ENGLISH

Research ReportsJust 3 respondents mentioned written policies/guidelines concerning the protection and safety of high risk victims: Onerespondent of a regional justice organisation referred to an official guideline between the Ministry of Justice and Interiorand their special units since February 2010 for ensuring the safety and protection of victims of sexual and intimate partnerviolence. The same respondent also pointed out that they do not provide special training, but they talk about cases and officialregulations regularly in staff meetings. One respondent for the child protection sector said that they were bound by laws andofficial regulations (which include the witnessing of domestic violence as an endangerment of the child’s welfare!) and animmigrant women’s service pointed out:’There are written guidelines, but they are only for our own work, and not for the public. The reason is to protect women andto avoid that relatives know the procedure of the safety plan.’Only 3 respondents (out of 15) confirmed that they provide regular training on high risk victims for their staff and also fornewcomers to the agencies. These respondents are a regional women’s support service, a regional immigrant women’sservice and a regional child protection authority. Only the immigrant women’s service reviews and analyses homicides, attemptedhomicides and cases of severe violence in team meetings. They do so whenever one of these cases occurs.Maybe the approach of health sector is mirrored in the following answer explaining why they do not engage in safety measuresfor high risk victims of intimate partnership violence:’If an ambulance has been called to a DV case and there is substantial injury and the patient is taken to hospital, then noinformation gets outside and no visitors are allowed. That is the only measure for safety. Maybe on the ward the personnel willinform victims’ services. But there is no policy that they have to do so.’ And a voice from the medical staff of the ambulance:’In 10 years of this work I never encountered a DV case!!! Many women had peculiar injuries, but they always said that theyhad had accidents.‘ 9Cooperation with other agenciesIn this part of the interview we have the same distribution of answers as in parts one and two of the interview. The ministriesresponded unanimously that they would not share information on high risk cases with others and practically did not engagefurther in the interview. Lower Saxony is planning an interministry working group concerning this issue.Analysing the remaining 12 respondents, 9 of them share this kind of information and 3 do not. One of the latter group is therepresentative of a women’s support service and the others are a regional social service and a network of the health sector. Thewomen’s support service clearly stated that they do not share information, in order to protect the anonymity of the women.All of the 9 participants who share information on high risk cases do so with the police, the justice system (incl. family court),child protection and women’s support services. Here it should be pointed out that both respondents who work for the childprotection authority stated that they cooperate with the NGOs (either women’s support services and/or intervention centres).When looking at the basis of cooperation the 9 parties responded as follows:9Interviewer’s note: ’Even if he was suspicious he did not inform anyone or give out information material to the women. He did not know of the existence of victims’ servicesin the region. I do not know whether I encountered an especially ignorant doctor or he represents the state of knowledge of the whole staff of this hospital!’P 40 | PROTECT | Good practice in preventing serious violence, attempted homicides, including crimes in the name of honour, and in protecting high risk victims of gender based violence