Those who mentioned the number of cases along with the list of the cooperation partners (5 out of 10) reported less than5 cases in 2009 where they cooperated with individual organisations. The exception is the child protection authority, whichreported about 390 cases where they cooperated in 2009.Only 2 respondents listed the case numbers when asked how they exchanged information in 2009. Surprisingly, they reportedexactly the same numbers in the same categories (each category = 4 cases in 2009)!Table 2: How do you exchange information? (col. 3) Do you need the woman’s consent? (col. 4)PoliceInterior Ministry Murcia1 = case conferences; 2 = telephone conferences3 = sharing written reports1 = no consentregional1 = case conferences; 2 = telephone conferences1 = no consentJusticeJustice Ministry Murcia2 = telephone conferences1 = no consentWomen’sSupportServicesregionalNetwork2 = telephone conferences; 3 = sharing written reports1 = An informal agreement to exchange information1 = no consent2 = written consentlocal1 = case conferences; 2 = telephone conferences3 = sharing written reports3= verbal consentInterventionCentreslocal1 = case conferences; 2 = telephone conferences3 = sharing written reports2 = written consentImmigrantWomen’sServicesregional2 = telephone conferences; 3 = sharing written reports2 = written consentSocialServicesregional1 = case conferences; 2 = telephone conferences3 = sharing written reports2 = written consentChildProtectionAuthoritiesregional1 = case conferences; 2 = telephone conferences3 = sharing written reports–The distribution between those who need a written consent by the woman concerned and those who do not is even in thosetwo categories. Just one organisation (women’s support service) is content with a verbal consent.Two respondents out of 10 reported that they solely use telephone conferences for exchanging information. All the othersdescribed some form of combination: all 3 forms (case and phone conferences, written reports) were reported by 5 out of 10respondents; the exchange via phone conferences plus written reports was stated by 2 participants, and one organisationlisted a combination of case and phone conferences.P 55
Research Reports80% of the respondents systematically share information on high risk victims within their agency. 40% of the respondentsstated that the case manager is the only one who has access to the gathered information on high risk victims within therespective organisation, in 10% access is limited to the relevant unit, and in the remaining 50% both the case manager andthe relevant unit have access.Four interview partners have written policies/guidelines of cooperation in high risk cases. One of them explained:‘The 112 helpline is a regional government service, so the protocol is an internal document and only available for the publicservants working in this specific service.‘The police on the state level refer to ‘formal regulation and legislation for the National Security Forces‘. 18The other 2 respondents cooperate with the security forces and the core agencies, but could not pass on the guidelines. It isassumed that here also the reasoning applies that those are internal documents and available for government workers only.With the exception of the police (state level), the analysis of homicides or attempted homicides is part of the multi-agencyapproach in none of the participating organisations.SummaryMany of the interviewed parties are government agencies on different levels. The shelter organisations are NGOs, financed bythe regional Government, like the CAVIS. That is very noticeable when they were asked to submit documents as basis for thecooperation with other agencies. As the interviewer remarked:‘There is a lack of coherence between the purpose of the service, protection and support of families in cases of VAW and DV,and the isolation regarding the work with other core agencies. Cooperation only takes place among members of the samelocal agency (Municipality) in an endogamous exercise of information exchange.‘The identification of high risk cases is part of the standard of working in the field of gender based intimate partner violence.Accordingly, in more than half (5 out of 9) of the responding agencies risk assessment instruments are being used. But thesetools are not comparable, because they are self-developed by the agencies.Identifying high risk victims as a part of combating domestic violence also leads to the fact that all participating parties providestandards for protection and safety for those victims. But here again, less than half provide these standards in writing.The majority of the respondents declared that they exchange information on high risk cases and cooperate with others. Thismight also be due to the fact that all responding agencies are government organisations.Obviously, the analysis of homicides or attempted homicides is not considered to be part of the multi-agency approach.18These are:• Ley Orgánica 2/1986, de 13 de marzo, de Fuerzas y Cuerpos de Seguridad ,• Protocolo para la implantación de la Orden de Protección de las víctimas de violencia doméstica• Protocolo de Actuación de las Fuerzas y Cuerpos de Seguridad y de Coordinación con los órganos Judiciales para la protección de las víctimas de violencia doméstica yde género• Protocolo de Colaboración y Coordinación entre las Fuerzas y Cuerpos de Seguridad del Estado y los Cuerpos de Policía Local, para la protección de las víctimas deviolencia doméstica y de género• Instrucción de la SES nº 2/1998 sobre adopción de medidas relativas a la prevención, investigación y tratamiento de la violencia contra la mujer y asistencia a la misma• Instrucción de la SES nº 18/2009 de la Secretaria de Estado y Seguridad que deja sin efecto la 14/2005 sobre ac-tuación de dependencias policiales en relación conmujeres extranjeras víctimas de violencia doméstica o de géne-ro en situación administrativa irregular• Instrucción de la SES nº 10/2007, por la que se aprueba el Protocolo para la valoración policial del nivel de riesgo de violencia contra la mujer en los supuestos de la LeyOrgánica 1/2004 y su comunicación a los órganos judiciales y al Ministerio Fiscal y en las Instrucciones nº 14/2007 y 5/2008 que modifican la anterior.• Acuerdo entre el Ministerio de Justicia, Ministerio del Interior, Ministerio de Igualdad, el Consejo General del Poder Judicial y el Ministerio Fiscal para el establecimiento delProtocolo de Actuación para la implantación del Sistema de Seguimiento por Medios Telemáticos del cumplimiento de las Medidas de Alejamiento en materia deViolencia de Género de 8 de julio de 2009.P 56 | 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