COMMUNITY SAFETY, THE FAMILY AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

For centuries non-intervention in the private life of the family was the states justification for abdicating responsibility for the safety of women and children in the home. Feminist research and activism from the 1970s building on nineteenth century feminism !ill 1"#9 $1970%& 'obbe 1"7"(( has chipped away at this hegemonic construction of privacy revealing its role in covering up male abuse)violence in the home* now commonly referred to as domestic violencei +i,,ey 197-& .obash and .obash 1979& /or0ows0i et al 19"1& 2anmer and 3aunders 19"-& 4al0er 19"-& !aynard 19"5& +lec0 19"7& !ama 19"9(. 'ontinuing feminist research and activism have gradually provo0ed changing and more appropriate responses to domestic violence through policy development and new legislation but inade6uate* insecure fundingii remains a critical barrier to progress.

7he purpose of this paper is to loo0 at the historical development of initiatives against domestic violence which have been largely the result of feminist organising( e8amining the influence of community safety discourse and activity. .uring the late twentieth century* campaigns and interventions can be analysed if rather crudely( into two main organisational strands see 7able 1(. 9n the one hand the vital influence of the womens refuge movement largely radical feminist inspired( which has* to a degree* maintained a position of wor0ing outside the state* and on the other hand feminists and others some with a community safety perspective( organising within and through the state. .uring this time crime control strategy was moving towards more punitive approaches !uncie* :000( but two other relevant strands developed concurrently& one focussing on concern for victims and the other focussing on

enhancing safety at the community level. ;ll of these strands have had an impact on responding to domestic violence* as we shall see* but in this paper < will e8plore why < believe community safety approaches were less influential in relation to domestic violence than feminist approaches.

7he 6uestions < am interested in posing here are therefore= 2ow far were community safety approaches e8tended to women)children e8periencing domestic violence> 4hat contradictions were raised in addressing domestic violence using a community safety framewor0> ;nd* what lessons can be learned from the unfolding development of interventions against domestic violence> < e8plore first feminist theory on the family and womens safety and how this has impacted on feminist initiatives against male violence. < follow this with an e8amination of community safety initiatives* deconstructing ?community and ?safety. Finally* < argue that 4estern understandings of domestic violence have lead to a focus on state)agency responses* underpinned by gendered discourses of caring.

Feminist theory on the family and male violence against women

7he notion of ?family has been* and often still is* deployed as the central motif around which responsibility for womens safety has traditionally been organised. <nstitutions of state were established by men of property)power to deal with their own public safety and to control the crimes of men of lesser property and lesser power. !oreover middle class male domination was enshrined in legal systems which have been slow to respond to feminist challenges and to womens historically changing social location. <n @ngland and 4ales* for e8ample* ?the marital rape e8clusion clause protected rape

in marriage from criminal prosecution until 1991. ;s Aaffine argues* the reason it too0 so long to be abolished in all jurisdictions is that its abolition challenged the view of women as the possessions and passive objects of their husbands desires 199- cited in Bees :000* p. 57(iii.

7raditional family discourse constructs women as mens possessions and their safety as in the safe0eeping of specific male relatives varying according to cultural and historical location(. <n the west* recent history of state regulation of marriage and the family constructs womens safety as the responsibility of the father until marriage* when responsibility is handed over to the husband brides are still ?given away by fathers in the marriage ceremony(. <n other cultures responsibility for womens security may be e8tended to older brothers and uncles. <t is important to note that* from this patriarchal perspective* womens ?security is lin0ed to notions of purity and chastity* which in turn underpin ideas about male)family honour. 3ecurity in this conte8t is* therefore* not so much about womens physical safety but more about regulating womens se8ual behaviour to preserve male)family honour.

Feminist and critical theoretical analyses of the family criti6ued the division between public and private spheres that forms the basis of many policies and services( arguing for the interpellation of both spheres. C7he public vision D is deeply involved in our vision of domestic things* and our most private behaviours themselves depend on public actions* such as housing policy* or more directly* family policyE /ourdieu 199#= :5(. 7raditional concepts of home and family have been constructed by white middle class men* assuming a heterose8ual nuclear family +assaro 199#( overloo0ing the widespread nature of conflict within patriarchal families. 7he tension between the

binary opposites of safety and ris0* security and fear* privacy and invasion e8ist within the home for many 4ardhaugh 1999* p. 91(. 3o* feminist research from the late 1970s revealed the family to be a potential place of an8iety and danger for women and children due to male physical* se8ual and emotional violence .obash and .obash 1979& /or0ows0i* !urch and 4al0er 19"1& !aynard* 19"5& 2anmer and 3aunders 19"-& 3tar0 and Flitcraft 19"5& +lec0 19"7& Felly 19""& Gllo and /ograd 19""& !ama* 19"9& 3tan0o 19""& !ullender and !orley 199-& Hichie 199#(.

2owever* there is a problem in conceptualising the family as either totally gender neutral or completely divided along gendered lines& both approaches failing to capture the multiple gendered discourses and practices associated with home and family which are e8perienced in different ways depending on other social differences& class* ?race and se8uality spring to mind. 4e need to be aware of these comple8ities if we are to enhance our understanding of the family in relation to violence against women by male partners. 7hey help us to understand why a woman cannot ?just leave a violent relationship and why members of the public rarely as0 an abusive man why he does he not ?just leave 3tar0 :00-(.

Feminist analyses of the family have been enormously influential in opening up to 6uestion the whole area of power in gendered relationships. 3uch analyses* combined with feminist principles of organising* have also been the driving force in setting up and running of services for women such as refuges)shelters and rape crisis centres. !oreover* these analyses have been relatively successful in influencing social policy initiatives against domestic violence in /ritain and < now turn to loo0 at these initiatives.

Feminism: theory and initiatives against male violence (see Table 1)

;s we have seen* historically* womens safety was a privatised ?non-issue as states derogated security responsibilities ostensibly to male members of womens families. ;s late as the 1970s it was commonly assumed that women faced danger only in public spaces ?stranger danger(* hence police advice on womens safety recommended they ta0e a range of precautions on the streets* putting the onus onto women for their own personal safety. 4omen were and are( already 0eenly aware of such public dangers and tend to adjust their behaviour patterns in response to violence as well as the threat of violence e.g. ?< wouldnt have wal0ed through that par0 at night or ?< wouldnt ta0e that short cut 3tan0o 19"7(.

Iiolence has been widely viewed in the feminist literature as an effective device for regulating women and the female body. 7he process of 0eeping physically safe has been seen as one mode of ?performative femininity 3tan0o 1997 drawing on Judith /utlers idea of gender as performative(. 7he threat of invasion or damage to the body through se8ual violence restricts many womens uses and perceptions of different spaces 2anmer and 3aunders 19"-(. 4hilst remaining the case* more recent research on violence has emphasised womens active resistance to violence and to the social e8pectation that women will be fearful Fos0ela 1997* 3tan0o 1997(.

<nitiatives against male violence did not originate with the state but in womens groups starting to discuss their e8periences of male violence and re-conceptualising it as an outcome of hierarchically gendered power relations in societyiv. <t was feminist womens groups too who set up the first refuges)shelters for women* staffed entirely

by voluntary labour* which developed into the 4omens ;id refuge movement as we 0now it todayv. 7here was* however* some local state involvement even at this early stage in that a handful of B; housing departments provided womens groups with refuge premises. 7hese premises were often in poor condition but* for the first time* women who had nowhere else to go were offered a place of safety. <mportantly* also* the e8istence of refuge spaces opened up the possibility for survivors to e8plore their understanding of what had happened to them. 4here women fre6uently saw themselves as personal failures in having e8perienced domestic violence* tal0ing with other women* who had had the same or similar e8periences* posed an alternative understanding of domestic violence as a social problem which could be ?collectively challenged and transformed 'harles :000= 117(. 7he empowerment of women was always a 0ey principle of organising in the womens refuge movement* although it may not always have been fulfilled.

<n 197- the national 4omens ;id Federation @ngland 4;F@( was formed to campaign against domestic violence and to co-ordinate the wor0 of refuge groups in /ritain 4omens ;id :00-( giving evidence to the Kovernment 3elect 'ommittee on Iiolence in !arriage in 1975. ;s a result legislation was called for to provide protection against domestic violence and to ma0e clear local authorities responsibilities towards women and childrens homelessness due to such violence .obash and .obash 199:= 1:-(vi. 7he 3elect 'ommittee conceptualised domestic violence primarily in terms of housing* recommending that refuges should be resourced by the local state rather than the central state 'harles :000=119( and that a minimum of one family refuge place was needed per 10*000 population this recommendation remains unfulfilled today(.

Table 1 Key initiatives against domestic violence since the 1970s

Date 1970s Feminist initiatives outside the state 4omens ;id 4;( Hefuges Aational 4omens ;id Federation A4;F( Kovernment 3elect 'ommittee on Iiolence in !arriage. ?7a0e /ac0 the Aight& ?4omen against the 'uts& !iners 4ives groups& 4omens +eace Kroups etc. ; small number of B; supported 4omens 'entres* 'ommunity 3afety teams* 4omens and @6uality Lnits set up in metropolitan areas. 'o-operation mainly women in B; 2ousing .epartments. Feminist !"ommunit# sa$et# initiatives inside the state +remises provided by B;s often in poor condition. Comment Hefuges overcrowded yet provide safety)support& womens voluntary labour. 7o educate the public and inform women about their options. Hecommended min. of 1 family place in a refuge per 10*000 pop& target remains unfulfilled. Feminist activist groups raise issues of womens safety* self defence etc.& women members of B; Lnits raise womens fear of crime* domestic and se8ual violence. 3cepticism encountered& hard wor0 forging lin0s& cooperation uneven& support at e8ecutive levels problematic.

197-

1975

19"0s

Bocal 4; groups wor0 to forge lin0s with 2ousing .epartments and 3ocial 3ervices 19"1 19"7 19"" A4;F established first dedicated Aational .I 2elpline service

2ome 9ffice 'rime +revention Lnit set up

?3afer 'ities* governments crime prevention programme @stablishment of the first local multi-agency forums on .I @stablishment of the first local multi-agency forums on .I. 2ome 9ffice 'irculars 1-)1990 and #0)1990

Funded a small number of .I projects in 1990s. ; noteworthy e8ample being Beeds <nter-;gency +roject. 1-)90 partnership approaches to crime prevention #0)90 domestic violence units)officers and Mpresumption of arrestM. Funding to ensure effective provision of refuge services most important action needed

19"9

1990

1991

2ome ;ffairs 3elect 'ommittee @n6uiry into .I

19911995 199-

4; input to /roo0side 'hannel -( Jordache family .I plotline First .I cinema advertisement distributed by 4; and supported by 2ome 9ffice 4; lobbied for change to First .I cinema advertisement distributed by 4; and supported by 2ome 9ffice Family Baw ;ct +art <I 199#

/ringing .I into the public arena via a soap opera drew attention on a larger scale

199#

<mprove civil remedies against .I* automatic powers of arrest where violence used or threatened 3elf-completion module on .I provides a far more complete measure of .I. 3tatutory duty on B; and police to formulate and implement community safety strategy. Funded 11 projects for N7m.

199#

/ritish 'rime 3urvey

199"

'rime and .isorder ;ct

1999:00:

2ome 9ffice 'rime Heduction +rogramme* ?Iiolence ;gainst 4omen <nitiative Aational .I website www.womensaid.org.u0 and ?The Gold Book /ritish 'rime 3urvey Aational .I 2elpline .omestic Iiolence* 'rime and Iictims ;ct

1999

LF information website and public directory of local refuge and helpline services set up by 4; 3elf-completion module on .I as 199#(. /ecomes a :- hour service

1999 :001 :00-

3ources= 'rawford 199" Crime Prevention and Community Safety; 4omens ;id :00- Celebrating 3 years of !omen"s #id $%&'() '* .odd et al. :00-.

"

4hilst refuges have been characterised as being organised on radical and socialist feminist principles and 4omens Lnits and domestic violence forums on liberal feminist principles* the reality on the ground has been far more comple8& Cboth socialist and radical feminist have engaged with the state* the former via local authorities and the latter through such organisations as refuge groupsE 'harles :000= 115(. 7he later development of blac0 and postmodern feminism emphasised issues of diversity and the need to ta0e account of such differences in service provision. Feminists often too0 an eclectic approach loo0ing at optimum strategies in particular social and political conte8ts.

.uring the 19"0s and 1990s feminist scholarship was demonstrating growing evidence of the incidence and e8tent of domestic violence suffered by women worldwide& also male pro-feminist scholars started to research male oppression and violence notably Jeff 2earn 19"7* 199"(. Hefuge wor0ers were starting the long* hard tas0 of forging lin0s with sympathetic individuals in local government* especially in housing departments* and the police* to encourage improved responses to women e8periencing)fleeing violence* albeit with mi8ed results 4omens ;id :00-(. ;t the same time womens units and e6uality units were being set up in mainly metropolitan( local authorities and here women)feminists put fear of crime* ?domestic and se8ual violence on to local government agendas for the first time 3tan0o 199"= 5-(. <n 19"7 the A4;F established the first dedicated Aational .I 2elpline service and by 19"9 the first city wide domestic violence forums came into being. <t is during the late 19"0s and the 1990s that community safety strands of organising intertwine with feminist initiatives and so < now turn to loo0 at the origins and influence of community safety.

omm!nity safety: theory and initiatives (see Table 1)

'ommunity safety represented an alternative and more optimistic approach towards tac0ling crime. 2owever* community safety represented a tiny proportion of the criminal justice system as a whole& in 1991)9- for instance it formed just over 1 per cent of the annual criminal justice budget 'rawford 199"= #1(. 4ithin this small budget* property crimes in public places were over-prioritised with an emphasis on funding situational and environmental projects with social projects playing a relatively minor role. <n this case domestic violence was li0ely to* and did have* a fairly low profile.

9ne reason for this has been the reliance of community safety approaches on rational choice theory which tends to ignore differently gendered identities and practices* assuming Munitary rational individuals whose e8periences can be universalised& in other words a gender-neutral approach and a tendency to perpetuate the status 6uo in terms of structural ine6ualities 2enri6ues et al. 19"-(. 7he gendered nature of crime such as domestic violence( was overloo0ed ironically at the same time as greater awareness about gender and crime came to the fore in criminology 'rawford 199"= :7(. 7he theory and practice of community safety tended therefore to orient attention towards ?crime on the streets and away from ?crime behind closed doors 4al0late :001(. 'rawford 199"( has identified a range of inter-related developments as contributing to the revival of wor0 loo0ing at crime prevention and within this community safety( in /ritain and < e8amine how these discourses relate or not( to the domestic violence field.

10

First 'rawford cites the ?growing strain on the criminal justice system* evidenced by the increasing rate of recorded crime and the numbers of people passing through the system ibid p. 11(. <n terms of domestic violence over the 19"0s more women reported incidents of domestic violence to the police and more demands were being made on the criminal justice system 2anmer 19"9(. 3econd* the ?increased politicisation of crime and people feeling that the li0elihood of becoming a victim of crime had increased ibid p. 1-(. 4omens fear of crime has always been higher than mens fear of crime and feminist researchers have argued that this is due to their awareness of the continuum of male violence faced by them Felly 19""(. ;dult womens fears are not only the result of first hand e8periences but a long process of learning and socialisation which begins in childhood Koodey 199-(. 7hird* traditional methods of crime control had ?come to represent an increasing financial burden on the public purse ibid p. 1-(. 4hilst this may not have been the case in relation to domestic violence and the criminal justice system* it certainly was the case in terms of the economic burden on employment* housing* social services and health. 2owever in the 19"0s there was no evidence to bac0 this up and it is only in more recent research 3tan0o et al 199"& 4omen O @6uality Lnit :001( that such costs have started to be estimated& 4albys :00-( research for the 4omen and @6uality Lnit carried out in Beeds into the costs of domestic violence* focusing only on homicides of women* estimated the cost of 10: women 0illed by partners and e8-partners at N11: million. Fourth* a growing realisation that most crimes are never reported to the police ibid p. 1-(. <t has long been recognised that domestic violence is one of the most underreported of crimes= <n the LF research found that on average a woman will be assaulted by her partner or e8-partner thirty five times before reporting it to the police

11

Gearnshire 1997( and the /ritish 'rime 3urvey :000 found that just under one third of incidents were reported /ritish 'rime 3urvey @ngland and 4ales :000(. Hesearch in the L3 found that about one-seventh of all domestic assaults come to the attention of the police Florida KovernorMs 7as0 Force on .omestic and 3e8ual Iiolence 1997* p. 1(& female victims of domestic violence are # times less li0ely to report crime to law enforcement as female victims of stranger violence ;merican +sychological ;ssociation 199#* p. 10(& when an injury was inflicted upon a woman by her intimate partner* she reported the violence to the police only 55 per cent of the time and was even less li0ely to report violence when she did not sustain injury /ureau of Justice 1995* p. 5(. Fifth* an increasing recognition that the ?formal processes of criminal justice D have only a limited effect in controlling crime D and si8th this has affected the wider public D and seventh D a criminological shift in focus away from the offender D towards the offence Das well as the place and role of the victim ibid pp. 1-)15(.

'learly* the discourses 'rawford 199"( identifies as contributing to the focus on crime prevention)community safety differs from the discourses which have lead to the development of wor0 against domestic violence. 7raditionally in criminology* as in wider society* male violence in the private sphere has been ignored* and so there was little if any focus on the domestic violence offender or victim for that matter(. 2owever* the new concern for the victim* which developed out of such discourses* did find common ground with feminist discourses in regard to supporting female victims.

/y the 1990s many local authorities* police forces and the 2ome 9ffice started to ta0e on board issues of women and violence. 7he ;ssociation of 4omens Lnits in Bocal

1:

Kovernment released ?+esponding with #uthority 1991( as a call for local authorities to become actively involved in discovering support systems to alleviate all 0inds of violence against women* including fear of crimevii 3tan0o 1995(. /y the mid 1990s* crime prevention advice was a centrepiece of the 'onservative governments campaign against crime but it was still the case that advice to women remained in the crime prevention framewor0 rather than a framewor0 which loo0ed to prevent violence against women 3tan0o 1990a(.

" omm!nity and#or "$afety%

For many the term ?community safety gained ascendance over the term ?crime prevention due to its inclusivity* referring not merely to crime in the community but to wider socio-economic issues. 4hilst loo0ing at ?safety rather than ?crime was attractive in that it seemed to offer the opportunity to address problems of social disadvantage* the unconsidered use of the concept ?communityviii in community safety discourse undermined such opportunities. ;ssuming that people in a community all have the same interests at heart that intervention)s should be local or neighbourhood based and developed from the ?bottom up* in partnership* and dependant on analyses of local conte8ts 'rawford 199"= 9( may sound well and good* but feminist theory has taught us to be wary of non-structured approaches and gender-neutral language serving to conceal masculinist interests.

Kender is a 0ey idea of late modernity and yet gendered analyses are often missing from* or marginalised in* criminological wor0 on other important ideas of the same period such as ris0* globalisation and social control see e.g. @ricson and 2aggerty

11

1997* Goung 1999* Karland :001(. 7he e8clusive nature of such theorising both reflects and constructs our social world as ?masculine. Heading around the community safety)prevention field demonstrates the star0 lac0 of gendered analyses in the community safety literature.

;s others have pointed out 4illiams 1991& Felly 199#( we need to be totally cleareyed and rebut romanticised notions of ?community as being more democratic* open and less subject to ine6uitable power relations of dominant masculinity and other socially structured divisions( are simply misleading. ;s Felly argues Cthe stress on similarity in definitions of community means that variable e8periences of social life that accrue by virtue of gender* class* race* age and se8uality cannot be acknowledged* let alone studiedP 199#= 71 my emphasis(. <t is not that women are not part of the community* women are clearly involved in the creation and sustenance of communities 'ampbell 1991( but it is often the case that women have to create their own alternative communities and informal networ0s. .ue to their informal nature* such networ0s rarely form a part of the accepted organisational power structure in a community and therefore have often been overloo0ed by community safety partnerships.

7a0ing a view that interests are held in common in the community fosters an assumption that ?we* the community* will band together to defend against ?dangerous outsiders. 7his une8amined assumption oriented much community safety action onto situational strategies to combat property crime in public places& ?designing out crime. 4hilst some of these actions may be of benefit to some women fleeing violence target hardening of property against violent e8-partners for e8ample(* in general terms this

1-

focus is a deeply problematic one as it diverts attention once more( from violent crimes against women which for the most part do not ta0e place in public space and which* importantly* are committed by insiders in the community& male partners and relatives. <n the case of both ?community and ?safety partnerships need to constantly as0 6uestions as to ?whose community> and ?whose safety> they are in fact addressing.

4here notions of both ?community and ?safety were ta0en up by left-oriented wor0ers)activists who saw welfarist strategies as a better ways of combating crime than situational crime prevention Killing and /arton 1997(* nevertheless* as seen above* in most cases orientation towards ?community safety and ?fear reduction tended to focus attention on crime in public spaces* such as young people and crime* marginalising crime such as domestic violence which occurs in the private sphere 'rawford 199"= :7(. <n the domestic violence field on the other hand the focus has been perhaps understandably( on ?safety* women and childrens safety as opposed to ?community. 4e have much less 0nowledge about awareness and attitudes to domestic violence amongst the community-at-large. <ndeed* whilst there has been a resurgence of interest in community in many fields this has been singularly missing in relation to domestic violence as 4al0late :00:( points out.

4here the community safety approach fostered a new and different way of tac0ling crime prevention* moving away from a police-centred approach to an inter-agency partnership approach and new forms of victim support* wor0 against domestic violence was moving both towards a police-centred approach at the same time as fostering victim support and inter-agency partnerships. < argue that this situation relates partly

15

to the dominant understanding of domestic violence and the conse6uent focus on agency)state responses to domestic violence and partly to gendered discourses of caring which < loo0 at now.

&estern !nderstanding of domestic violence and the foc!s on social agencies

.efinitions of domestic violence have tended to focus on violence within the intimate* heterose8ual couple hiding the way in which impacts of such violence ripple outwards affecting children* other members of the family* members of friendship groups and members of the wider community* such as neighbours. !oreover* the focus on more e8ceptional incidents of violence has lead to a focus on improving the response of social agencies* such as the police. .esigned to act on e8ceptional incidents* social agencies can wor0 intensively with individuals in crisisi8 but for relatively limited periods of time Felly 1999(. 7his in turn unwittingly strengthens the conceptualisation of male abuse of power in the home as a one-off crisis incident rather than as a process* hiding the cumulative effect of seemingly ?minor infringements of womens emotional and physical integrity over time. 7he womens refuge movement has wor0ed with feminist principles* prioritising shelter and services to safeguard women and childrens safety and survival* and their wor0 too has tended to avoid wider community involvement* primarily for reasons of security* but also due to limitations of funding and resources. 3outhall /lac0 3isters have argued that state

bac0ing can generate more positive responses in the minority ethnic community from its leaders Kupta :00-(. For these reasons 0nowledge of informal and community responses to women e8periencing male abuse is relatively limited in the west.

1#

7he focus on formal agency wor0 has also inadvertently amplified the separation of public from private which* as Felly says 199#(* is ironic considering the original aims and thin0ing of the womens movement. !oreover* the separation of formal from informal support has hidden the e8tent to which both aspects of support intersect with each other. ;wareness of the inter-related nature of informal and formal support for women trying to stop the violence* have the abusive man leave* and)or trying to leave themselves* is under-e8plored.

'endered disco!rses of caring

Finally* gendered discourses* through which women construct their social identities as caring* and which assume womens continuing availability as carers* also underpin the relative neglect of informal support for women in the community. < argue that gendered discourses* through which women construct their social identities as caring* and which assume womens continuing availability as carers* underpin the relative neglect of informal support for women in community spaces. Finch 1991( notes a shift away from the problems of institutional care towards a valorisation of the ?healing virtues of communities at the core of caring discourse in the LF& whilst this is in itself a problematic discourse it does not seem to have impacted on responding to violence against women in the home. 7wigg 1990( and Lngerson 1990( argue that gendered discourse on caring ta0es for granted the availability of women as unpaid carers* which raises the 6uestion as to who does the caring when it is women who are in dangerous and harmful situations.

17

7he feminist literature is itself problematic in dichotomising a distinction between on the one hand caring for dependent persons who are not able to care for themselves and caring for those who can manage well on their own Beira and 3araceno :00:* p. #:(. 'learly this is meant to distinguish between women caring for able-bodied husbands* who could well loo0 after themselves* as opposed to caring for children. Lnfortunately this conceptualisation polarises ?those who are dependent from ?those who can manage well on their own failing to recognise the many degrees of dependence in between. .ependence for the adult woman is therefore seen as rather negative and degrading and this results in a problem locating women who are survivors of domestic violence. 2ague* !ullender and ;ris* for e8ample* argue that abused women should not be seen as dependent* saying Cabused women continue to be viewed as dependent* just as they were probably treated during the abuseE :001* p. 1#(. 7here is a problem here in that whilst survivors are not wholly dependent* nevertheless they have been victimised and do need support* help and care. !oreover* they are in need of longer term support and so varying degrees of dependence will e8ist over varying lengths of time for different women. 7he need for support is present throughout all our lives but it becomes crucial at times of transition li0e ?leaving a violent relationship where* in many cases* women find themselves with severely depleted support networ0s 4ilco8 :000a* :000b(.

oncl!sions

7he philosophy of the community safety approach to some degree attempted to shift social policy away from Cretribution* deterrence and reform towards a concern with prevention* harm reduction and ris0 managementE Karland :001* p. 171(. 3o* whilst

1"

community safety approaches were tending to move away from police-focused strategies it may seem contradictory that a major strand of feminism attempts to tac0le domestic violence by involving the police and employing a strategy of criminalisation. ;t the same time that this strand of feminism aimed to achieve more effective prosecution of perpetrators and support of victims* this was not without recognition of the deeply problematic nature of wor0ing with the state in relation to penality. ; 0ey theme in the early literature was that the institutional systems to which women turn for help can reproduce their dependence* and so reinforce their abuse* and prisons were not seen as places that would help in tac0ling mens violence 3checter* l97"& .obash and .obash* l979& 3tar0* Flitcraft and Fra,ier* l979& 3tar0 and Flitcraft* l99# cited in 3tar0* :00-(.

;t least two things must be remembered* however* firstly that this was a struggle for legitimacy* to gain acceptance for the idea that violence in the home is as serious as violence on the streets and secondly that women and children( were losing their lives. <n order to gain legitimacy what better route than through the traditional and powerful legitimising agency of the legal system> ;nd women are still losing their lives every year* on average two women are 0illed each wee0 by a current or former male partner8 2ome 9ffice 199"* :001(* so safety)security is* therefore* of the utmost priority in any wor0 against domestic violence wherever and however this ta0es place.

;t root the two ?strands of organising differ along the fault-line of defining gender* of ac0nowledging or not( the impact of differently gendered lives* and this creates differences in strategies and policies. Hesponses to violence* through the law* policy and practice* are shaped by choice of definition and this has concrete effects on

19

peoples lives. Feminists who conceptualise social life as thoroughly gendered have viewed the patriarchal state as repressive and have tended to maintain some distance from the state. 9ther feminists* and community safety wor0ers* may envision the state as problematic but open to reform* arguing that it is possible to change conditions of gender ine6uality by wor0ing with)through the state. 7here are obstacles and opportunities in both approaches.

'ertainly community safety initiatives* such as local authority community safety teams* provided alternative forums at which to raise violence against women and have e8panded the remit of this wor0. 2owever* the limits of community safety relate to a gendered notion of safety* just as the gendered conception of ?welfare was a 0ey faultline for social policy and practice. !oreover* moving beyond community safety implies grasping issues of both enforcement and support* as the history of wor0 against domestic violence ma0es abundantly clear.

:0

Notes
< use the term domestic violence as it is the term most commonly recognised worldwide* despite reservations about its gender neutrality. 3ee Hadford :001( for an insightful discussion on definitional

debates in relation to domestic violence in the LF. .omestic violence comprises a constellation of behaviours ranging from verbal abuse)threats and coercion* to physical* se8ual violence* rape and homicide. <n /ritain it is estimated that one in four women e8perience violence from a 0nown man at some point in her life /ritish !edical ;ssociation 199"(

ii 9ne illustration of this is the 2ome 9ffice national 'rime Heduction +rogramme in @ngland and 4ales * from 1999 to :00:* which funded a range of different initiatives. <n this programme N150 million was spent on ''7I as compared with N7 million on Iiolence against 4omen initiatives less than 5Q of the money spent on ''7I( 2ome 9ffice :001* p. 9* p. 11(.

iii !ore recently a new 3e8ual 9ffences ;ct has come into force !ay :00-(* and a new .omestic Iiolence 'rime and Iictims /ill should become law by mid :005. 7hings are changing but slowly and
unevenly. iv <n some cities there were also pro-feminist groups of men who met to discuss issues of male violence& e.g. !en against Iiolence against 4omen in 3heffield. v 4omens ;id Federation of @ngland now supports a networ0 of over 170 local .I projects throughout @ngland.

vi Begislation which followed after the +arliamentary 3elect 'ommittee on Iiolence within !arriage= 7he .omestic Iiolence and !atrimonial +roceedings ;ct 197# enabled women who were married or
cohabiting to apply for a non-molestation or e8clusion order against the abusing partner& 7he 2ousing 2omeless +ersons( ;ct 1977 recognised the right of women made homeless as a result of ?domestic violence to be permanently housed by a local authority& 7he .omestic +roceedings and !agistrates 'ourts ;ct 197" enabled women who were married to an abusing partner to apply to a magistrates court for an injunction to prevent

further abuse 'harles :000=119(

vii @dinburgh 'ity 'ouncil for instance sponsored a highly visible public education campaign* Rero 7olerance* which confronted myths about rape* child se8ual abuse* womens safety from a feminist perspective.

domestic violence and

viii 7he concept of ?community is a contentious one which has been e8tensively debated and there is not the space to cover this debate here. 2owever* see 'rawford 199"= 157-1#0 for further discussion of this topic in relation to community safety* Felly 199# for discussion in relation to domestic violence* Bacey and Redner 1995* also see Goung :001.

i8 'risis theory postulates that in an emergency routine coping strategies brea0 down. 7he crisis is a time of great ris0 but also provides the possibility of change since people are more open to* and in need
of* help from outside Felly 1999( .

8 Beaving a violent relationship does not necessarily bring about an end to violence* it may continue and may even escalate /inney* 2ar0ell and Ai8on 19"1& 90un* 19"#& 3mith* 1990& 3tar0 and Flitcraft* 1991* 2ester and Hadford 199:& .obash and .obash 199:& Fir0wood 1991& Hodgers 199-& Johnson* 1995& Fur,* 199# Hadford et al. 1997(. Hesearch with survivors in the LF found that violence was committed by an e8-partner in between a third and two thirds of the cases studied Felly 1999* p. 17& 4ilco8 :000a* pp. -0--:(. Hepeat victimisation is common and the /ritish 'rime 3urvey found that over half 57Q( of victims of domestic violence are involved in more than one incident 2ome 9ffice* July :00:(.

%e$e&en"es

/or0ows0i* !.* !urch* !. and 4al0er* I. 19"1 ,arital violence- the community response* Bondon= 7avistoc0. 'ampbell* /. 1991 Goliath* Britain.s dangerous places* Bondon= !ethuen. 'harles* A. :000 /eminism* the state and social policy* /asingsto0e= !acmillan. 'obbe* F. +. 1"7" M4ife torture in @nglandM* The Contemporary +eview* ;pril=55-"7. 'rawford* ;. 199" Crime prevention and community safety- politics* policies and practices* Bondon and Aew Gor0= Bongman. .obash* H.@. and .obash* H.+. 1979 0iolence against wives- a case against the patriarchy* Bondon= 9pen /oo0s. .odd* 7.* Aicholas* 3.* +ovey* .. and 4al0er* ;. :00- Crime in 1ngland and !ales ) 2ome 9ffice 3tatistical /ulletin 10)0-* Bondon= 3tationery 9ffice. 32) '*

@ricson* H.I. and 2aggerty* F... 1997 Policing the risk society* 98ford= 'larendon +ress. Florida Kovernors 7as0 Force on .omestic and 3e8ual Iiolence 1997 /lorida ,ortality +eview Pro3ect. Karland* ..4. :001 The culture of control- crime and social order in contemporary society* 98ford= 98ford Lniversity +ress. Killing* .. and /arton* ;. 1997 ?'rime prevention and community safety= a new home for social policy* Critical Social Policy 5: ;ugust pp. #1-"1. Koodey* J. 1999 ?;dolescence and the socialisation of gendered fear* <n !. .ragan and !... 3chwart, eds( +ace* gender and class in criminology* Aew Gor0 and Bondon= Karland. 2anmer* J. 19"9 ?4omen and policing in /ritain* in J. 2anmer* J. Hadford and @. ;. 3tan0o eds( !omen* policing and male violence- international perspectives* Bondon and Aew Gor0= Houtledge. 2anmer* J. and 3aunders* 3. 19"- !ell founded fear- a community study of violence to women* Bondon= 2utchinson. 2anmer* J.* Kriffiths* 3 and Jerwood* .. 1999 .#rresting evidence- domestic violence and repeat victimisation.* +olice Hesearch 3eries +aper 10-* +olicing and Heducing 'rime Lnit* Bondon. 2anmer* J.* 4ilco8* +.* 'urteis* 3. and Kriffiths* 3. 199" .1valuation report- the +otherham 4omestic 0iolence +epeat 0ictimisation Pro3ect.* Beeds Hesearch 'entre on Iiolence* ;buse and Kender Helations* Beeds. 2earn* J. 19"7 The gender of oppression- men* masculinity and the criti5ue of mar6ism* Aew Gor0= 3t. !artins +ress. 2earn* J. 199" The violences of men* Bondon= 3age. 2enri6ues* J.* 2ollway* 4.* Lrwin* '.* Ienn* '. and 4al0erdine* I. 19"- Changing the sub3ectpsychology* social regulation and sub3ectivity* Bondon and Aew Gor0= !ethuen. Felly* B. 19"" Surviving se6ual violence* 'ambridge= +olity +ress. Felly* B. 1999 ?Iiolence against women= a policy of neglect or a neglect of policy> <n 3. 4alby ed.( 7ew agendas for women* /asingsto0e= !acmillan.

Felly* B. 199# ?7ensions and possibilities= enhancing informal responses to domestic violence* <n J. B. @dleson and R. '. @isi0ovits eds( /uture interventions with battered women and their families* 7housand 9a0s* ';* Bondon and Aew .elhi= 3age. Fos0ela* 2. 1997 ?/old wal0 and brea0ings= womens spatial confidence versus fear of violence* Gender* Place and Culture- a 8ournal of /eminist Geography* - 1(=101-19. Bacey* A. and Redner* B. 1995 ?.iscourses of community in criminal justice S locating the appeal to ?community in contemporary criminal justice* 8ournal of 9aw and Society* ::=101-1:5. Bea J. and Goung* J. 19"- !hat is to be done about 9aw and :rder; 2armondsworth= +enguin. !ama* ;. 19"9 The hidden struggle- statutory and voluntary sector responses to violence against Black women in the home* Bondon= 7he Bondon Hace and 2ousing Hesearch Lnit. !aynard* !. 19"5 ?7he response of social wor0ers to domestic violence in J. +ahl ed.( Private violence and public policy* Bondon= Houtledge and Fegan +aul. !ill* J. 3. 1"#9 $1970% The sub3ection of women* Bondon= Bongmans. !iller* 3. B. ed.( Crime control and women- feminist implications of criminal 3ustice policy* 7housand 9a0s ';(* Bondon and Aew .elhi= 3age* pp. 5:-71. !ullender* ;. and !orley* H. eds( 199- Children living with domestic violence- putting men.s abuse of women on the child care agenda* Bondon= 4hiting O /irch. +earce* J. and 3tan0o* @. :000 ?Goung women and community safety* <outh and Policy* ##* 3pring* pp. 1-1". +lec0* @. 19"7 4omestic tyranny- The making of #merican social policy against family violence from colonial times to the present* Aew Gor0= 98ford Lniversity +ress. Hichie* /. @. 199# Compelled to crime- the gender entrapment of battered black women* Aew Gor0 and Bondon= Houtledge. 3tan0o* @. ;. 19"5 =ntimate intrusions- women"s e6perience of male violence* Bondon= Houtledge. 3tan0o* @.;. 19"7 ?7ypical violence* normal precaution= men* women and interpersonal violence in @ngland* 4ales* 3cotland and the L3; <n J. 2anmer and !. !aynard eds.( !omen* violence

and social control* Bondon= !acmillan*1::-11-. 3tan0o* @. ;. 199" ?4arnings to women= police advice and womens safety in /ritain <n 3. B. !iller ed.( Crime control and women- feminist implications of criminal 3ustice policy* 7housand 9a0s ';(* Bondon and Aew .elhi= 3age* pp. 5:-71. 3tan0o* @.;. 1997 3afety tal0= conceptuali,ing womens ris0 assessment as a ?technology of the soul* Theoretical Criminology* 1 -(= -79-99. 3tan0o* @.;. 1995 ?4omen* crime and fear* #nnals of #merican #cademy of Political and Social Science* Iol. 519* !ay* pp -#-5". 3tan0o* @.;.* 'risp* ..* 2ale* '.* Bucraft* 2. 199" .Counting the costs- estimating the impact of .domestic. violence in the Bondon /orough of 2ac0neyM* 'rime 'oncern* Bondon. 3tar0* @. and Flitcraft* ;. 19"5 ?4oman battering* child abuse and social heredity= what is the relationship>* in A. Johnson ed.( ,arital violence* Bondon= Houtledge and Fegan +aul. Ialentine* K. 19"9 ?7he geography of womens fear* #rea :1* -* pp 1"5-90. 4alby* 3. :00- The cost of domestic violence* Bondon= 4omen and @6uality Lnit).7<* http=))www.womenande6ualityunit.gov.u0)research) accessed :" June :005. 4al0late* 3. :001 ?'ommunity and crime prevention* <n @. !cBaughlin and J. !uncie eds.( Controlling crime- Crime* order and social control* :nd ed. Bondon= 3age. 4al0late* 3. :00: ?Kendering crime prevention= e8ploring the tensions between policy and process* <n Kordon 2ughes* @ugene !cBaughlin and John !uncie eds( Crime prevention and community safety- new directions* Bondon* 7housand 9a0s '; and Aew .elhi= 3age* pp. 5"-7#.. 4ilco8* +. :000 Hesearching in the community= power and control in a study on domestic violence in @ngland* +esearch in Community Sociology* Iol T* Fall* 1-1-1#-. 4illiams* F. 1991 ?4omen and community* <n J. /ornat* '. +ereira* .. +ilgrim and F. 4illiams eds( Community care- a reader* /asingsto0e= !acmillan. 4omens ;id :00- Celebrating 3 years of !omen"s #id $%&'() '* /ristol= 4;F@>

4omen and @6uality Lnit :001 Cost of domestic violence- interim findings* researched by 3ylvia 4alby* Lni of Beeds. www.womenande6ualityunit.gov.u0 Gearnshire* 3. 1997 M;nalysis of cohortM* <n 3. /ewley* J. Friend and K. !e,ey eds( 0iolence against women. Bondon= Hoyal 'ollege of 9bstetricians and Kynaecologists. Gllo* F. and /ograd* !. eds( 19"" /eminist perspectives on wife abuse* Aewbury +ar0* 'a= 3age. Goung* J. 1999 Social e6clusion* crime and difference in late modernity* Bondon= 3age. Goung* J. :001 ?<dentity* community and social e8clusion* <n H. !atthews and J. +itts eds( Crime* disorder and community safety* Bondon= Houtledge.