital mutilation in the 
European Union

Step-by-step guide 

This step-by-step guide was developed within the framework of the study on the estimation of the number of women 
and girls at risk of female genital mutilation (FGM) in selected EU Member States. It was commissioned by the Euro-
pean Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) and coordinated by Jurgita Pečiūrienė with the support of Ligia Nobrega 
and Thérèse Murphy. The study was carried out by Yellow Window, represented by researchers Lut Mergaert, Catarina 
Arnaut, Marja Exterkate, Siobán O’Brien Green, Sofia Strid and Els Leye.

Neither the European Institute for Gender Equality nor any person acting on its behalf can be held responsible for the 
use made of the information contained in this document. 

2

Estimation of girls at risk of female genital mutilation in the European Union
Step-by-step guide 

Abbreviations

CSO

DHS

EC

EIGE

EU

Civil Society Organisation

Demographic and Health Survey

European Commission

European Institute for Gender Equality

European Union

Eurostat

The Statistical Office of the European Union

FGM

MICS

Unicef

WHO

Female Genital Mutilation

Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey

United Nations Children’s Fund

World Health Organisation

Estimation of girls at risk of female genital mutilation in the European Union
Step-by-step guide 

3

 
Contents

Introduction  ........................................................................................................... 7

Methodological approach to estimate FGM risk in the EU: a step‑by‑step guide  ... 9

1. State of the art  .........................................................................................................................  9

2. Quantitative component  ................................................................................................... 10

2.1.  Countries of origin (countries where FGM is commonly practised)  ......... 10

2.2.  Countries of destination (EU Member States)  .................................................. 11

3. Qualitative component  ...................................................................................................... 14

4. FGM risk estimation ............................................................................................................. 17

5. Plan the next FGM risk estimation  ................................................................................. 21

Possible indicators of trends in FGM risk  ......................................................................... 21

Reflections and further research  ......................................................................................... 21

Bibliography  ........................................................................................................ 25

Annexes  ............................................................................................................... 27

Annex 1. Glossary  ..................................................................................................................... 27

Annex 2. Checklist for estimating FGM risk in the EU  ................................................. 30

Annex 3. List of countries where FGM is documented; respective national FGM 
prevalence rates and median age of FGM (as of 21 August 2014)  ......................... 31

Annex 4. Guidelines on quantitative data collection to estimate FGM risk  ........ 33

Annex 5. Suggestions to organise focus group discussions  .................................... 38

Estimation of girls at risk of female genital mutilation in the European Union
Step-by-step guide 

5

 
Introduction

Introduction

Introduction

Female genital mutilation (FGM) refers to all procedures 
involving partial or total removal of the external female 
genitalia  or  other  injury  to  the  female  genital  organs 
for  non-medical  reasons  (WHO,  2008).  The  European 
Commission  (EC)  is  committed  to  contributing  to  the 
elimination  of  this  phenomenon.  Recent  efforts  in-
clude a study to map the current situation and trends of 
FGM in twenty-eight EU Member States (1), followed by 
a  communication  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
European Council (2). Both the study and the communi-
cation were launched in 2013.

The  European  Commission’s  communication  ‘Towards 
the elimination of female genital mutilation’ has defined 
the  better  understanding  of  this  harmful  practice  in 
the EU as one of its objectives. To achieve this goal, the 
European Commission asked the European Institute for 
Gender Equality (EIGE) ‘to develop a common method-
ology and indicators to measure the prevalence of FGM, 
to  estimate  the  number  of  women  and  girls  at  risk  of 
being mutilated and the number of women affected by 
FGM in the EU’ (European Commission, 2013). In order to 
contribute to the implementation of the latter actions, 
EIGE  launched  a  study  in  2014  to  develop  a  method-
ological  approach  to  estimate  FGM  risk  in  the  EU. This 
process  included  a  literature  review,  consultation  of 
experts  and  a  pilot  test.  As  a  starting  point,  the  most 
recent methodological approaches for estimating FGM 
risk  in  EU  countries  were  reviewed  and,  based  on  the 

experience gained, a methodology was developed. The 
methodological approach was revised by 23 experts be-
fore and after being tested in three EU Member States: 
Ireland,  Portugal  and  Sweden  (3).  Based  on  these  pilot 
studies and on the experts’ feedback, the methodologi-
cal approach was adjusted.

This  step-by-step  guide  is  the  final  result  of  the  study:  
Estimation  of  girls  at  risk  of  female  genital  mutilation  in 
the European Union (4). It sets out the minimum require-
ments for estimating FGM risk, as well as suggestions to 
enhance  the  quality  and  accuracy  of  the  assessment. 
The guide aims to be a practical support for those ap-
pointed to the task to estimate the risk of FGM in a re-
gion  or  a  country  within  the  EU.  At  the  same  time,  by 
offering a common methodological framework to esti-
mate FGM risk in the EU, EIGE wants to contribute to the 
production  of  comparable  and  up-to-date  data  across 
EU Member States. Estimations of FGM risk provide rel-
evant input to EU Member States’ policy makers to con-
tinue their work towards the prevention of FGM and the 
protection of girls from being subjected to this harmful 
practice. 

(1) 

(2) 

EIGE  (2013).  Female  genital  mutilation  in  the  European 
Union and Croatia — Report.
European  Commission  (2013).  Communication  to  the 
European  Parliament  and  the  Council  —  Towards  the 
elimination of female genital mutilation (COM(2013)  833 
final).

(3)  More information about the pilot studies can be found 
in EIGE’s report entitled Estimation of girls at risk of female 
genital mutilation in the European Union (2015).
For a full understanding of the methodological options 
presented in this step-by-step guide, please consult the 
report entitled Estimation of girls at risk of female genital 
mutilation in the European Union (EIGE, 2015).

(4) 

Estimation of girls at risk of female genital mutilation in the European Union
Step-by-step guide 

7

Methodological approach 
to estimate FGM risk in 
the EU: a step-by-step 
guide

Methodological approach to estimate FGM risk in the EU: a step-by-step guide

Methodological approach to estimate 
FGM risk in the EU: a step‑by‑step guide

The methodology to estimate FGM risk includes a quan-
titative  and  a  qualitative  component.  Combining  both 
components provides a more accurate and comprehen-
sive picture than the one  obtained through quantitative 
or qualitative analysis alone.

Although  the  listed  steps  follow  a  logical  order,  the 
quantitative and qualitative parts of the research can be 
performed simultaneously or one after the other.

FGM  risk  estimations  need  to  be  repeated  regularly  in 
order  to  monitor  trends  and  the  impact  of  policies.  If 
based  on  census  data,  they  are  usually  done  every  10 
years,  with  a  few  possible  exceptions. Those  countries 
that  have  a  population  register  can  carry  out  FGM  risk 
(and prevalence) assessment more frequently.

A checklist to estimate FGM risk in the EU can be found 
in Annex 2.

it 

1. State of the art
is  advisable  to  conduct 
As  a  starting  point, 
a  (web-based)  search  to  gather  information  on  recent 
research  focusing  on  FGM  prevalence  and  risk  in  the 
country and on the influence of migration and accultur-
ation on attitudes and behaviours towards FGM. In order 
to obtain a comprehensive picture of the literature avail-
able,  it  is  recommended  to  examine  documentation 

Step 1

State of the art

Steps 
2 to 7

Steps 
8 to 13

Quantitative component

Qualitative component

Steps 
14 to 16

FGM risk estimation

written in English and in the official language(s) of the 
country.  Other  languages  can  be  considered  as  well. 
For  this  purpose,  national  native-speaking  researchers 
might  have  to  be  involved.  In  addition,  it  is  important 
to  be  well  informed  about  the  current  FGM  legal  and 
policy frameworks in the EU Member States.

1

Review existing knowledge about FGM prevalence and risk, as well as about the influence of migration 
and acculturation on attitudes and behaviours towards FGM (in English and in the official language(s) of 
the EU Member State). Consider reviewing the existing legal and policy framework in the country.

Estimation of girls at risk of female genital mutilation in the European Union
Step-by-step guide 

9

Methodological approach to estimate FGM risk in the EU: a step-by-step guide

2. Quantitative component
Different types of data are required to estimate the num-
ber of women and girls at risk of FGM in an EU Member 
State.  These  data  relate  to  the  countries  of  origin  (i.e. 
countries  where  FGM  is  commonly  practised  and  for 
which  national  prevalence  rates  are  documented)  and 
to the countries of destination (i.e. an EU Member State).

2.1  Countries of origin (countries where FGM 

is commonly practised)

For most countries where FGM is commonly practised, 
its prevalence has been estimated based on large-scale, 
national  and  representative  household  surveys,  which 
include modules on FGM. National survey data in these 

countries  originate  from  demographic  and  health  sur-
veys  (DHS)  published  by  ICF  International,  and  from 
multiple  indicator  cluster  surveys  (MICS)  published  by 
Unicef 
(http://www.measuredhs.com/Publications/
Publications-by-Country.cfm  and  http://www.childinfo.
org/mics_available.html).  These  are  the  most  wide-
ly  recognised  and  referenced  sources  of  information 
about FGM. Nevertheless, there is evidence that FGM is 
also practised in South East Asia and amongst Kurdish 
populations.  Despite  the  fact  that  data  sources  for  the 
latter may not be as reliable as MICS or DHS, robust prev-
alence research results will hopefully become available 
in the future, allowing the inclusion of these communi-
ties in FGM risk estimations in the EU.

2

Review the most recent DHS and MICS reports to collect information on national prevalence 
rates and age of FGM for the age cohort 15–19. In case the EU Member State collects information 
on the region of origin (or ethnicity) of the migrant population, gather information about the regional 
(or ethnic) prevalence rates for the age cohort 15–19 in the countries of origin. A brief explanation about 
each variable is provided below.

National prevalence rates for the 15–19 age cohort
Using national prevalence levels for the age cohort 15–
19 to estimate the number of girls at risk overestimates 
the true risk for girls from countries where FGM preva-
lence  has  declined  in  recent  years  (most  recent  FGM 
prevalence data indicate a decline in a vast majority of 
countries).  As  suggested  by  Yoder  (2011)  and  Unicef 
(2013), using prevalence figures for women in the 15–19 
age cohort (i.e. the group of youngest adults considered 
to  be  in ‘final  cut  status’,  i.e.  either  having  undergone 
FGM or no longer at risk of FGM) in the country of origin 
is believed to yield a more precise FGM risk estimation.

Age of FGM for women in the 15–19 age cohort
Among  women,  data  on  age  of  FGM  are  likely  to  be 
imprecise,  as  recall  bias  can  be  presumed  to  affect 
responses from girls and women who underwent FGM 
procedure when they were very young. Data on age of 
FGM  are  used  for  women  in  the  youngest  age  cohort 
(15–19) (Unicef, 2013). In case data on the age of cutting 

for  women  in  the  15–19  age  cohort  are  not  available, 
age of FGM for women aged 15–49 is to be used.

Regional prevalence rates for the 15–19 age cohort
Data on FGM prevalence rates disaggregated by region 
are available for all 29 countries in which FGM is docu-
mented (5). In most countries of origin (20 countries, see 
Annex 3), the variance in FGM prevalence between dif-
ferent geographical regions is 50 % or more. The region 
of origin can therefore be considered an important de-
terminant for FGM risk estimations. The migrant popula-
tion residing in an EU Member State may or may not be 
representative of the population in the country of origin 
regarding age and region. However, not all EU Member 
States collect information on the region of origin for the 
migrant  population.  Check  whether  the  EU  Member 
State  gathers  this  information  because  it  will  enhance 
the accuracy of any FGM risk estimation. For comparabil-
ity reasons, be aware that the list of regions needs to co-
incide with those mentioned in DHS and MICS reports.

(5) 

The list of all the countries in which FGM is documented 
is provided in Annex 3.

10

Estimation of girls at risk of female genital mutilation in the European Union
Step-by-step guide 

Methodological approach to estimate FGM risk in the EU: a step-by-step guide

Ethnicity prevalence rates
FGM  prevalence  rates  disaggregated  by  ethnicity  are 
currently  available  for  11  countries  of  origin.  Some  EU 
Member States gather information about the ethnicity 
of  its  migrant  population,  and  such  data  will  enhance 

the  accuracy  of  the  estimation.  For  comparability  rea-
sons,  be  aware  that  the  list  of  ethnicities  needs  to  co-
incide with those mentioned in DHS and MICS reports.

3 Calculate the median age of FGM for each country where FGM is commonly practised.

No exact age of FGM is provided in the DHS and MICS 
reports. The information given is the percentage of FGM 
cases  disaggregated  by  age  groups  (most  often  0–4, 
5–9, 10–14, 15+, unknown). The median age of FGM is 
calculated as follows:

 ● firstly, the ‘unknown’ cases are proportionately redis-

tributed over the age categories;

 ● secondly, the highest boundary of the age group in 
which 50 % falls is selected as the median age.

2.2  Countries of destination (EU Member 

States)

Different  types  of  data  are  needed  to  estimate  the  risk 
of FGM. However, they are not necessarily collected by 
the same institution or easily accessible. The population 
groups about which information is needed for estimat-
ing FGM risk in the countries of destination are: female 
migrant population, asylum seekers, refugees and irregu-
lar migrants. Other datasets that can be considered are: 
female live births and FGM-specific records that include 
information  on  girls  aged  0–18  (e.g.  medical/hospital, 
child protection, asylum, judicial  and police records).

Reference year
The  reference  year  for  collecting  data  should  be  the 
most recent year for which all datasets are available. For 
some EU Member States, this is likely to be the year of 
the  most  recent  population  census.  For  others,  there 
may be more up-to-date data (e.g. through population 
registers).

An  EU-wide  census  took  place  in  2011,  which  strived 
for an output harmonisation in order to establish more 
comparable  data  between  Member  States  (including 
migration history). In the 2011 censuses, information on 
the ‘place of birth’ (country) of an individual was (to be) 
collected  according  to  the  place  of  usual  residence  of 
the mother at the time of birth; or, if not available, the 
place  where  the  birth  took  place.  All  countries  where 
FGM is commonly practised are enumerated in the list 
provided in the statistical office of the European Union’s 
explanatory  notes  on  EU  legislation  on  the  2011  pop-
ulation  and  housing  censuses  (Eurostat,  2011)  (which 
means  that  data  broken  down  by  country  of  birth  are 
available).

As censuses are conducted every 10 years, the next cen-
sus will take place in 2021. The advantage of using the 
most recent census year as the reference year for FGM 
risk (and prevalence) studies in the EU is that the results 
produced are easily comparable across Member States.

4

Identify the institutions holding data necessary for estimating FGM risk. An explanation about 
the required variables to be collected is provided below. 

Estimation of girls at risk of female genital mutilation in the European Union
Step-by-step guide 

11

Methodological approach to estimate FGM risk in the EU: a step-by-step guide

Female migrant population
Data  for  the  female  migrant  population  aged  0–18  in 
an EU Member State, originating from countries where 
FGM is commonly practised, need to be disaggregated 
referring to the reference:

 ● by country of origin, one-year age group (6), first and 

second generation;

 ● if available, by region of origin, e.g. region, county or 

city of birth;

 ● if  available,  by  residence  region  in  the  country  of 

destination (EU Member State).

A  possible  source  of  information  for  requesting  these 
data from may be the national statistical office.

Female  asylum  seekers,  refugees  and  irregular 
migrants
Data  for  female  asylum  seekers,  refugees  and  irregular 
migrants aged 0–18 in an EU Member State, originating 
from countries where FGM is practised, need to be dis-
aggregated  referring  to  the  reference  year  and  subse-
quent years (if data are available):

 ● by  country  of  origin,  one-year  age  group,  first  and 

second generation;

 ● if available, by region of origin, e.g. region, county or 

city of birth.

Possible  sources  of  information  for  requesting  these 
data may be the national border and immigration ser-
vices, as well as refugee centres.

Female live births
Data  for  female  live  births  in  an  EU  Member  State  to 
mothers originating from countries where FGM is docu-
mented need to be disaggregated referring to the ref-
erence year and subsequent years (if data are available):

 ● by country of origin of the mother;

 ● if available, by region of origin of the mother, e.g. re-

gion, county or city of birth;

 ● if available, by region in the country of destination 
where the birth took place or usual residence of the 
mother (EU Member State).

Possible  sources  for  requesting  these  data  may  be  the 
central birth registration office or the national statistical 
office.

Other  sources  where  records  with  FGM  data  for 
girls aged 0–18 are kept
These records may refer to FGM or risk of FGM among 
girls under the age of 18 with parents originating from 
an ‘FGM risk country’ and currently living in an EU Mem-
ber State, referring to the reference year and subsequent 
years (if data are available). These data may be collected 
through different organisations where relevant records 
are kept.

5

Draft guidelines to be sent to the identified institutions holding data, explaining the study and its 
objectives, the data to be collected and the level of disaggregation of data, as well as other specificities 
related to data collection.

An  example  of  guidelines  can  be  found  in  Annex  4. 
These were developed and used within the framework 
of the Study on the estimation of girls at risk of FGM in the 
EU (EIGE, 2014). It is recommended to include a glossary 
to ensure a common understanding of the variables on 
which  data  are  to  be  collected. The  guidelines  should 
be  kept  short  and  simple  and  without  unnecessary 

complications. The  advice  here  is  to  be  specific  about 
what you are looking for, and why.

When making a request for data, it is important to sum-
marise  it  in  a  language  appropriate  to  the  institution 
and  to  refer  to  the  guidelines  for  a  more  specific  and 
detailed description of the request. 

6 

Collecting data per one-year age group is very important 
to estimate FGM risk as the median age of cutting varies 
between countries of origin.

12

Estimation of girls at risk of female genital mutilation in the European Union
Step-by-step guide 

Methodological approach to estimate FGM risk in the EU: a step-by-step guide

6

Contact the institutions that possess the data and indicate a deadline for the request to be fulfilled. 
Follow up on the data collection (i.e. call or e-mail the contact person regularly).

Allow sufficient time for collection of the requested data. 
Avoid summer and any other holiday periods to request 
the data. Otherwise, (major) delays can be expected. Be 
aware that fees may be charged for the requested data.

the institution possessing the data may be required (for 
instance, readily accessible data might be broken down 
into different age groups than those requested).

Several  exchanges  may  be  needed  in  order  to  obtain 
the sufficient level of data disaggregation as requested. 
It can also be expected that specific data processing by 

For  certain  datasets,  specific  non-disclosure  and  confi-
dentiality  declarations  may  have  to  be  signed  in  order 
to obtain the data.

7

After receiving the data, conduct a ‘quality control’ in order to confirm that all requested data have 
been provided and that the underlying definitions correspond to what was asked. Pay specific attention 
to the level of disaggregation of the data.

The quality control includes a check on completeness, consistency, and on whether data provided are in line with 
the definitions listed in the guidelines.

Estimation of girls at risk of female genital mutilation in the European Union
Step-by-step guide 

13

Methodological approach to estimate FGM risk in the EU: a step-by-step guide

3. Qualitative component
In order to assess the influence of migration and accul-
turation  (7)  in  the  EU  on  attitudes  and  behaviours  to-
wards  FGM,  the  methodological  approach  to  estimate 
the number of girls at risk of undergoing FGM includes 
a  qualitative  component.  The  research  team  needs  to 

be aware of the particular characteristics of FGM as a re-
search topic. It is a sensitive and taboo topic among the 
migrant communities living in the EU. This ought to be 
taken into consideration when designing, planning and 
implementing the methodology.

8 Define the qualitative method(s) that are going to be used, as well as specific objectives. Delineate 

the period for carrying out the qualitative component of the research.

Several qualitative methods can be used separately or in 
combination,  such  as  focus  group  discussions  (8), 
in-depth interviews, surveys and community-based par-
ticipatory research. The choice of a method or a combi-
nation  of  methods  will  depend  on  the  research  ques-
tion(s), the target group and its specificities.

Make  sure  that  the  dates  chosen  for  conducting  your 
activities  (e.g.  interviews,  focus  group  discussions)  do 

not collide with important religious festivals or celebra-
tions (e.g. Ramadan, religious holidays), school vacations 
and holiday periods. Avoid the evenings on which mi-
grant  communities  most  commonly  go  to  religious 
gatherings (e.g. mosques, churches). Weekends may be 
a  good  choice  for  organising  activities,  although  this 
may not suit parents with school-age children.

9

Clearly define your target group(s).

Based on your research question(s), the target group(s) 
may  include:  women  and/or  men  of  first  and  second 
generation  originating  from  countries  where  FGM  is 
commonly  practised  (9),  women  who  have  undergone 
FGM,  religious  and/or  community  leaders  and  profes-
sionals  from  different  sectors  (healthcare,  protection, 
justice,  asylum,  etc.). You  may  consider  defining  quota 

and criteria for your target group(s) based on variables, 
such as age, length of stay and level of education.

The criteria to participate in the activities (e.g. interviews, 
focus group discussions) need to be clearly formulated 
in order to optimise the recruitment process.

10

Recruit participants according to the criteria previously defined. Allow sufficient time for recruitment.

7 

8 

9 

‘Acculturation can be defined as a culture learning process experienced by individuals who are exposed to a new culture or 
ethnic group.’ (Balls Organista, P., Marin G. and Chun K. M. (2010). ‘Acculturation’ in The psychology of ethnic groups in the United 
States. SAGE Publications, Inc. Available at: http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/30900_Chapter4.pdf ).

Considering that the qualitative method chosen and the pilot tested in the study Estimation of girls at risk of female genital 
mutilation in the European Union was focus group discussions, detailed recommendations on how to organise and facilitate 
such groups are provided in Annex 5.

In  case  you  consider  organising  focus  group  discussions,  it  is  recommended  to  separate  participants  based  on  sex. The 
presence of someone of a different sex might have an adverse effect on the other participants.

14

Estimation of girls at risk of female genital mutilation in the European Union
Step-by-step guide 

Methodological approach to estimate FGM risk in the EU: a step-by-step guide

Time is crucial for recruiting potential participants.

Trust is an important factor when it comes to recruiting 
participants  to  any  kind  of  qualitative  research,  and 
maybe  in  particular  when  the  researcher’s  position  is 
different  than  that  of  the  participants’  with  regard  to 
ethnic,  religious,  cultural,  class,  gender  or  nationality 
background.  This  requires  a  certain  level  of  openness 
from the researcher and other team members. Establish-
ing trust will reduce suspicion regarding the purposes of 
the research and the use that will be made of the infor-
mation that is shared. Besides involving key civil society 
organisations working with migrant communities in the 
recruitment of participants, people from the communi-
ties concerned can be extremely helpful in recruitment. 
The  involvement  of  religious  or  community  leaders 
might  also  be  considered  as  they  are  influential  in  the 
communities.

Encouraging  recruitment  through  word-of-mouth  and 
the  snowballing  technique  may  prove  effective,  but 
it  takes  time  to  spread  the  word.  A  way  to  implement 
these techniques could be a coupon or a flyer with the 
researcher’s contact details. Such coupons can be given 
to each recruited participant who can bring in others by 
distributing the coupon with the contact phone num-
ber and details to other potential participant(s).

Due  to  the  particular  characteristics  and  compositions 
of  migrant  communities,  allow  some  flexibility  in  the 
application criteria and quota to the target group(s). Be 
aware that refusing participants might have adverse ef-
fects on others.

Foresee  a  budget  to  cover  participants’  expenses 
(e.g.  travel,  childcare)  and  as  compensation  for  their 
collaboration.

11 Plan and prepare the research activities (e.g. interviews, focus group discussions).

Prepare  informed  consent  forms  to  be  signed  by  the 
participants,  ensuring  anonymity  and  confidentiality 
(according  to  national  legislation  and  research  ethics), 
and get permission to use the information that will be 
collected.  Other  aspects  can  be  taken  into  consider-
ation, such as permission to use an audio recorder.

Consider  recruiting  researchers,  interviewers  or  facilita-
tors  who  belong  to  and  speak  the  native  language(s) 
of  the  envisaged  communities.  This  might  reduce  re-
sistance  from  the  participants  and  reduce  bias  in  the 
research results. It is advisable that the researcher, inter-
viewer or facilitator is the same sex as the participant(s).

Be  aware  of  the  legal  framework  in  force  in  the  EU 
Member  State  where  the  research  is  taking  place. The 
researcher(s) may be obliged by law to report any situ-
ation of (risk of ) FGM in case they become aware of it. 
Establish a reporting procedure for such events.

Consider collecting and/or preparing informative mater-
ials about FGM and about the activities that are going 
to  be  organised  (e.g.  group  discussions)  to  give  to  the 
participants. Gather information about possible referral 
routes for health, protection and legal and psychological 
support so that participants can be referred to special-
ised support if needed during or after the research. Be 
informed  about  the  accessibility  to  these  services  and 
whether they are free of charge. This information should 
be provided to all participants.

As  regards  the  content  of  the  qualitative  research  to 
assess the influence of migration and acculturation to-
wards FGM, the following determinants can be studied: 
age of FGM in a migration context, correlation between 
FGM and levels of education, and/or acculturation, and/
or  length  of  stay  in  the  EU,  and/or  number  of  school-
ing  years  in  the  EU,  FGM  decision-makers  in  families, 
attitudes to marriage and relationships, reasons behind 
performing FGM, awareness of/exposure to campaigns 
against FGM, attitudes regarding sexuality, exposure to 
other  cultures,  access  to  services  (health,  social,  etc.) 
and  views  regarding  effectiveness  of  policy  initiatives, 
among others.

Prepare the research instruments (e.g. discussion guide, 
interview checklist) taking into account the objectives, 
hypotheses and target group(s) of the study.

Estimation of girls at risk of female genital mutilation in the European Union
Step-by-step guide 

15

Methodological approach to estimate FGM risk in the EU: a step-by-step guide

12 Pilot test and implement the research activities (e.g. interviews, focus group discussions).

Pilot  testing  the  methodology  and  respective  instru-
ments  (e.g.  questionnaire)  are  essential.  Refine,  amend 
and adapt the approach if necessary.

Ensure the participants are informed about the purpos-
es of the study and the researchers’ duty to report any 
intentions to subject a girl to FGM to the respective au-
thorities according to the national legal framework. Be 
aware that this might bias your research results (10).

Implement the research activities as planned, while al-
lowing a certain degree of flexibility. Keep in mind the 
fact  that  cultural  norms  can  differ.  For  instance,  it  can-
not  be  assumed  that  agreed  starting  times  will  always 
be respected; mothers may bring their young children 
with them, etc.

13

Report on the qualitative research findings.

The notes taken and/or the recordings are useful in draft-
ing and analysing the information collected. If resources 
are  available,  consider  transcribing  the  recordings  and 
analyse them using specific software for qualitative and 
mixed-methods data analysis (e.g. MAXQDA, NVIVO).

It is recommended to make a report per individual group 
discussion or interview respectively, following the struc-
ture of the discussion or interview guide. Subsequently, 

a report can be written bringing together the results of 
the  qualitative  research,  theme  by  theme,  answering 
the research questions, and, where relevant, supporting 
findings with quotes from the participants.

10 

Participants might share less information as they fear the 
legal  consequences  of  admitting  (their  intentions)  to 
subjecting a girl to FGM (or assisting someone to do it).

16

Estimation of girls at risk of female genital mutilation in the European Union
Step-by-step guide 

Methodological approach to estimate FGM risk in the EU: a step-by-step guide

4. FGM risk estimation
After controlling the quality and statistical relevance of 
the  data  received  (i.e.  check  on  completeness,  consis-
tency  and  whether  data  provided  are  in  line  with  the 
definitions  listed  in  the  guidelines)  and  carrying  out 
the  qualitative  research  component,  FGM  risk  can  be 
estimated.  Due  to  the  particular  challenges  related  to 
FGM risk (and prevalence) assessment in the EU, the risk 

estimation will be expressed in an interval (with a high-
er  and  a  lower  boundary),  which  allows  consideration 
of  any  uncertainties  that  cannot  be  ruled  out  in  the 
calculations.

14 Apply the ‘extrapolation‑of‑FGM‑practising‑countries‑prevalence data method’.

FGM  risk 
is  calculated  by  applying  the  so-called 
‘extrapo lation-of-FGM-practising-countries-prevalence 
data method’. In practical terms, the national (or regional) 
FGM  prevalence  rate  of  the  age  cohort  15–19  is  multi-
plied by the total number of girls living in the EU country 
(or region in that country) for which the FGM risk is being 
calculated, coming from or born to a mother origin ating 
from a particular country where FGM is commonly prac-
tised, and whose age is below the median age of cutting 
(according to the customary age of cutting in the coun-
try  of  origin).  The  median  customary  age  of  FGM  rep-
resents an important variable in the FGM risk estimation 
equation as it helps avoiding overestimations. The basic 
FGM risk formula is calculated for each country of origin 
and is mathematically expressed as follows:

xc = ac × pc

in which:

Example

xc = number of girls at risk of FGM originating from a par-
ticular country where FGM is documented and living in 
an EU Member State;

ac = first and second generation girls (originating from 
a  particular  country  where  FGM  is  documented)  who, 
in  the  reference  year  (2011  for  this  study),  had  not  yet 
reached the median age of cutting as customary in the 
particular country of origin;

pc = national prevalence rate of the age cohort 15–19 for 
that particular country (MICS divided by 100).

The example below represents a theoretical maximum 
number of girls who can be considered ‘at risk of FGM’. 
In the example it is assumed that the probability of per-
forming FGM procedure for a girl is the same as in the 
country of origin. 

The median age of cutting in Ghana and in Somalia is 9 years. The national FGM prevalence rates (age cohort 
15–19) for these two countries are 2 % (MICS, 2011) and 97 % (MICS, 2006), respectively. If the total number of 
girls  (first  and  second  generation)  living  in  a  certain  EU  Member  State  originating  from  these  countries  and 
aged under 9, amounts to 250 and 150 respectively, then the number of girls being at risk of FGM is calculated 
by multiplying the total number of girls by the prevalence rate of each country. We can then conclude that 
five girls originating from Ghana and 146 girls originating from Somalia and currently living in the EU are at risk 
of undergoing FGM.

xGhana= 250 x 0.02 
xGhana= 5 

xSomalia= 150 x 0.97
xSomalia= 146

Estimation of girls at risk of female genital mutilation in the European Union
Step-by-step guide 

17

Methodological approach to estimate FGM risk in the EU: a step-by-step guide

15 Introduce the migration and acculturation impact factor into your calculation.

A crucial element to be considered in an FGM risk esti-
mation is the influence of migration and  acculturation 
on attitudes and behaviour towards cutting girls. At the 
time of preparing this guide, the ‘migration and  accul-
turation impact factor’ was represented as a binary vari-
able expressed as 0 or 1, in which 0 signifies a situation 
where  migration  does  not  influence  attitudes  and  be-
haviours towards FGM, and 1 suggests that there is an 
influence on subjecting girls to FGM and that the level 
of risk is reduced to zero (11). The influence of migration 
and  acculturation  is  assessed  through  the  qualitative 
information  collected  during  the  research  and  a  com-
plementary  relevant  literature  review. The  influence  of 
migration and acculturation can be included in the FGM 
risk estimation according to this formula:

xc=ac × pc × (1-m)

in which:

xc = number of girls at risk of FGM originating from a par-
ticular country where FGM is documented and living in 
an EU Member State;

ac = first and second generation girls (originating from 
a  particular  country  where  FGM  is  documented)  who, 
in  the  reference  year  (2011  for  this  study),  had  not  yet 
reached the median age of cutting as customary in the 
particular country of origin;

pc = national prevalence rate of the age cohort 15–19 for 
that particular country (MICS divided by 100);

m  =  migration  and  acculturation  impact  factor  (ei-
ther 1or 0).

The  calculation  of  FGM  risk,  taking  into  consideration 
the  influence  of  migration  and  acculturation,  con-
siders  two  scenarios  regarding  the  level  of  FGM  risk  in 
an EU Member State. These scenarios define an interval 

11 

Further  (qualitative)  research  on  the 
influence  of 
migration  and  acculturation  towards  FGM  will  ideally 
provide  more  refined  migration  and  acculturation 
impact rates (ranging between 0 % and 100 %, possibly 
related  to  different  population  groups),  which  will 
enhance the accuracy of FGM risk estimations.

within which FGM risk will be expressed. The scenarios 
are  underpinned  by  different  assumptions  and  repre-
sent a high and a low level of risk of FGM in European 
migration  context.  The  calculation  of  FGM  risk,  taking 
into  account  influence  of  migration  and  acculturation 
that can be different for the first and the second gener-
ation girls, is made for each country where FGM is docu-
mented, and is expressed as follows:

xc=(ac = first × pc × (1-m) ) + (ac = second × pc × (1-m))

in which:

xc = number of girls at risk of FGM originating from a par-
ticular country where FGM is documented and living in 
an EU Member State;

ac  =  first =  first  generation  girls  (originating  from  a  par-
ticular country where FGM is documented) who, in the 
reference year (2011 for this study), had not yet reached 
the median age of cutting as customary in the particular 
country of origin;

ac = second = second generation girls (born in an EU Mem-
ber  State  from  mothers  originating  from  a  particular 
country where FGM is documented) who, in the refer-
ence year (2011 for this study), had not yet reached the 
median  age  of  cutting  as  customary  in  the  particular 
country of origin;

pc = national prevalence rate of the age cohort 15–19 for 
that particular country (MICS divided by 100);

m  =  migration  and  acculturation  impact  factor  (ei-
ther 0 or 1).

High‑FGM‑risk scenario
The basic premise behind this scenario is that there is no 
influence of migration whatsoever, and that the number 
of girls originating from an FGM risk country and living in 
an EU country at risk of FGM would be the same as if they 
had never migrated. In this scenario, even in a migration 
context, migrants would keep their traditions and prac-
tices as if they were still living in their countries of origin. 
This  hypothetical  scenario  is  seen  as  constituting  the 

18

Estimation of girls at risk of female genital mutilation in the European Union
Step-by-step guide 

Methodological approach to estimate FGM risk in the EU: a step-by-step guide

highest possible risk scenario, for which the calculation 
of girls at risk would yield the upper boundary.

Thus, for the calculation of the girls at risk in this scen-
ario, it is assumed that regardless of their generation, the 
female migrant population aged under the median age 
of FGM as per country of origin is at risk of FGM accord-
ing to the FGM prevalence rate for the particular coun-
try of origin. In this scenario, the migration and accultur-
ation impact factor will be 0 (m=0).

Low‑FGM‑risk scenario
In this scenario, it is assumed that there is influence of 
migration and acculturation on changing attitudes and 

behaviours towards performing FGM procedures. In this 
case,  although  it  is  assumed  that  second  generation 
girls (i.e. those born in an EU Member State) experience 
a lower risk of being subjected to FGM, for calculation 
purposes,  the  level  of  FGM  risk  for  the  second  gener-
ation girls will be equal to zero (which should, however, 
not be interpreted in the strict sense that not a single girl 
in this group would no longer be at any risk of FGM). On 
the other hand, first generation girls whose age is lower 
than  the  median  age  of  cutting  are  still  considered  to 
be  at  risk.  In  this  scenario,  the  migration  and  accultur-
ation impact factor for the second generation girls will 
be 1 (m=0). This hypothetical scenario yields the lower 
boundary of estimated number of girls at risk.

Example

The total number of girls coming from Somalia and aged under nine (median age of cutting in Somalia), living 
in a certain EU Member State, amounts to 95 (first generation), while those born in the same EU Member State 
to mothers originating from Somalia amounts to 55. According to MICS (2006), the national FGM prevalence rate 
(age cohort 15–19) for Somalia is 97 %.

Taking these data into account, the high-risk scenario is calculated as follows:

xSomalia = (95 × 0.97 × (1-0)) + (55 × 0.97 × (1-0))

xSomalia= 146

On the other hand, the low-risk scenario is calculated as follows:

xSomalia= (95 × 0.97 × (1-0)) + (55 × 0.97 × (1-1))

xSomalia=92

Considering that the results are expressed in an interval, these calculations indicate that in a certain EU Member 
State the number of girls at risk of FGM ranges between 92 and 146.

16

Communicate the statistical results of the FGM risk estimation and the findings of the quali‑
tative research.

The  statistical  results  of  the  FGM  risk  estimation  are 
expressed in an interval (i.e. the number of girls at risk 
in  a  given  country  varies  between  x  (low  value)  and 
y (high value)). The estimations are provided in both, full 
numbers,  as  well  as  percentages  (i.e.  expressed  as  the 
percentage of the absolute number of girls aged 0–18 

originating from FGM risk countries and living in an EU 
Member State).

Be  extremely  careful  when  communicating  numbers 
disaggregated  by  country  of  origin  since  members  of 
small communities living in an EU Member State can be 
identified easily.

Estimation of girls at risk of female genital mutilation in the European Union
Step-by-step guide 

19

Methodological approach to estimate FGM risk in the EU: a step-by-step guide

It is relevant to clearly explain which scenario describes 
the level of FGM risk in an EU Member State better (i.e. 
whether the actual risk is seen as closer to the lower or 
to the higher boundary of the interval). In this case, the 
existing  knowledge  and  the  findings  of  the  qualitative 
research component are taken into consideration to as-
certain  which  scenario  better  represents  the  influence 
of  migration  and  acculturation  on  subjecting  a  girl  to 
FGM  in  a  certain  country;  if  and  when  available,  other 
data records such as health/medical or child protection 
records should also be considered. The ascertainment of 
a scenario needs to be well justified with references to 
literature and to the qualitative research findings.

FGM risk estimations need to be interpreted and com-
municated  with  caution  in  order  to  avoid  the  stigma-
tisation of migrant communities, to ensure that no girls 
at risk are overlooked when prevention and protection 
initiatives are implemented and to ensure that no girls 
who  have  been  subjected  to  FGM  are  excluded  from 
receiving care, support and protection (as, for example, 
FGM  may  be  performed  just  before  migration,  even  if 

a girl is under the ‘customary’ age of cutting, as practised 
in the country of origin).

For policymaking purposes, it may be pertinent to disag-
gregate the data by region of residence in the country 
of destination (if and when this information exists and 
is made available). This may allow better planning of re-
gional/local services in an EU Member State.

Although  this  mixed-method  approach  is  designed  to 
avoid under- and overestimations, the results must still 
be  interpreted  prudently.  Each  scenario  includes  a  set 
of  assumptions,  but  individual  cases  can  contradict 
these suppositions. The methodology proposed aims at 
estimating, as accurately as possible, the risk of FGM in 
a certain EU Member State. However, the assumptions 
represent ‘scenarios’ and cannot be considered as abso-
lute  certainties.  Depending  on  the  resources  available 
and  other  future  research  findings  on  estimating  FGM 
risk, further refinements in the calculations may be con-
sidered. Medical/hospital records might also provide rel-
evant insights on this matter.

20

Estimation of girls at risk of female genital mutilation in the European Union
Step-by-step guide 

Methodological approach to estimate FGM risk in the EU: a step-by-step guide

5. Plan the next FGM risk estimation
In  order  to  follow  up  on  trends  and  on  the  impact  of 
policies,  FGM  risk  estimations  need  to  be  repeated  on 
a regular basis. Make sure you plan the frequency with 
which  you  intend  to  conduct  such  research.  Provided 
your country has a population register, FGM risk estima-
tions can be completed more frequently (e.g. every year) 
in comparison to countries where only census data are 
available (usually collected every 10 years).

Possible indicators of trends in FGM risk

Considering that the FGM risk estimation refers to data 
from a certain reference year (e.g. 2011, the year of the 
most  recent  census),  it  could  be  useful  for  policymak-
ing  purposes  to  attempt  to  assess  indicators  of  trends 
regarding the level of FGM risk in an EU Member State. 
These indicators may include the following:

 ● Female  migrant  population —  the  number  of 
female migrants (first and second generation) who 
origin ate  from  countries  where  FGM  is  common-
ly  practised  and  are  registered  in  the  country. This 
information can be extracted from population reg-
isters.

 ● Migration flows — the inward and outward flow of 
migrants  originating  from  countries  where  FGM  is 
commonly practised.

 ● Female  live  births —  although  knowledge  is  lack-
ing  about  the  probability  that  girls  born  in  an  EU 
Member State to mothers originating from FGM risk 
countries would still be subjected to FGM, the num-
ber of annual births may be collected so that the de-
velopment across the years is monitored.

 ● Female asylum seekers — despite the fact that the 
risk of being subjected to FGM might be lower for 
female  asylum  seekers  (12),  the  information  on  the 
annual total number of girls originating from coun-
tries where FGM is documented requesting asylum 
may  be  collected  so  that  the  development  across 
the years can be followed up.

12 

Push  factors  for  migration  for  this  population  are 
different  because  they  might,  for  instance,  have  fled 
from  the  country  of  origin  based  on  the  fear  of  FGM. 
However, the risk of seeing their asylum request denied 
for reasons of having undergone FGM may be a strong 
deterrent.

 ● Female  migrants  with  temporary  or  permanent 
visas — the number of female migrants’ originating 
from  countries  where  FGM  is  commonly  practised 
and holding visas (residence permits) to live in an EU 
Member State.

Some  of  the  indicators  mentioned  above  may  not  be 
available in all EU Member States. The data available in 
each  country  need  to  be  assessed  individually.  For  in-
stance,  the  population  register  might  already  include 
information on other indicators listed above.

In  order  to  be  able  to  assess  trends,  data  need  to  be 
collected on a regular basis (e.g. annually). At the least, 
all indicators need to be broken down by one-year age 
groups and country (and region) of origin.

These data can be useful for designing policies to raise 
awareness  about  the  practice  of  FGM  with  the  aim  to 
protect girls from undergoing this procedure, as well as 
to provide services to those girls and women that might 
be (have already been) cut.

Reflections and further research

Based on what can be learnt from existing FGM risk es-
timation  experiences,  based  on  consultations  with  ex-
perts and the experience gained through applying the 
methodology  in  three  pilot  countries  within  the  Study 
on the estimation of girls at risk of FGM in the EU, feasible 
and  not  (yet)  feasible  options  for  calculating  FGM  risk 
were identified. These are presented in the matrix on the 
next page.

Within the feasible options, a standard approach is pre-
sented,  as  well  as  options  that  are  both  feasible  and 
bring an added value to the methodological approach. 
On the other hand, there are options that are not (yet) 
feasible: those that are unrealistic (because they cannot 
be  put  into  practice)  and  those  that  might  be  consid-
ered at a later date (depending on the situation in each 
country). The options that have been described above 
are the feasible ones (combining both the standard and 
the added-value options).

Estimation of girls at risk of female genital mutilation in the European Union
Step-by-step guide 

21

Methodological approach to estimate FGM risk in the EU: a step-by-step guide

l

e
b
i
s
a
e
f

)
t
e
y
(

t
o
N

l

e
b
i
s
a
e
F

Unrealistic options

Options that might be considered later

• 

• 
• 

Collect information about the father’s country of 
origin
Collect data about ethnicity
Use micro-data from Eurostat about the con-
cerned population living in the EU Member States 
(because, among other reasons, data are not 
aggregated by one-year age cohorts)

• 

• 

• 
• 

Use other sources of information if and when they 
are collected at central level and are easily accessi-
ble (e.g. medical/hospital records, child protection 
records, police and criminal justice records)
Collect data about region of origin and use region-
al FGM prevalence rates (age cohort 15−19)
Collect data about female irregular migrants
Assess difference in risk between population 
groups, between girls born to one parent vs. to 
both parents originating from FGM-practising 
countries, among others

Standard options

Value‑added options

• 
• 

• 

Use FGM prevalence rates from DHS and MICS
Use census data about the female migrant popula-
tion in a certain EU Member State originating from 
countries where FGM is commonly practised
Apply the ‘extrapolation-of-FGM-risk-coun-
tries-prevalence data method’

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Use FGM prevalence rates for women in the 15−19 
age cohort in the country of origin
Consider the median age of cutting as customary 
in the country of origin
Include a qualitative methodology to assess the 
influence of migration on attitudes and behaviours 
towards FGM
Use interval estimations to communicate the 
results
Collect data on live births of girls born in the EU 
Member State to mothers from FGM risk countries 
and on female asylum seekers, among others, to 
monitor indicators of trends in FGM risk

The  options  that  might  be  considered  later,  described 
in the matrix above, are suggestions for ‘upgrading’ the 
‘common and basic’ FGM risk estimation.

When considering options, the following aspects should 
be taken into account.

 ● Existence  of  data —  different  types  of  data  might 
exist in a given country. Countries should at least be 
able to provide data on the female migrant popula-
tion residing in the country.

 ● Availability  of  data —  data  might  exist,  but  might 
not be available (e.g. data are not centrally collect-
ed). If certain types of data are available in a timely 
manner  and  are  useful  to  the  FGM  risk  estimation, 
they need to be requested and, if provided timely, 
analysed.

 ● Legal issues to access data — certain countries may 

not allow access to certain types of data.

 ● Processes  and  procedures  to  access  data —  these 
can  be  highly  bureaucratic  and  might  hamper  the 
prompt access to data within the timeframe estab-
lished  for  research.  Data  need  to  be  requested  fol-
lowing the processes and procedures established in 
a given country, but if data are not promptly provid-
ed, these cannot be considered.

 ● Up-to-date  data —  some  data  might  be  more 
up-to-date  and  differences  might  exist  between 
countries. A common reference year for all datasets 
is  needed.  The  reference  year  to  be  decided  may 
correspond to the most recent EU-wide census year 
(2011).

 ● Costs — there might be costs associated to access-

ing certain types of data.

22

Estimation of girls at risk of female genital mutilation in the European Union
Step-by-step guide 

 
 
Bibliography

Bibliography

Bibliography

European Commission (2013). Communication to the Eu-
ropean Parliament and the Council — Towards the elimi-
nation of female genital mutilation (COM(2013) 833 final).

http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/
fgm/9789241596442/en/

European  Institute  for  Gender  Equality  (2013).  Female 
genital mutilation in the European Union and Croatia  — 
Report. Available at: http://eige.europa.eu/sites/default/
files/EIGE-Report-FGM-in-the-EU-and-Croatia_0.pdf

European Institute for Gender Equality (2015). Estimation 
of girls at risk of female genital mutilation in the European 
Union. Forthcoming at (to be completed when the study 
is released).

Eurostat  (2011). ‘EU  legislation  on  the  2011  population 
and housing censuses — Explanatory notes’. Methodol-
ogies and working papers. Theme ‘Population and social 
conditions’.  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union, 
Luxembourg.

United  Nations  Children’s  Fund  (2013).  Female  genital 
mutilation/cutting:  A  statistical  overview  and  exploration 
of the dynamics of change. Unicef, New York. Available at: 
http://www.unicef.org/publications/index_69875.html

World  Health  Organisation  (WHO)  (2008).  Eliminat-
ing  female  genital  mutilation:  An 
interagency  state-
ment  —  OHCHR,  Unaids,  UNDP,  UNECA,  Unesco,  UNFPA, 
UNHCR,  Unicef,  Unifem,  WHO,  Geneva.  Available  at: 

Yoder, P. S. (2011). Challenges to assessing FGC prevalence 
in the USA, ICF International, Calverton, MD (unpublished 
manuscript).

Other useful sources

Council of Europe (2014). The Council of Europe Conven-
tion on Preventing and Combating Violence against Wom-
en and Domestic Violence — A tool to end female genital 
mutilation. Available at: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/stan-
dardsetting/convention-violence/brochures/Istanbul-
ConventionFGM %20Guide %20EN.pdf

UN  High  Commissioner  for  Refugees  (UNHCR)  (2013). 
Too  much  pain:  Female  genital  mutilation  and  asylum  in 
the European Union — A statistical overview. Available at: 
http://www.refworld.org/docid/512c72ec2.html

UN  High  Commissioner  for  Refugees  (UNHCR)  (2014). 
Too  much  pain:  Female  genital  mutilation  and  asylum  in 
the European Union — A statistical update (March 2014). 
Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/53187f379.html

Estimation of girls at risk of female genital mutilation in the European Union
Step-by-step guide 

25

Annexes

Annexes

Annexes 

Annex 1. Glossary
The  definitions  provided  below  have  been  developed 
by the research team for the purpose of this study, un-
less mentioned otherwise.

Asylum seeker (or asylum applicant)
According to Eurostat, an ‘asylum applicant’ is a person 
having  submitted  an  application  for  international  pro-
tection or having been included in such application as 
a  family  member  during  the  reference  period.  ‘Appli-
cation  for  international  protection’  is  defined  in  Article 
2(h)  of  Directive  2011/95/EU,  i.e.  a  request  made  by 
a third-country national or a stateless person for protec-
tion from an EU Member State who seeks a refugee sta-
tus or a subsidiary protection status and who does not 
explicitly request another kind of protection, outside the 
scope of this directive, that can be applied for separately. 
This definition is intended to refer to all who apply for 
protection on an individual basis, regardless of wheth-
er they lodge their application on arrival at the airport 
or land border, or from inside the country, and regard-
less of whether they entered the territory legally (e.g. as 
a tourist) or illegally (see Article 4.1(a) of the regulation). 
‘Asylum  applicants  considered  to  be  unaccompanied 
minors’ means all applicants for international protection 
who are considered by the national authority to be un-
accompanied  minors  during  the  reference  period  and 
relates  to  Article  4.3(a)  of  the  regulation. ‘Unaccompa-
nied minor’ is defined in Article 2(l) of Directive 2011/95/
EU,  i.e.  a  minor  who  arrives  to  the  territory  of  an  EU 
Member State unaccompanied by an adult responsible 
for him or her whether by law or by the practice of the 
Member State concerned, and for as long as he or she 
is not effectively taken into the care of such a person; it 

includes a minor who is left unaccompanied after he or 
she has entered the territory of the Member States.
Source:  http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_ex-
plained/index.php/Glossary:Asylum_applicant

According  to  the  International  Organisation  for  Migra-
tion, an ‘asylum seeker’ is a person who seeks safety from 
persecution or serious harm in a country other than his 
or her own and awaits a decision on the application for 
refugee status under relevant international and national 
instruments. In case of a negative decision, the person 
must leave the country and may be expelled, as may any 
non-national in an irregular or unlawful situation, unless 
permission to stay is provided on humanitarian or other 
related grounds.
Source:  http://www.iom.int/cms/en/sites/iom/home/
about-migration/key-migration-terms-1.html

Country of birth
According to the Regulation (EC) No 862/2007, ‘country 
of  birth’  means  the  country  of  residence  (in  its  current 
borders, if the information is available) of the mother at 
the time of the birth or, in default, the country (in its cur-
rent borders, if the information is available) in which the 
birth took place.
Source:  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.
do?uri=OJ:L:2007:199:0023:0029:EN:PDF

Country of origin or FGM risk country
Twenty-nine countries where female genital mutilation 
is  documented  through  national  surveys:  Benin,  Burki-
na  Faso,  Cameroon,  Central  African  Republic,  Chad, 
Côte  d’Ivoire,  Djibouti,  Egypt,  Eritrea,  Ethiopia,  Gambia, 
Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kenya, Liberia, Mali, 

Estimation of girls at risk of female genital mutilation in the European Union
Step-by-step guide 

27

Annexes

Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Soma-
lia,  Sudan,  Togo,  Uganda,  United  Republic  of  Tanzania 
and Yemen.

Country of destination
An EU Member State where a person originating from 
a country where female genital mutilation is common-
ly practised decides to establish her or his residence, or 
where she or he has asked for international protection.

Female genital mutilation (FGM)
According  to  the  World  Health  Organisation,  female 
genital mutilation (FGM) comprises all procedures that 
involve  partial  or  total  removal  of  the  external  female 
genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for 
non-medical reasons.
Source:  http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/
fs241/en/
In this guide, the terms ‘cut’ and ‘cutting’ also refer to fe-
male genital mutilation.

FGM prevalence in an EU Member State
FGM  prevalence  in  an  EU  Member  State  is  defined  as 
the proportion (expressed as a percentage) of girls and 
women  who  are  currently  residing  in  an  EU  Member 
State  and  originate  from  or  are  born  to  mothers  from 
countries where female genital mutilation is commonly 
practised  and  who  have  undergone  some  form  of  fe-
male genital mutilation.

FGM risk estimation in an EU Member State
FGM  risk  estimation  in  an  EU  Member  State  is  defined 
as the number of minor girls (either born in or born to 
mothers from FGM risk countries) living in an EU Mem-
ber State who might be at risk of female genital mutila-
tion, expressed as a proportion of the total number of 
girls  aged  0–18  living  in  an  EU  country  who  originate 
from or are born to a mother from FGM risk countries.

First generation
First  generation  migrants  refer  to  persons  who  were 
born  in  a  country  where  female  genital  mutilation  is 
commonly practised to one or both parents who were 
also born in these countries, and established residence 
in an EU Member State.

Foreign‑born
According  to  Eurostat, ‘foreign-born’  persons  are  those 
whose place of birth (or usual residence of the mother 
at the time of the birth) is outside the country of his/her 
usual residence.

Source: 
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/no-
menclatures/index.cfm?TargetUrl=DSP_GLOSSA-
RY_NOM_DTL_VIEW&StrNom=CODED2&StrLanguage-
Code=EN&IntKey=25532309&RdoSearch=BEGIN&Txt-
Search=foreign-born&CboTheme=&IsTer=&IntCurrent-
Page=1&ter_valid=0

Girls potentially at risk of female genital mutilation
Girls  potentially  at  risk  of  female  genital  mutilation  are 
defined  as  minor  girls  (in  the  age  range  of  0–18)  who 
come from FGM risk countries or were born to parents 
(or one parent) who originate from countries where fe-
male genital mutilation is commonly practised.

Immigration
According to Eurostat, immigration means an action by 
which  a  person  establishes  his  or  her  usual  residence 
in  the  territory  of  a  country  for  a  period  that  is,  or  is 
expected  to  be,  at  least  12  months,  having  previously 
been a usual resident.
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/no-
Source: 
menclatures/index.cfm?TargetUrl=DSP_GLOSSA-
RY_NOM_DTL_VIEW&StrNom=CODED2&StrLanguage-
Code=EN&IntKey=19273174&RdoSearch=BEGIN&Txt-
Search=immigration&CboTheme=&IsTer=&IntCurrent-
Page=1&ter_valid=0

Irregular  migrant  or  undocumented  migrant 
or  third‑country  nationals  found  to  be  illegally 
present
The concept of ‘irregular or undocumented migrant’ re-
fers to a group of people that do not, or no longer, fulfil 
the  legal  conditions  for  stay  or  residence  in  a  country. 
Authorities are not able to track all individuals who are 
in  this  situation. Those  who  are  found  in  this  situation 
are  defined  as ‘third-country  nationals  found  to  be  il-
legally  present’  in  a  country.  According  to  Regulation 
(EC) No 862/2007, ‘third-country nationals found to be 
illegally present’ means third-country nationals who are 
officially found to be on the territory of a Member State 
and who do not fulfil, or no longer fulfil, the conditions 
for stay or residence in that Member State. For statisti-
cal purposes, those referred to as ‘irregular migrants’ in 
this report refer to ‘third-country nationals found to be 
illegally present’ as identified by official authorities. How-
ever, it is recognised that these individuals are a fraction 
of those who might find themselves in an irregular situ-
ation in an EU Member State.
Source:  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.
do?uri=OJ:L:2007:199:0023:0029:EN:PDF

28

Estimation of girls at risk of female genital mutilation in the European Union
Step-by-step guide 

Annexes

Usual residence
According to the Regulation (EU) No 1260/2013, ‘usual 
residence’  means  the  place  where  a  person  normally 
spends the daily period of rest, regardless of temporary 
absences  for  purposes  of  recreation,  holidays,  visits  to 
friends and relatives, business, medical treatment or re-
ligious pilgrimage. The following persons alone shall be 
considered to be usual residents of a specific geograph-
ical area:

(i)  those who have lived in their place of usual resi-
dence for a continuous period of at least 12 months 
before the reference time; or

(ii)  those  who  arrived  in  their  place  of  usual  resi-
dence  during  the  12  months  before  the  reference 
time with the intention of staying there for at least 
one year.

Where  the  circumstances  described  in  point  (i)  or  (ii) 
cannot be established, ‘usual residence’ can be taken to 
mean the place of legal or registered residence, except 
for the purposes of Article 4.
Source:  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/
PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R1260&from=EN

Year of arrival
The ‘year  of  arrival’  to  be  considered  in  a  census  shall 
be  the  calendar  year  in  which  a  person  most  recently 
established usual residence in the country. The year of 
the most recent arrival in the country shall be reported 
rather than the year of first arrival (i.e. the topic ‘year of 
arrival in the country’ does not provide information on 
interrupted stays).
Source:  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/
HTML/?uri=CELEX:32009R1201&qid=1430139096139&-
from=EN

Live birth
According to Eurostat, ‘live births’ refer to births of chil-
dren that showed any sign of life.
Source: 
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/
n o m e n c l a t u r e s / i n d e x . c f m ? Ta r g e t U r l = D S P _
G LO S S A R Y _ N O M _ D T L _ V I E W & S t r N o m = C O D -
ED2&StrLanguageCode=EN&IntKey=31126375&R-
d o S e a r c h = B E G I N & T x t S e a r c h = l i v e % 2 0
birth&CboTheme=&IsTer=&IntCurrentPage=1&ter_val-
id=0

Refugee
According  to  Council  Directive  2004/83/EC,  a  ‘refu-
gee’  means  a  third-country  national  who,  owing  to 
a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of 
race,  religion,  nationality,  political  opinion  or  member-
ship of a particular social group, is outside the country 
of nationality and is unable or, owing to this fear, unwill-
ing  to  avail  himself  or  herself  of  the  protection  of  that 
country;  or  a  stateless  person,  who,  being  outside  of 
the  country  of  former  habitual  residence  for  the  same 
reasons as mentioned above, is unable or, owing to this 
fear, unwilling to return to it, and to whom Article 12 (of 
Council Directive 2004/83/EC) does not apply.
Source:  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.
do?uri=CELEX:32004L0083:EN:HTML

Second generation
According to Eurostat, second generation migrants re-
fer  to  two  different  groups  of  immediate  descendants 
of migrants. The first group, with a mixed background, is 
defined as persons who are native born and who have 
one  foreign-born  parent  and  one  native-born  parent. 
The second group, with a foreign background, is defined 
as persons who are native born with both parents being 
foreign born. In the context of the present study, second 
generation  migrants  were  born  to  one  parent  or  both 
parents who was/were born in a country where female 
genital mutilation is commonly practised.
Source: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-
do/networks/european_migration_network/glossary/
index_s_en.htm

Estimation of girls at risk of female genital mutilation in the European Union
Step-by-step guide 

29

Annexes

Annex 2. Checklist for estimating FGM risk in the EU
Qualitative component
State‑of‑the‑art
Define  the  qualitative  method(s)  that  are  going  to  be 
Review the FGM legal and policy frameworks in place in 
used.
the EU Member State.

Review  recent  research  focusing  on  FGM  prevalence 
and risk in the country (or at EU level), and on the influ-
ence of migration on attitudes and behaviours towards 
FGM (both in English and in the official language(s) of 
the country).

Quantitative component
Use the most recent DHS and MICS reports to collect the 
national FGM prevalence rates and age of FGM for the 
age cohort 15–19.

In case there are data about the region (or city) of origin 
of the migrant population in the country of destination, 
collect the regional FGM prevalence rates for the age co-
hort 15–19. In case regional FGM prevalence for the age 
cohort 15–19 is not available, take regional prevalence 
for the age cohort 15–49.

Clearly  define  your  target  groups,  criteria  for  participa-
tion and a minimum and maximum number of partic-
ipants.  It  might  be  useful  to  determine  quota  for  the 
country and region of origin, age ranges, etc.

Search for a convenient venue to organise your activities.

Define the recruitment period (allowing sufficient time 
for recruiting participants).

Involve civil society organisations working with migrant 
communities,  as  well  as  people  from  the  concerned 
community, in the recruitment phase. Other factors can 
also be considered (e.g. religious leaders).

Design the research instruments to conduct the qualita-
tive research (e.g. questionnaire).

Identify the institutions holding data about female mi-
grant  population,  female  asylum  seekers,  female  refu-
gees and female irregular migrants.

Identify other records available in the EU Member State, 
such  as  medical/hospital,  child  protection,  asylum  and 
judicial/police records. In case any of these exist, find the 
organisation responsible for their (central) collection.

Draft guidelines explaining the study and its objectives, 
the  data  to  be  collected  and  the  level  of  data  disag-
gregation,  as  well  as  other  specificities  related  to  data 
collection.

Contact  the  institutions  holding  data  and  clearly  indi-
cate a deadline to receive the data. 

Closely follow up the data collection (i.e. regularly call or 
e-mail the contact person).

After receiving the data, conduct a quality control in or-
der to confirm that all requested data have been shared. 
Pay  specific  attention  to  the  level  of  disaggregation  of 
data.

Prepare detailed consent forms.

Foresee a budget to cover participants’ expenses or as 
a compensation for their cooperation.

Collect  information  about  FGM-specific  services  avail-
able at regional and national level to be provided to the 
participants.

Report on the findings.

FGM risk estimation
Calculate  FGM  risk  based  on  the  indications  for  each 
scenario.

Communicate  the  results  using  an  interval  estimation 
(provide numbers and percentages).

Based on insights from existing literature and the quali-
tative component of the study, assess where the actual 
risk is probably situated in the interval. Clearly justify the 
assessment.

Report  on  any  data  gaps  encountered  in  the  process 
and formulate explicit recommendations for facilitating 
improved data collection and FGM risk estimation.

30

Estimation of girls at risk of female genital mutilation in the European Union
Step-by-step guide 

Annexes

Annex 3. List of countries where FGM is documented; respective 
national FGM prevalence rates and median age of FGM (as of 
21 August 2014)

Year of most recent 
report

FGM prevalence rate  
among

FGM prevalence rate  
by region (%)

Country

(as of 21 August 2014)

girls and 
women 
aged 
15–19 (%)

girls and 
women 
aged 
15–49 (%)

lowest

highest

Median 
age of 
FGM

Beninn

Burkina Faso

Cameroon *

Central African Republic *

Chad **

Côte d’Ivoire

Djibouti **

Egypt *

Eritrea

Ethiopia ***

Gambia **

Ghana **

Guinea

Guinea‑Bissau **

Iraq **

Kenya

Liberia *****

Mali

DHS 

2011/12

DHS/MICS

DHS

MICS

MICS

DHS 

MICS

DHS

DHS

DHS

MICS

MICS

DHS

MICS

MICS

DHS

DHS

DHS

2010

2004

2010

2010

2011/12

2006

2008

2002

2005

2010

2011

2012

2010

2011

2008/09

2007

2012/13

2

58

0,4

18

41

31

90

81

78

62

77

2

94

48

5

15

36

90

7

76

1

24

44

38

93

91

89

74

76

4

97

50

8

27

58

91

0

55

0

3

2

12

93

66

82

27

49

0

89

6

0

1

1

88

41

90

5

77

96

80

95

96

98

97

99

41

100

95

58

98

87

95

9

4

9

14

9

4

9

10

1

4

4

9

9

9

9

11

14

4

Estimation of girls at risk of female genital mutilation in the European Union
Step-by-step guide 

31

Annexes

Year of most recent 
report

FGM prevalence rate  
among

FGM prevalence rate  
by region (%)

Country

(as of 21 August 2014)

girls and 
women 
aged 
15–19 (%)

girls and 
women 
aged 
15–49 (%)

lowest

highest

Median 
age of 
FGM

Mauritania **

Niger

Nigeria

Senegal

Sierra Leone **

Somalia ***

Sudan ****

Togo **

Uganda ****

United Republic of 
Tanzania

Yemen ****

Sources:

MICS

DHS

DHS

2011

2012

2013

DHS/MICS

2010/11

MICS

MICS

Unicef

MICS

DHS

DHS

DHS

2010/11

2006

2013

2010

2011

2010

2013

66

1

15

24

70

97

84

1

1

7

16

69

2

25

26

88

98

88

4

1

15

19

20

0

3

1

73

94

65

1

0

1

0

99

9

49

92

96

99

99

14

5

59

85

4

4

4

4

14

9

7

14

7

4

7

DHS: http://www.measuredhs.com/Publications/Publications-by-Country.cfm
MICS: http://www.childinfo.org/mics_available.html
Unicef: FGM/C: A statistical overview and exploration of the dynamics of change. 2013. Unicef, New York.

Median age of cutting estimated by using data on age of FGM of the 15–19 year-old age cohort:
* estimated by using data on age of FGM of the 15–49 year-old age group.
** estimated by using data on age of FGM of the 15–49 year-old age group from Unicef 2013 report.
*** estimated by using data on age of FGM of the daughters from Unicef 2013 report.
**** estimated by using the average of median ages from 25 countries with estimated data.
*****  assumption: median age is the same as in Sierra Leone, as these two countries have similar practices of rites of passage and secret 

societies.

32

Estimation of girls at risk of female genital mutilation in the European Union
Step-by-step guide 

Annexes

Annex 4. Guidelines on quantitative data collection to estimate 
FGM risk

1. Introduction

The ... [replace with the name of the organisation com-
missioning/funding  the  study]  has  commissioned  the 
present  study  to  ...  [replace  with  the  name  of  organi-
zation  responsible  for  conducting  the  study]  develop 
a  methodology  to  estimate  the  number  of  girls  at  risk 
of undergoing female genital mutilation (FGM) who are 
living in [replace with the name of the relevant country]. 
The study involves both a qualitative and a quantitative 
component:

1.   ... [list the qualitative methods to be used], aiming 
at  understanding  the  influence  of  migration  on 
attitudes and opinions about FGM;

2.   estimating  the  number  of  girls  at  risk  of  FGM, 

based on secondary data.

These guidelines focus on the quantitative component 
of  the  study. We  need  to  collect  secondary  data  from 
different sources of information in order to estimate the 
number of girls at risk of FGM. These guidelines are tar-
geted at the national statistical office, birth registration 
office  and  immigration  and  border  services.  Other  po-
tential sources of information might also be consulted, 
such as refugee centres, national health, child protection 
and judiciary services.

Whereas  the  study  is  running  from  ...  [replace  with  re-
spective dates], the data collection period will take place 
between ... [replace with respective dates]. During these 
months,  ...  [replace  with  name  of  organization  respon-
sible for conducting the study] will need your collabo-
ration  for  collating  relevant  data  to  estimate  FGM  risk. 
Information about the data collection process is detailed 
below.

2. Which data do we need?

In  general  terms,  the  data  collection  will  focus  on  the 
female migrant population originating from an FGM risk 
country living in an EU country, aged between 0 and 18 
years.  More  detailed  information  about  the  disaggrega-
tion  of  these  data  is  provided  below.  Table  1  gives  an 
overview of the data we need to collect and possible data 
sources. A glossary is also provided in this document.

3. Why do we need this detailed information 
and which types of data are requested?

FGM varies between countries of origin, within regions 
in the countries and by age. FGM rate among younger 
age  groups  is  generally  lower  than  among  older  ones. 
Age  of  circumcision  varies  between  countries,  ranging 
from soon after birth until roughly age 15. FGM differs 
between ethnic groups or regions within a country. For 
our  estimations,  the  region-of-origin  and  age-specific 
information is thus important, as the migrant population 
in  an  EU  Member  State  may  not  be  representative  for 
the population in the country of origin. Using average 
national data from the country of origin may therefore 
result in over- or underestimations.

Below, we describe the type of data and level of disag-
gregation  we  need  for  conducting  the  study.  Table  1 
also  provides  possible  alternatives  in  case  the  data  we 
request are not available.

Female  migrant  population  originating  from  the 
29 FGM risk countries
By ‘population’ we mean ‘registered’ or ‘de jure’ popula-
tion,  i.e.  residents.  In  this  category  we  do  not  include 
refugees, asylum seekers or irregular migrants (these are 
in different categories that are described below; defini-
tions are also provided in the glossary).

As  an  EU-wide  census  took  place  in  2011,  this  will  be 
our  reference  year  for  collecting  data  ...  [this  sentence 
needs  to  be  changed  in  case  the  population  register 
will be used or in case a more recent census exists]. This 
census strived for an output harmonisation in order to 
have comparable data between EU Member States. We 
would  like  to  receive  information  on  age,  country  and 
region within the country of origin. We need one-year 
age  cohorts  in  order  to  be  able  to  apply  different  as-
sumptions to different ages during the analysis.

In  addition,  we  would  like  to  know  whether  children 
were born in the country of origin (so called first genera-
tion) or born in ... [replace with the name of the relevant 
country] (second generation), because there is evidence 
that the two generations run different risks of FGM.

Estimation of girls at risk of female genital mutilation in the European Union
Step-by-step guide 

33

Annexes

Finally,  we  would  like  to  receive  information  regard-
ing at what age girls from the first generation came to 
... [replace with the name of the relevant country]. This is 
important so that we can estimate how many of these 
girls might have already been cut.

In case some of these variables are not available, we pro-
pose a few alternatives.

 ● Place of birth

In case no data are available on region within the coun-
try of origin, please indicate the place or city of birth.

1.   For the first generation, we can recode their birth-
places as the regions in the country of origin.

2.   For  the  second  generation,  born  in  ...  [replace 
with the name of the relevant country], we need 
to  know  the  place  of  birth  of  their  mothers.  In 
case  data  on  place  of  birth  of  mothers  are  not 
available,  we  assume  that  women  between  19 
and  49  are  the  potential  mothers  of  these  sec-
ond generation girls. Therefore, you can provide 
data on the country of origin and place of birth of 
women aged 19–49 in 2011.

 ● Length of stay or year of arrival (first generation only)

1.   In  case  no  data  are  available  on  age  of  arrival, 
you  can  provide  data  on  the  length  of  stay  in 
... [replace with the name of the relevant country]. 
Again, the reference year is 2011. We then calcu-
late  the  age  of  arrival  by  subtracting  the  age  in 
2011 by the length of stay (i.e. age of arrival = age 
in 2011 – length of stay).

2.   In case length of stay is not available, year of ar-
rival  can  be  used. We  then  calculate  the  age  of 
arrival  as  follows:  age  of  arrival  =  age  in  2011 – 
(2011 – year of arrival).

 The column ‘Alternatives’ in Table 1 summarises the alter-
native variables listed above.

Female  live  births  to  mothers  originating  from 
FGM risk countries
Please  provide  the  number  of  female  live  births  (from 
mothers originating from the FGM risk countries) by year 
(2011) and country and region within the country of or-
igin of the mother.

Our research focuses on 2011, but the evolution of the 
number  of  girls  at  risk  is  also  highly  important. There-
fore, we kindly ask you to provide more recent data for 
2012 and 2013  ...  [update  years  accordingly].  For  these 
years, we would like to receive data on the number of fe-
male live births (born to mothers originating from FGM 
risk  countries)  by  country  of  origin  of  the  mother  and 
by year.

Female  asylum  seekers  and  refugees  originating 
from ‘FGM risk countries’
Female  asylum  seekers  and  refugees  are  also  relevant 
for  producing  an  accurate  FGM  risk  estimation.  Some 
of  them  may  have  fled  their  countries  due  to  the  fear 
of  undergoing  or  having  their  daughters  subjected  to 
FGM. Asylum can be requested based on these grounds.

We would like to receive data broken down by one-year 
age cohorts and by country (and, if possible, by region 
within  the  country)  of  origin  for  both  female  asylum 
seekers and refugees for 2011.

Although our research focuses on 2011, the evolution of 
the number of girls at risk is also highly important. There-
fore,  more  recent  data  are  also  kindly  requested:  from 
2012 and 2013 ... [update years accordingly]. Please pro-
vide the number of female asylum seekers and refugees 
by year and country of origin.

Irregular female immigrants originating from FGM 
risk countries
Information on undocumented or irregular migrants is 
the  most  difficult  to  obtain,  but  still  pertinent  in  order 
to  make  a  more  accurate  FGM  risk  estimation.  Again, 
we need data disaggregated by one-year age cohorts, 
and  by  country  (and,  if  possible,  by  region  within  the 
country of origin) for 2011. If available, more recent data 
disaggregated  by  country  of  origin  and  year  should 
also  be  provided  for  2012 and 2013  ...  [update  years 
accordingly].

FGM or risk of FGM among children under the age 
of  18  with  parents  originating  from  an  FGM  risk 
country  and  currently  living  in  ...  [replace  by  the 
name of the relevant country]
Other sources may be available for retrieving more infor-
mation on the risk of FGM. Table 1 lists a few examples. 
Each  country  may  have  different  registration  systems, 
such  as  medical/hospital  records,  child  protection  re-
cords,  asylum  records  and  police/judiciary  records.  In 
case data are available for 2011, 2012 and 2013 [update 
years accordingly], please provide them.

34

Estimation of girls at risk of female genital mutilation in the European Union
Step-by-step guide 

Annexes

4. How do we want to receive the data?

5. How are we going to use these data?

We prefer to receive the requested data in Excel sheets. 
A template Excel table (Annex 1) for collating data about 
the female migrant population aged 0–18 living in ... [re-
place by the name of the relevant country] is attached 
for a convenient reference. It gathers information on the 
country of origin, one-year age groups and generation 
(see first worksheet: Female population in EU country). 
You can use this file to fill in your data or make your own 
Excel  sheet(s),  as  long  as  the  requested  information  is 
included.

Please write down (per dataset) in a Word document:

 ● name of office or agency providing the data;

 ● data made available by your office/agency:

• 

• 

• 

 female  migrant  population:  Yes/No/Not  all  vari-
ables (specify);

live  births:  Yes/No/Not  all  variables 

 female 
(specify);

 female  asylum  seekers:  Yes/No/Not  all  variables 
(specify);

•  female refugees: Yes/No/Not all variables (specify);

• 

• 

 irregular  female  immigrants: Yes/No/Not  all  vari-
ables (specify);

 other sources of risk of FGM: Yes/No/Not all vari-
ables (specify);

 ● names  of  variables  used  (as  named  in  your  office/
agency in case another research team wishes to rep-
licate the study) (e.g. variable: ‘migr_fem_resid’);

The  basic  idea  is  to  multiply  the  2011  female  migrant 
population  (residents,  asylum  seekers,  refugees,  irreg-
ular migrants) in ... [replace with the name of the rele-
vant country] with the FGM prevalence available for the 
age cohort 15–19 years old living in the (region within) 
country of origin. Other more sophisticated refinements 
will be made subsequently in order to gain a more accu-
rate FGM risk estimation. Data covering 2012 and 2013 
...  [update  years  accordingly]  will  be  used  to  assess 
trends  regarding  the  female  live  births,  female  asylum 
seekers, female refugees and female irregular migrants 
(possibly relevant for policymaking purposes). More in-
formation can be provided upon request.

6. Your role in the data collection

We would truly appreciate your assistance in coordinat-
ing the data collection in your office. For more informa-
tion or questions regarding specific data requirements, 
please contact [include name of researcher(s) and con-
tact details].

The analysis will be conducted by our team.

7. When do we need these data?

As mentioned above, this study has a tight timeframe: 
[replace  with  respective  dates].  We  would  appreciate 
receiving  these  data  before  ...  [replace  with  respective 
dates]. Please send your Excel and Word files to [include 
name of researcher(s) and contact details].

 ● definitions used;

8. Glossary

 ● whether  extra  data  processing  was  needed  or 
whether  they  were  directly  retrievable  from  your 
system;

 ● your name and e-mail address (in case our data an-
alyst  needs  to  get  in  touch  with  you  to  clarify  any 
aspect concerning the data collated).

Check glossary available in the report Estimation of girls 
at risk of female genital mutilation in the European Union 
(EIGE, 2015).

Estimation of girls at risk of female genital mutilation in the European Union
Step-by-step guide 

35

Annexes

Table 1. Data to be collected in order to estimate the risk of FGM in the relevant country

Data on

More specific variables

Alternatives

Female migrant popu‑
lation in [replace with 
the name of the relevant 
country] originating from 
one of the FGM risk coun‑
tries

Female live births in 
[replace with the name 
of the relevant country] 
to mothers originating 
from one of the FGM risk 
countries

Female live births in 
[replace with the name 
of the relevant country] 
to mothers originating 
from one of the FGM risk 
countries

Female asylum seekers in 
[replace with the name 
of the relevant country] 
originating from one of 
the FGM risk countries

Female asylum seekers in 
[replace with the name 
of the relevant country] 
originating from one of 
the FGM risk countries

• 

In 2011 (data from cen-
sus 2011)

•  By country of origin, 
one-year age group 
between 0 and 18 years 
old and first and second 
generation

•  By region within the 
country of origin
•  By age of arrival (first 

generation only) in [re-
place with the name of 
the relevant country]

•  2011
•  By country and region 
within the country of 
origin of the mother

• 

If possible: 
2012 and 2013

•  By country of origin of 

the mother

In 2011

• 
•  By country of origin and 
one-year age between 
0 and 18 years old and 
first and second gener-
ation

•  By region within the 
country of origin

•  By age of arrival in [re-

place with the name of 
the relevant country]

• 

If possible: 
2012 and 2013
•  By country of origin
•  No need for one-year 

age cohorts. Please pro-
vide the total number 
of girls aged 0 to 18 per 
country of origin

•  —
•  —
•  Or: place/city of birth 
of first generation and 
place/city of birth of 
mothers of second gen-
eration (or place/city of 
birth of women (19–49) 
by country of origin)
•  Or: length of stay or year 
of arrival in [replace with 
the name of the relevant 
country]

•  —

•  —

Possible sources  
(may depend on country)

•  National statistical office

•  Central birth registration 

office

•  National statistical office

•  Central birth registration 

office

•  National statistical office

•  —
•  —
•  Or: place/city of birth
•  Or: length of stay in 

[replace with the name 
of the relevant country]

•  Border and immigration 

services

•  Agencies for the recep-

tion of asylum seekers or 
refugees

•  —
•  —

•  Border and immigration 

services

•  Agencies for the recep-

tion of asylum seekers or 
refugees

36

Estimation of girls at risk of female genital mutilation in the European Union
Step-by-step guide 

Data on

More specific variables

Alternatives

Annexes

Possible sources  
(may depend on country)

•  Border and immigration 

services

•  Agencies for the recep-

tion of asylum seekers or 
refugees

•  —
•  —
•  Or: place/city of birth
•  Or: length of stay in 

[replace with the name 
of the relevant country]

•  —
•  —

•  Border and immigration 

services

•  Agencies for the recep-

tion of asylum seekers or 
refugees

•  —
•  —
•  Or: place/city of birth

•  Border and immigration 

services

•  —
•  —

•  Border and immigration 

services

•  —
•  —
•  —
•  Or: place/city of birth of 

first generation

•  Medical/hospital records
•  Child protection records
•  Police and judiciary 

records

•  Asylum records
•  Other sources where 

records with FGM data 
for children are kept

Female refugees in [re‑
place with the name of 
the relevant country] 
originating from one of 
the FGM risk countries

Female refugees in [re‑
place with the name of 
the relevant country] 
originating from one of 
the FGM risk countries

Irregular female migrants 
in [replace with the name 
of the relevant country] 
originating from one of 
the FGM risk countries

Irregular female migrants 
in [replace with the name 
of the relevant country] 
originating from one of 
the FGM risk countries

Number of FGM or 
risk‑of‑FGM cases iden‑
tified among children 
under age 18 with one 
or two parents who orig‑
inate from an FGM‑risk 
country and currently live 
in [replace with the name 
of the relevant country]

In 2011

• 
•  By country of origin and 
one-year age between 
0 and 18 years and first 
and second generation

•  By region within the 
country of origin

•  By age of arrival in [re-

place with the name of 
the relevant country]

• 

If possible: 
2012 and 2013
•  By country of origin
•  No need for one-year 

age cohorts. Please pro-
vide the total number 
of girls aged 0 to 18 per 
country of origin

•  2011
•  By country of origin and 
one-year age between 
0 and 18 years and first 
and second generation

•  By region within the 
country of origin

• 

If possible: 
2012 and 2013
•  By country of origin
•  No need for one-year 

age cohorts. Please pro-
vide the total number 
of girls aged 0 to 18 per 
country of origin

In 2011, 2012, 2013

• 
•  By country of origin and 
one-year age between 
0 and 18 years
•  By first and second 

generation

•  By region within the 
country of origin

•  FGM status or 

risk-of-FGM status

•  Other relevant data from 

these records

Estimation of girls at risk of female genital mutilation in the European Union
Step-by-step guide 

37

Annexes

Annex 5. Suggestions to organise focus group discussions
When  designing  the  focus  group  discussions,  four  dis-
tinct  sets  of  tasks  are  to  be  considered. The  following 
suggestions  are  based  on  experience  gained  during 
the  implementation  of  the  qualitative  component  of 
the study on Estimation of girls at risk of female genital 
mutilation in the European Union (EIGE, 2015).

support so that the facilitator can refer the partic-
ipants to specialised support. Be informed about 
the  accessibility  of  these  services  and  whether 
they are free of charge. Provide this information 
to all participants at the end of the session.

1.  Preparation and organisation

a. 

b. 

c. 

 Clearly define your target groups, criteria for par-
ticipation, and a minimum and maximum num-
ber of participants per group. It might be useful 
to determine quota for the country and region 
of origin, age ranges, etc.

 Make  sure  that  the  dates  of  the  focus  groups 
do not collide with important religious celebra-
tions or events (e.g. Ramadan, religious holidays), 
school  vacations  and  summer  periods.  Week-
ends  seem  to  be  a  safe  choice  for  organising 
the  discussions.  Avoid  the  evenings  on  which 
migrants most commonly go to religious gath-
erings (e.g. mosques, churches).

 Organise the discussion in the facilities of a civil 
society organisation that works with the migrant 
community  envisaged. This  civil  society  organ-
isation  has  built,  throughout  the  years,  a  rep-
utation  that  is  recognised  by  specific  migrant 
communities. This might be helpful in recruiting 
participants. On the other hand, organising the 
discussion on the premises of a civil society or-
ganisation that works with migrant communities 
may lead to confidentiality concerns of the po-
tential  participants.  Therefore,  a ‘neutral’  venue 
with good accessibility may also be considered.

d. 

 Considering  the  aims  of  the  focus  groups  and 
existing  knowledge,  conceive  a  list  of  issues/
questions  to  be  discussed  in  the  groups.  Draft 
guidelines and other tools for the facilitation and 
note-taking.

e. 

 Collect  and/or  prepare  informative  materials 
about  the  groups  and  about  FGM  to  give  to 
the participants prior to, and at the end of, the 
session.

f. 

 Collect information about possible referral routes 
for  health,  protection,  legal  and  psychological 

g. 

 Prepare a detailed consent form to be signed by 
each participant.

h. 

i. 

j. 

 Prepare a socio-demographic information sheet 
to be completed by (or with) each of the partic-
ipants (e.g. age, country and region of origin of 
the participant, her/his parents and her/his part-
ner,  ethnicity,  age  of  arrival  in  country  of  desti-
nation, number of daughters  and sons,  level of 
education, resident status).

 Prepare a map with the location of the groups as 
some participants might have low levels of liter-
acy and this allows a better spatial orientation.

 If relevant to the research, prepare a confidenti-
ality and non-disclosure agreement to be signed 
by the co-facilitator and note-taker.

k. 

 Foresee a budget to cover participants’ expenses 
(e.g. travel and childcare) and as a form of recog-
nition of their cooperation.

2.  Recruitment

a.  Allow sufficient time for recruitment. Snowball-
ing seems to be effective, but it takes time to spread 
the word.

b.  Besides involving key civil society organisations 
working  with  migrant  communities  in  the  recruit-
ment  of  participants,  a  relevant  success  factor  is 
the  involvement  of  people  from  the  concerned 
community  during  the  recruitment  phase.  Trust  is 
important when it comes to recruiting participants 
with a migrant background for research on a topic 
such  as  FGM,  as  it  will  reduce  suspicion  regarding 
the purposes of the research. The involvement of re-
ligious leaders might also be considered as they are 
influential in the communities.

c.  Confirm  the  presence  of  the  participants  on 
the day before the focus group discussion. Remind 
the participants about the date, time and location. 

38

Estimation of girls at risk of female genital mutilation in the European Union
Step-by-step guide 

Emphasise  the  need  to  arrive  on  time  (foresee 
a timeframe for possible delays).

3.  Facilitation

a. 

 In case the main facilitator is not a person from 
the  community,  it  is  advisable  to  ensure  the 
presence  of  a  co-facilitator  and/or  note-taker 
who shares a few characteristics with the target 
group, such as same sex (e.g. select a male co-fa-
cilitator  and  note-taker  for  a  group  targeting 
men) and able to speak the language or dialect 
of the target community.

b. 

(audio) 

 Besides 
the  discussion, 
recording 
a note-taker proves useful as she or he will grasp 
the main aspects discussed and will be able to 
pay  attention  to  non-verbal  responses  within 
the group.

Annexes

c. 

d. 

 Foresee  time  for  explaining  the  informed  con-
sent  to  each  participant  before  the  discussion 
starts.

 Due to the length of the focus group discussions 
(approximately  120–180  minutes),  foresee  time 
for  short  breaks  with  drinks  and  snacks.  Offer 
suitable food, keeping in mind it may need to be 
Halal.

4.  Reporting

a. 

b. 

 The notes, together with the recordings, serve as 
the basis for drafting the discussion report and 
to analyse the information gathered during the 
group discussion.

 If  resources  are  available,  consider  transcribing 
the  full  focus  group  discussions  and  analyse 
them using specific software for qualitative and 
mixed-methods  data  analysis  (e.g.  MAXQDA, 
NVIVO).

Estimation of girls at risk of female genital mutilation in the European Union
Step-by-step guide 

39

M
H

-
0
2
-
1
5
-
0
9
4
-
E
N

-

N

http://eige.europa.eu

PDF

10.2839/04777

978-92-9218-660-9 

Paper

10.2839/48544

978-92-9218-661-6