IMPRODOVA Project-Deliverable (2.4): Identifying Gaps and Bridges of Intra- and Inter-Agency Cooperation

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

Full Text: Available Here

Executive Summary:

The research teams involved in the “IMPRODOVA” project brought together 18 analyses of “good practices” in combating Domestic Violence (DV for short), namely four from Scotland, and two from Portugal, France, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Slovenia, and Finland each.

All the selected practices are organisational arrangements that can be divided into two types of systems. The first type of system is intra-organisational. These are specialized DV units that have been set up within a large organisation with more a general mission, such as law enforcement agencies, hospital centres or municipalities (local government). The second type of system is inter-organisational. These are inter-institutional structures intended to provide a framework for partnership cooperation against DV. In our sample, these two types of practices are often intertwined and complementary. Organisations – police departments, courts, hospitals, city administrations, social services, victims’ aid association, etc. – that participate in inter-institutional partnerships often do so through their specialised DV units. All the partnerships in our sample use specialized units as the main communication channel and grassroots implementer of their actions against DV. Conversely, all the specialised units in the same sample participate in one or more multi-agency cooperation(s).

This characteristic of our sample is an invitation to reflect on this very particular type of organisational arrangement that constitutes multi-agency cooperation in the fight against DV. These structures are “partnership organisations” which have the particularity of being very largely embedded in the “partner organisations”, i.e. in the organisations participating in multi-agency cooperation. Partnerships against DV bring together fragments of partner organisations, which are chosen for their expertise and the resources they can bring to the collaboration, to deliver specific services that no single partner would be able to provide on their own. This is to achieve a beneficial change for victims or a more appropriate treatment for perpetrators. The collaboration between agencies serves a greater purpose than any of the individual organisations can achieve by their specific tasks alone. Finding a common purpose, for instance, protecting and helping the victim, provides a shared mission and identity boding various partners together. Purpose is more encompassing and permanent than professional tasks, which are specific to particular problem. New tasks can emergence and old ones can disappear, while the purpose giving meaning to work. Purpose provides an ideological bedrock for multi-agency collaboration.

This type of inter-organisational structure is necessarily fragile and problematic, for several reasons. First of all, partnerships against DV require the collaboration of different professional stakeholders, who do not have the same understanding of DV or the same agenda to fight this phenomenon. Depending on the profession, the organisation and institution they belong to, each participant tends to defend their own vision of what is problematic, what should be prioritised and what constitutes an acceptable and effective solution. Such disagreements can lead to mutual mistrust, conflict, reserve or avoidance attitudes. Another obstacle to the development of a partnership organisation is partner organisations’ reluctance to comply with the constraints involved in engaging in joint initiatives of an operational nature. Indeed, taking part in a collective project to combat DV require that each participant question one’s way of seeing things, subordinate their freedom of action to common decisions, adapt practices, accept partners’ right to control their activities and take their share of the expenses incurred in the implementation of the project. Some partner organisations reject the interplay of reciprocal obligations, mutual interference and the additional costs associated with partnership action. They are then tempted to withdraw from the partnership. Case studies contain numerous examples of divergent views that lead to conflicts or inabilities to cooperate: tensions between prosecutors and associations offering educational programmes for violence perpetrators in Slovenia, for example, or conflicts between police and social workers on risk assessment in the case of the Austrian MARAC.

These obstacles to multi-agency cooperation mean that many partnerships decline rapidly once the initial enthusiasm phase is over. In the fight against DV, as in other areas of security policy, few partnership initiatives are able to become permanently institutionalised so as to develop and improve their range of services over time. The case studies gathered here are particularly interesting from this point of view. Indeed, they reflect a broad range of partnerships that are notable for their overall “good organisation” and “good performance”, which does not mean that these collaborations are free of limitations and defects. The cross- referenced analysis of the 18 case studies makes it possible to identify the features that characterize the “good practices” of multi-agency cooperation against DV. There are five characteristics of a “good partnership”.

First, it takes targeted actions with an intended outcome. That is, it targets specific types of perpetrators, or acts to mitigate or manage risks posed to vicitms.

Second, it has a system for managing its action that is both capable of performing a range of functions and of imposing its authority on system members.

Third, information management facilitates inter-institutional sharing and ensures feedback from partner organisations to the partnership mechanism.

Fourth, the partnership organisation has specialised relays in each partner organisation. These specialised units or staff, who represent, promote and implement the partnership in their respective organisations, enjoy a high status within their own partner organisations.

Fifth, the partnership mechanism and partner organisations make a significant effort to train the staff involved in the collaboration, as well as codify and produce professional knowledge useful for the proper functioning of the partnership.