IMPRODOVA Project-Deliverable (2.2): Country Reports and Cross-National Comparison on the Implementation of International Norms and National Best Practices of Frontline Responders

Published: March 2020
Authors (VICESSE): Paul Herbinger, Marion Neunkirchner, Norbert Leonhardmair

Full Text: Available Here

Executive Summary:

International organizations (e.g. UN, Council of Europe) have defined a set of minimum standards which governments and service providers (SP) should achieve and implement in order to meet their international obligation to exercise due diligence to investigate and punish acts of violence, provide protection to victims and prevent DV. There are international standards for service providers in general and for law enforcement in particular (but not specifically for NGOs or medical doctors). The foundations from which the basic standards are developed encompass confidentiality, safety, security and respect for service users, accessibility, and availability. Support should be available free of charge and interventions should employ the principles of empowerment and self-determination. Service providers should be skilled, gender-sensitive, have ongoing training and conduct their work in accordance with clear guidelines, protocols and ethics codes and, where possible, provide female staff. Each SP should maintain the confidentiality and privacy of the victim and should co-operate and co-ordinate with all other relevant services. It should monitor and evaluate service provision, seeking participation of service users. The expertise of the specialized NGOs should be recognized.

The research interviews were carried out in at least two locations in each partner country in accordance with the methodology (in Germany, interviews were conducted in three locations). The researchers conducted 296 interviews in total, with interviews involving police officers, social workers, medical staff and members of non- governmental organizations. 41 interviews from Austria, 44 interviews from Germany, 35 interviews from Finland, 48 interviews from France, 32 interviews from Hungary, 26 interviews from Portugal, 30 interviews from Scotland, and 34 interviews from Slovenia, were included in the analysis.

The main finding of this D2.2 report is that the international standards are relatively well implemented in all the partner countries. Based on the analysis we can conclude that police have powers to enter private property, arrest and remove a perpetrator. Protection or restraining orders are available for police to tackle all forms of DV. The important is also, that police agencies co-ordinate with, and refer to, specialist support services for domestic victims well, and that all analysed police organizations have protocols on information sharing on DV with other agencies. The IMPRODOVA partners also found that there are some areas that require special attention in the future, since gaps between the international standards and the actual practice were discovered. Police personnel should be better trained on all aspects of DV, victims should be seen as soon as possible by a specially trained officer and there should be at least one specialized officer per police unit, for DV and for sexual violence.

The comparison of the case studies in the eight partner countries yields many lessons, but one sticks out: frontline responders who are specialists of domestic violence probably serve the needs of victims in a better way than frontline responders who are generalists. By “specialist”, the deliverable means police officers (or social workers, or medical professionals) whose job specialty consists in handling domestic violence cases. By “generalist”, this deliverable refers to those police officers (or social workers, or medical professionals) who indifferently handle all the cases that they encounter in their work. The key variable therefore is whether victims make themselves known to specialists or generalists.

Summarizing the main findings, generalists will typically be less knowledgeable about domestic violence, less inclined to take non-physical violence seriously, more inclined to rely on personal discretion, and less likely to make informed and helpful referrals. Conversely, specialists will be better trained, knowledgeable about the different types of violence, abuse and control dynamics—and the risks they entail, more likely to follow protocols and procedures design to safeguard the victim’s interests, and more likely to be part of a network of professionals from other sectors who will be themselves more likely to help the victim in their multifaceted needs.

In some countries, such as Hungary, Slovenia or Portugal, virtually all police officers on the frontline response to domestic violence are generalists. In other countries, such as Scotland and Finland, most frontline response is made of specialists. In France, Germany and Austria, it varies according to locations, with some places served with specialized units and other with only generalists. Beyond necessary discussions on the territorial equality, the pattern that the IMPRODOVA team has identified about specialists and generalists proves true both in cross-country comparison and within-county differentiation.

In general, in all countries, the basic steps of a domestic violence case are the same. Where victims’ point of contact with frontline response to domestic violence is with generalists, police discretion comes into play in the determination of the level of help that the victim will receive. This is for instance documented in the Portuguese and Hungarian cases, and to a lesser extent in France and Austria. Police discretion is inherent to police work, but in the case of domestic violence, discretion has been analysed over the 1980s as a key factor in the under-servicing of domestic violence victims, with police officers traditionally tending to consider domestic violence as a private family concern, and not as the crime that is. Discretion means the quality of service depends on the quality of the particular individuals who are working that day, and not on the quality of the organizational processes that are implemented to insure higher standards of service. Generalists’ varying skills and zealousness mean that some investigations can be critically crippled by mistakes made in the early stages of the procedure, leaving at-risk women in a particularly dangerous situation of having reported a crime to the police, not having been taken seriously enough, and now facing retaliation from her partner.

The question of discretion hinges upon that of police attitudes towards domestic violence. The deliverable reveals that generalists typically tend to think of domestic violence as serious, physical violence, at the expense of a broader definition that encompasses psychological harassment, conjugal rape, financial abuse, and other non-physical forms of violence against women (for instance in Slovenia or Portugal). Typically, generalists justify the focus on serious physical violence by pointing at the question of evidence (such as visible injuries or medical certificates), and may develop negative stereotypes about victims (“they always withdraw their complaint”), as evidenced in Hungary. In fact, the Hungarian case shows that social workers who lack training and specialization may also develop these negative stereotypes. In Portugal, this means that older officers tend to cling to outdated stereotypes, compared to younger officers. Generalists usually are overworked because of the variety of requests that they face, they have no time for partnerships (for instance, the Ljubljana case in Slovenia).

Where victims’ point of contact with frontline response to domestic violence is with specialists, their experience is typically different. Obviously, there also is a varying quality to the service provided by specialists and specialized units. But in general, the IMPRODOVA team finds that specialists are well trained and have more experience. They are more likely to be able to routinely ensure a prompt and suitable treatment of “normal” cases, and to manage more complex and technical cases. Their organizational structure reflects an advanced process of division of labour (cf. the Scottish case and the task-sharing in the Scottish police between the local, divisional and national levels). Specialists are more capable of correctly interviewing the victim, of appropriately filling case documentation, of giving correct advice to the victim, of appropriately orienting the victim to support structures. This is manifest from the Finnish, German and Scottish cases. Being specialized on one type of crime, specialists do not face the problem of managing conflicting priorities—a problem typical of generalists. They usually have more reasons (and perhaps more time) to attend additional trainings, academic workshops, and to visit NGOs. They play the role of internal and external experts for DV prevention and investigation (towards non specialized police officers, NGOs, public administrations). They work to increase awareness of their non-specialized colleagues.

Specialized units also are more likely to work in close partnerships with other types of professionals, for instance the embedded social worker at the police station (cf. French case). They serve as a contact point for other police units and external actors (NGOs, schools...). Partnerships with social workers enable specialized units to focus on their core professional specialties, and to delegate other tasks to other specialists. Social workers who take care of the social-work needs of victims (housing, children, access to poor relief, etc.) allow police officers to focus on investigations and procedural aspects of the case (cf. Finnish case). The fact that the social worker operates at the police station facilitates information sharing and exchange of views on DV situations. The social worker can be present during the interview of the victim by investigators. In Scotland, Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conferences assemble professionals from different sectors (including housing and education) to make sure that every angle of the victims’ concerns are addressed.