university responses to forced marriage & violence against women marilyn freeman, renate klein,...
TRANSCRIPT
University responses to forced marriage & violence against women
Marilyn Freeman, Renate Klein, Jacqueline MburuLondon Metropolitan University, June 2013
April 11, 20232
OVERVIEW
Use of key terms Research context (extent of problem, agency
statistics, victimisation surveys, disclosure dynamics)
Policy context (public sector equality duty, legal measures related to FM, multiculturalism, cohesion debates)
University responses: Key findings
April 11, 20233
USE OF KEY TERMS
Post-secondary, higher, further education (PSE, HE, FE)
Forced marriage (FM) Forced Marriage Unit (FMU) Arranged marriage Violence against women (VAW) VAW specialist services/sector Reporting versus disclosure
April 11, 20234
RESEARCH CONTEXT:Extent of the problem
FMU statistics– 2011: 1468 cases (78% female victims, 22% male victims)– 2012: 1485 cases (82% female victims, 18% male victims)
FM statistics from other agencies– 2008: between 5000 and 8000 cases in UK
VAW students in the UK– 12% stalked, 14% serious physical or sexual assault, 68%
sexually harassment (NUS 2010)– 11%-34% sexually violated, 30-58% stalked, 50%-69%
sexually harassed (Stenning et al. 2012)
April 11, 20235
RESEARCH CONTEXT: Reporting and disclosure
Reporting of VAW to formal authorities is rare; Disclosure to informal third parties such as family
and friends is more common but this also depends on the nature of the violation
– Common with regard to sexual and domestic violence– Probably different for forced marriage as third parties may
be conspiring in perpetration– Disclosure is risky; reaction of third party may further hurt
victim
April 11, 20236
POLICY CONTEXT
Public sector equality duty Policy debates on VAW, multiculturalism and
community cohesion Legal measures in the UK against FM
– Forced Marriage Civil Protection Act (2007)– Consultation on criminalising FM– Intent to criminalise FM
April 11, 20237
UNIVERSITY RESPONSES
Why research PSE responses to FM/VAW?– Case characteristics– PSE as context of abuse & intervention– Current practices & ways forward
Funding– Pilot study: London Metropolitan University (2011-
2012)– Expanded study: FMU (2012-2013)
April 11, 20238
UNIVERSITY RESPONSES
Methodology: Stakeholder interviews1. PSE frontline staff
• How issues present, services, referral, training, institutional support
2. PSE managers• Institutional responses, policies
3. NGO staff• Cases involving students, working with PSE
4. Police officers• Cases involving students, working with PSE
April 11, 20239
EVIDENCE BASE
Pilot study and follow-up study 24 staff members at 9 different PSE
institutions 6 staff members at six different NGOs 5 Police officers from 5 different police
departments
April 11, 202310
AREAS OF KEY FINDINGS
Complexity of cases Pathways to disclosure Problematic assumptions Red flags Creating opportunities for disclosure Confidentiality Supporting, not taking over Building expertise Institutional response: Information, policies, staff
development
April 11, 202311
Complexity of cases
Difficult circumstances, multiple traumata Exploitation by relatives on whom student is financially
dependent Physical abuse from partner with whom student also
has a child Parents/family support student pursuing degree on
condition that she get married to man of family’s choice when studies completed
Student having experienced abuse from childhood, and in multiple abusive relationships
Physical violence in context of FM
April 11, 202312
Complexity of cases
Further interpersonal and family dynamics Social support (or not) from friends and family Social network members may ally with perpetrator Child protective issues when abuse against mother In cases of forced marriage many family members may
be involved in the abuse Strong attachments to parents and family members,
even when they are very controlling (“without your family, you have no soul”)
April 11, 202313
Pathways to disclosure
Students usually come alone and with an issue about themselves, rarely about a friend or other person
Problems tend to “eke out” once trust is established The presenting problem is often academic Staff members receiving disclosures include
personal tutors, chaplains, counselors, debt advisors, lecturers.
Fear that disclosure will undermine professional success
April 11, 202314
Problematic assumptions I.
About how problems will present Assuming that no disclosure means no problem Assuming that a student would articulate a problem
in staff member’s terms Assuming that the distinction between arranged and
forced marriage is clear Assuming that somebody else in the university is the
first port of call (e.g., security officer assumes it’s the police; police assume it’s lecturers or personal tutors; personal tutor says there needs to be a bond first)
April 11, 202315
Red flags in academia
Failing academically– Failing a paper or exam– Sudden change in habits, not attending classes
anymore Requesting leave from classes to go home
for an “arranged” marriage Family or relationship “problems” (without
necessarily labeling them rape, domestic violence, harassment or forced marriage)
April 11, 202316
Problematic assumptions II.
About the role of parents Relationship between parents and students Talking things over: student & parents Talking things over: with outsiders
April 11, 202317
Creating opportunities for disclosure
Asking– In conversation with student, probing possible warning signs
Outreach– Talks, workshops, presentation
Presence & Visibility– Posters in office, being present on campus
Purpose of such opportunities is to show care and support student’s informed decision-making, including access to specialist services. This is NOT to make decisions for the student.
April 11, 202318
Confidentiality
Must be clear to students whether confidentiality can be maintained
Breaking confidentiality may be needed to protect students but can also endanger them (parents may want to know things about their child but that does not mean they will be helpful)
All staff, including temps, must be aware of the importance of confidentiality
Specialised training on confidentiality may be useful for frontline staff such as security but also for others who might field calls from parents or family members
April 11, 202319
Supporting, not taking over
Staff may feel that they must help even if they do not know how (which may include ill-advised action such as talking to parents in cases of FM)
Instead: Listening Being clear about what will remain confidential Keeping student informed and in control Supporting informed choices
April 11, 202320
Building & accessing expertise
Staff training on FM/VAW (mostly up to individual initiative)
Team working and internal referrals (important for sharing expertise)
Referrals to specialist organisations outside the university (important for accessing expertise but largely dependent on individual staff member’s knowledge of community)
April 11, 202321
Institutional response
Formal institutional response to FM/VAW is rare, hardly any written policies or protocols
Mostly, response is left to motivation and commitment of individual staff members
Systematic staff training on FM/VAW is rare to absent
Team working important but vulnerable to staff turnover
Universities not integrated into multi-agency working
April 11, 202322
RECOMMENDATIONS
Core responsibility Participation in multi-agency working Institutional response policy Staff training on policy Information campaign Periodical impact evaluation, including victim
assessment of success
April 11, 202323
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
Comprehensive approach (formal policy) Coordinated response (and mechanism that sustains
this) (maybe more important than lots of uncoordinated services).
Outreach – Front line staff in counseling, welfare, support– Personal tutors– Lecturers– Student Union, societies within Student Union– Professional associations (AMOSSHE, UMHAN)
April 11, 202324
Author contact
Marilyn Freeman, London Metropolitan University, [email protected]
Renate Klein, London Metropolitan University, [email protected]