The focus group was composed in order to represent those explicitly involved in the VOM service, the shelter movement, an organisation treating violent men (Dialogue against violence) plus reseachers in the field of respectively violence against women and mediation.
On the day of the meeting Dialogue against Violence was not able to take part.
The participants were:
Head of VOM secretariat Henning Maigaard, The National Police, VOM coordinator Pernille Reese, Sydsjaellands Police, Mediator Kristine Larsen, Mediator Amina Carsce Nissen, Director Marianne
Kierkegaard, Rontofte Womens´ Shelter, Reseacher Lin Adrian, University of Copenhagen, Senior consultant Mette Volsing, LOKK.
The focusgroup met for two hours on 11 December 2014 in LOKK, Copenhagen. The meeting was facilitated by Karin Sten Madsen, LOKK who gave an introduction to the project (country report and interviews) and introduced four questions for the focus group to discuss. Each question was illustrated by quotations from the interviews.
Question 1
What are your thoughts and considerations on the use of restorative justice (VOM) in cases of partner violence?
What are the pros and cons?
Here were different opinions. The director the Women Crisis Centre did not think that VOM was at all useful in cases of domestic violence because of the couples’ thorough knowledge of each other (and here she made no distinction between situational violence and coercive control). Knowledge of each other makes it possible not only to hurt each other in the specific meeting, but what has been said in the VOM can subsequently be used after the meeting. There is a sequel to the VOM, the parties do not part to never meet each other again. There are children, questions of custody and other kinds of bonds that will enevitably bring them together. Leave it alone, was the advice of the director.
Others in the focusgroup was of the opinion that it is possible to use VOM by domestic violence IF the time and resources are in place . And if the coordinators were properly trained to screen the cases and the mediators do proper preparation of the victim and the offender . None of these prerequisites are however in place in the VOM service today. A case can end up with a mediator who has no qualifications to facilitate a DV case as not all mediators are equally suited to take on these cases. The situation as it is by now is worrying.
The police coordinator said that it was her experience that VOM could be a good solution in cases where the police do not raise charges. The police want to help and often the victim is not interested in the offender being criminalized but in getting the opportunity to talk to him. Small steps can be taken for example where there is a need for a dialogue about children.
The mediators argued that a premise for VOM is that there is no doubt about guilt. When there is no admission of guilt the process becomes very complicated for the mediator. It was their impression that the police - because they sometimes do not know what else to do with these cases - use VOM as a kind of garbage can - like in cases of neighbour disputes.
A researcher stressed that though understandable VOM should never be used as a garbage can because you have nothing else to offer. Maybe it's a different approach other than VOM that is needed, she said, a multidisciplinary approach involving other agencies . And there are cases that regardless of mediator qualifications are not suitable for VOM .
Question 2
How do you organize a process that meet the needs of the victim and safeguard her?
The mediators underlined that one must be very clear with what VOM is and what it can offer.
They felt that they were being used for something that should be dealt with by other systems.
A researcher pointed out that it is important to keep in mind that VOM is not just about protecting the woman. It is important to be true to what VOM is. If VOM will be much used in the area of DV you may find yourself running errands protecting the woman while using the informal forum to punish the man. That is not what VOM is about. It is a meeting between equal partners who decide what THEY want to do. This is important in relation to the discussion on method.
Screening
Today the screening lies with the coordinators. There are no formal assessment tools and the coordinators have no specific training to do screening. Also there has been much turn over among the policecoordinators so continuity and acquired experience get lost.
Mediators mentioned that it is unclear what is the role of the coordinator and what is the role of the mediator when it comes to screening. Who does what in order for the mediation to be beneficial for the parties? Is it the task of the mediator to screen the cases and should screening happen during preparation? It is through out Denmark it very different how coordinators and the mediators handle this issue.
Safeguarding
A mediators said: You have to enlarge the package, introduce other kinds of support so VOM is not a single intervention but part of a whole. This could be could be anger management, couple etc.. ’If you really want to do something helpful, we know very well that one meeting is not enough.’
Responses to quotations from the interviews regarding preparation
The framework round the mediation is important and of course how we fill out the framework. The meeting is about the needs and interests of the parties. You have to ’forventningsafstemme’ (a Danish expression often used by mediators meaning that the expectations of the victim/offender have to match what they can (possibly) achieve in a VOM). It is very disturbing to hear that that does not happen (according to the interviews). Very problematic that mediators do not have an eye for what is at stake where there has been a severe incident between two people.
They (the parties) need to know what lies ahead of them. If you have no idea of what is waiting behind the (VOM)door, the anxiety level will be extremely high, you will be on guard and not be able to reflect.
Responses to quotations from the interviews regarding facilitation gone wrong:
The director of the womens center mentioned that men who are violent have nowhere to turn to, there are waitinglists to go into treatment and when there are children involved this is what they want to talk about – also in the VOM regardless of the agenda of the victim.
The researcher: It is about managing a meeting. It's about taking authority - to be neutral but be in charge . It's about how to fill out the role as mediator .
You can have seperate meetings with the parties which could be very appropriate in this type of cases. Does it go the way you want it , is there something missing? It would give the mediators a break, and give the parties the opportunity to make their voices heard . It´s about giving them
’another room in the room’.
These are options already there and it may well be about how to use the options .
Being two mediators does not solve the problem - not essentially - but if there is a high degree of complexity it can be nice to have someone to talk to during a break . In this type of cases , it could be
appropriate. If not for any other reason that you can´t be two places at the same time.
No matter what, it is important that the VOM is voluntary and important to be precise on what can be expected. ’As a mediator you take the lead, you make it clear what you are there for while at the same time make it clear that it is their aganda. They are the ones who should decide what should happen in the meeting.’
Question 3
What are the advantages and what speaks against laying down special procedures for mediation in cases of partner violence?
What are the advantages and what speaks against specific training requirements for mediators who mediate in these cases?
Procedures
The leader of the VOM secretariat explained that the weakness of the policeforce is that it is an organisation under big change – everybody is moving around. There are no longer specialists, only generalists and the big challenge is that there is little knowledge in this field.
There is ’method freedom’ in how VOM is organized in the 12 police districts. In 4-5 districts it is the coordinator who does all the preperatory work before handing over the case to the mediator. In other districts pre-meetings are done by the mediator and it has recently been decided that these meetings will be paid for (as well as the mediation). The leader of the VOM secretariat suggested that maybe a pre-meeting should be made mandatory.
The policesoordinator raised the question of neutrality if preemeetings were conducted. The mediators explained that their impartiality was not affected by having talked to both sides before a meeting and it didn´t complicate the facilitation of the VOM.
A reseacher pointed out that differentiation is important. There should not be too many general guidelines - neither in terms of screening nor in terms of preparation. Flexibility is important.
The mediators mentioned that as they would only facilitate few cases of DV it could be an idea to have access to a hotline where they seek expertice and advice. They (mediators) didn´t have to be experts on DV, but knowledgeable on where to get knowledge. The idea of a team of experts was also mentioned as well as stregthning the cooperating with Victim Support.
Training
Preparation should be part of the basic training.
The leader of the VOM secretariat said that so far further training and supervision has been the responsibility of the individual policedistrict. This will change in 2015 where further training and supervision will be placed under the National Police and made available to coordinators and mediators. This was anticipated by everyone in the focusgroup.
The policecoordinator found it difficult that it was not possible to make training and supervision mandatory for mediators. They are lay mediators and attending supervision and further training is not paid for.
Question 4
What do you think should be included in a manual on mediation in cases of partner violence?
The participantens agreed on these items: How to do screening, how to do preparation, how to facilitate, how to do co-mediation, how to involve other agencies and co-work with them.
Examples of Best Practice.