INTRODUCTION

             The Information Forum, the proceedings of which follow, was held in Bucharest (Romania) from 26 to 28 November 1998. It was organised by the Steering Committee for equality between women and men (CDEG) of the Council of Europe in co-operation with the Romanian Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs.

                It is internationally accepted that the use of violence against women is a violation of basic human rights. The Heads of State and Government of the member States of the Council of Europe, meeting in Strasbourg on 10 and 11 October 1997 for their Second Summit, drew attention to the importance of this subject by affirming their "determination to combat violence against women and all forms of sexual exploitation of women".

                The subject has been addressed at international conferences (United Nations Conference on Human Rights (Vienna, 1993) and the Fourth World Conference on Women (Beijing, 1995)) and has been discussed within the Council of Europe in different ways for many years. Violence in the private sphere is becoming the subject of increasing attention and has been touched upon in the framework of the global problem of violence against women. The Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers has adopted two Recommendations on this subject[1].

                Since the 3rd European Ministerial Conference on equality between women and men (Rome, 21-22 October 1993), the activities of the Council of Europe linked to violence against women have intensified. The Rome Conference adopted a Declaration on policies for combating violence against women in a democratic Europe and elements for intervention strategies to be included in a Plan of Action to combat violence against women. A Group of Specialists for combating violence against women was set up to develop this Plan of Action under the auspices of the CDEG. The Final Report of Activities of this Group, comprising this Plan of Action, was published in June 1997 (document EG-S-VL (97) 1). A Group of Specialists was created in 1998 in order to prepare a legal instrument: a recommendation to member States for the protection of women and young girls against violence. The Council of Europe Seminar on "Promoting equality: a common issue for men and women" (Strasbourg, 17-18 June 1997) also provided a useful contribution to the work on violence against women, in particular regarding its prevention.

                In order to provide an input into the work of this group of specialists, it was decided to organise the Forum around the following themes and sub-themes:

General theme:            Ending domestic violence: action and measures

Sub-theme 1:               Confronting domestic violence and its consequences

Sub-theme 2:               Assistance and support for victims

Sub-theme 3:               Working with the perpetrators

Sub-theme 4:               Prevention of domestic violence

                The four sub-themes were the subject of written reports, which formed a basis for discussion in the working groups. Moreover, a keynote speech introduced the general theme.

                During the 2^nd day of the Forum, a debate in plenary session was organised on the subject of the preparation of a European legal instrument to combat violence against women. This debate was held in the presence of the members of the Group of Specialists in charge of preparing a draft recommendation on the protection of women and young girls against violence (EG-S-FV). The principal aim of the debate was to assist this group in carrying out its work.

             Beyond these questions, linked to the preparation of the draft recommendation, the participants could discuss the necessity and feasibility of a European Convention on combating violence against women.

             The Forum was attended by some 140 people. Participants included government experts, policy makers, researchers on violence against women, therapists, educators, laywers, police officers, judges, sociologists, psychologists, medical doctors, as well as representatives of governmental and non-governmental organisations.

                The Forum was chaired of Romania, Mrs Norica NICOLAI, Secretary State, Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, Mrs Gabriela ADAMEŞTEANU (Romania), General Rapporteur, prepared and presented the Conclusions of the Forum.

                A specific session devoted to Romanian NGOs was organised during the Forum.

                The present publication sets out the texts of the statements and the speeches made during the Forum, the reports on the general theme and sub-themes, the conclusions of the Working Groups, the General Conclusions as well as the list of reference documents and the list of participants.

OPENING ADDRESS

by Mr Pierre-Henri IMBERT
Director of Human Rights
Directorate of Human Rights, Council of Europe

It is a great pleasure for me today to open this seventh Information Forum on national policies in the field of equality between women and men. I am very happy to revisit Bucharest and enjoy that superlative Romanian hospitality again, but above all I sincerely regard this Forum as an important event.

Your choice of the theme "Ending domestic violence: action and measures" signifies your decision to address an issue which is central to the protection and further realisation of fundamental human rights. This is very well-timed, as the year 1998 marks the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In 1999 the 50th anniversary of the Council of Europe will be commemorated, and the 50th anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights the year after. This Forum fully deserves a prominent place among the commemorative events, for while major work has been accomplished for the furtherance and development of these rights over the last half-century, much remains to be done, especially in the field under discussion.

Domestic violence has long remained a virtually invisible phenomenon. At present this form of violence is acknowledged as universal and widespread in all sectors of society. As the writer of a recent article on comparative criminal law observed, “a woman or teenage girl is at greater risk of maltreatment or sexual assault at home than out in the street, and the same applies to children; while the source of danger may be a paedophile abductor outside the family, all professionals in the matter know that most abusers are to be found in the family itself”. And yet, while the veil of silence has lifted, the campaign against this social evil is only just beginning. It is perhaps the most serious current obstacle to genuine equality between women and men.

Indeed, violence against women, and domestic violence in particular, nearly always committed by men, challenges the essential idea underpinning the whole edifice of human rights, namely that all human beings are equal in value and dignity. Violence introduces a hierarchy of rights with gravely unequal treatment of the individuals who form the family unit. It afflicts individuals, specifically women and children, in their inmost selves.

The aim of this forum is to pinpoint appropriate strategies and means for guarding against and ending domestic violence. I emphasise "ending" because it is not enough to try and repair the damage caused by violence or to guard against it. With the 21st century upon us, we can no longer condone the continued perpetration of such human rights violations in the family sanctum. But, as one of the reports prepared for the Forum aptly points out, the "private" nature of this violence is exactly what has always made and still makes intervention and action so difficult. Intra-family violence raises the complex question of the family's simultaneous attachment to the private and public spheres. It also raises the question of state intervention having regard to the sanctity of private life. We must therefore find out how to remove this violence from the private sphere in order to combat it as effectively as possible.

These are difficult questions but we must do our utmost to answer them.

For several years the action of the Council of Europe has been aimed at promoting awareness of the scale of the phenomenon and applying strategies to counter violence in the family. This effort is part of policies for the achievement of equality between women and men. Following the 3rd European Ministerial Conference on Equality held in Rome in 1993, a Plan of Action to combat violence against women was adopted and now constitutes a highly valued document. However, much still remains to be done. Without wishing to encroach on your discussions, may I put to you a few personal considerations regarding the serious subject in hand

The first concerns the legal approach. The phenomenon under discussion is primarily in the social and psychological realm, rooted deep in the mental processes of individuals but also in the ideas, values and myths that shape our societies. Here, the individual unconscious and the collective unconscious converge and collide. Let us not forget that violence is the primal essence of human life and that our societies are made possible by dominating and mastering it.

This is where the law comes in. Legal rules have two basic functions: naming facts and deeds; establishing limits and prohibitions.

In either respect, most Council of Europe member states need to make considerable progress on all issues relating to domestic violence. It must be classed as crime and the criminals punished but, since family relationships are involved, special arrangements may be contemplated. From this angle, it will be interesting to analyse the innovations made by some of the national legislation mentioned in the reports to be presented.

Of course, in itself the law is void unless enforced. The State's role in doing do is crucial. It should not be possible for the policy of non-interference in private affairs, nor traditional customs and values, to be invoked by way of impediments to combating violence. How can a gravely threatened person feel safe without the assurance that all the requisite measures are being taken?

I speak of the State in the broadest sense of the word. All institutions must be mobilised and feel committed - police, justice and educational and social services. Moreover, non-governmental organisations also have an essential part to play, and their actions should be strongly supported.

This is the context in which the latest Council of Europe activity is placed. As you know, the Steering Committee for Equality between Women and Men (CDEG), the organiser of this Forum, includes a group of specialists which has begun drafting a Recommendation on the protection of women and girls against violence. Some members of the group are present, and I am sure the proceedings here will assist their work. At all events, I hope that the Forum will contribute decisively to the adoption of the Recommendation, which is to contain a body of very useful rules and principles for all member States. Incidentally, the Council of Europe will be breaking new ground yet again because this is the first international instrument of its kind in this field.

The law must be enforced but ideally, of course, it should not need enforcing. Prevention remains an indispensable phase. All means must be used to intensify and increase awareness, education and information. This too entails comprehensive, co-ordinated action with the participation of all agencies concerned.

 In this context, as my second point, I consider it indispensable to continue studying the causes and context of domestic violence and dissecting its mechanisms. It is a most demanding task. To circumscribe the problem fully, we must have reliable data because this is the only way to convince the decision-makers, and a major effort is needed in this respect. I am glad to note that the CDEG intends next year to convene a meeting of researchers to discuss this question. You may already be able to single out the areas where research is most clearly necessary.

 My final point relates to attitudes and strategies for fighting the vicious process of domestic violence. We must endeavour to shake off the ingrained stereotypes that affect us all and to take an unbiased view of perpetrators and victims alike.

 It is increasingly accepted that the men resorting to violence against women and children must take responsibility for their acts and that penalties are necessary. However, they will not suffice unless backed by therapy, by systematic counselling work with the men concerned to make them understand that violence can never be a solution, that to become and remain a man one must never "Destroy the child within oneself", to quote a British educationist, by brutal and violent acts.

 We must also develop greater sensitivity to women victims of violence and more insight into their attitude, not forgetting that stereotypes handicap women as much as men. While a man can be violent through fear of losing the "power" which he feels he must have to play his role, a woman often feels compelled to sacrifice herself for the family, for her children subjected to abominable blackmail and literally held hostage. For that reason, a woman is often prepared to accept the unacceptable.

 This again points to the need for prevention and especially for work with children. To stamp out the beliefs and reflexes so deeply ingrained in us, an enormous educational effort is essential. What I mean is that from a very early age children and young people should be taught to respect equality with difference, the crucial factor in ensuring respect for all human rights.

In conclusion, may I say that the time has come for definite, clear-headed action. Domestic violence is founded on an unequal power relationship between the sexes and exploits children's presence. It highlights the need to achieve equality at the foundation, the taproot, of society. Ending domestic violence in all forms is a vital prerequisite for building tomorrow's Europe founded on respect for individual rights and human dignity.

KEYNOTE SPEECH

  by Ms Carol HAGEMANN-WHITE (Germany)

It is a great honour to be invited to speak at this information forum, with which the Council of Europe reaffirms its commitment to ending domestic violence. A broad-based discussion of strategies and methods towards this goal is both urgent and timely for at least three reasons:

·                While awareness of men’s violence towards women as a serious and persistent problem has increased over the past 25 years, and a wide range of measures have been proposed or implemented in various European countries, it is now clear that there is no simple solution, no one best way. It is time to intensify our interchange and reflect on how strategies work under specified conditions and in context, to promote flexible and creative learning from each other’s experience.

·                While in many locations services have been established for the safety of women and their children as well as sanctions to confront the violence of men, it is now clear that these, in themselves, are not enough to end, perhaps not even to reduce, domestic violence. Single interventions represent an adjustment to living with violence as normal. It is time to develop complex, co-operative strategies that can be effective on a community level.

·                While the will to address the violence rooted in gender relations has grown stronger, in actual practice this is almost everywhere treated as a separate, distinct issue, as if it were unrelated to the multiple challenges of protecting and developing democracy. Single issue campaigns and activities inevitably compete for attention and resources. It is time to recognise domestic violence as an obstacle to achieving peace, health, equality and democratic participation, to understand how these central goals interlock and to generate integrated strategies towards human rights and community well being.

1.         Identifying and documenting the problem

The first step towards addressing any problem is knowledge. Unlike other, long documented dimensions of gender inequality, violence against women was neither recognised as a significant problem, nor was it studied empirically, until it emerged through women’s political action in the 1970s or 1980s. In particular, the success of feminist activism in creating hotlines, shelters and counselling agencies for women made men’s violence visible as a widespread social problem and a structural element in gender relations. Much of the existing research has developed out of the documentation of women’s accounts when seeking help, when leaving a violent man or when attempting to protect their children from sexual abuse. Later the study of the behaviour and motives of violent men followed, most of it based on samples via agencies of social control, such as court-mandated treatment programmes. The fact that such research is still very scarce in Europe is directly related to the low level of intervention targeting violent men in almost all countries. 

In 1997, the Group of Specialists for combating violence against women appointed by the Council of Europe stated that:

-           it is not possible to give an accurate estimate of the scale of the problem throughout the member States;

-           very few countries in Europe have conducted careful, large-scale representative surveys;

-           comparisons of available data could not be made, since there is no way of ensuring compatibility between either official statistics or research findings.

The group particularly emphasised that the level of official reporting should never be taken as an accurate estimate of the problem at national, regional or local level because reporting increases when agencies are seen as willing to listen, hear and respond to violence against women. Effective measures that make women less vulnerable, less dependent, and more able to escape victimisation may lead to a higher level of reporting, but this does not tell us whether violence has increased, remained the same or even become less frequent. At present, we cannot describe trends over time even within any member State; as the group pointed out, despite many efforts to improve the situation, no country in Europe has yet created a climate of confidence for women and girls experiencing violence.

2.         Understanding the problem

In Western Europe, women’s experience of violence reached public awareness in the context of concern about its specific forms and sites: rape, battering, sexual abuse of girls (and boys), marital rape, sexual harassment at work and in public places, dehumanising pornography, sex tourism. Each of these has been seen as a separate and specific issue; data suggesting estimated prevalence have been put forward, qualitative studies have described the ways in which women and girls become victims and its impact on them.  More recently, research has thrown light on how different forms and sites of violence are interrelated. Data now converge to suggest that child physical abuse and child sexual abuse both frequently occur in a context in which the mother is beaten; battered women are also raped or forced into unwanted sexual practices as well as experiencing economic deprivation, emotional abuse and deliberate humiliation.  Liz Kelly (1988) has suggested the concept of a continuum of violence to describe both the wide range of encounters with threat and violence as well as their interlocking impact. Both our empirical and our theoretical knowledge in this field thus underscore that gender, power and violence are related.

Persistent myths which obstruct recognition of this relationship stand in the way of developing effective strategies. Unlike a rare disease for which one turns to specialists, domestic violence is embedded in everyday life within all groups of society;  it follows that knowledge must be used to educate both the general public and all members of agencies involved in policy and intervention. Prevalent misconceptions belong to the following types:

-           the belief that men who act violently within intimate relationships are recognisably different from the average or the majority of society; domestic violence is believed to occur in “other” groups (e.g. lower class, ethnic minorities, migrants, deviant or “sick men”) - it is them, not us

-           the belief that the woman who suffers violence has in some way provoked it or brought it on herself, and that if she fulfilled her role as a good wife, a good mother and a good woman, the violence would cease - it happens to them, not us;

-           the belief that something beyond the man’s control (alcohol, drugs, poverty, hormones, an unhappy childhood, his religion or culture) causes the violence to erupt and that he cannot be held responsible - men can’t help what they do to their wives.

None of these beliefs is confirmed by objective data, on the contrary, they have been regularly disproved. They persist in part for the same reasons that prejudice against foreigners, migrants, and persons of a different religious or ethnic origin persist: they give people a way of closing their minds to unpleasant facts and to avoid coming to terms with social change, and in difficult times, they justify channelling aggression towards groups to which social evils are attributed. It is clearly one of the most vital tasks for the future of Europe to overcome this type of thinking, which often goes unrecognised when the problem seems to be new.

Men who batter women are often normal and well integrated into society in every other way; women are not responsible for the violent acts done to them; men’s violence towards known women does not erupt unpredictably like a volcano, and they are not helpless to control it. Any approach towards ending domestic violence must begin with recognising these basic facts. Nonetheless, we need to know more about men who choose violence. The myths I have sketched correspond to typical justifications that violent men themselves give when called to account. Yet although their acts are condemned, their accounts are often reported, for example in the media, as fact. In no other area of criminal behaviour is the inclination so widespread to accept at face value the reasons a perpetrator gives for being justified in doing wrong. This may be due to a kind of emotional truth attached to them – the attitudes and feelings seem familiar to other men, women recognise them as a masculine viewpoint. They are worth a closer look, for which I will refer to three in-depth empirical studies.

Jeff Hearn (1998) found in his research with British men who have beaten, injured or killed women, that most of them say “I am not a violent man”, even if they go on to recount concrete examples of their violence with little regret. As Hearn points out, this is a way of establishing credibility, of presenting a socially acceptable and normal self; they are other than some supposed centre of violence or violent men. The woman appears absent, except as receiver of the violence or as someone who has shown misconduct (“she wouldn’t shut up, so I hit her”); the men show no awareness of her experience. And throughout, the men are convinced that they “had to” do whatever they did, because the woman was the way she was, and did not conform to their demands or expectations.

Eva Lundgren (1992) found, in her interviews with Norwegian evangelical Christians who beat their wives, that the men rejected the notion of having lost control due to extreme anger; on the contrary, it was of the greatest importance to them to assure the interviewer that they were fully in control of themselves and of the woman when beating her: control is what violence is all about. They “have to” beat her because she is out of control; violence will bring her back into line. Hearn  also found that talk about losing control, frequently cited as an excuse, was often part of a larger story centring on the man’s conscious control.

When men feel justified in becoming violent, this seems to be connected to specifically masculine feelings of shame, closely bound to the fear of losing control. James Gilligan (1996), an American psychiatrist who has worked for many years with extremely violent men, has described the gendered nature of men’s violence. He points to the contrasting conditions under which the two sexes are exposed to feelings of private shame or public dishonour. Gender codes teach boys and men to acquiesce in (and support, defend and cling to) a set of social roles which require them both to take the risk of, and to inflict on others, physical injury, pain, mutilation and death. Men are exposed to shame if they are unwilling to be violent, and are rewarded with honour when they do so. A woman’s worthiness to be honoured or shamed is judged by how well she fulfils her roles as actual or potential wife and mother. She can threaten the honour of her family by overstepping the boundaries of these roles; thus, women are given the power to bring dishonour on men. Although much of men’s violence is directed against other men, the concept of pride and self-esteem which may obligate a man to strike out against disrespect and prove himself a real man also “encourages a man to become violent if the woman to whom he is related or married ‘dishonours’ him by acting in ways that transgress her prescribed sexual role”.

Finally, Eva Lundgren has shown that men’s violence in intimate relationships must be understood as a process, not as a series of incidents. The starting point, the occasion for the first violent act, may grow out of familiar and even widely accepted patterns of gender role expectations which a man feels justified in enforcing on the woman, usually involving something she should not do, such as going out on her own without asking him. Over time, the violence becomes increasingly “normal”; later on it even becomes sexualised (violence is a very intense physical experience) so that he derives satisfaction from the violent acts themselves as well as from their confirmation of his dominant and powerful position. The gender role prescriptions become more extreme and the space within which the woman is allowed to act becomes smaller and smaller.

These analyses may help us to understand a striking paradox. On the one hand, men’s justifications and excuses for domestic violence are met with a great deal of understanding, because they are recognised as reflecting norms of masculine honour and men’s need for respect in the shape of dominance. There is a tendency to play the violence down and find excuses. On the other hand, when it becomes clear how thoroughly men have integrated their violence into ordinary life and into their sense of self, they suddenly begin to seem foreign, and we are inclined to think of them as fundamentally different from the rest of us. This paradoxical effect of seeing and hearing about domestic violence – excuses and denial on the one hand, dramatisation and distancing on the other – helps keep the myths alive despite all that is known to disprove them.

3.         Challenges to domestic violence

The efficacy of men’s violence toward women is very much based on its relative “invisibility”. This is a multi-facetted phenomenon, comprising the exclusion of such violence from the public sphere, routine procedures of state agencies which can work to normalise it, factors leading women to accept blame for the violence exerted against them, constructs of masculinity, femininity and heterosexuality which confound violation with intimacy, and other elements. As a result, low levels of reporting often correlate with high levels of acceptance of violence in everyday life. The first step towards challenging violence against women as a power structure consists in making it visible, and the first and absolutely necessary response is to break the grip of violent men’s control and offer women refuge and support in escaping from it.

Violence as a medium through which men control and dominate women has been under attack in all European countries as long as there have been organised efforts by women to attain equality. In recent decades,  the major pathways of challenging the functioning of violence and control in everyday life have been:

·                legal reform, both towards redefining women’s right to personal integrity and efforts to involve police and the criminal justice system with sanctioning and limiting male violence;

·                social services and political self-help activities to expand  women’s scope of action and options of self-determination and personal safety;

·                political and public awareness-raising and education to change norms of masculinity and their presentation in schools, media, and organisational life;

·                working to increase women’s economic and social independence and their range of options, including alternative forms of the family and of living.

Legal reform has tended to move towards some or all of the following changes:

·                improving women’s rights within marriage;

·                facilitating non-punitive divorce for women;

·                redefining abuse within marriage as a criminal offence and developing more effective procedural rules;

·                introducing or extending civil law remedies and protection orders for women who experience violence;

·                expanding the range of acts punishable as rape;

·                recasting the complainant in cases of rape and sexual violence as a bona fide victim rather than as a suspect;

·                eliminating the marital exemption from rape law.

Services and increased options for women have included:

·                shelters and other supporting services for battered women;

·                counselling and/or free legal advice for women who have suffered domestic or sexual violence;

·                improved medical procedures and special training for female police officers to respond appropriately to victims and collect evidence effectively;

·                crisis intervention centres and hotlines, for example within the health care system;

·                further education and awareness raising across all areas of social, legal and medical services;

·                training women for assertiveness and self-defence;

·                political and awareness-raising campaigns.

Many factors affect the choice of methods and measures among this list, which is by no means exhaustive. Just as one can distinguish different models of the welfare state and their overall approaches to gender inequality, there are different patterns in the effort to limit, reduce or eliminate domestic violence. Today I would like to point to a resent shift in focus in countries with a history of active intervention. Perhaps organisations and states that are relatively new to the struggle to end domestic violence may take it up from here. Summarised in one phrase, there is a move away from single measure policies and towards co-ordinated strategies.

4.         New directions in working to end domestic violence

Many concrete suggestions have been made for achieving “zero tolerance” and, in the long term, eliminating violence against women. The Group of Specialists for combating violence against women has emphasised our collective responsibility to achieve this goal; they have recommended the establishment of national monitoring committees to oversee implementation. This would, without doubt, make a clear public statement of commitment.

             And yet a word of caution may be permitted. Domestic violence is brought forth and maintained by multiple systems; it is not “simply” a problem of education and attitudes, nor “simply” a consequence of women’s lack of economic independence, nor “simply” a problem of the legal and criminal justice system not doing its job, nor simply due to lack of services and safe refuges for women - it is all of these interacting and much more. The list of suggested changes in the 50-page Plan of Action drawn up by the group reflect this. If every member country would implement only half of them, that would be progress indeed - but if the mix of individual measures were chosen at random and without consideration of how they interact, we might find ourselves not much closer to ending domestic violence than we are now.

             Currently another approach is emerging: a shift in focus from “measures and programmes” to developing community intervention strategies through inter-agency co-operation on a local level. My research group has been studying this development in Germany, where shelters for battered women have existed for over 20 years in the West, in East Germany since 1988; there are now over 400. Although their value is well established, shelter workers have felt a growing sense of frustration. At the outset of the 90s, reports of the success of co-ordinated community responses in the US triggered new hope, and a discussion arose on new forms of co-operation. There were many questions and doubts concerning the transfer of programmes from a very different legal and cultural context to the European continent, the possible danger to the funding and maintenance of existing services for women, the risks of compromising too much, too soon without clear feminist leadership, and the uncertain outlook if projects for women, the sufferers, work in tandem with programmes for men, the perpetrators. Despite doubts and controversy, an increasing number of community-level co-operative approaches to domestic violence has developed in the past 6 years. The impetus often came from awareness-raising campaigns of the German federal or state governments, designed to give financial and consulting support to decentralised activities such as public lectures, workshops, theatre productions. In their wake, concerned individuals and groups began to discuss how to initiate change. Most of the networks started as round tables, where representatives of social agencies, shelters, police and the justice system meet to talk about improving responses and strategies.

             The first hurdle to be overcome is the problem of communication. Many concepts have different meanings in women’s organisations, in social agencies and in the legal system. Participants have to share some understanding of what they mean by violence and agree what kind of violence they will work on. They have to learn what different resources each can bring into the co-operative work, and find a way to co-ordinate whatever activities they may initiate.

             There are many different types of round tables. Small groups may aim to raise public awareness of domestic violence, larger groups may agree on a concrete aim, e.g. to set up a 24-hour hotline. Some are integrated into the work of local gender equality offices, some have little or no connection to grassroots organisations, and some only aim to implement one aspect of co-ordinated intervention, e.g. a new policy for the public prosecutor.

             Participation depends very much on regional conditions. A community may have no local shelter, or no group, which would consider working with violent men; this will influence the choice of goals and proceedings. There may be specific resources available. In Hanover, social workers have been employed by the police to help them handle various social problems; this allowed the Hanover Intervention Project direct access to victims of domestic violence when the police are called in. The recruitment strategies also vary. The initiator often has a background in women’s advocacy or shelter work. Many agencies already have bilateral co-operation, e.g. there are usually contacts between the shelters and the police. They know each other from their daily work and the co-ordinating person knows who to talk to. Community projects thus rest on a foundation of many prior bilateral connections.

             Participation in building a community network seems to require a strong motivation growing from some specific (job-related) interest in change, because inter-agency work is a difficult and time-intensive process. We found a strong involvement of the police in such efforts. They are dissatisfied with their emergency protocol and very uncertain of what would be an appropriate and useful course of action. They don’t have the time or the skills to counsel or offer help to the women, and they don’t see any sense in preparing for possible criminal proceedings, because they expect the case will be dismissed by the public prosecutor. An integrated community response would help them on both counts. They can work together with specialised social workers who can offer support to women, and they can encourage the prosecutor to give cases of domestic violence higher priority.

             Judges have been much less involved; they seem less able to recognise a specific interest in co-operation. In such cases the first step has to be to awaken an interest. One motivation can be the wish to help women and/or children. Another is the hope for better, that is more reliable, more co-operative and useful witnesses. Judges are interested in a good trial preparation of the women.

             These examples illustrate that building co-operative programmes is a process, which grows from strong roots in local conditions and human resources. A national programme, perhaps flanking the community efforts with necessary legal changes, can be helpful, but might not be an effective way to steer these activities: they need to grow from the bottom up.

             In Germany there are presently three large-scale projects (Kiel, Berlin, Hanover) whose goal is a full-scale community intervention project. They aim to co-ordinate short-term police response, women’s advocacy counselling, and long-term civil protection orders, and to link active criminal prosecution with court-mandated men’s programmes. It is clear that such programmes must be carefully crafted to ensure the safety of women and their children. Although these projects often draw on models from North America, they are much less oriented towards taking action quickly, and take much more time to consider in advance the probable impact of each measure on different groups or situations. They try to design the proposed measures so that different institutions will complement and not controvert each other, and to ensure that the women’s safety and self-determination remain a top priority and do not get lost from sight.

             The Berlin Intervention Project (BIG) is the largest and most ambitious of these community networks. It was able to draw upon a variety of specialised support projects for battered women in Berlin as well as on groups of profeminist men planning to work with batterers. Berlin has 14 shelters for battered women and their children with space for about 450 women and about the same number of children. There are 3 after-care projects counselling women, one project that supports women in finding a new home and two projects for men. 17 out of these 20 projects co-operate in BIG. In its first year the round table brought together high-level representatives from all the relevant departments and institutions, women’s projects and shelters. They agreed on common goals binding for all participants. Implementation is now being worked out in seven working groups, in which more than 120 experts co-operate since 1996. Their work has been mediated by five women employed as ”co-ordinators” of the project.

             After five years of planning, development, co-operation, and investment of resources, concrete results could, at first glance, seem very modest. Some changes have been made in police procedures, statistics are being collected more systematically, and some new agencies are in a concrete planning stage. Yet despite procedural complexity and slow progress towards actually changing intervention, the Berlin project is experienced as extraordinarily successful. In a metropolis of some four million people, strategically important institutions at the very top of governmental responsibility (such as the ministerial levels of justice, of social affairs, of children and the family and of women and work), the public prosecutors and police, and a great number of representatives of services, advocacy and justice are publicly committed to bring about change, and to do so, invest considerable time, resources and imagination as well as agreeing to make unanimous decisions at the highest level.

             The seven working groups each draw together a mix of institutions with statutory responsibilities, organisations from the volunteer and/or non-profit sector, and committed individuals such as feminist lawyers, formerly battered women, or other women’s advocates. Their work is seen as a new and significant dialogue. Across the lines of women vs. men, feminist vs. mainstream, legal sanctions vs. helping professions, state agencies vs. volunteer groups, something like a new public sphere for debate on addressing and ending gendered violence has been created. There seems to be a consensus that the existence of such a cross-cutting public sphere is, in and of itself, a step towards social transformation. The project has created an institutional and social infrastructure, which defines domestic violence as a concern requiring public debate and response. In doing so, it has redrawn the line separating private and public, and is redefining the nature of the polis, the common good and the responsibilities of good government.

             The success of community response projects requires skilled organisation building to develop an inclusive co-operation network; this often means a pragmatic search for the common denominator and well as strategic alliances. But success also depends on people - people who are willing and able to develop what we are calling a new professionalism. They combine a basis of specialised skills with an awareness of the inevitable limits of each specialised profession, and the need to work together to bring about social change. For at bottom, it is people who will end domestic violence, because they - we - are no longer willing to tolerate it.

             Today, European countries and regions have widely varying experiences with recognising and addressing domestic violence. The community approach can provide a common platform for an interchange in which each contribution is equally valuable, for it points to the need to mobilise resources on a local level, respecting different circumstances and concrete possibilities, and calls on people to take responsibility for change where they live and work: each of us can take steps toward the common goal.