The justice sector plays a foundational role in enabling victims/survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV) to seek justice and safety in response to violence. Although the justice sector in general, and police officers in particular, can be involved from emergency situations to long-term recovery, victims/survivors have too often been underserved by victim-blaming and underestimated risk assessments. Integrated service delivery (ISD), including co-location/referrals to partners in other social sectors and legal advocacy, can help repair these gaps and promote victims/survivors’ holistic recovery.
Supporting Lives Free from Intimate Partner Violence
Towards Better Integration of Services for Victims/Survivors
5. Integrating the justice system in the service delivery response to intimate partner violence
Abstract
Key findings of this chapter
The justice sector plays an important role in combating gender-based violence (GVB) and intimate partner violence (IPV), not least since legal frameworks provide the foundation on which claims of wrongful action can be made. The police serve as an important gatekeeper to accessing justice, security and protection, and they can refer victims/survivors to related interventions and support.
While access to justice, in theory, is readily available for those in need in most OECD countries, the justice system is often complex and difficult to navigate. It is therefore crucial that the justice sector is included in systems of integrated service provision (ISD) and becomes more people-centred, taking into account the legal and justice needs of victims/survivors.
For too many victims/survivors, the police services do not do their best work in investigating and stopping GBV and IPV. Training, standardised danger and risk assessments, and more effective use of barring orders can help the police improve their services.
Co-locating civil society organisations and other GBV specialists in police stations and ensuring that cross-sector referrals to alternative sites work well can open up cross-training opportunities, make services more effective and help victims/survivors access the right services at the right time.
Countries have also worked to ensure that more victims/survivors are able to make use of the legal frameworks that exist to support them by creating and funding targeted justice services and legal advocacy supports.
5.1. Involving the justice system from crisis through recovery
The justice sector, and particularly services provided by the police, play a multi-dimensional role in responding to gender-based violence (GBV) and intimate partner violence (IPV) against women, both in crisis situations and in longer-term recovery. To start, legal frameworks are the foundation for justice sector responses to IPV (OECD, 2021[1]). The Istanbul Convention elaborates at length about minimum requirements of substantive law in order to best protect the rights of women exposed to domestic violence (see Chapter 1, Box 1.2, for more on the Istanbul Convention) (Council of Europe, 2011[2]). This predominantly takes the form of criminalising sexist and violent behaviours, including stalking, forced marriage, and physical, sexual and psychological violence.
For victims/survivors, police sometimes serve as gatekeepers to accessing justice and other important supports, as reporting a crime to the police is an entry point for access to important interventions and safety (Saxton, 2022[3]). The police will often be called to the scene of violence to deal with a domestic dispute, and together with the courts, the police may decide on and enforce protective measures such as restraining orders. The justice sector also plays a role in criminal investigations following reports of IPV: courts provide the arena for which civil or criminal appeals for justice are made, sometimes with the help of legal advocates. The Istanbul Convention outlines procedural standards, including for victim’s compensation, legal aid, sanctions and protection orders which are jointly executed through court and police arms of the justice system (Council of Europe, 2011[2]), though OECD research suggests that these targets are rarely fully met – even in OECD countries (Box 5.1).
Similarly, legal and justice needs, issues, and criminal and/or civil procedures are often intrinsically tied with other social, economic, health, or employment issues (OECD, 2021[4]). Victims/survivors may need access to various public services in addition to several legal and justice services, often at the same time, undergoing different processes to resolve several issues at once. A holistic response to GBV requires strong collaborations among organisations within the justice system and between the justice system and other sectors (OECD, 2021[5]).
At the same time, an integrated justice response to IPV includes multi-dimensional perpetrator responses in tandem with multi-sectoral responses for women to wholly address the problem of GBV. Whereas most interventions focus on supporting the victim/survivor, justice‑sector actors are in a good position to mandate perpetrator treatment and hold perpetrators accountable for their violent behaviour (see Chapter 2 for more on perpetrator-focused interventions). This need not always take the form of incarceration, but will crucially involve other forms of justice such as monitoring/tracking perpetrators’ movements, mandating the entry into perpetrator programmes to prevent recidivism, following solutions based on restorative justice, or other outcomes based on problem-solving approaches (OECD, 2016[6]).
Similar to health care systems, police are readily available to respond to crisis in most OECD countries. De jure, those who experience IPV can seek help through the police and hold their perpetrators accountable through the court systems when the laws against GBV have been broken. At the same time, de facto access to justice is harder to achieve. The legal and justice system can be hard to navigate for non-experts, and many victims/survivors have low trust in the police force being able or willing to support them. To an extent, such reluctance may be justified given historical cultures of victim-blaming and down-prioritisation of GBV cases in parts of the justice sector (see Chapter 2 for more on barriers to reporting abuse).
This chapter focuses on justice sector responses and the specific pathways for victims/survivors which integrate multisectoral, trauma‑informed supports for women experiencing IPV, notably by way of multidisciplinary police teams and services rooted in advocacy and empowerment, including specialised domestic violence courts.
Box 5.1. Legal frameworks are the foundation for ending gender-based violence
Solid legal frameworks are the basis for victims/survivors’ ability to make claims against their perpetrators. Despite this, according to the OECD Social Institutions and Gender Index’s (SIGI) survey of legal institutions, there is no participating OECD member country that has a fully comprehensive legal framework against GBV (SIGI, 2023[7]). Indeed, such a legal framework would need to help to co‑ordinate criminal and civil procedures to respond to the multidimensional nature of GBV.
According to the forthcoming Social Institutions and Gender Index (SIGI) data and report, all OECD countries have basic legislation against rape and sexual harassment, but there are legal loopholes. While all OECD member countries criminalise rape under their legal frameworks, only 32 countries cover sexual abuse in a domestic relationship as an offence and just 27 countries explicitly prohibit marital rape (SIGI, 2023[7]). Moreover, only 22 OECD countries have implemented the progressive form of legislation where rape is defined as a lack of consent, rather than based on the need to prove that non-consent was explicit and heard. Similarly, while the law prohibits sexual harassment in all OECD countries, the law only includes criminal penalties in 28 OECD member countries (ibid).
Of particular relevance to this report, not all OECD countries have legislated against domestic violence: to date, it is only considered a criminal offence in 31 out of 38 member countries, while seven countries do either not have legislation on domestic violence at all, or existing legislation does not extend to the entire territory or domestic violence is only covered in their civil legislation. Moreover, countries do not always include all forms of abuse: physical, sexual, psychological and economic. Indeed, only 24 OECD countries specifically cover economic abuse in their definitions (SIGI, 2023[7]).
Source: (OECD, 2023[8]; SIGI, 2023[7]).
5.2. Countries are working to equip police forces to deal with partner violence
Even though the police often act as a gatekeeper for support, protection and other interventions, victims/survivors often hesitate to involve them. Many think that the police officers will not believe the help-seeker, that the police will not (or cannot) do anything, that their children might be taken out of the household, and/or that the perpetrator will retaliate against the help-seeker or her children if she reports to the police. Indeed, the latest EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) survey on violence against women illustrates that – on average across EU OECD countries – nearly one in ten (9% of) victim/survivor respondents failed to report their most serious incident of physical and/or sexual violence because they did not believe the police would do anything in response, and 7% did not believe the police could do anything (Figure 5.1).
These barriers to reporting mean that fewer women seek help, and only do so if their abuse is unbearable or if there are additional risk factors. For example, in Australia, a study of self-reported instances of IPV to police services suggests that women are more likely to engage with police only after multiple, repeated acts of violence, if the perpetrator is intoxicated, or if children are present (Voce and Boxall, 2018[9]).
Figure 5.1. The belief that the police could not or would not do anything is a common reason for not reporting serious incidents of partner violence
Note: When asked about the reasons for not contacting police following the most serious incident of physical and/or sexual violence by a partner since the age of 15, respondents could indicate one or more answer categories according to their experiences. Partners include persons with whom the respondents were, or had been, married, living together without being married, or involved in a relationship without living together. Source: (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), 2012[10]), Survey on violence against women in EU, 2012, http://fra.europa.eu/en/publications-and-resources/data-and-maps/survey-data-explorer-violence-against-women-survey.
Research shows that some victims/survivors’ fears about going to the police to report their perpetrators are justified. Police forces lack specialist understanding of IPV and have a history of undermining witness accounts, blaming the victims/survivors for the crime and underestimating the danger victims/survivors are in from IPV. For instance, a recent report from the United Kingdom points to a lack of specialist training on matters of GBV, an internal culture of victims/survivors-blaming, disproportionate investigative efforts to establish the credibility of the victims/survivors (Stanko, 2022[11]). These are all obstacles to effective police intervention in GBV cases, impeding an individual’s access to justice and contributing to an overall reluctance to report such incidences (Mundy and Seuffert, 2021[12]; Moylan, Lindhorst and Tajima, 2017[13]; Venema, 2014[14]; Glenn, 2021[15]; Sikder et al., 2021[16]; Langenderfer-Magruder et al., 2019[17]; Newberry et al., 2022[18]).
5.2.1. Unrealised potential for further victim/survivor support in police services
The Istanbul Convention stresses the need for regular, trauma‑informed training initiatives for all professionals who may come in contact with women experiencing domestic violence (Council of Europe, 2011[2]). Without training, police officers risk misevaluating help-seekers.
The Australian Government reports recognising the importance of training and has committed to develop and deliver a national training package to enhance the effectiveness of police responses to family, domestic and sexual violence issues. To achieve this, the Government will work with state and territory law enforcement agencies and victims/survivors. This package will seek to train law enforcement on a series of complex family, domestic and sexual violence matters, including coercive control, sexual assault, technology-facilitated abuse, child safety, and detrimental attitudes and behaviours.
A recent study from the United States suggests that, when training is lacking, police officers may misinterpret manifestations of trauma, confounding these instead with low credibility or apathy (Franklin et al., 2019[19]). Women may also appear disoriented or confused as they attempt to recount violent events to police following strong blows to the head, further compromising their perceived credibility (Concussion Alliance, 2022[20]). It has also been documented that perpetrators often call their partners “crazy” and deliberately do things to make their partners feel that they are going crazy (HHS Family and Youth Services Bureau, 2020[21]; Warshaw et al., 2020[22]).
These factors may be exacerbated for victims/survivors experiencing substance use coercion – a situation whereby their abusive partners encourage or force them to take substances, or to take more than they initially wanted (Chapter 3, Box 3.1). These victims/survivors may also lose credibility among providers who are not trained to understand such effects, including non-expert police officers. This can be especially damaging where police officers resign from providing additional supportive services as a result of victim-blaming or a misinterpretation of risk.
More could be done to make effective and objective use of danger and risk assessments (overviewed in Chapter 2). Without specialist training or robust actuarial risk assessment frameworks, risk assessment may be subjective and underestimate risk. For example, one study uncovered discrepancies in the levels of risk attributed to fictional IPV cases by 38 experienced police officers working in the United Kingdom. When participating officers were reminded of national risk assessment guidelines, one‑third changed their original designations (Kebbell, 2019[23]). Similarly, in the Canadian province of New Brunswick, a recent study shows officers being much more likely to arrest a perpetrator as part of a risk management strategy after having deployed an actuarial risk assessment tool (70.2%) than were officers who did not use the tool (26.8%) (Ballucci, Campbell and Gill, 2020[24]).
Related to this, barring orders, restraining orders or protection orders risk being underused if risk assessments are subjective or underestimate risk. The Istanbul Convention highlights the important role of emergency barring orders in de‑escalating situations of domestic violence and prioritising the safety of women experiencing IPV, but these orders are not as widely used as they could be (Council of Europe, 2011[2]). The decision to restrain a perpetrator is often subject to police officers’ interpretation of risk at the moment of reporting. Better training and clear risk assessment frameworks may therefore help ensure that restraining orders are more effectively used.
While many risk and danger assessments ask about the history of abuse and some ask about any knowledge of partners’ criminal records, it may be useful to more systematically complement the information provided by victims/survivors with information from police records. For instance, Turner, Brown and Medina-Ariza (2022[25]) build a model incorporating several observable factors to predict the occurrence of domestic violence against women. They find that the most influential variables in the model were related to criminal history, domestic abuse history, and time since the last incident.
5.2.2. Co-locating community-based service providers can make police services more accessible
In addition to specialised training, integrating providers from outside the police service has also been found to increase feelings of safety and security among help-seekers, as well to increase confidence in police services more generally. The co-location of service providers can help reduce administrative burden, both for service providers and for the women they are helping (Chapter 1), with the added benefit of freeing up resources to offer more training, integration and better support.
Recent studies in Australia, for example, have shown that the presence of community advocates in police stations has created opportunities for cross-training, in addition to increased police accountability and transparency when addressing cases of GBV (Mundy and Seuffert, 2021[12]; Newberry et al., 2022[18]; Morgan and Parkes, 2018[26]). Similar studies about specialised women’s police stations have also shown positive outcomes, namely through increased uptake in GBV-related services driven by growing public confidence in countries as diverse as Portugal, India, Argentina and Brazil (see Box 5.2 for one example) (Machado et al., 2021[27]; Carrington et al., 2020[28]; Newberry et al., 2022[18]).
Box 5.2. Women’s police stations in Buenos Aires, Argentina
131 of the 645 police stations in the province of Buenos Aires are so-called “women’s police stations.” This means that about one in five police stations in the province have a special mandate to respond to cases of sexual and gender-based violence against people of all genders, including members of the LGBTI+ community, as well as general services. Services are available 24/7, and stations have multiple consultation rooms and are designed to host children.
These specialised police stations house multidisciplinary teams, including social workers, police officers, lawyers and psychologists who may be male or female, and are led by a superintendent of gender policy. In addition to direct service provision, women’s police stations also engage in community-based prevention activities on a monthly basis.
Most notably, they are also mandated to meet on a monthly basis to ensure service providers are aligned with internal mandates and geographically relevant needs. They participate on local boards (mesas locales), co‑ordinate with other government organisations and collaborate with educational institutions, justice centres and courts on a regular basis to ensure coherent service delivery.
This does not mitigate the need for comprehensive gender mainstreaming in all police stations, so that all officers are equipped to receive and support victims/survivors – but it is a potentially useful step to a more effective response.
The composition of the police force matters, too. One study from the United States uncovers a significant correlation between female representation in police forces and the increased reporting of violent crimes against women, especially cases of IPV. The authors also find that increases in female officers are associated with declines in rates of intimate partner homicide and non-fatal domestic abuse (Miller and Segal, 2019[30]).
Throughout the OECD, integration and co-location initiatives in police stations have often started at the local level. These successful examples at the subnational level can be helpful to better shape policy recommendations from the top. In Porto, Portugal, the local public prosecutor’s office operates a special victim support office from within the Bom Pastor police station. Although the office supports victims of a variety of crimes, it is a key stakeholder in stakeholder in the development and deployment of Porto’s most recent action plan, the “Municipal Plan for Equality and for Combating Domestic Violence” (2018‑21). In New South Wales (Australia), a non-governmental domestic violence intervention service has set up in the Nowra police station and works closely with police to deliver co‑ordinated responses to help-seeking women (Box 5.3).
In some countries, police are also involved in so-called “MARACs,” multi‑agency risk-assessment conferences, or similar case conferences bearing slightly different names. These meetings bring together community police, health care workers, public prosecutors, social workers, child welfare providers and case managers, on a regular basis, to ensure the long-term safety and continuity of care for women who are particularly at-risk of present IPV. Such case conferences are reported to exist in Australia, Austria, the United Kingdom, Finland and New Zealand, though service delivery arrangements vary in different national and local contexts (Chapter 1).
Box 5.3. Local-level examples of integrated service delivery within police stations
Case Study 1: Victims’ Support and Information Cabinet (GAIV), Porto, Portugal
In 2013, the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the municipality of Porto initiated “PSP-Porto Victim’s Support and Information Cabinet” (GAIV) – a permanent service desk working in parallel with the city’s public security and police services to handle all local cases of domestic and family violence, in particular.
In line with stakeholder recommendations, GAIV operates from the new Bom Pastor Police Station, which was designed to be more welcoming than traditional police stations. The station features different rooms, such as learning and training rooms, spaces for children, and designated areas to keep victims and offenders separate when both are present at the station. Between 2013 and 2018, GAIV assisted nearly 11 000 cases, most of which were domestic violence (DV) calls made by women between the ages of 30 and 40.
The GAIV task force is comprised of 16 agents, headed by an officer in chief, who provide 24‑hour services available seven days a week to residents of Porto. Service delivery is facilitated by inter-organisational co‑operation between police, local NGOs, health services and public prosecutors, for which GAIV acts as a focal point and co‑ordinating body in case management. It is also tasked with implementing court orders alongside clients, for example, by escorting them to collect personal belongings from their homes or accompanying them to legal proceedings. Finally, GAIV also manages tele‑assistance devices which, if triggered, rapidly deploy police to engage in crisis intervention.
GAIV is also involved in the broader municipal response to GBV, acting as a key stakeholder in the development and deployment of Porto’s most recent action plan, the “Municipal Plan for Equality and for Combating Domestic Violence” (2018‑21).
Case Study 2: Domestic Violence Intervention Service (DVIS), New South Wales, Australia
The YWCA’s Domestic Violence Intervention Service (DVIS) has been co-located at the Nowra Police Station in New South Wales (Australia) for over ten years. It is the only police‑based co-location model of its kind in Australia, providing long-term support by co‑ordinating service delivery between government agencies, legal and criminal justice institutions, and other community-based NGOs on a case‑by-case basis.
Police and DVIS workers interact on a daily basis, creating an opportunity for cross-training, upskilling and the expansion of service delivery beyond the criminal justice lens. More importantly, it encouraged a relationship of trust between two very different providers, facilitating overall collaboration in service delivery.
A recent evaluation of the DVIS initiative suggested that the presence of community-based advocates increased police accountability and transparency when addressing cases of gender-based violence, specifically DV against women. The evaluation found that co-location of this type had an immediate and positive impact on such reporting barriers associated with police, such as victim-blaming and trivialisation of violence. The presence of community-based workers meant that individuals reporting cases of GBV were more likely met with emotional support, empathy and validation, and were guided through the web of resources and services involved throughout the help-seeking process.
A few OECD countries’ Ministries of Justice have developed co-location strategies at the national level. In Denmark and in Norway, for example, integrated service delivery models which were developed at the national level are being deployed locally (Box 5.4).
Box 5.4. Ministries of Justice can plan for co-location in police stations
Denmark: Civilian experts embedded in police stations to work on complex cases of violence
In 2021, each of the 12 police districts in Denmark established specialised inter-disciplinary teams to respond to GBV. The initiative was funded by the Ministry of Justice and required that each police district incorporated at least two civilian employees to support investigators working with vulnerable complex cases of violence, including sexual assault, stalking and domestic violence. Otherwise, individual police districts were at liberty to establish their multi-disciplinary teams as they deemed appropriate given their working contexts.
In general, the Teams consist of police officers, in addition to social workers, psychologists, and criminologists, who provide general support and legal guidance to help-seeking individuals in the wake of GBV. They are responsible for screening and identifying cases of GBV, and to provide initial case co‑ordination, including referral of victims and perpetrators to relevant external collaborators. Specific duties include: appointing a contact person to offer guidance and information about rights, compensation, procedural rules related to court appearances, and preparation in connection with case progress; appointing a public lawyer for criminal cases; issuing restraining-, exclusion- and expulsion orders (emergency barring orders), including immediate restraining orders.
In addition, the Teams play an important role in educating their peers on trauma‑informed practice, especially when addressing cases of IPV, rape, stalking, so-called “honour” crimes and hate crimes. In an effort to better address these cases wherein plaintiffs are especially vulnerable, the Danish Police has also established 30 specially designed interrogation rooms. Because the initiative is fairly recent, monitoring and evaluation has not yet been planned.
Norway: Project November
Project November was a multidisciplinary pilot deployed as part of the 2013 Ministry of Justice and Public Security Action Plan against Domestic Violence; and has since been adopted in the Oslo Police District. The Crisis Centre Act requires the municipality to provide comprehensive and co‑ordinated follow-up of women, men and children who are victims of domestic violence (DV). Recently, the Trøndelag police district started a pilot project based on the experiences gained from Project November.
Project November brought together different agencies in the Stovner police station in Oslo. The interdisciplinary group of police, psychologists and social workers which are divided into two teams: (i) a police team, comprised of specially-trained officers, who perform domestic violence risk analyses; and (ii) a psycho-social team, comprised of social workers and psychologists who support the police team in conducting risk assessments, in addition to providing support, counselling and advocacy related to accessing other, related agencies such as housing and social services.
Analyses of Project November identify a lack of co-location which has frustrated efforts to have police and other service providers meet with women experiencing DV in a common location. Scholars attribute this unintended outcome to four factors: (i) opting to create dedicated Project November psychologists and social workers rather than co-locating staff from existing services, as was originally intended; (ii) performing insufficient groundwork at the national level (ministry and directorate level) to ensure municipal level commitments; (iii) a lack of political will from the City of Oslo municipality to engage with Project November’s mandate, which requires interaction between the police and the municipality; and (iv) an unfulfilled mandate by the City of Oslo municipality to take the lead on co‑ordinating assistance for those experiencing violence, largely due to pre‑existing challenges.
Source: OECD QISD-GBV, 2022 (Annex A); (Bredal and Stefansen, 2017[34]; Bredal, 2019[35]).
5.2.3. Police can refer victims/survivors to related service providers
As a minimum level of support, where co-location is not possible, police services can nonetheless provide an important entry point for women experiencing IPV to access integrated service delivery. Some OECD countries have created explicit, inter-sectoral linkages where police services initiate related, inter-disciplinary help-seeking services (see Table 5.1). In Austria, the Czech Republic, Luxembourg and the Slovak Republic, for example, police are required to contact support services and link them with the women experiencing violence. Australia frequently co-locates community-based service providers within existing police stations, while others have introduced specialised women’s police stations (including Portugal, India, Argentina and Brazil).
Table 5.1. Examples of linked services initiated following police engagement
Note: This table presents a non-exhaustive list of ISD practices in police services to support survivors of violence in the OECD. Additional comments were incorporated following OECD members’ review.
Source: OECD QISD-GBV 2022 (Annex A); (Hae-yeon, 2021[36]; YNA, 2019[37]).
5.3. Integrating legal advocacy services to improve access to justice
Women experiencing IPV may need support navigating legal procedures, including criminal and civil matters related to enforcing protection or barring orders against their abusive partner; ensuring their legal entitlement to possessions or property; and securing legal custody of their children where applicable. Such processes can be intimidating in the best of circumstances and may be particularly overwhelming during crises linked to intimate partner violence.
In addition, justice services have been criticised by some scholars as prescriptive, framing criminal justice responses as being in the best interest of the victim rather than empowering help-seekers “to make choices that are less coerced by their circumstances” (Hoyle and Palmer, 2014[38]). Services may be able to offer better support and achieve longer-term solutions when they are flexible and victim/survivor focused, working with women to find solutions that address their needs and desires, rather than providing standardised services (Hoyle and Palmer, 2014[38]).
A recent study from the United States conducted personal interviews to better understand how “justice“ and “accountability” were defined by women who had experienced IPV. The study found that, while approaches like incarceration offered accountability and (temporary) safety, such approaches remained limited in terms of addressing root causes of violence. Women participating in study expressed the need and preference for “restorative aspects of justice, including perpetrator’s acknowledgment of harm, achieving physical safety and stability, and perpetrator rehabilitation through counselling” (Decker et al., 2022[39]).
Victims/survivors also navigate difficult trade‑offs in their attempt to achieve security through the justice system. In interviews conducted with US women who experienced IPV in the past year, Decker (2022[39]) finds that some justice goals can at the same time encourage and discourage engagement for formal justice systems, and in some cases, women experienced that incarceration offered only temporary relief, was not effective in encouraging behavioural change, and could exacerbate underlying problems. The existence of such tensions, alone, may reduce willingness of women to engage with the justice sector in the wake of IPV (Decker et al., 2022[39]).
For these reasons, legal advocacy services can help empower women to seek justice on their own terms. To ensure that more victims/survivors are able to make use of the legal frameworks that exist to support them, targeted justice services have emerged alongside legal advocacy supports to better support women in the wake of IPV.
5.3.1. Empowering women through advocacy supports and tailored justice services
Legal advocacy services are designed to facilitate access to resources, either directly, or by providing information, guidance and advice to ensure help-seekers are as well informed as possible about their options across institutional settings (Hoyle and Palmer, 2014[38]). To access justice in the context of IPV, advocacy services are particularly supportive of women through different legal processes associated with civil or criminal hearings.
A number of targeted, national-level initiatives exist in the OECD to support women in accessing justice through legal support, including some policies which exemplify multidisciplinary or integrated approaches (see Table 5.2). In Austria and Portugal, for example, dedicated multidisciplinary counselling centres have been established which provide psycho-social counselling in addition to legal counselling and court navigation support to improve access to justice for women impacted by domestic violence. In Australia, legal support services have been embedded in health care settings to streamline access to justice for women who are already accessing health services (see Table 5.2).
These services attract many help-seekers. For example, in 2020, most of the contacts to Victim Support Finland (VSF) were related to domestic violence and sexual crimes (OECD QISD-GBV, 2022, see Annex A). In Latvia, domestic violence is the most common call category to the general legal aid hotline; and in Chile, 75% of people accessing the Centres for Attention to Victims of Violent Crime (CAVI) are women. The majority of them do so in the context of IPV (OECD QISD-GBV, 2022).
In addition, OECD countries have established specialised domestic violence courts and adapted proceedings to consider the complexity and potential for re‑traumatisation in accessing justice. Costa Rica, New Zealand, Türkiye and the United Kingdom, for example, have established dedicated domestic violence courts which apply trauma‑informed practices to empower women as they appeal for justice. Domestic violence courts apply specialised knowledge to better enforce orders, jointly delivered with police, that protect women.
Domestic violence courts can also play an important role in enforcing perpetrator accountability through offender intervention programs. In fact, a recent study from Alberta (Canada) showed that offender recidivism following a behavioural change intervention dropped from 41.2% to 8.2% after specialised domestic violence courts were established and involved in enforcing implementation (Tutty and Babins-Wagner, 2016[40]).
Table 5.2. Examples of multidisciplinary advocacy supports in the justice sector in the OECD
Note: This table presents a non-exhaustive list of multidisciplinary legal advocacy practices for survivors of violence in the OECD. Additional comments were incorporated following OECD members’ review.
Source: OECD QISD-GBV 2022 (Annex A); (Government of Spain, 2019[41]; Alonso and Valverde, 2017[42]).
5.3.2. Advocacy services can help victims/survivors navigate a challenging legal landscape
Justice sector specialised advocacy can be especially helpful when navigating ambiguous, changing or entirely new legal landscapes. This is especially true today, as certain forms of violence proliferate on the internet and remain difficult to report or prosecute (EIGE, 2022[43]). According to the Fundamental Rights Survey (2020[44]), 25% of 16‑29 year‑old women in EU countries report having experienced cyber-harassment in the past five years.
Digitally-facilitated stalking and harassment are becoming increasingly prevalent, as are digital sex crimes such as trading intimate personal photos or videos without permission (Jurasz and Barker, 2021[45]). In October 2021, GREVIO adopted a General Recommendation on the digital dimension of VAW. In it, they introduce a number of new obligations under the Istanbul Convention in relation to digitally-facilitated violence against women, including in the context of domestic violence (Council of Europe, 2022[46]; Coşkun and Güzel, 2021[47]).
In a horizontal review of parties to the Istanbul Convention, GREVIO highlights a general lack of specialist services available to women experiencing digitally-facilitated forms of violence (Council of Europe, 2022[46]). Some OECD countries have anticipated the emergence of this form of VAW. In Korea, the problem of digital violence had led the (now-abolished) Ministry of Gender Equality and Family (MOGEF) to open a central hub, with regional satellite offices, to assist people in seeking justice in the face of new and insidious forms of GBV taking root in the online world.
In Germany, the Government funds Hate Aid, a non-governmental organisation which offers counselling to victims of digital violence. Hate Aid also works closely with specialised law firms, and endeavours to cover legal costs where civil proceedings are pursued, though federal funding does not cover legal representation (HateAid, 2022[48]).
References
[42] Alonso, J. and G. Valverde (2017), “Política Nacional para la Atención y la Prevención de la Violencia contra las Mujeres de todas las Edades Costa Rica 2017-2032”, Instituto Nacional de las Mujeres, Instituto Nacional de las Mujeres, https://mcj.go.cr/sites/default/files/2021-06/PLANOVI%202017-2032.pdf (accessed on 31 January 2023).
[24] Ballucci, D., M. Campbell and C. Gill (2020), “Use of the ODARA by police officers for intimate partner violence: Implications for practice in the field”, Journal of Community Safety and Well-Being, Vol. 5/3, pp. 91-102, https://doi.org/10.35502/JCSWB.150.
[35] Bredal, A. (2019), “Sikkerhet og støtte i familievoldssaker”, Velferdsforskningsinstitutet NOVA, https://oda.oslomet.no/oda-xmlui/bitstream/handle/20.500.12199/1338/NOVA-Rapport-8-2019-K.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed on 2 January 2023).
[34] Bredal, A. and K. Stefansen (2017), “Barnahus for Adults? Reinterpreting the Barnahus Model to Accommodate Adult Victims of Domestic Violence”, in Collaborating Against Child Abuse, Springer International Publishing, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58388-4_15.
[33] Campanhã Parish Council (2020), Gabinete de Atendimento e Informação à Vítima - PSP Porto, https://www.campanha.net/index.php/sociedade/1646-gabinete-de-atendimento-e-informacao-a-vitima-psp-porto (accessed on 2 January 2023).
[28] Carrington, K. et al. (2020), “How Women’s Police Stations Empower Women, Widen Access to Justice and Prevent Gender Violence”, International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, Vol. 9/1, pp. 42-67, https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.v9i1.1494.
[20] Concussion Alliance (2022), Partner-Inflicted Brain Injuries, https://www.concussionalliance.org/partner-inflicted-brain-injury.
[47] Coşkun, S. and P. Güzel (2021), GREVIO’s Approach to Digital Violence Against Women and States’ Obligations Under Istanbul Convention, Digicrimjus, https://www.digicrimjus.com/2022/03/21/grevios-approach-to-digital-violence-against-women-and-states-obligations-under-istanbul-convention/ (accessed on 2 January 2023).
[46] Council of Europe (2022), Mid-term horizontal review of GREVIO baseline evaluation reports, Council of Europe, https://rm.coe.int/prems-010522-gbr-grevio-mid-term-horizontal-review-rev-february-2022/1680a58499 (accessed on 4 October 2022).
[2] Council of Europe (2011), Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (The Istanbul Convention), Council of Europe, https://rm.coe.int/168008482e (accessed on 16 December 2022).
[39] Decker, M. et al. (2022), “Defining Justice: Restorative and Retributive Justice Goals Among Intimate Partner Violence Survivors”, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol. 37/5-6, pp. NP2844-NP2867, https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520943728.
[43] EIGE (2022), “Combating Cyber Violence against Women and Girls”, European Institute for Gender Equality, https://eige.europa.eu/publications/combating-cyber-violence-against-women-and-girls (accessed on 3 January 2023).
[44] European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2020), Fundamental Rights Survey, https://fra.europa.eu/en/data-and-maps/2021/frs.
[10] European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (2012), Survey on violence against women in EU.
[19] Franklin, C. et al. (2019), “Police Perceptions of Crime Victim Behaviors: A Trend Analysis Exploring Mandatory Training and Knowledge of Sexual and Domestic Violence Survivors’ Trauma Responses”, Crime & Delinquency, Vol. 66/8, pp. 1055-1086, https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128719845148.
[15] Glenn, R. (2021), “2019 Churchill Fellowship to study service responses to women experiencing or escaping domestic financial abuse USA, Canada, UK”, APO 20, https://apo.org.au/node/312635 (accessed on 2 January 2023).
[41] Government of Spain (2019), “Guide to the system of action and coordination in cases of gender violence in Spain”, Government of Spain, http://www.publicacionesoficiales.boe.es (accessed on 27 January 2023).
[36] Hae-yeon, K. (2021), All eyes on surveilling digital sex crimes in the year 2021, The Korea Herald, https://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20210107000797.
[48] HateAid (2022), Hate Aid, https://hateaid.org/.
[21] HHS Family and Youth Services Bureau (2020), Understanding Substance Use Coercion as a Barrier to Economic Stability for Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence: Policy Implications, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/understanding-substance-use-coercion-barrier-economic-stability-survivors-intimate-partner-violence.
[38] Hoyle, C. and N. Palmer (2014), “Family justice centres: A model for empowerment?”, International Review of Victimology, Vol. 20/2, pp. 191-210, https://doi.org/10.1177/0269758014521738.
[45] Jurasz, O. and K. Barker (2021), “Sexual Violence in the Digital Age: A Criminal Law Conundrum?”, German Law Journal, Vol. 22/5, pp. 784-799, https://doi.org/10.1017/GLJ.2021.39.
[23] Kebbell, M. (2019), “Risk assessment for intimate partner violence: how can the police assess risk?”, Psychology, Crime & Law, Vol. 25/8, pp. 829-846, https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2019.1597087.
[17] Langenderfer-Magruder, L. et al. (2019), ““Getting Everyone on the Same Page”: Child Welfare Workers’ Collaboration Challenges on Cases Involving Intimate Partner Violence”, Journal of Family Violence, Vol. 34/1, pp. 21-31, https://doi.org/10.1007/S10896-018-0002-4/METRICS.
[27] Machado, P. et al. (2021), An Inter-Organisational Response to Domestic Violence - The Pivotal Role of Police in Porto, Portugal, European Law Enforcement Research Bulletin Nr. 21, https://bulletin.cepol.europa.eu/index.php/bulletin/article/view/418.
[30] Miller, A. and C. Segal (2019), “Do Female Officers Improve Law Enforcement Quality? Effects on Crime Reporting and Domestic Violence”, Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 86/5, pp. 2220-2247, https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:restud:v:86:y:2019:i:5:p:2220-2247.
[29] Ministerio de Seguridad (2022), Listado de Comisarias de la Mujer y la Familia, Gobierno de la provincia de Buenos Aires, http://www.policia.mseg.gba.gov.ar/superintendencia_poldegenero/listadoscomisarias.html.
[26] Morgan, S. and J. Parkes (2018), The Hampshire Domestic Abuse Prevention Partnership 2016-2018: Process and Outcomes Evaluation Technical Report, Final Report. Southampton., https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/426401/1/DAPP_Evaluation_Morgan_Parkes_Final_version.pdf.
[13] Moylan, C., T. Lindhorst and E. Tajima (2017), “Contested Discourses in Multidisciplinary Sexual Assault Response Teams (SARTs)”, Journal of interpersonal violence, Vol. 32/1, pp. 3-22, https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515585530.
[12] Mundy, T. and N. Seuffert (2021), “Integrated domestic violence services: A case study in police/NGO co-location”, Alternative Law Journal, Vol. 46/1, pp. 27-33, https://doi.org/10.1177/1037969X20984598/.
[18] Newberry, J. et al. (2022), ““So Why Should I Call Them?”: Survivor Support Service Characteristics as Drivers of Help-Seeking in India”, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520970306.
[8] OECD (2023), Gender, Institutions and Development Database (GID-DB) (forthcoming), OECD, https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=GIDDB2012# (accessed on 3 February 2023).
[5] OECD (2021), Eliminating Gender-based Violence: Governance and Survivor/Victim-centred Approaches, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/42121347-en.
[4] OECD (2021), OECD Framework and Good Practice Principles for People-Centred Justice, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cdc3bde7-en.
[1] OECD (2021), Working Party on Gender Mainstreaming and Governance: Strengthening governance and survivor/victim-centred approaches to eliminating gender-based violence, OECD, https://www.oecd.org/mcm/Strengthening%20governance%20and%20survivor-victim-centric%20approaches.pdf.
[6] OECD (2016), Northern Ireland (United Kingdom): Implementing Joined-up Governance for a Common Purpose, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/22190414.
[31] Porto (2018), Porto’s Victim Support Office took stock of five years of activity, Porto, https://www.porto.pt/pt/noticia/gabinete-de-apoio-a-vitima-da-psp-do-porto-fez-balanco-de-5-anos-de-atividade.
[3] Saxton, M. (2022), “Complexities of the Police Response to Intimate Partner Violence: Police Officers’ Perspectives on the Challenges of Keeping Families Safe”, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol. 37/5-6, pp. 2557–2580, https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520934428.
[7] SIGI (2023), Global Report (forthcoming), OECD.
[16] Sikder, S. et al. (2021), Mapping the health systems response to violence against women, ResearchSquare, https://doi.org/10.21203/RS.3.RS-270960/V1.
[11] Stanko, B. (2022), Independent report: Operation Soteria Year One Report, UK Home Office, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/operation-soteria-year-one-report.
[25] Turner, E., G. Brown and J. Medina-Ariza (2022), “Predicting Domestic Abuse (Fairly) and Police Risk Assessment”, Psychosocial Intervention 3, pp. 145-157, https://doi.org/10.5093/pi2022a11.
[40] Tutty, L. and R. Babins-Wagner (2016), “Outcomes and Recidivism in Mandated Batterer Intervention Before and After Introducing a Specialized Domestic Violence Court”, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol. 34/5, pp. 1039-1062, https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516647005.
[14] Venema, R. (2014), “Police Officer Schema of Sexual Assault Reports”, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol. 31/5, pp. 872-899, https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514556765.
[9] Voce, I. and H. Boxall (2018), Who reports domestic violence to police? A review of the evidence, Australian Institute of Criminology, https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi559 (accessed on 16 December 2022).
[22] Warshaw, C. et al. (2020), Substance use coercion as a barrier to safety, recovery, and economic stability: Implications for policy, research and practice, National Center on Domestic Violence, Trauma, and Mental Health, http://www.nationalcenterdvtraumamh.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Substance-Use-Coercion-Meeting-Report.pdf (accessed on 15 December 2022).
[37] YNA (2019), Nearly 2,400 victims of digital sexual crimes report to gov’t support center, https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20190117007900325?.
[32] YWCA (2023), Domestic Violence Intervention Service, YWCA, https://www.ywca.org.au/programs/crisis-support-services/domestic-violence-intervention-service/.