7
Papers on Global
Partnerships and
Government Initiatives
Preventing violence against women and children requires a comprehensive approach across all levels of society. Legal and regulatory structures that support gender equality, family empowerment, and skills building contribute to the reduction of violence at the international and national levels. Around the world, an increasingly large number of countries have implemented such laws and policies, as well as ones that address violence against women and children specifically. In the international and regional realms stakeholders have coordinated efforts to present systematic changes, share evidence of effective activities, and provide support for the development of policies and social norms to reduce violence. Speakers at the workshop presented several case studies to this effect, from continental and regional partnerships to initiatives at the national government level.
The first paper describes an example of a regional partnership in Latin America called InterCambios, which was created in an attempt to harness the collective power and success of several local groups and organizations. The partnership also serves to provide technical collaboration and critical analysis of both research and interventions in the region.
The second paper demonstrates the effectiveness of partnerships created between human rights experts and local organizations working toward policy change. It describes several successful attempts by Advocates for Human Rights, a nongovernmental organization (NGO) based in Minnesota, to partner with groups in Central Asia and Eastern Europe, areas that have typically had poor records of women’s rights empowerment.
The final paper describes successful government initiatives to address violence in New Zealand, including various laws and regulations as well
as coordination efforts at the national level. It pays particular attention to efforts at addressing the needs of minority populations (in this case, the Māori populations) who are at greater risk for violence but often have lower access to resources or recourse.
THE INTERCAMBIOS ALLIANCE
Margarita Quintanilla, M.D., M.P.H.
PATH Nicaragua
The InterCambios Alliance was created in 2003 with the aim of addressing existing gaps and facilitating greater collaboration and institutional coordination in the area of gender-based violence (GBV) in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Background
Despite compelling evidence that GBV is a serious health risk for women and a public health issue, research indicates that, although battered women use health services more than non-abused women, only a very small percentage of battered women are identified by health workers. Moreover, there is a lack of local services to which providers can refer women (Morrison et al., 2004). At a community level, there is often poor coordination between health providers and other important actors, such as community-based women’s groups, criminal justice authorities, and local NGOs. Although there is increasing international recognition of the serious impact of GBV, investment in the field is still woefully inadequate. There is also a dearth of rigorous evaluations of promising interventions to inform policy and programs. Recent reviews of programs working in this field note the need for greater coherence among evidence, policy, and programs as well as for coordinated, community-based approaches to address violence from a public health perspective.
Worldwide evidence on the nature, prevalence, and consequences of gender-based violence is clear and convincing—but this is not enough. Although international attention has galvanized significant advocacy and action (usually by women’s groups), such efforts have focused primarily on the areas of law and services and have not been sufficient to end violence perpetrated against women globally. Areas that need to be prioritized include developing local research capacity, particularly in resource-poor regions; improving monitoring and evaluation of GBV interventions to strengthen understanding of what works and what does not, especially in the area of prevention; supporting capacity building for entities engaged in addressing violence against women, including community-based
organizations, service providers, advocates, and policy makers; facilitating collaboration and coordination of efforts across sectors and regions; and scaling up promising local interventions.
The InterCambios Alliance
The alliance emerged from an expert meeting that PATH convened to identify gaps and challenges in addressing GBV in the region, particularly within the health sector, and to propose future collaborations to strengthen the field. The more than 25 experts and partner organizations at the meeting concluded that although Latin America was leading the way in terms of innovative policies and programs to prevent GBV, too much time and resources were spent “reinventing the wheel.” This was largely due to the lack of opportunities to share experiences and lessons learned and a lack of critical analysis of programs to determine which approaches were most effective. Although several strong women’s networks represented women’s political interests on a regional level, participants felt there was a need for more technical collaboration and capacity building among groups. This assessment gave rise to the creation of the Inter-American Alliance for Health and the Prevention of Gender-Based Violence, known as InterCambios.
The alliance’s goal is to help improve the capacities of the health sector in Latin America and the Caribbean to respond to violence against women from an integrated public health, human rights, and gender-equality perspective. Our strategy is based on the recognition of pioneering work already being carried out in the region by a diverse range of individuals, grassroots organizations, governments, NGOs, and international agencies. InterCambios brings these groups together to share knowledge and experience, to identify lessons learned, and to develop and disseminate new approaches in four key areas of action: research, information systems, and evaluation; public policy advocacy; strengthening care and training models; and communication for social change.
Working with a particular focus on Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala, where rates of violence are known to be high, the alliance has provided technical assistance, training, tools, and information to policy makers, grassroots activists, and health professionals. The alliance includes several respected regional organizations known for their work in research, communications, service delivery, advocacy, and engaging men and youth in addressing violence against women, especially as a health concern. InterCambios also works closely with strategic partners including the Pan American Health Organization, the World Health Organization, the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), and the Latin American and Caribbean Women’s Health Network.
InterCambios’ Prevention Actions
Communication for Social Change
One of the lessons learned in the alliance’s work has been the need for materials and methodologies that strengthen the work of those working on gender-based violence in Latin America and the Caribbean. From the start, InterCambios decided that the priority would not produce new materials but rather would identify materials that had received rigorous reviews and good feedback evaluation and then disseminate them widely in the different sectors.
In this sense InterCambios has aimed to promote and strengthen communication efforts that help to change paradigms, understanding violence as a systemic problem and employing an ecological approach. This is based on the identification and broad dissemination of validated educational materials, including videos, fact sheets, and brochures, on the issue of GBV in order for them to be incorporated into the work of institutions and organizations.
InterCambios’s website, www.alianzaintercambios.org, has become a reference point for updated information on violence against women (VAW) for more than 1,500 contacts. From November 2006 to September 2010 it recorded a total of 177,382 visits, with the most visited sections being Events, Documents, News, and the newsletter. The most requested documents were Improving the Health Sector Response to Gender-based Violence: A Resource Manual for Health Care Professionals in Developing Countries, a guide for addressing partner violence with health personnel and the community, and documents concerning participatory research on teaching and learning processes. The following are some examples of the materials that have been promoted:
- For an End to Sexual Exploitation: a manual developed by Promundo/InterCambios Alliance that aims to provide educators with a set of educational activities to stimulate critical reflection on these issues among groups of male adolescents between the ages of 10 and 14.
- In Her Shoes: an awareness-raising and training methodology developed by PATH InterCambios Alliance and adapted to the Latin American context. Monitoring and evaluation results show that the methodology allows analysis of VAW through personnel reflection, analysis of myths and prejudices related to VAW, identification of the role of institutions and support networks in facilitating or limiting women’s decision making, and highlighting the link between GBV and other aspects of general and reproductive health
(e.g., sexually transmitted infections, HIV/AIDS, and unwanted pregnancy). A total of 1,450 sets of In Her Shoes have been disseminated, and 1,200 training workshops have been held in 12 countries on two continents. The document also has been adapted to the African context.
- MenEngage: a supporting initiative on masculinities in the region developed by Promundo/Puntos de Encuentro.
Promoting the Use of Evidence
In coordination with several stake-holders, Intercambios has helped improve approaches to VAW through conducting research and using evidence, facilitating access to both research findings and evaluation processes, and disseminating data and lessons learned in research methodology. A key element has been a course, based on the practical guide to researching violence against women, whose evaluation stresses “the putting into practice of the knowledge acquired to be used in everyday work, extend research beyond academic arenas, and strengthen organizations to use research tools to evaluate and monitor their work” (Ellsberg and Heise, 2005). Good examples of PATH’s work to strengthen the use of evidence include strengthening the demographic and health surveys in Guatemala and Nicaragua through coordination with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, statistics institutions, and local women’s networks; and strengthening understanding of femicide and promoting evidence-based plans of action (Widyono, 2009; COMMCA, 2010).
Lessons Learned
Through its prevention work, InterCambios has learned several lessons, which are:
- Because they already have communication and distribution channels, coordination with local networks and interagency commissions is the best path for successful distribution of materials and methodologies;
- Organizations and institutions have little time to dedicate to staying up to date on relevant research, so it is important to enable them to access information and evidence through “friendly” versions, e.g., the InterCambios’ Violence and HIV CD; and
- Electronic mechanisms, such as newsletters, social networks, and webpages, are a good alternative for maintaining a consistent presence in the community.
Strengthening Training Capacities and the
Quality of Care for Survivors of Violence
InterCambios works to strengthen the capacities and increase the quality of care available to survivors of violence. For example, it is working with the Metropolitan Health Region of Honduras to employ a participatory process to develop a model for the care and treatment of adults who experience domestic violence. Additionally, InterCambios has developed a toolbox to strengthen capacity-building processes related to violence against women. The toolbox gathers different reflections and methodologies that together generate synergy and strengthen capacity-building processes related to violence against women (training and awareness building). It provides suggestions and practical guidance to facilitators so that each training or awareness-building arena can provide an opportunity for reflection that helps change the attitudes and behaviors of people in contact with women experiencing—or that have experienced—violence in their lives. The toolbox contains the following materials: Health Sector Response to Gender-based Violence: Resource Manual for Health Professionals in Developing Countries (IPPF-RHO); a fact sheet on lessons learned in the training of health personnel; the In Her Shoes methodology; the María Luisa booklet; and interactive CDs on violence and HIV and on violence and maternal mortality.
Challenges and Lessons Learned from Working Regionally
The following challenges and related lessons learned have emerged since InterCambios began working regionally in Latin America and the Caribbean.
- Compared to local initiatives, regional work is slower, which hinders the organizations’ more active participation in the processes.
- The identification of strategic allies (e.g., United Nations agencies or regional institutions) is vital to increasing the scope of the actions.
- Frequent changes in NGO personnel are common, which makes it necessary for the capacity-building processes to be ongoing.
- It is a challenge to coordinate with civil society networks and governments individually as well as with the two sectors together, and there are often suspicions when working with these actors; strengthening the “technical” issues is a mechanism for mitigating this obstacle.
- Sexual violence and its different expression on children and women is still a pending topic.
- A changing context where new variables are appearing—migration, organized crime, and drugs, among others—makes it necessary to think about new strategies and approaches where regional work plays a key role.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS ON DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE LEGAL REFORM
Cheryl A. Thomas, J.D.
The Advocates for Human Rights
Introduction and Background
Since 1993 the Advocates for Human Rights’ Women’s Program has been working with partners internationally to address domestic violence through an improved government response, particularly, better laws and more effective implementation of those laws. Many of these partnerships have become long-term collaborative efforts that respond to evolving needs and developments in a given country. We believe these partnerships have contributed to a better legal system response to domestic violence and to a new prioritization of victim safety and offender accountability.
Of all the forms of violence against women, domestic violence1 is one of the most insidious and widespread throughout the world. The Council of Europe reports that domestic violence is the major cause of death and disability for women aged 16 to 44 and accounts for more death and ill health than cancer or traffic accidents (European Parliament Association, 2002). Nearly one in four women in the United States reports having experienced violence by a current or former spouse or boyfriend at some point in her life (CDC, 2008). On average, more than three women a day are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in the United States (Catalano). A United Nations agency for women estimates that globally at least one of every three women will be beaten, raped, or otherwise abused during her lifetime. In most cases the abuser is a member of her own family (Family Violence Prevention Fund, 2011). A 2005 World Health Organization study found that
________________
1 For the purposes of this paper, the following definition of domestic violence provided by the United Nations is used: “Domestic violence is the use of force or threats of force by a husband or boyfriend for the purpose of coercing and intimidating a woman into submission. This violence can take the form of pushing, hitting, choking, slapping, kicking, burning, or stabbing.” U.N. Centre for Social Development and Humanitarian Affairs. 2003. Strategies for confronting domestic violence: A resource manual. Available at http://www.unodc.org/pdf/youthnet/tools_strategy_english_domestic_violence.pdf (accessed April 30, 2011). This definition reflects data indicating that women are the primary victims of domestic violence.
the percentage of women who had experienced physical or sexual intimate partner violence in their lifetimes ranged from 15 percent in Japan to 71 percent in Ethiopia (Family Violence Prevention Fund, 2011).
Despite these alarming statistics, the United Nations reported in 2006 that 102 countries were not known to have any specific legal provisions on domestic violence (UN, 2006).
The mission of the Advocates for Human Rights (AHR) is to implement international human rights standards to promote civil society and reinforce the rule of law.2 The work of AHR’s Women’s Program focuses on domestic violence as a violation of fundamental human rights. One of the most important components of efforts to address domestic violence is policy and law reform that promotes victim safety and offender accountability—which are principles articulated in numerous human rights instruments. This reform must be accompanied by reforms in all other sectors of government and civil society, including the health sector, social services, education, and the economic sector. This view is shared by our international partners and provides the basis for our collaborative efforts.
Partnerships to Document the Government
Response to Domestic Violence
Global partnerships can strengthen efforts to address domestic violence. By bringing their own unique knowledge and experience to a collaborative effort, NGOs can empower each other, enrich the advocacy work, and move more efficiently toward the full realization of women’s fundamental human right to be free from violence. Partnerships allow organizations to reach across local and international borders to share expertise, lessons learned, and strategies.
One contribution that AHR has brought to its partnerships has been the long-standing experience of Minnesota and the United States in addressing domestic violence.3 To illustrate, many of AHR’s partnerships have developed in countries in Central and Eastern Europe and in the former Soviet Union (CEE/FSU). In the early 1990s, when AHR first began working in the region, there was little experience in addressing domestic violence. There was minimal documentation of domestic violence in the legal system
________________
2 AHR was founded in 1983 by a group of Minnesota lawyers who recognized the community’s unique spirit of social justice as an opportunity to promote and protect human rights at home and worldwide. The organization involves volunteers in research, education, and advocacy, building broad constituencies for human rights in the United States and select global communities. AHR holds special consultative status with the United Nations.
3 The movement to address domestic violence began more than 30 years ago in the United States, and other countries have comparable legacies. Minnesota’s efforts began in the early 1970s.
or research on the issue of any kind. There were also few, if any, services for victims, such as shelters, hotlines, or legal services. There were no particular laws on domestic violence, so victims were trying to access the justice system through criminal assault laws, divorce laws, and other laws not specific to domestic violence. Many legal system authorities were reluctant to use these laws in domestic violence cases, explaining that it was not their role to be involved in “family matters.” There was no training for medical professionals, legal professionals, or civil society on effective responses to domestic violence. Frequently, legal professionals, advocates, and others would repeat myths or misinformation about domestic violence. A common belief, for example, was that the violence was caused by alcoholism.4 Another frequently stated view was that couples counseling could resolve violent behavior.5 These mistaken beliefs could result in ineffective policy making on domestic violence.
Many of our reforms in the United States were initiated in the 1970s, and by the early 1990s a great deal of knowledge and expertise on domestic violence had developed. One of the first battered women’s shelters in the nation opened in St. Paul, Minnesota, in 1972. In this period several states passed laws specifically addressing domestic violence and offering a new order-for-protection remedy.6 Minnesota passed its Domestic Abuse Act in 1979, which provided this remedy and included other reforms to Minnesota’s laws. Beginning in the 1970s, criminal law reform resulted in new policies and procedures for police and prosecutors aimed at ensuring that domestic violence cases were treated more seriously than had been done in the past. In the same decade advocates and government officials in Duluth, Minnesota, created the Coordinated Community Response to domestic violence, often referred to as “the Duluth Model,” which was a groundbreaking strategy to improve the community’s response to domestic
________________
4 Although alcoholism can exacerbate violent behavior, studies show that it is not the cause of domestic violence. Cf. http://stopvaw.org/Other_Causes_and_Complicating_Factors.html.
5 Research has in fact shown that counseling or mediation can be dangerous for domestic violence victims. Furthermore, counseling and mediation is often not an appropriate response to domestic violence cases because it presupposes that both the victim and perpetrator are equal when, in fact, we know that the offender exercises power and control over the victim. For further discussion of these issues, see http://stopvaw.org/Domestic_Violence_Explore_the_Issue.html.
6 Laws containing the civil order-for-protection remedy were first introduced in the United States in the mid 1970s. The goal of these laws was to provide an immediate remedy to women and their children that would keep them safe while allowing them to stay in their home. As is the case today, many victims did not want to involve the criminal justice system and see their partners go to jail; rather, their priority was stopping the violence. These laws allow a victim to petition the court for an order directing the violent offender to leave the home. Cf. http://stopvaw.org/Orders_for_Protection.html.
violence.7 These early reforms led to years of increasing experience by advocates and justice system officials in implementing laws on domestic violence. They also led to research and statistics on the nature and extent of domestic violence, its causes and consequences, and the strength and weaknesses of the new laws.8 AHR has been able to share these resources with international partners through workshops, training sessions, consultations, and on-line technical assistance.
Another contribution AHR has been able to offer to its partners is the ability to raise the profile of local issues. As an international human rights organization with credentials in the United Nations, AHR’s reports and recommendations can often reach a broader audience than the partners would be able to do alone.
Finally, international partners have been able to use AHR’s expertise in documenting domestic violence as a human rights violation and advocating for change. Particularly in the early years of collaboration, when women’s advocacy groups were new in CEE/FSU, AHR shared the resources and skills needed to document domestic violence as a human rights abuse and assisted in using that documentation to achieve changes in laws, policies, and practices.
In a successful global partnership, the leadership of local partners is essential to any domestic violence reform effort. The years of experience and the profile of international human rights groups would contribute little to real progress internationally without the vision and the hands-on work of local partners. In the context of legal reform, the knowledge and guidance of local partners is critical to a comprehensive understanding of the language of relevant current laws and the workings of the legal system. Many of AHR’s local partners are lawyers with whom AHR has worked closely to parse through laws and legal procedures to identify weaknesses and areas for possible improvement.
Local advocates largely define and prioritize the needs and the appropriate advocacy strategy for their communities. They consider strategies that have been used in other communities and countries, but it is their firsthand information that provides critical guidance on any advocacy plan. That information includes the dynamics of the local legal system and other sectors, local and national social and political situations, inherent risks to victims with a given strategy, and other factors. Also, when the time comes for lobbying for changes to laws and policies, it is the local advocates who do
________________
7 The Duluth Model of Coordinated Community Response is now being replicated around the world. See http://stopvaw.org/Coordinated_Community_Response.html.
8 Minnesota’s Domestic Abuse Act has been amended every year since it passed in 1979—reflecting the developing knowledge about what legal system responses work to promote victim safety and offender accountability and what responses do not work.
the daily work of garnering support for the reform. As is illustrated in the examples below, all of AHR’s early reports on domestic violence were created in response to an invitation of a local advocate who identified the need.
AHR’s Early Partnerships to Draft Reports on Domestic Violence
Beginning in 1993, before many of the international efforts to reform laws on domestic violence began, AHR worked with partners to document domestic violence as a human rights violation. Over the years AHR has published 13 reports that include recommendations for changes to the governments’ responses to this violence, including the legal system response.9 Many of the partnerships forged through writing these reports are ongoing today and are focused on implementing their recommendations.
AHR’s work in CEE/FSU began in 1994 at the invitation of the Romanian women’s group, the Society for Feminist Analysis (ANA), when volunteer attorneys traveled to the region to conduct research for a report on domestic violence. ANA’s goal was to expose domestic violence as a widespread and devastating problem in Romania that the government was ignoring. They believed that partnership with an international human rights organization would garner the problem more attention among officials both inside and outside their country, which could lead to greater improvements, and they appreciated the longstanding Minnesota experience of addressing domestic violence.10
The resulting report, Lifting the Last Curtain: Domestic Violence in Romania, was published in 1995 (Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights, 1995). It offered an analysis of the government response to domestic violence, tracked what happened to a victim of violence when she sought redress from the legal system, identified gaps and weaknesses in the system response, and offered recommendations. Since that time Romania has
________________
9 These reports are published at http://www.theadvocatesforhumanrights.org/Issues_Affecting_Women880.html. They analyze information gathered through review of laws and policies, research, and, most importantly, interviews with government officials, judges, prosecutors, police, lawyers, advocates, medical professionals, and others about domestic violence. In addition to the domestic violence reports, AHR has published six other reports on other forms of violence against women: sex trafficking, employment discrimination, and sexual assault. Most of these reports focus on other countries; however, in 2008, AHR published the report, Sex Trafficking Needs Assessment for the State of Minnesota and worked with advocates to lobby and pass improvements to the Minnesota criminal code on sex trafficking. In 2004 AHR published the report, The Government Response to Domestic Violence against Refugee and Immigrant Women in the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area: A Human Rights Report and worked with advocates and government officials to make changes that promoted victim safety and offender accountability.
10 Since 1985 the Advocates for Human Rights has documented human rights abuses around the world and advocated for change. See www.theadvocatesforhumanrights.org.
passed a new law on domestic violence, training sessions have taken place, and new services have been established.11
Through their partnership, ANA and AHR forged new territory in the world of human rights advocacy. Women’s rights, including the right to be free from violence, were not commonly viewed as human rights at that time, and violence against women was largely not addressed as a human rights issue.12 International dialogue on this issue was vibrant in the early 1990s as activists pushed for a new recognition of women’s rights as human rights and were inspired by the approaching United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing. This aspect of the partnership between AHR and ANA proved to be particularly powerful with an impact beyond Romanian borders. The report highlighted domestic violence as exceptionally insidious and widespread with devastating consequences for women, children, families, and communities. The report clearly named domestic violence as a violation of human rights and called on the Romanian government to fulfill its obligation to prevent this violence, protect victims, and punish perpetrators. The report contributed to the growing recognition worldwide that women have a right to be free from violence in their homes and, through commitments to international human rights treaties and standards, governments have an obligation to prevent and punish this violence. Advocates throughout the region, who were accustomed to having their concerns dismissed by government officials, were empowered by this growing recognition of domestic violence as a human rights violation.
Following the publication of Lifting the Last Curtain, advocates from Bulgaria and Albania who had similar goals to those of the Romanians requested partnerships with AHR. The resulting reports, Domestic Violence in Bulgaria and Domestic Violence in Albania, identified weaknesses in the laws and legal process that were jeopardizing women’s safety, preventing domestic violence victims’ access to meaningful remedies, and undermining offender accountability (Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights, 1996a, 1996b). Both of these reports were eventually followed by new domestic violence laws in each country.
Soon after the publication of these two reports, AHR partnered with Albanian and Bulgarian advocates to organize two groundbreaking conferences. The goal of the first conference, organized in 1996 in collaboration
________________
11 Romanian domestic violence advocates do remain deeply concerned about gaps and weaknesses in the government’s response to the problem, and they continue their advocacy efforts.
12 For a further discussion of this issue, see Charlesworth, H., C. Chinkin, and S. Wright, 1991. Feminist approaches to international law. American Journal of International Law, 85:613-635; Thomas, D., and M. Beasley. 1993. Domestic violence as a human rights issue. Human Rights Quarterly 15:36-62; and Thomas, C. 1999. Domestic violence. Women and International Human Rights Law 1:242.
with the women’s groups Reflexione and the Women’s Center of Albania, was to build the capacity of new NGOs to respond to domestic violence with shelters, hotlines, other advocacy services, and to address the problem through public education. One of the presenters at this conference was Sharon Rice Vaughan, who founded one of the first battered women’s shelters in the United States in 1972 in St. Paul, Minnesota. This conference included 50 participants from seven countries.
The Inter-Balkan Conference on Legal Strategies to Combat Domestic Violence was organized with AHR’s partners from Albania and Bulgaria in 1997. This was the first conference of its kind in the region and included participants from 12 countries. The four-day conference brought together advocates from the Balkan region to discuss the legal systems’ responses to domestic violence and to develop strategies for change. Advocates from the United States presented information about long-standing legal reform efforts in the civil and criminal systems that participants could consider as possible new reform strategies in their own countries. A focus of these presentations was the order-for-protection remedy, which was new to the region and which has now become a central feature of many of the new domestic violence laws in CEE/FSU.
After publishing the reports in Romania, Bulgaria, and Albania and convening conferences in the region, AHR continued its partnerships with advocates through reports, workshops, and training sessions. AHR developed a particularly long-standing partnership with the Bulgarian advocates, which is described below.
Recent Partnerships in Drafting and
Implementing Domestic Violence Laws
Today, although though there is increasing acknowledgement internationally that domestic violence is a pervasive human rights violation with devastating consequences, there is still an urgent need for technical assistance in drafting and implementing new domestic violence laws and amendments to existing laws. AHR’s more recent partnerships with local advocates are based on this need.
Although there is a great interest internationally in creating new domestic violence laws,13 advocates and government officials involved in this process often do not have the information required to do so effectively. They have little information about how the dynamics of domestic violence complicate the legal system’s response to this violence, about research on
________________
13 Although in the early 1990s there were few, if any, specific laws on domestic violence in the 29 countries of CEE/FSU, today most of these countries have either passed a specific law on domestic violence or are working on such laws.
strategies used throughout the world’s legal systems, or about best practices in the legal system response to domestic violence.14 They often do not have access to training materials or the language of longstanding laws from other jurisdictions. This information is critical to being able to draft and implement effective laws.
One way that AHR has contributed in this area is by consulting on the specific language of laws with the advocates and government officials who are drafting them. At the request of international partners, AHR has provided written commentary to draft laws from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bhutan, Bulgaria, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Montenegro, Morocco, and Tajikistan.15 These commentaries offer specific suggestions for ways to improve the laws to better promote victim safety and offender accountability. In support of these recommendations, AHR provides partners with model policies and practices that directly address the focus of the law under consideration.
In one example of how these commentaries have been used, draft laws from three countries in CEE/FSU initially provided police with authority to give one or more warnings to perpetrators before there were any consequences for violent behavior. After analyzing the draft laws, AHR provided commentary that pointed out the danger such laws present to victims and how these warnings would undermine offender accountability—in effect, allowing the offender one or more “free” assaults. Advocates are working to omit the warnings provisions from these laws. In another example, the draft laws in at least two countries referred to “victim behavior” or behavior that “provokes, results in, or creates conditions for violence.” This language implies that the domestic violence victims may be blamed for the violence, dissuades them from seeking protection, and undermines offender accountability for the violence. The language referring to provocation—and, in the case of one country—the authority to cite victims for this behavior—has been removed from these two laws.
AHR’s partners greatly appreciate and depend upon this expert commentary. In January 2011, a member of the Lithuanian Human Rights Committee wrote, “I would like to express my gratitude to your precious and prompt work on commenting the draft law. This is a very important legal act for us in Lithuania, done for the first time. Therefore, your comments help us identity the gaps in our first draft and make improvements.”
________________
14 There is now a significant body of research on the dynamics of domestic violence. This research addresses batterers’ use of power and control over their victims and victims’ responses to these tactics, including the tendency to recant their allegations against batterers when cases go to court. For more information about the dynamics of domestic violence, see Domestic Violence, Explore the Issue at http://stopvaw.org/Domestic_Violence_Explore_the_Issue.html.
15 Two examples of recent commentary that AHR has provided to draft laws can be found at http://bit.ly/fJKW8b (for Kazakhstan) and http://bit.ly/fUxHWB (for Armenia).
Other ways that AHR has worked with local partners to contribute to the drafting of laws are through roundtables, workshops, and on-line technical assistance. Two on-line resources in particular have contributed to the capacity of AHR’s partners to work with government officials to develop new laws. In 2003 AHR launched the Stop Violence Against Women (StopVAW) website, www.stopvaw.org, a forum for information, advocacy, and change. StopVAW, which is focused on CEE/FSU, provides current research, news about promising practices, model laws, and training modules.16 In response to the urgent need for technical assistance on legal reform on domestic violence, AHR is working currently with UNIFEM (recently re-named UN Women) to develop the legislation section of the newly launched Virtual Knowledge Center to End Violence Against Women (http://www.endvawnow.org/?legislation). This section provides expert guidance on drafting, advocating for, implementing, and monitoring national legislation in diverse regions around the world.17
Likewise, as partners have begun to apply new laws, they have appreciated AHR’s training modules and model policies for police, prosecutors, and judges, which are provided both on-line and through in-country training sessions. AHR has worked with Minnesota police, prosecutors, and judges to develop training programs for their counterparts internationally and to travel together to countries to share expertise. Finally, a new focus of AHR’s partnerships is the monitoring of the implementation of new laws to determine if they truly are effective in promoting victim safety and offender accountability.
A central component of recent partnerships with Bulgaria, Armenia, and Georgia has been drafting and monitoring the implementation of the new laws. The following sections offer descriptions of AHR’s collaborative work in these countries.
Bulgaria
Based on the findings and recommendations of the report Domestic Violence in Bulgaria, published in 1996 and described above, Bulgarian advocates undertook a campaign for a new domestic violence law. They
________________
16 StopVAW has become a resource for individuals and community groups and government. In one month of 2009, 2,308 pages of StopVAW received 25,136 unique page-views. These visits came from 167 different countries, and 82 percent of these were new visits. Most site visitors visited two or three pages on the StopVAW website. For several years, AHR has worked with local advocates in the region to present their own country’s response to violence against women in the Country Pages section of the website.
17 For another resource on drafting effective domestic violence laws and legislation, see Good Practices in Legislation on Violence Against Women, United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Report of the Expert Group Meeting (November 2008). Available at http://bit.ly/gRqlLA.
felt that change could happen more swiftly in the civil system rather than in the criminal system, so their goal was to provide a new civil order-for-protection remedy for domestic violence victims. Bulgarian advocates, led by the Bulgarian Gender Research Foundation (BGRF), engaged not only AHR but also other partners both within and outside their country in the process of developing a new law. Genoveva Tisheva, BGRF’s director, described the entire process as both a local and an international effort.18
AHR provided specific language for the new Bulgarian law on the civil order-for-protection remedy that has been used in the United States for many years. Experts in domestic violence legal reform, including judges and police, also traveled from Minnesota to Bulgaria numerous times to consult with legal officials, parliamentarians, and journalists about the need for new laws on domestic violence and about how the laws work as they are applied at the scene of an assault, in the courtrooms, and in the daily lives of victims. BGRF and AHR also partnered to organize several technical training sessions specifically for police, prosecutors, and judges on how to implement domestic violence laws.
The Bulgarian Law on Protection against Domestic Violence was passed in March 2005. It defines domestic violence for the first time in Bulgaria and creates a new civil order-for-protection remedy for domestic violence victims. The law allows courts to order violent offenders out of the home, and in emergency situations, where danger is imminent, both police and judges can direct offenders to leave the home (Advocates for Human Rights, 2008b). In May 2005, the police removed the first batterer from his home under the new law, and since that time, thousands of orders for protection have been issued by Bulgarian police and courts (Advocates for Human Rights, 2008b).19
In 2008, BGRF and AHR together published the report, The Implementation of the Bulgarian Law on Protection against Domestic Violence: A Human Rights Report. The report begins,
In the two years since the entry into force of the Law on Protection against Domestic Violence (LPADV), its overall implementation has been positive. While challenges remain for all sectors and legislative amendments are needed, the response to domestic violence since the law passed in Bulgaria is encouraging. (Advocates for Human Rights, 2008b, p. 1)
The report evaluated all aspects of the government’s implementation of the new law and made several recommendations for change. One recommendation was that an offender’s violation of an order for protection under the new law should be criminalized so that the law had “teeth.” The Parliament made this change in 2006.
________________
18 See Genoveva Tisheva, Law on Protection Against Domestic Violence: Insights and History, available at http://stopvaw.org/31May20055.html.
AHR’s partnership with BGRF continues. In 2008 the two groups organized the Regional Conference on Domestic Violence Legal Reform. The conference had 100 participants from 29 countries.20 In 2010 and 2011, AHR and BGRF have been working with partners in Croatia and Moldova to monitor new laws on domestic violence in those countries. Together they are also presenting workshops titled “Strategies for Monitoring the Application of Domestic Violence Legislation Workshop for Civil Society Organizations” for advocates from 24 countries in the region.
Georgia
After initial visits and exchanges with advocates in Georgia, which began in 2003, AHR invited the Georgian working group of government officials and civil society members who were in the process of drafting the new domestic violence law to visit Minnesota. This meeting occurred in February 2005 and forged a partnership with various advocates based in Tbilisi, in particular, the Anti-Violence Network of Georgia (AVNG). AHR organized a series of presentations, workshops, court observations, visits to service providers, police ride-alongs, and meetings with prosecutors and judges.21 The goal was to offer Georgian officials the opportunity to observe a jurisdiction where domestic violence laws were working, with a system that took domestic violence cases seriously, that offered civil remedies to victims to promote their safety, and that arrested men and charged them with crimes for assaulting their wives.
The two-week visit offered the Georgians information and insights from many perspectives into the implementation of the domestic violence law in Minnesota that they could draw from in drafting their own law. The Law of Georgia on the Elimination of Domestic Violence, Protection, and Support of its Victims passed in 2006.22 As with the Bulgarian law, this law defined domestic violence for the first time and focused on providing a civil order-for-protection remedy for victims.
The Georgian law was a huge step forward in addressing domestic violence but had significant weaknesses. For example, it gave police the authority to remove victims from their home—ostensibly to protect their safety—but did not provide explicit authority to remove violent offenders
________________
20 For more information, see http://stopvaw.org/regional_conference_on_domestic_violence_legal_reform.html.
21 See Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights Training Program Schedule for Georgian Working Group on Domestic Violence Legislation, Jan. 24-Feb. 4, 2005. Minneapolis, Minnesota. For copies, contact the Advocates for Human Rights.
22 See Prevention of Domestic Violence, Protection of the Victims of Domestic Violence and their Assistance (Legislative News of Georgia; Part 1; 2006; Art. 171).
from the home.23 Georgian advocates understood the dangers of such language but believed that it was a compromise they must make in order for the law to pass.24 The law was later amended to explicitly allow for the removal of the violent offender from the home. The new amendment states that this removal may occur despite the abuser’s ownership of the property (Thomas, 2008). This amendment indicates the prioritization of a women’s right to be free from violence over an abuser’s property rights.
The Georgians faced difficult challenges in implementing the law. Under the new law the police were given greatly expanded authority to issue “restrictive orders” comparable to emergency orders in the United States. This authority has proven to be a burden, one police officer stated: “The district police are supposed to be social workers, psychologists and teachers” (Thomas, 2008, 3).
Despite the challenges with implementing the new law, it provides a remedy for domestic violence victims. Since the law passed, advocates report that hundreds of orders to protect victims have been issued by the police and judges.
Armenia
As with Bulgaria, AHR’s partnership with Armenian advocates began with a collaboration to provide documentation of the government and community response to domestic violence. And, as with other countries throughout the region, in 2000 such response was negligible. AHR researched and published a report in collaboration with the Women’s Rights Center in Yerevan (WRC), and AHR’s work with WRC has continued to the present (Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights, 2000).
After the publication of the report and other initiatives to address domestic violence in Armenia,25 WRC worked to create a group consisting
________________
23 Removing victims from their homes results, of course, in hardship and disruption in their daily lives and the lives of their children, including lack of access to personal belongings, the inability to safeguard such belongings from the violent offender, difficulties with access to work and school, and the loss of support systems close to home including friends and families.
24 Drafters from other countries in CEE/FSU have included similar provisions in their laws, and advocates have explained that this is the result of prioritizing a man’s property rights over a victim’s right to be free from violence. In fact, one Polish advocate explained that the prioritization of men’s property rights has been a major impediment to the passage of any order-for-protection remedy in her country. Legal Reform on Domestic Violence in Central and Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union, p. 3, available at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/egm/vaw_legislation_2008/expertpapers/EGMGPLVAWpercent20Paperpercent20(Cheryl percent20Thomas).pdf. Armenia’s draft law included a similar provision authorizing authorities to remove the victim from the home. This amendment passed in Georgia in 2009. Cf. http://stopvaw.org/Georgia.html.
25 For example, in 2008 Amnesty International published a report on domestic violence in Armenia titled No Pride in Silence: Countering Violence in the Family in Armenia.
of representatives of the police, government ministries, judges, and NGOs to draft a new law on domestic violence. This group requested that AHR provide commentary on the Armenian Draft Law on Domestic Violence as drafts evolved. AHR provided three such commentaries (Advocates for Human Rights, 2008a).
In response to AHR’s commentaries, critical language such as “provocative behavior” by the victim and “official warnings” to the perpetrator was removed, and other key language was added, such as the addition of “intimate partners” as a class of individuals to whom the law will apply. AHR also prepared training materials on advocacy and lobbying for the law and traveled to Armenia for meetings with the working group and other individuals involved in drafting and advocating for the law. As of January 2011, however, the law had not passed in Parliament.
WRC was also a valuable partner on the StopVAW website. Through the WRC’s work, readers could follow the struggle for a domestic violence law, including working group meetings, roundtables, training sessions on advocacy for the draft law, study visits to other countries to witness the implementation of their laws, and analyses of human rights reports on domestic violence in Armenia.
Morocco
AHR’s partnership with Moroccan advocates began in 2007—much later than the work in CEE/FSU. Moroccan women’s NGOs were committed to leading the Arab world’s reform of laws concerning violence against women legal reform and needed technical assistance in drafting a comprehensive violence against women act. Aided by Global Rights, a group based in Washington, DC, with offices in Morocco and around the world, AHR has provided information to these advocates, primarily in the area of domestic violence but also on sexual assault. Through training sessions, roundtables, and on-line consultation, AHR has delivered information to these advocates about model domestic violence laws and policies from around the world as well as highlights of civil and criminal legal reform efforts on domestic violence from the United States, Minnesota, and other jurisdictions.
In one week-long meeting facilitated by Global Rights, AHR and representatives from two countries with new and long-standing laws on violence against women provided technical assistance to Moroccan judges, prosecutors, police, health and education officials, and advocates as they prepared the first draft of their new law. Advocates are hopeful that this new law will be introduced in the Moroccan parliament in 2011.
Challenges to International Partnerships
Overall, while AHR’s experience partnering with NGOs from other countries has been a very positive one, there have been notable challenges. One significant challenge has been obtaining funding for the work. Initiatives to address domestic violence, including efforts to change laws and policies and direct services to victims, are expensive. Many governments do not support these services or efforts in any significant way, so partner NGOs must rely on private foundations and donors. These funds are limited and often unpredictable, making it difficult to sustain the long-term projects that are necessary to achieve lasting systems change.
Another challenge AHR and its partners have faced is the urgency of domestic violence victims’ needs. The requests for assistance to meet these needs can be overwhelming and can affect the spirit of the small organizations with which AHR works. Similarly, AHR encounters this challenge as it receives many more requests for information, technical assistance, and training sessions from around the world than it can possibly respond to.
The capacity and endurance of the NGOs are not, however, the greatest challenge faced by AHR and its partners. The most significant obstacle to achieving the goal of ending violence against women is convincing those with the power to make and enforce laws and policies reflecting the fact that women have the right to be free from violence in their homes. Despite the many efforts described in this paper, this right is not fully accepted in the world today.
Conclusion
AHR’s experience partnering with NGOs from other countries to improve the government response to domestic violence has been a very positive one. AHR has been privileged to work with extraordinary women and men whose vision for ending domestic violence has propelled their countries forward and resulted in better laws and policies. Although significant work remains, AHR is confident that these changes will continue toward the ultimate realization of women’s fundamental human right to be free from violence.
NEW ZEALAND’S EFFORTS TO ADDRESS
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN
Denise Wilson, Ph.D., R.N.
Auckland University of Technology
New Zealand has serious and concerning problems with violence against women and children, as is evidenced by the number of high-profile
deaths of children and women killed by partners or ex-partners. Nevertheless, a prevailing social acceptance of and willingness to turn a blind eye to violence against women and children has made getting traction on this problem difficult, frustrating, and at times torturous. Violence and abuse occurring in various close interpersonal relationships is called family violence in New Zealand and is broadly defined to include partner abuse, child abuse and neglect, elder abuse, child-to-parent violence, and sibling abuse. The predominant forms of family violence in New Zealand are male partner violence against women and child abuse and neglect. Although violence against women and children is evident across different ethnic and social groups, indigenous women and children are clearly overrepresented among victims and are at greater risk of being targets of family violence. A whole-government approach has been adopted by New Zealand in an effort to address violence against women and children at a governmental level. This paper provides an overview of some key New Zealand government initiatives, and it comments on how these approaches address issues for Māori (the indigenous peoples of New Zealand), given that they are overrepresented in the statistics for violence against women and children.
Statistics confirm that generally women and children are recipients of violence inflicted by men occurring in the home—86 percent of those arrested are male, and 92 percent of protection orders are made for women (New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse, 2007). More than 50 percent of all homicides are family violence related. From 2000 to 2004, 45 women were killed by a male or ex-partner, and 39 children were killed (26 by men; 15 by women). One study found that 33 to 39 percent of women experience physical or sexual abuse sometime during their lifetime, and 19 to 23 percent reported it being severe (Fanslow and Robinson, 2004). Another study reported that 35 percent of men reported being physically violent toward a partner sometime in a lifetime and 20 percent in the previous year (Leibrich et al., 1995). Fanslow and Robinson (2004) found that victims of partner abuse were twice as likely as non-victims to have visited a health care provider in the previous month.
In addition, New Zealand ranks third among Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries for child maltreatment and has 20 percent of children living in poverty (UNICEF, 2003). Among children living in New Zealand who were hospitalized, 4 to 10 percent reported having experienced physical abuse, while 11 to 20 percent reported having experienced sexual abuse (Duncanson et al., 2009). In 2008, 47 percent of notifications to the Child, Youth, and Family Service required further follow-up. Between 1996 and 2000, 49 children under the age of 15 died as a result of child maltreatment. For a country with a population of less than 4.4 million, this is unacceptable. On average 8 to 10 children die a year in New Zealand at the hands of someone who should protect
them from harm. Most at risk are those under 1 year of age and those older than 11 years.
Addressing family violence has been difficult, especially given the engrained social acceptance of violence against women and children within the context of families. The debate surrounding the repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act of 1966 illustrates the deeply engrained beliefs of many living in New Zealand. Section 59 stated, “Every parent or person in place of a parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards a child if that force is reasonable in the circumstances.” Although the aim of the repeal was to remove the statutory protection of parents and guardians who used physical force when disciplining their children, a highly charged and emotional public campaign was launched in opposition to the bill. A chief accusation was that “loving” parents would be criminalized for disciplining their children, along with accusations that the government was creating a “Nanny State” (by taking away the parental right to hit their children). Despite the intention of the repeal being to improve the safety and integrity of children, polls showed between 70 and 80 percent of New Zealanders did not support the repeal, reflecting a resistance to addressing child abuse when activities interfered with parental rights. The outcome was a substitution of Section 59 defining when parental control using force was justified to appease the public. Thus, parents or caregivers can use force in the prevention of harm to a child or another person, in preventing a child from committing criminal offences or engaging in offensive or disruptive behavior, and in “normal daily tasks” necessary for “good care and parenting.” Additionally, ongoing monitoring is occurring to ensure parents are not needlessly criminalized. Interestingly, the United Nations Report on Children’s Rights in New Zealand (2011) criticizes the repeal for not going far enough and banning corporal punishment for children.
Government Initiatives
Whole Government Approach
One of the 13 goals of the New Zealand Health Strategy was to reduce interpersonal violence (King, 2000). Not only did this signal the government’s intention to put family violence on its agenda, but also it recognized family violence as a health issue. The 2000 Labor government required an “integrated, multi-faceted, whole-of-government and community approach to preventing the occurrence and reoccurrence of violence in families/whānau …” (Ministry of Social Development, 2002, p. 6). In 2002 the Te Rito New Zealand Family Violence Prevention Strategy was launched as an official government response and commitment to addressing all forms and degrees of violence, and it provided a framework for action. The
fundamental vision was for families to live free from violence. This strategy also recognized the unique cultural and contemporary structures of Māori as tangata whenua (people of the land) and the need for Māori to be provided for and fully engaged. Family violence prevention was viewed holistically and broadly and included all levels—primary prevention, secondary early identification and immediate intervention, and tertiary prevention of its reoccurrence. Communities were also given the right and responsibility to be involved in preventing family violence.
The Taskforce for Action on Violence within Families was established in June 2005 to advise the Family Violence Ministerial Team, which is composed of ministers of parliament, on improving how family violence is addressed and eventually eliminating it. This taskforce was composed of chief executive officers and other decision makers from government and nongovernment sectors, the judiciary, and various government agencies, such as social development, women’s affairs, and health. Māori and Pacific reference groups were also established to support the task force and provide their perspectives. In 2009 the associate minister for social development and employment (and associate minister of health), the Honorable Tariana Turia, was given the responsibility for the national government’s response to addressing and reducing the impact of family violence as well as the establishment of the Family Violence Ministerial Group (replacing the Family Violence Ministerial Team). This ministerial group meets quarterly and is responsible for the oversight of the whole-of-government approach and the alignment and coordination of responses. Ministers inform and consult with each other on developments and proposed family violence–related work within their respective portfolios. This group includes ministers of social development and employment, justice, health, police, education, Māori affairs, Pacific Island affairs, housing, women’s affairs, ethnic affairs, and disability issues.
Legislation
Legislation aimed at protecting women and children includes the Domestic Violence Act 1995, which changed immensely the way women and children could be protected. This legislation removed the need for women to lay charges of assault against a partner before the police would intervene. Women wanting immediate protection from partners’ abuse apply for a temporary protection order for a period of three months, and it is often issued without notice. After this time a partner can apply to the court for a hearing prior to making an order permanent. If the request for the order goes undefended, the order automatically becomes permanent. At the time a protection order is granted, orders can be made concerning occupancy or tenancy as well as furniture in order to enable women to stay in the home
and have some or all of the furniture. A woman’s children are granted the same protection under these orders. This legislation stipulates that, when children live amid abuse and violence, it is considered violence against children. Still, the research of Roberston et al. (2007) concerning protection orders for women found that systemic gaps existed and breaches of protection orders were not always addressed.
More recently police have been allowed to issue police safety orders (PSOs) in situations where they have reasonable grounds to believe that family violence has occurred or may occur, with no right of appeal and without the consent of the person(s) at risk. PSOs aim to protect those at risk of violence, harassment, and intimidation and any children living at the residence. Abusers are required to leave the residence for up to five days, and they must not assault, threaten, intimidate or harass, follow, stop or contact their partner in any place, or encourage anyone else to do this. They must also surrender firearms and their firearms license to the police.
The Child Youth and Their Families Act of 1989 promotes the responsibility of parents, families, and family groups to prevent children from suffering harm, ill treatment, abuse, neglect, or deprivation. However, it is commonly associated with the Child Youth and Family Service’s statutory duty to protect those children who are being harmed or neglected or who are at risk of being harmed or neglected. Despite the high demand on its services, the efficacy of the Child Youth and Family Service is often questioned in the media. The Care of Children Act of 2004 shifted a prior focus on parental rights to parental responsibilities. The key focus of this legislation is the welfare and best interests of the children where any dispute about them exists in order to keep the children safe and free from all forms of violence. However, where family violence exists, children still tend to be invisible beyond custody battles.
In addition to strengthening legislation to protect women and children, the government has initiated a number of campaigns aimed at addressing all forms of family violence. It is valuable to examine two such government-driven initiatives in some detail.
The It’s Not OK campaign (www.areyouok.org.nz/) is a phased nationwide media campaign aimed at changing societal attitudes toward family violence and those living amidst it. Using a phased mass-media approach, the campaign began with “It’s Not OK” (showing a range of unacceptable behaviors evident in society); followed by “It’s OK to Ask for Help” (encouraging people to ask for help); and then the current campaign, “Are You OK?” (encouraging family, friends, and colleagues to ask if people are okay—not ignore a woman or child who may be abused, or a man who is angry, shouting at his children and wife, who are afraid of him including those doing the abuse or violence). Evaluation of the campaign
has demonstrated increased recall of the television advertisements with every survey. Ninety-five percent of the people surveyed in September 2008 recalled something from at least one of the ads. Recall was high for all groups, particularly Māori males (94 percent) and Māori females (98 percent). Of those surveyed, the advertisements helped 68 percent identify unacceptable behaviors and influenced 57 percent to see change is possible. As a result of seeing the ads, 22 percent reported taking action (McLaren, 2010). In addition, nongovernmental organizations such as Jigsaw (www.jigsaw.org.nz/), which coordinates various agencies working with families and children to promote their safety, have a campaign using high-profile men to promote a positive image of fathers with their children.
The Violence Intervention Program (VIP) promotes assessment for family violence among those using District Health Board (DHB) hospital services as well as assessment for child abuse (work is currently under way in the primary health care sector). VIP supports health-sector family violence programs throughout New Zealand based on the Child and Partner Abuse Guidelines (currently under review) and the Elder Abuse Guidelines (Ministry of Health, 2003, 2007). The government funds a national VIP manager and family violence intervention program coordinator (FVIPC) positions in all DHBs; these officials have contractual requirements to meet and report indicators to the Ministry of Health. In addition DHBs are evaluated annually to improve the quality of programs and facilitate benchmarking between DHBs (Koziol-McLain et al., 2010). Although the Ministry of Health supports this research and evaluation and offers technical advice and training support to health services committed to the program, the FVIPCs are responsible for promoting assessment and education of staff.
VIP has developed significantly to a point where there is now national standardization in training requirements and reporting formats. The Interdisciplinary Trauma Research Unit (ITRU) at the Auckland University of Technology evaluates each DHB annually. Steady progress has been made over 60 months, although some DHBs need further improvement. Importantly, evaluations demonstrate the importance of a dedicated family violence intervention coordinator to the program’s sustainability and development (Koziol-McLain et al., 2010). Cultural indicators have also been evaluated, and although improvements have been made, the more challenging cultural indicators need further improvement.
Whānau Ora (Family Health and Well-Being)
The 2003 Māori health strategy, He Korowai Oranga, had as its goal whānau ora, or family health and well-being. Whānau is more than just a nuclear family—it is the wider extended family and may include grandparents,
aunts and uncles, and cousins. Like many indigenous peoples, Māori have a collective orientation with obligations and responsibilities to the members of their extended family. A key to resolving inequalities in health and social status—and in improving the family violence statistics—is to support whānau to develop the capacities to achieve health and well-being (Durie et al., 2010). Thus, the focus of whānau ora is on empowering whānau and ultimately reducing the inequalities Māori experience, and it requires service providers to demonstrate accountability and the efficacy of initiatives. Fundamental to this strategy is improving the health and well-being of both individual members and the collective whānau through culturally based interventions and determining their existing strengths; this involves capacity building to identify needs and improve access to appropriate services.
In summary, although there is still a long way to go in New Zealand to reduce the prevalence of violence against women and children, some exciting initiatives are happening. The whole government approach is an attempt to have a more cross-sectoral approach to addressing family violence, because the previous silo approach adopted by government departments meant that women and children reliant on help from services would fall through the chasms that existed. Furthermore, interwoven into the government initiatives are strategies to address violence against Māori women and children. The adoption of a mass media program to address societal attitudes and behaviors is also important, so rather than a stance that ignores the plight of women and children, they will be able to live free from violence.
REFERENCES
Advocates for Human Rights. 2008a. The Advocates for Human Rights comments on the draft law of the Republic of Armenia on domestic violence. http://stopvaw.org/expert_s_corner.html#The+Advocates+for+Human+Rights+Comments+on+The+DRAFT+Law+of+the+Republic+of+Armenia+on+Domestic+Violence+14+October+2008 (accessed January 2011).
Advocates for Human Rights. 2008b. Implementation of the Bulgarian law on protection against domestic violence. Minneapolis, MN: Advocates for Human Rights.
Catalano, S. Intimate partner violence in the United States. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2008. Adverse health conditions and health risk behaviors associated with intimate partner violence. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 57(05);113-117.
COMMCA. 2010. Consejo de ministras de la mujer de centroamérica. Panama.
Duncanson, M. J., D. A. R. Smith, and E. Davies. 2009. Death and serious injury from assault of children aged under 5 years in Aotearoa New Zealand: A review of international literature and recent findings. Wellington, New Zealand: Office of the Children’s Commissioner.
Durie, M., R. Cooper, D. Grennell, S. Snively, and N. Tuaine. 2010. Whānau ora: Report of the Taskforce on Whānau-Centred Initiatives. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Social Development.
Ellsberg, M., and L. Heise. 2005. Researching violence against women: A practical guide for researchers and activists. Washington, DC: World Health Organization and PATH.
European Parliament Association. 2002. Domestic violence against women. In Recommendation 1582.
Family Violence Prevention Fund. 2011. Action center: Get the facts: The facts on domestic, dating and sexual violence. http://endabuse.org/content/action_center/detail/754 (accessed January 2011).
Fanslow, J. L., and E. Robinson. 2004. Violence against women in New Zealand: Prevalence and health consequences. New Zealand Medical Journal 117(1206):117-128.
King, A. 2000. New Zealand health strategy. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Health.
Koziol-McLain, J., N. Garrett, and C. Gear. 2010. Hospital responsiveness to family violence: 60-month follow-up evaluation. Auckland, New Zealand: Auckland University of Technology.
Leibrich, J., J. Paulin, and R. Ransom. 1995. Hitting home: Men speak about abuse of women partners. Wellington, New Zealand: GP Publications.
McLaren, J. 2010. Campaign for action on family violence: Reach and retention of the “it’s not ok” television advertisements. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Social Development.
Ministry of Health. 2003. Family violence intervention guidelines: Child and partner abuse. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Health.
Ministry of Health. 2007. Family violence guidelines: Elder abuse and neglect. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Health.
Ministry of Social Development. 2002. Te rito: New Zealand family violence prevention strategy. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Social Development.
Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights. 1995. Lifting the last curtain: A report on domestic violence in Romania. Minneapolis, MN.
Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights. 1996a. Domestic violence in Albania. Minneapolis, MN.
Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights. 1996b. Domestic violence in Bulgaria. Minneapolis, MN.
Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights. 2000. Domestic violence in Armenia. Minneapolis, MN.
Morrison, A., M. Ellsberg, and S. Bott. 2004. Addressing gender-based violence in the Latin American and Caribbean region: A critical review of interventions. Washington, DC: World Bank Policy Research.
New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse. 2007. Family violence and gender fact sheet. Available at www.nzfvc.org.nz.
Robertson, N., R. Busch, R. D’Souza, F. L. Sheung, R. Anand, and R. Balzer. 2007. Living at the cutting edge: Women’s experiences of protection orders. Volume 2: What’s to be done? A critical analysis of statutory and practice approaches to domestic violence. Hamilton, New Zealand: Waikato University.
Thomas, C. 2008. Legal reform on domestic violence in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Paper presented at expert group meeting on good practices in legislation on violence against women, Vienna, Austria.
UN (United Nations). 2006. Ending violence against women: From words to action. New York: United Nations.
UNICEF. 2003. Child maltreatment deaths in rich nations: Innocenti report card issue no.5. United Nations Children’s Fund.
Widyono, M. 2009. Strenghtening understanding of femicide: Using research to galvanize action and accountability. Washington, DC: Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH), InterCambios, Medical Research Council of South Africa (MRC), and World Health Organization (WHO).
