Human factors shaping the cooperation of police with other sectors: = The example of domestic violence

Dossi=EA

Human factors shaping the cooperation of polic= e with other sectors: The example of domestic violence

Catharina Vogt catharina.vogt@dhpo= l.de

Deutsche Hochschule der Polizei, Alemania

Joachim Kersten joachim.kersten@dh= pol.de

Deutsche Hochschule der Polizei, Alemania

Human factors shaping the cooperation of police with= other sectors: The example of domestic violence

Revista Brasileira de Ci=EAncias Policiais, vol. 13, n=FAm. 10, 2022

Academia Nacional de Pol=EDcia

Recepci=F3n: 28 Julio 2022

Aprobaci=F3n: 13 Septiembre 2022

Abstract: Policing i= s a profession with a significant human factor component, and police psycho= logy has contributed to its structure and to improve police relations throu= ghout various fields of crime prevention and intervention. Within police an= d in police-client interaction, the management of the human factor has beco= me quite elaborate. However, in the challenging field of police cooperation= with other professions in domestic violence management, there is a lot of = uncharted land. The EU-funded research project IMPRODOVA sought to address = this topic in an empirical approach via document analyses and expert interv= iews. IMPRODOVA=92s main objective was to improve the cooperation and perfo= rmance of frontline responder ecosystems to high-impact domestic violence c= onsidering existing heterogeneities across different settings. Its major re= sults show, how communication, vision and leadership, and organisational le= arning are the key areas to be reinforced to support police interagency coo= peration. Outputs for police practice (including an open access training we= bsite) are discussed in the following. Also, recommendations for police mul= ti-professional and inter-agency cooperation are presented.

hu= man factor; police psychology; domestic violence; interagency cooperation; = training.

Keywords: human factor, police psych= ology, domestic violence, interagency cooperation, training.

Resumo: O policiame= nto =E9 uma profiss=E3o com uma significativa componente de factor humano, = e a psicologia policial tem contribu=EDdo para a sua estrutura e para melho= rar as rela=E7=F5es policiais em v=E1rios campos da preven=E7=E3o e da inte= rven=E7=E3o no crime. No seio da pol=EDcia e na interac=E7=E3o pol=EDcia-cl= iente, a gest=E3o do factor humano tornou-se bastante elaborada. No entanto= , no desafiador campo da coopera=E7=E3o policial com outras profiss=F5es na= gest=E3o da viol=EAncia dom=E9stica, h=E1 muitas terras inexploradas. O pr= ojecto de investiga=E7=E3o IMPRODOVA financiado pela UE procurou tratar est= e t=F3pico fazendo uma abordagem emp=EDrica atrav=E9s da an=E1lise de docum= entos e entrevistas com peritos. O principal objetivo da IMPRODOVA era melh= orar a coopera=E7=E3o e o desempenho dos ecossistemas de resposta da linha = de frente =E0 viol=EAncia dom=E9stica de alto impacto, considerando as hete= rogeneidades existentes em diferentes ambientes. Seus principais resultados= mostram comunica=E7=E3o, vis=E3o, lideran=E7a e aprendizagem organizaciona= l s=E3o as =E1reas-chave a serem refor=E7adas para apoiar a coopera=E7=E3o = policial entre ag=EAncias. Resultados para a pr=E1tica policial (incluindo = um website de forma=E7=E3o de acesso aberto) s=E3o discutidos. Tamb=E9m s= =E3o apresentadas recomenda=E7=F5es para a coopera=E7=E3o policial multi-pr= ofissional e inter-ag=EAncias.

Palavras-chave: factor humano, psico= logia policial, viol=EAncia dom=E9stica, coopera=E7=E3o inter-ag=EAncias, f= orma=E7=E3o.

Resumen: La polic=ED= a es una profesi=F3n con un importante componente de factor humano, y la ps= icolog=EDa policial ha contribuido a su estructuraci=F3n y a mejorar las re= laciones policiales en diversos =E1mbitos de la prevenci=F3n y la intervenc= i=F3n del delito. Dentro de la polic=EDa y en la interacci=F3n polic=EDa-cl= iente, la gesti=F3n del factor humano se ha convertido en algo bastante ela= borado en la polic=EDa. Sin embargo, en el desafiante campo de la cooperaci= =F3n policial con otras profesiones en la gesti=F3n de la violencia dom=E9s= tica, hay mucho terreno inexplorado. El proyecto de investigaci=F3n IMPRODO= VA, financiado por la UE, trat=F3 de abordar este tema con un enfoque emp= =EDrico mediante an=E1lisis de documentos y entrevistas a expertos. El obje= tivo principal de IMPRODOVA era mejorar la cooperaci=F3n y el rendimiento d= e los ecosistemas de respuesta de primera l=EDnea a la violencia dom=E9stic= a de alto impacto, teniendo en cuenta las heterogeneidades existentes en lo= s distintos entornos. Sus principales resultados muestran c=F3mo la visi=F3= n y la comunicaci=F3n, el liderazgo, y el aprendizaje organizativo son las = =E1reas clave que deben reforzarse para apoyar la cooperaci=F3n policial in= terinstitucional. Resultados para la pr=E1ctica policial (incluido un sitio= web de formaci=F3n de libre acceso). Asimismo, se presentan recomendacione= s para la cooperaci=F3n policial multiprofesional e interinstitucional.

Palabras clave: factor humano, psico= log=EDa policial, violencia dom=E9stica, cooperaci=F3n interinstitucional, = formaci=F3n.

1. HUMAN FACTORS IN POLICING

Policing is a job that builds on communication. Especi= ally, police officers on the beat, those in direct contact with victims and= perpetrators, spend a lot of time listening, interrogating, explaining, in= forming, warning, mediating, and pacifying communication activities (cf. WESTLEY, 2005). Consequently, all kinds= of human factors play a crucial role for successful police actions. Human = factors first and foremost include humans=92 physical, psychological and so= cial conditions, capabilities, and limitations (ROSENZWEIG; PAWLIK, 2000). With regard to policing, especially p= olice psychology has contributed to an elaborated understanding of human fa= ctors, be it in the selection of police officers, dealing with mentally dis= ordered persons, managing crowds and protests, guiding police investigation= of serious crimes, hostage-taking, killing spree, profiling, the developme= nt of interrogation techniques, assessment of credibility, and survivabilit= y (e.g., DROR, 2013; HACKER; HORAN, 2019; STOTT; RADBURN, 2020).

Accordingly, within the police and in police-client in= teraction, the management of the human factor has become quite elaborated. = Police psychologists=92 focus on human factors including cognitive and emot= ional factors such as perception, consciousness, learning and memory, probl= em-solving, judgments, motivation, personality, (body-) language, and the d= evelopment of these factors within social relations (MARQUES; PAULINO, 2021). In order to structure and improve = police relations in the various areas of crime prevention and intervention,= police psychology has taken further steps outside the police organization = to qualify cooperation with other professional groups (e.g., KAIP; IRELAND; HARVEY, 2022). For example, collabor= ation with community associations is an important prerequisite for communit= y policing, as it determines how relationships with ethnic minorities can b= e constructive and whether conflicts with the community, such as those rela= ted to ethnic profiling, can be resolved with a strong focus on human facto= rs toward restoring trust, respect, and justice (DECKER; KERSTEN, 2015). This includes the cooperation of police = with community leaders, social workers, as well as leaders of cultural, spo= rts, and religious institutions (KUNZ; VO= GT; KERSTEN; BURCHARD, 2016).

Originally drawing from computational sciences, the te= rm =91interoperability=92 found its way into police psychology, describing = how different agencies and professions =93work jointly in problem solving, = particularly in emergency situations and incident=94 (CHARMAN, 2014, p. 102). Within these =91communities of prac= tice=92, transfer of knowledge and learning is enabled, if participants emp= hasise the human factor and establish a constructive communicative environm= ent and are willing and able to exchange knowledge (CHARMAN, 2014). Moreover, interoperability refers to the coll= aboratively harmonised exchange of different organisations in terms of proc= edures, data, infrastructure and applications (MOON; CLARKE, 2001). Whereas the question of procedures regards p= olicies and procedures that enable organisations to exchange information, c= apabilities and services; the question of data regards information formats,= data protocols, or databases that enable the exchange of data and informat= ion; the question of infrastructure regards the environment that enables in= tegration; and the question of applications regards the set of applications= that enable information exchange, processing or manipulation (MOON; CLARKE, 2001). In addition, intra- and inte= r-professional work is not static, but may alternate between collaborative = or competitive negotiations which also depend, to some extent, on the socia= l status of the collaborating groups (COME= AU-VALL=C9E; LANGLEY, 2020). Yet, although professionals usually agree = about the need for a greater degree of interoperability, co-ordination and = co-operation, the practical implementation seems to be rather difficult and= framed by differing structural and cultural barriers like different value = systems or identities (IRVINE; KERRIDGE; = MCPHEE; FREEMAN, 2002).

Likewise, in the field of domestic violence and abuse,= there is still a lot of uncharted land on how interoperability can be achi= eved (cf. VOGT, 2020). Domestic abuse= implies all kinds of behaviour by an intimate or ex-partner including phys= ical violence, sexual coercion, psychological abuse, and controlling behavi= our causing physical, sexual, and/or psychological harm (WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, 2021). Sadly, domestic abuse= is a widespread problem all over the world with mainly women as victims. F= or example, Brazil (2018) had approximately 1.2 victims of femicide per 100= ,000 persons (UTSEY, 2021). Naturally= , police are not the only professionals involved in the management of domes= tic abuse, but also other frontline responders like social workers, medical= doctors, teachers, employers, and judges (e.g., PECKOVER; GOLDING, 2017). Transferring the concept of human fac= tor-focussed interoperability to the context of police domestic abuse manag= ement, a large field of influential factors and tasks has to be acknowledge= d.

First of all, different professions bring with them di= fferent work cultures, like differing emphasis on different human factors, = shaped by different policies and legal frameworks relevant to their work (e.g. MILLER= , 2004). In order to understand success and failure in police interoper= ability, these legal framework factors need to be examined, as they shape p= rofessionals=92 understanding and have a direct impact on how domestic viol= ence cases are dealt with (IRVINE; KERRID= GE; MCPHEE; FREEMAN, 2002). The central question here is whether such f= rameworks exist and are consistent with or contradict each other, especiall= y those of the police.

Secondly, in order to quantify the extent of domestic = violence incidents, victimisation, and thus, the workload for the police an= d other frontline professionals, data and statistics provide a way to trans= late the meaning of =96 and the understanding of different professional gro= ups in dealing with =96 domestic violence (cf. MOON; CLARKE, 2001). This is a critical human factor. For example= , while women's counselling services understand domestic violence in terms = of the World Health Organisation's definition (2021), as only male perpetrated violence with female victims, pol= ice data typically includes male victims and female perpetrators. If the po= lice want to share information about the extent of the problem or the effec= tiveness of certain interventions of domestic abuse management, they need t= o ensure that they speak the same =91language=92 as their non-police cooper= ation partners.

Thirdly, human factors also play a role when it comes = to actual work applications in the context of interoperability (cf. COMEAU-VALL=C9E; LANGLEY, 2020; MOON; CLARKE, 200= 1): the main objective of police and other responders working together = in the field of domestic abuse pre- and post-intervention is to protect vic= tims of domestic violence from further, more severe or fatal harm. To this = end, they exchange information to better assess the risk of re-victimisatio= n or killing of the victim. This is where thorough = risk assessment and case documentation from all involved frontline r= esponders is critical as cooperation can only be achieved if all first resp= onders involved in a case (including the police) collect and document their= knowledge about the cases and regularly reassess the risks of the victims = to also detect changes. Indeed, interoperability based on shared informatio= n can only be successful if the information to be provided is available and= valid (WITTENBAUM; HOLLINGSHEAD; BOTERO,= 2004). Risk assessment tools can also serve as a guide for the proper = collection of information (CAMPBELL; O'SUL= LIVAN; ROEHL; WEBSTER, 2005).

Fourthly, following the concept of =93communities of p= ractice=94, the police and other frontline actors in the field of domestic = abuse can learn from each other and benefit from each other=92s experience = when they work together through transfer of knowled= ge and training (cf. JADOTTE; NOEL= , 2021). Joint training events also save effort and costs and can inspi= re innovation. However, the question that arises from research on domestic = violence is whether and to what extent first responders even have relevant = basic knowledge to share with each other; whether they are trained to work = in communities of practice; and if the human factor of expertise and networ= king can come into effect at all (HOUTSON= EN, 2020).

Fifthly, within domestic abuse management besides the = core task of joint risk assessment meetings, intra-= and inter-organisational cooperation enables frontline responders i= n domestic abuse management to benefit from =91short ways=92 of communicati= on to e.g., quickly solve their clients=92 problems or administrative issue= s that in turn supports victims=92 safety and satisfaction. Research has sh= own that especially human factors like social norms, cognitive biases, hier= archy and relationships facilitate the responsiveness and thus interoperabi= lity of intra- and inter-organisational networks (LIU; LYNDON; HOLL; JOHNSON; BILIMORIA; STEY, 2021)

As the potential of cooperation is currently only rare= ly explored by initiatives serving as good practices and lighthouses, victi= ms=92, witnesses=92, and perpetrators=92 needs cannot be met in a comprehen= sive way (VOGT, 2020). Thus, the cont= ribution of police psychology expertise for interagency and multi-professio= nal cooperation in domestic violence cases is essential. This will be demon= strated in the following by presenting the results of the research project = IMPRODOVA which started exactly at this point of departure. Accordingly, th= e objective of this paper is to analyse the target situation and the status quo of (1) policies and regulatory framewor= ks, (2) data and statistics, (3) risk analyses and case documentation, (4) = transfer of knowledge and training, and (5) intra- and inter-organisational= cooperation in domestic abuse management and to present potential tools or= guidance as well as recommendations regarding the influence of human facto= rs within police cooperation with other professions. Taken together, the ov= erall purpose of this study is to improve the collaboration and efficiency = of police when interacting with other groups of domestic abuse frontline re= sponders by understanding similarities and differences resulting from diffe= rent settings and organizational ecosystems.

2. RESEARCH APPROACH

2.1 Aims and objectives of the IMPRODOVA project

The EU-funded project Improvin= g frontline responses to high impact domestic violence (IMPRODOVA) w= as a research and innovation project investigating human factors shaping in= stitutional responses to domestic violence. It aimed to improve and integra= te the response of police, social work, health and non-governmental organiz= ations (NGOs), and other actors making up the ecosystem of frontline respon= ders to domestic abuse or violence. Expecting that across Europe best pract= ices can be identified from which other stakeholders involved in the manage= ment of domestic abuse could learn. Thus, the project=92s main objectives (= IMPRODOVA Consortium, 2019) were to i= mprove interagency cooperation among frontline responders, to develop and t= est tools for this aim, and to integrate human factors in frontline respond= ers=92 perception of and intervention in cases of severe domestic violence = and abuse. Specifically, IMPRODOVA sought to improve collaboration and perf= ormance of frontline ecosystems responding to severe domestic abuse, taking= into account existing heterogeneities in different environments. In doing = so, IMPRODOVA wanted to map the regulatory frameworks, guidance, risk asses= sment formats, and training materials that shape the institutional response= to severe domestic abuse in Europe and identify gaps, deficiencies, and in= consistencies. Additionally, the project aimed at documenting how the curre= nt legal frameworks shape field operations and collaboration among responde= rs, identifying the role of human factors, and describing and highlighting = best practices. Moreover, its objective was to develop new and revise exist= ing tools, guidance, and training for first responders, using the results o= f in-depth field research, first-hand knowledge of stakeholders, and addres= sing identified gaps, taking into account differences across national and l= ocal sites. Finally, IMPRODOVA had planned to evaluate, validate, and adapt= tools and guidance using stakeholder feedback to demonstrate the feasibili= ty of an innovative approach to supporting and guiding first responder netw= orks in severe domestic abuse, leveraging stakeholder knowledge and employi= ng a bottom-up strategy to identify and productively address human factors = (IMPRODOVA Consortium, 2019).

2.2 Composition of the IMPRODOVA research team

To follow such ambitioned goals, the project partners = comprised 16 teams from eight European partner countries/regions (Austria, = Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Portugal, Scotland and Slovenia). The pa= rtners represented a variety of professions including five police universit= ies/colleges, six police organizations, and institutions like medical scien= ce faculty, independent/national research, public health, and NGO. The auth= ors of the study both worked in this project from beginning to end.

2.3 Focus of the IMPRODOVA project

To realize its objectives, the general structure of th= e IMPRODOVA project looked at five overarching topics related to the manage= ment of domestic abuse, namely policies and regulatory frameworks, data and= statistics, risk analyses and case documentation, transfer of knowledge an= d training, and intra- and inter-organisational cooperation (VOGT, 2020). These topics were investigated in the = police, the medical, and the social sectors assuming them to be the most im= portant frontline responders in the management of domestic abuse.

2.4 Data collection

Formal ethical approval for the study was obtained fro= m the Westf=E4lische Wilhelms-Universit=E4t M=FCnster, Germany. After the a= pproval was achieved, and with regard to before mentioned five topics, the = target-situation of domestic abuse management was analysed via literature r= eviews and then compared to the status quo which was realized by a Europe-w= ide interview study within the eight partner countries processing 296 exper= t interviews at 19 places, as well as supporting document analyses and obse= rvations. The methodology of data collection and analysis followed the grou= nded theory approach (CORBIN; STRAUSS, 201= 4), with literature reviews serving as a starting point for identifying= the target situation. Step by step, then, expert interviews with professio= nals from police, medical and social service sectors were conducted to desc= ribe the status quo, and to enrich the findi= ngs and gain a deeper understanding, the results of further document analys= es and observations were included in the findings. A detailed description o= f this approach is provided by DELPEUCH and BONNET (2018), explaining how best and average practices were determi= ned and identified, what topics were covered by the interviews, and how inf= ormation was gleaned from observations and information on local conditions.= In short, all consortium partners had the task of identifying a list of th= ree to five potential sites in their respective countries, from which 19 si= tes were finally selected at a project meeting. Altogether, the final conve= nient sample included =9341 interviews from Austria, 44 interviews from Ger= many, 35 interviews from Finland, 48 interviews from France, 32 interviews = from Hungary, 26 interviews from Portugal, 30 interviews from Scotland, and= 34 interviews from Slovenia, were included in the analysis=94 (IMPRODOVA CONSORTIUM, 2020, p. 6).

2.5 Data analysis

Data analysis followed the grounded theory approach (<= a href=3D"http://marcalyc.redalyc.org/journal/6734/673472350003/html/index.= html#redalyc_673472350003_ref6">CORBIN; STRAUSS, 2014) comparatively co= ntrasting the police, the medical, and the social sector with regard to fiv= e themes identified before as relevant for domestic abuse management, i.e. = (1) policies and regulatory frameworks, (2) data and statistics, (3) risk a= nalyses and case documentation, (4) transfer of knowledge and training, and= (5) intra- and inter-organisational cooperation. The comparative contrasti= ng was furthermore clustered into topics of target situation and status quo. As the research was conducted in eight Eur= opean countries, partners from each country produced joint country reports.= Based on the findings about the average and best practices of inter-agency= management of domestic abuse that emerged from the merging of the reports,= insights were gained into the human factors affecting police inter-agency = collaboration.

2.6 Tool development

Based on the results from the comparison of the target= -situation and the status quo situation, fiv= e guidance tools were developed and evaluated, namely a Policy Development Module, Data Improvement Recommendations, a Risk As= sessment and Case Documentation Module, a Training Platform, and a <= span class=3D"italica">Communication Platform Pilot (to be explained= in more detail below).

3. RESULTS WITH REGARD TO IMPROVING FRONTLINE = RESPONSES TO HIGH IMPACT DOMESTIC ABUSE

Predictably, the IMPRODOVA project has produced a numb= er of results which, due to their abundance, can only be touched upon in th= is dossier by way of example. However, the common thread running through th= e results is the translation of the different professional =91languages=92 = of the cooperation partners, i.e. views, priorities, or problem awareness, = and the integration of these into police work. This human factor of languag= e and translation has already been identified as central in other scientifi= c work and samples investigating human factors in interoperability (CHARMAN, 2014; IRVINE; KERRIDGE; MCPHEE; FREEMAN, 2002). In order to find a mutual= understanding and 'a common language', the research results on the differe= nt areas and, among others, a training tool on domestic violence are presen= ted in the following.

3.1 Policies and regulatory frameworks

Target-situation. Examining policies and reg= ulatory frameworks, we found that whilst most IMPRODOVA partner countries f= ollow the Istanbul Convention (COUNCIL OF = EUROPE, 2011), domestic violence is not officially defined in all IMPRO= DOVA countries=92 legislations, and it is not part of the Penal Code. Reaso= ns for this are manifold: while some countries and sectors already made up = their individual legislation long before the Istanbul Convention (COUNCIL OF EUROPE, 2011) came into force, oth= ers do not even have guidance or policies regarding the management of domes= tic violence. For example, in the medical sector a lack of guidelines has t= o be stated in the majority of the investigated countries. Based on the res= pective definition of domestic violence, the focus of policies is set (HERBINGER; NEUNKIRCHNER; LEONHARDMAIR, 2020): in most countries and in accordance with the Istanbul Convention (COUNCIL OF EUROPE, 2011), a gender-based c= oncept of domestic abuse is prevalent, meaning that domestic abuse is under= stood as forms of violence against women and children. Yet, the definition = whether domestic violence is understood as intimate partner violence, domes= tic violence, or family violence determines national action plans. Also, th= e comprehension of the phenomenon as either domestic violence or domestic a= buse shapes the action of governments and sectors. Additionally, no definit= ion of severe domestic violence was found in any of the investigated polici= es. Notwithstanding, domestic abuse is considered as an independent offense= in some countries (e.g., Portugal).

Status quo. Research published by the IMPROD= OVA Consortium (2020) found that inte= rnational standards were relatively well implemented in all partner countri= es and that the basic steps in domestic violence management are very simila= r. For example, police are empowered to enter private property, arrest perp= etrators, issue protection orders, et cetera to address all forms of violen= ce. All in all, there is a good coordination of police with specialized sup= port services for victims=92 referrals. However, a fast response to victims= by specially trained officers is necessary as domestic abuse specialists a= re better able to meet the needs of victims than generalists (here it is at= the discretion of the police how much help the victim receives). Discretio= nary means that the quality of service depends on the quality of the indivi= duals on duty that day, rather than the quality of the organizational proce= sses in place to ensure a higher standard of service. In some countries, su= ch as Hungary, Slovenia, or Portugal, virtually all police officers respond= ing to domestic violence on the front lines are generalists. In other count= ries, such as Scotland and Finland, most responders are made up of speciali= sts. In France, Germany, and Austria, this varies by location. In the case = of domestic violence, police discretion was analysed in the 1980s as a key = factor in the inadequate care of victims of domestic violence because polic= e officers traditionally tend to view domestic violence as a private family= matter rather than the crime that it is. Thus, a need for training has to = be stated for all investigated sectors. Most importantly, there is a need f= or at least one specialized officer per police unit, for domestic abuse and= sexual violence.

Tool. To meet the demand for informed polici= es, IMPRODOVA formulated a Policy Development Module (OCTOBER; NIPULI, 2020), describing how to bring the perspe= ctive of first responders into the policy-making cycle. The instrument main= ly consists of a checklist for policy formulation in the area of domestic a= buse. The tool was evaluated and adapted (LOBNIKAR; VOGT; KERSTEN, 2021; OCTOBER; NIPULI, 2021).

Human factors. Police work is grounded in l= egislation. If regulation and standards are missing, gaps in policing will = occur. Also, regulations and standards set a framework and support morale b= y providing a guidance function. Likewise, police=92s multi-agency cooperat= ion and interoperability should be grounded in standards. Notwithstanding, = police need to be aware of the lack of regulation and standards in their co= llaborating partners=92 organisations with regard to managing domestic abus= e cases. Here, police can act as role model and in the mode of =91communiti= es of practice=92 guide other partners towards minimum standards when handl= ing domestic abuse cases. On one hand, this will foster procedures of inter= operability (cf. MOON; CLARKE, 2001).= On the other hand, this will set transparent expectations and avoid misund= erstandings, which will in turn fuel motivation for collaborative work (e.g= . LIU; LYNDON; HOLL; JOHNSON; BILIMORIA; = STEY, 2021).

3.2 Data and statistics

Status quo. According to Fagerlund and Hout= sonen (2019), data and statistics ava= ilable to determine the epidemic of domestic abuse are victimization studie= s and crime statistics. Usually, at least one national survey could be foun= d to determine victimization. For most examined countries, the results of t= he 2014 survey conducted by the European Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA, 2014) were available. However, this= survey included only women, which implies a lack of information on the sit= uation of boys and men as potential victims of domestic abuse. Besides, vic= timization studies often lack representativeness and are usually one-shot s= tudies.

Usually, crime statistics are limited to acts defined = as crimes by police. As mentioned above, the way police report domestic abu= se cases depends on the respective country. Altogether, the comparability o= f crime statistics depends on different legislations. Also, statistics on p= olice measures are often missing as well as emergency call or control centr= e statistics. Here, exceptions are France and Scotland, which also have pol= ice-recorded data on incidents that are not reported as crimes. Likewise, s= tatistics from single organisations from the medical sector and the social = sector are either not accessible or non-existent at all.

Guidance. Respectively, the IMPRODOVA repor= t by Burman, Brooks-Hay and Bradley (2020<= /a>) gives recommendations for data collection in the field of domestic abu= se. Basic information such as gender, type of relationship, number of victi= ms, perpetrators, and offenses, has to be collected. More complex informati= on, like police actions or type of abuse, is also relevant. The authors sug= gest establishing a national =93Day to count=94 (BURMAN; BROOKS-HAY; BRADLEY, 2020, p. 23), to bring the importan= ce of statistics and the scope of domestic abuse to public and governmental= attention. Currently, there are too little data and too little knowledge a= bout domestic abuse happening everywhere. Naturally, data collection needs = purpose and a clear definition. It needs to consider multiple offenders; ho= w police find out about the acts; how first responders use the data; and ho= w the data should be made available to the public (BURMAN; BROOKS-HAY; BRADLEY, 2020).

Human factors. Data and statistics are nece= ssary to illustrate the scope of domestic abuse and to bring the matter bac= k to consciousness and to motivate action. Naturally, it is also a feedback= on how successful (collaborative) risk assessment and action might have be= en, for example in preventing intimicides. It is a starting point to discus= s the effectiveness of measures and to find out in what categories of domes= tic abuse victims need intensified support, for example. Collecting data an= d creating statistics should not over-burden interoperability or police wor= k (and that of other sectors respectively) but qualify the work (to be) don= e. At the same time, collating and comparing domestic abuse-related statist= ics in interagency collaboration bears the potential to draw an even bigger= and more informative picture of the needs of those affected by domestic ab= use. This will also support collaborating partners to understand each other= =92s professional language and work priorities (cf. IRVINE; KERRIDGE; MCPHEE; FREEMAN, 2002).

3.3 Risk analyses and case documentation

Target-situation. While the Istanbul Conven= tion requires risk analysis and case documentation (COUNCIL OF EUROPE, 2011), sector-specific policies =96 if the= y exist =96 present a wide range from no requirements of risk assessment to= very thorough risk assessment requirements like the use of "DASH" (RICHARDS, 2009) in multi-agency risk assessm= ent conferences (MARACs). There are references of risk assessment processes= to political directives, especially in the social sector. Importantly, ris= k assessment is linked to professional risk management and thus, the existe= nce and quality of risk assessment directives will directly impact police o= perations and in turn victim-survivors=92 safety (SONDERN; PFLEIDERER, 2020). Relatedly, case documentation avai= lability and its depth vary across sectors. This is also in line with rare = references of case documentation guidelines to national directives (except = data protection directives). Thorough case documentation can serve as evide= nce in court, however, in some countries, only case documentation from the = police and the medical sector are considered valid information, while the s= ocial sector is not heard. To maintain a high standard of domestic abuse ca= se documentation, training and quality reviews are required.

Status quo. Likewise, research findings on = practices regarding domestic abuse risk assessment and case documentation, = show that police oscillate between using recognized instruments for risk as= sessment versus gut feeling (HERA; SZEG= =D6, 2020). Usually, police case documentation is well elaborated. In c= ontrast, there is a tremendous lack of risk assessment in the medical field= where case documentation is mainly limited to mental and physical health i= ssues. Also, in the social sector, risk assessment and case documentation a= re underdeveloped. Interestingly, the example of risk assessment clearly in= dicates the associated human factors and their implication for police coope= ration. In Austria, for instance, the function of risk-assessment tools for= interagency cooperation differs between sectors. While the police use them= for brief insight into cases and for mitigating gaps in the training of po= lice officers (as they can use the tool as a checklist for interrogation fo= r example), the medical sector uses these tools to compensate the lack of r= esources and sensitivity and to identify domestic abuse cases, and the soci= al sector uses these tools for resource allocation. Thus, risk assessment t= ools fulfil multiple purposes and can be used as a translation and communic= ation tool during interagency cooperation.

Guidance. As shown above, there is a need f= or mandatory guidelines and training regarding risk assessment tools as wel= l as regular updating of the risk assessment made for each case. Also, inte= ragency cooperation in risk assessment will give the police the opportunity= to assess a case best by including all available perspectives. To face suc= h needs, IMPRODOVA provides an online Risk Assessment and Case Documentatio= n Module (https:/= /training.improdova.eu/en/training-materials-for-the-health-sector/risk-ass= essment-instruments/) that gives an overview on what risk factors might= be relevant and how the related process should look like. It is not a risk= assessment tool by itself, but rather a recommendation for police to desig= n their own risk assessment procedure. Mainly, the proposed integration of = risk analysis into first aid in cases of domestic violence foresees the fol= lowing four steps: (1) identification of risk factors, (2) risk assessment,= (3) description of necessary measures, and (4) follow-up. The IMPRODOVA Ri= sk Assessment and Case Documentation Module has undergone evaluation and re= lated adaptation (LOBNIKAR; VOGT; KERSTEN= , 2021; SZEG=D6; HERA, 2021).

Human factors. When frontline responders ev= aluate risk using gut feeling, their subjective perceptions are shaped by p= rior experience. In addition, current events can influence their gut feelin= g. Even if the gut feeling itself has an information value that should not = be underestimated, additional validated instruments should be used in the r= isk analysis to ensure that at least all red flag criteria have been taken = into account. It is also important to document the risk assessment and the = case itself. Good case documentation can be the decisive factor in front of= a court. As documentation is often considered as draining factor in work l= ife, police leaders should take their supervisory role seriously and check = the quality of their subordinates=92 reports in domestic abuse cases. The b= est chance to collect information from all possible angles and to validate = police risk assessment by other sources of information is risk assessment i= n form of conferencing as realized in MARAC, which will then guide subseque= nt action by police and the collaborating frontline responders. Unfortunate= ly, the current lack of case documentation and lack of domestic abuse risk = assessment in non-police organizations deprives interoperability of any wor= king basis so the human factors issue would not be relevant either. However= , in the initiatives serving as good practices and lighthouses, the form of= the human factors is exemplary: There is strong pre-defined leadership, co= mmunication on eye-level and open sharing of information motivated by a joi= nt focus on victims=92 safety (BRADLEY et = al., 2020) which is also in line with the findings by CHARMAN (2014).

3.4 Transfer of knowledge and training

Status quo. Although the Istanbul Conventio= n (COUNCIL OF EUROPE, 2011) requires t= his, professional training for those who see perpetrators and victims of do= mestic abuse is not offered systematically and comprehensively, especially = in the health sector. Often, it is part of basic education (e.g., for polic= e officers), although the information is scattered across curricula which i= s detrimental to an overall understanding ( Tool. To meet the needs of enlarged and qua= lified knowledge, IMPRODOVA set up the training website https://training.improdova.eu= , which contains information and training materials for first responders sp= ecialized for the three target groups: police, medical staff, and members o= f the social sector. All three training tracks include an introduction, spe= cialized information, and features like instructional videos. All materials= presented on the homepage are freely accessible and in part also editable = to enable trainers to adapt the materials (e.g., PowerPoint presentations) = according to their needs. Topics are organized in seven modules and cover t= hemes like forms and dynamics of domestic violence, indicators of domestic = violence, communication in cases of domestic violence, police investigation= and legal proceedings, risk assessment and safety planning, international = standards and principles of inter-organisational cooperation, and risk asse= ssment in cases of domestic violence in multi-professional teams. The train= ing website also underwent evaluation and adaptation (LOBNIKAR; VOGT; KERSTEN, 2021; MELA; HOUTSONEN, 2021).

Human factors. The better informed frontlin= e responders are about domestic abuse and its varieties, the better they ar= e able to prevent, detect, and intervene in domestic abuse cases. Especiall= y police leaders should be a role model to their staff in actively seeking = training demonstrating that there is no stop in learning about domestic abu= se as the phenomenon continues to evolve, and practice and research also co= nstantly provide new insights that support the management of domestic abuse= . With regard to interoperability, consideration should also be given to cr= eating training opportunities for police along with other responders to fac= ilitate interagency learning in the sense of =91communities of practice=92 = (e.g., CHARMAN, 2014) and to explore w= hat other approaches to addressing domestic abuse have proven successful in= other sectors or regions, for example. At the same time, police should be = aware that their collaborative partners are either significantly more or le= ss informed about the phenomenon of domestic abuse and its management (prof= essionals from the social vs. health sector) and thus may need to negotiate= their role within inter-agency settings (cf. COMEAU-VALL=C9E; LANGLEY, 2020).

3.5 Intra- and inter-organisational cooperation

Target-situation. Although required by inte= rnational standards like the Istanbul Convention (COUNCIL OF EUROPE, 2011), the official request for interagency = cooperation in domestic abuse management is often missing across profession= s, also with regard to risk analysis (VOG= T, 2020). One positive exception are the MARAC meetings where cooperati= on is an immanent part of risk assessment procedures. Of course, there are = best practice examples (e.g. MACHADO; PAI= S; MORGADO; FELGUEIRAS, 2021) that are piloted to serve as blueprint fo= r others. At times, the possibility to cooperate depends on releasing profe= ssionals from confidentiality obligations. Related to this gap, training an= d teaching content on cooperation are missing.

Status quo. IMPRODOVA research has shown th= at good partnership against domestic abuse starts with defining a priority = target group. The partnership has to be recognized officially and be led by= a financially independent steering committee. Also, it needs to be compreh= ensively organized for thoughtful exchange and use of information to manage= especially high-risk cases of domestic abuse. To be able to multiply knowl= edge, such partnership furthermore needs specialized contacts in each partn= er organization that facilitate the transfer of information into their own = organization (BRADLEY et al., 2020, LOBNIKAR; VOGT; KERSTEN, 2021).

Tool. To support interagency cooperation an= d communication, IMPRODOVA pilot tested a digital communication platform fo= r a network of first responders. The piloting took place in Slovenia and wa= s administrated by the police in the local area of Murska Subota. Other par= ticipants included the social workers of a counselling centre. The software= chosen for the communication platform was the fee-based stashcat=AE, due t= o its high security standard. Further description and evaluation results ar= e published by Vogt (2021).

Human factors. Interagency cooperation most= often implies multi-professional collaboration in the field of managing do= mestic abuse. While other institutions and other professions bring their ow= n cultures, also the cooperation itself connects to a history of cooperativ= e attempts that may be burdened by failure and stereotypes (cf. IRVINE; KERRIDGE; MCPHEE; FREEMAN, 2002; MILLER; KWAN; NG; FRIESEN; LOWE; MANIATE; LAKSHM= I; NIRULA; RICHARDSON, 2018). Police and its masculine norms have then = to be arranged in accordance with feminist norms of social workers, for exa= mple. To be able to make use of interoperability in domestic abuse manageme= nt, the human factors stemming from institutional logics of dealing with do= mestic abuse have to be understood. This contains own police logic and also= those by others like social workers and medical sector professionals. Poli= ce logic in dealing with domestic abuse is informed by the penal code; it i= s perpetrator-oriented and emphasizes prevention and law enforcement. Polic= e put a strong focus on physical and sexual violence as dominant forms of d= omestic abuse. Their strength lies in criminal prosecution, while their wea= kness is to meet the needs of victim-survivors. In contrast, the logic of t= he medical professions is on injury and illness, emphasizing patient-orient= ed procedures and recovery. Within the medical sector, a strong focus is pu= t on physical and sexual violence and neglect as dominant forms of domestic= abuse. Their strength - which is usually unknown to them =96 is that they = are the initial contact address for victim-survivors of domestic abuse (SONDERN; PFLEIDERER, 2021). Unfortunatel= y, they rarely detect domestic abuse without a mandatory routine examinatio= n. Compared with the police and the medical profession, the logic of the so= cial sector is to analyse the violent relationship and how it can be overco= me, characterized by a strong victim-orientation. The focus is on psycholog= ical and financial violence and coercive control as dominant forms of domes= tic abuse. While social workers have strong expertise in support of victim-= survivors, they have no power of action against perpetrators. It becomes cl= ear that police and all other sectors with their specific strengths and gap= s can benefit from cooperating aiming at managing domestic abuse cases in t= he best possible manner. In a nutshell, police psychologists=92 expertise i= s needed here to enable productive and sensitive communication always point= ing out that cooperation is the way to support victims comprehensively and = save their and their children=92s lives.

4. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING HUMA= N FACTORS IN INTERAGENCY COOPERATION

Analysing the human factor in this specific type of po= lice interoperability is central to the success of multi-professional netwo= rks with police involvement. According to Hagemann-White (2017, p. 1, translated by the authors),

=93the chain of intervention is perhaps best imagine= d as a ring with many doors, which can be entered or left at any point, and= which is also internally connected by many crossroads. It is crucial that = the chain (as an offer) is not interrupted, but has connection possibilitie= s at every point, which are mediated by the facilities. The principles of m= aintaining confidentiality and strengthening the self-determination of thos= e affected remain intact despite all cooperation=94.

To enable police and other frontline responders to bui= ld a productive network or =91chain of intervention=92 in the management of= domestic abuse, police psychologists=92 expertise is needed to highlight t= he human factor which is, beside all technical, legal and administrative ta= sks, the most decisive factor (IRVINE; KE= RRIDGE; MCPHEE; FREEMAN, 2002). Police psychologists who facilitate mul= ti-professional cooperation need to be aware of human factors that hinder i= nteroperability in domestic abuse cases and lead to demotivation and frustr= ation. Such factors are:

Former conflicts with other partners in the cooperation network that put= a burden on work relations.
Organizational egoism, i.e. that partners work in their own institutiona= l logic and consider their logic as the only adequate response and do not i= ntegrate their partners=92 logic into the overall picture.
Lack of cooperation and transparency among network partners. Also, some = potential partners are desperately needed in such networks but do not coope= rate. For example, judges do not want to be manipulated but to maintain the= ir independence; and also physicians are very hard to involve in such netwo= rks. However, most physicians are not trained in securing evidence in a way= that it can be used for legal proceedings and domestic abuse cases would h= ighly benefit if physicians knew about domestic abuse and its management an= d would send the victim to a forensic institute instead of diagnosing unspe= cific injuries.
Dependence on one network partner =96 as usually, the police is the cent= ral figure in such networks, changes in case processing affect all partners= of the network, and also prosecutors depend on good police work.
Lack of feedback, i.e. when a case is =93pushed forward=94, the individu= al frontline responders, especially the police, in most cases do not receiv= e any feedback on the development of a single case (due to many reasons, e.= g. data protection). They do not need this feedback for their daily work, h= owever, it would benefit their motivation and help them see the meaning of = their work as processing domestic abuse cases often seems to be tilting at = windmills.
High costs in terms of high effort and disappointing output. The process= ing of domestic cases takes a lot of time and effort, which has the potenti= al to demotivate those at the frontline. For example, dealing with reluctan= t victims, dealing with psychological violence like in stalking cases where= there might be a lot of indication but little evidence, or slow processing= of investigation files at the prosecution. These issues are not weaknesses= of cooperation networks themselves, but costs and strains that are general= ly observed when dealing with domestic abuse.
Too many guidelines and cooperation agreements may be necessary to keep = such networks running and structure communication (MOON; CLARKE, 2001), but at the same time, they tend to overc= omplicate the cooperation.

Equally, police psychologists should support multi-pro= fessional cooperation in domestic abuse cases by the following steps of rei= nforcing a common language of those working collaboratively (cf. CHARMAN, 2014):

1.=20 Communication. Only multi-professional cooperation based on mutual tr= ust can work effectively. This also implies appreciative tone and respectfu= l leadership (VOGT; VAN GILS; VAN QUAQUEB= EKE; GROVER; ECKLOFF, 2021). Accordingly, if the network is structured = by flat hierarchies, everyone can refer to the other (as pointed out by the= quote of HAGEMANN-WHITE, 2017 and al= so by the concept of accessibility by LIU= ; LYNDON; HOLL; JOHNSON; BILIMORIA; STEY, 2021). Also, short ways mean = fast processing of high risk cases of domestic abuse. Altogether, good, con= structive communication will fuel motivation for those who do the work.
2.=20 Vision & leadership. Clear guidance is a sign of good communicati= on and an important prerequisite for steering human factor variables into t= he favoured direction. It thus needs advocates and multipliers who drive im= provements in the fight against domestic abuse. Often, police are the centr= al figure and need to alter police regulations in a way that they are allow= ed to cooperate with other partners and exchange sensitive information (cf.= MOON; CLARKE, 2001). Especially exch= ange is critical to interoperability success (CHARMAN, 2014) and needs to be fostered.
3.=20 Organizational learning. It is necessary that network partners in mul= ti-professional cooperation mutually introduce themselves and their way of = processing domestic abuse cases so that all other partners may better under= stand their options and limitations and how cooperation can be improved (cf= . MILLER; KWAN; NG; FRIESEN; LOWE; MANIAT= E; LAKSHMI; NIRULA; RICHARDSON, 2018). Furthermore, such networks shoul= d also be engaged in giving their knowledge to external parties and for exa= mple, to train judges. This will give them the chance to grow as a network = and also to learn from those who are trained about their constraints and op= portunities for example via =91communities of practice=92 (CHARMAN, 2014). Related to that is public relations wo= rk. If a cooperation network is visible outside, this gives back appreciati= on from outside to those often =93unseen=94 frontline responders and their = daily fight against domestic abuse.

Thus, we recommend to support human factors in the mul= ti-professional policing of domestic abuse cases by maintaining motivation = high by means of finding a common =91language=92 with regard to policies an= d regulatory frameworks, data and statistics, risk analyses and case docume= ntation, transfer of knowledge and training, and intra- and inter-organisat= ional cooperation. Police psychologists can support to find and speak that = language to ensure a smooth communication and relatedly a strong vision and= leadership (e.g., via story-telling). Moreover, motivation can be supporte= d by keeping a growth-mindset and also by spreading the word about cooperat= ion which is a key aspect of success in learning and training (cf. JADOTTE; NOEL, 2021). It is inevitable to ma= intain a respectful- and trustful spirit especially when problems and criti= cism have to be discussed. In this vein, frustrating issues need to be addr= essed regularly and early. To do so, feedback must be enabled, for instance= in form of organizing informal meetings for those who do the work. A stron= g multi-professional network can efficiently protect, support, and help vic= tim-survivors of domestic abuse by conducting valid risk-assessment and ens= uring that no victim-survivor is left behind. Additionally, such a network = has the potential to have a voice that will be heard at the policy level.

References

BRADLEY, Lisa; B= ROOKS-HAY, Oona; BURMAN, Michele; =85; VOGT, C. =93Identifying gaps and bri= dges of intra- and inter-agency cooperation=94. IMP= RODOVA, March 2020. Available at: https://improdova.eu/pdf/IMPRODOVA_D2.4_= Gaps_and_Bridges_of_Intra-_and_Interagency_Cooperation.pdf?m=3D1585673383& . Accessed on: 28 July 2022.

BURMAN, Michele;= BROOKS-HAY, Oona; BRADLEY, Lisa. =93Recommendations for data harmonisation= and consolidation=94. IMPRODOVA, June 2020.= Available at: https://improdova.eu/pdf/Improdova_D3.2_Recommendations_Data_Harmonisati= on_Consolidation.pdf?m=3D1591377139&. Accessed on: 28 July 2022.

CAMPBELL, Jacque= lyn C., O'SULLIVAN, Chris, ROEHL, Janice, & WEBSTER, Daniel W. =93Intimate Partner Violence Risk Assessment Validation Stu= dy, Final Report=94. 2005. Available at: https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/vi= rtual-library/abstracts/intimate-partner-violence-risk-assessment-validatio= n-study-final. Accessed on 5 September 2022.

CHARMAN, Sarah. = =93Blue light communities: Cultural interoperability and shared learning be= tween ambulance staff and police officers in emergency response=94. Policing and Society, vol. 24 (1), 102-119, 2014.

COMEAU-VALL=C9E,= Mariline; LANGLEY, Ann. =93The interplay of inter-and intraprofessional bo= undary work in multidisciplinary teams=94. Organiza= tion Studies, vol. 41 (12), 1649-1672, 2020.

CORBIN, Juliet; = STRAUSS, Anselm. =93Basics of qualitative research:= Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory=94. London= : Sage, 2014.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE. =93Convention on Preventing and = Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention= )=94. Council of Europe Treaty Series, No. 210, 2011. Available at: https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventi= ons/full-list?module=3Dtreaty-detail&treatynum=3D210 . Accessed on:= 28 July 2022.

DECKER, Catharina; KERSTEN, Joachim. =93Mino= rity police officers=92 contribution to police-ethnic minority conflict man= agement=94. European Journa= l of Policing Studies, vol. 2 (4): 461-481, 2015.

DELPEUCH, Thierr= y; BONNET, Francois. =93Deliverable D2.1: Field stu= dy design=94. IMPRODOVA Consortium, 2018.

DROR, Itiel E. = =93Practical solutions to cognitive and human factor challenges in forensic= science=94. Forensic Science Policy & Manageme= nt: An International Journal, No. 4 (3-4): 105-113, 2013.

FAGERLUND, Moni= ca; HOUTSONEN, Jarmo. =93Map of available data on domestic violence=94. IMPRODOVA, Apr 2019. Available at: https://improdova.eu/pdf/Map-of-Available-Dat= a-on-Domestic-Violence.pdf?m=3D1555573584& . Accessed on: 28 July 2= 022.

FRA. =93Violenc= e against women: An EU-wide survey: Main results=94. FRA, European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 5 March 2014. A= vailable at: https:/= /fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2014/violence-against-women-eu-wide-survey-ma= in-results-report . Accessed on: 28 July 2022.

HACKER, Robyn L= .; HORAN, John J. "Policing people with mental illness: experimental evalua= tion of online training to de-escalate mental health crises." Journal of Experimental Criminology, vol. 15 (4). 551-5= 67, 2019.

HAGEMANN-WHITE,= Carol. =9320 Jahre HAIP: Enttabuisierung eines dunklen Themas=94. HAIP, 28 Sep. 2017. Available at: https://www.hannover.de/Service/Presse-Medien/Landes= hauptstadt-Hannover/Meldungsarchiv-f%C3%BCr-das-Jahr-2017/20-Jahre-HAIP-Ent= tabuisierung-eines-dunklen-Themas . Accessed on: 28 July 2022.

HERA, Gabor; SZ= EGŐ, Dora. =93Country reports and cross-national comparison on the ris= k assessment tools and case documentation used by frontline responders=94. = IMPRODOVA, March 2020. Available at: https://improdova.eu/pdf/IMPRODOVA_D2.3_Risk_Assessment_Tools_and_Case_Doc= umentation_of_Frontline_Responders.pdf?m=3D1585673380& . Accessed o= n 28 July 2022.

HERBINGER, Paul= Luca; NEUNKIRCHNER, Marion; LEONHARDMAIR, Norbert. =93European legislation= to fight domestic violence=94. European Law Enforc= ement Research Bulletin, vol. 20, 141-154, 2020. Available at: http://bulletin.cepol.europa.eu/index.php/bulletin/ar= ticle/view/415/339 . Accessed on: 28 July 2022.

HOUTSONEN, Jarm= o. =93Policing domestic violence: Strategy, competence, training=94. European Law Enforcement Research Bulletin, vol. 1= 9, 135-151, 2020. Available at: https://bulleti= n.cepol.europa.eu/index.php/bulletin/article/view/417/318 . Accessed on= : 28 July 2022.

IMPRODOVA Conso= rtium. =93Country reports and cross-national comparison on the implementati= on of inter-national norms and national best practices of frontline respond= ers=94. IMPRODOVA, March 2020. Available at:= https://imp= rodova.eu/pdf/IMPRODOVA_D2.2_Norms_and_Best_Practices_of_Frontline_Responde= rs.pdf?m=3D1585673378& . Accessed on: 28 July 2022.

IMPRODOVA Conso= rtium. =93IMPRODOVA - Improving responses to high impact domestic violence= =94. IMPRODOVA, 2019. Available at: https://improdova.eu/pdf/IMPRODOVA_Folder.pdf?m=3D1554286295&am= p; . Accessed on: 28 July 2022.

IRVINE, Rob; KE= RRIDGE, Ian; MCPHEE, John; FREEMAN, Sonia. =93Interprofessionalism and ethi= cs: Consensus or clash of cultures?=94 Journal of I= nterprofessional Care, vol. 16 (3), 199-210, 2002.

JADOTTE, Yuri T= ertilus; NOEL, Kimberly. =93Definitions and core competencies for interprof= essional education in telehealth practice=94. Clini= cs in Integrated Care, vol. 6, 100054, 2021.

KAIP, Dennis; I= RELAND, Lana; HARVEY, Joel. =93=91I don=92t think a lot of people respect u= s=92=96police and social worker experiences of interagency working with loo= ked-after children=94. Journal of Social Work Pract= ice, online first, 1-16, 2022.

KUNZ, Navina; <= span class=3D"negrita">VOGT, Catharina; KERSTEN, Joachim; BURCHARD, = Ansgar. =93Complaint procedures and restorative justice solutions for confl= icts between police and Turkish minority people=94. In: Vogt, C.; Kersten, J. (org.). Strengthening Democratic Processes: Police Oversight Through= Restorative Justice in Austria, Hungary and Germany. Germany= : Verlag f=FCr Polizeiwissenschaft, 2016. p. 65-82.

LOBNIKAR, Brank= o; VOGT, Catharina; KERSTEN, Joachim (org.). Improv= ing Frontline Responses to Domestic Violence in Europe. Slovenia: Un= iversity of Maribor Press, 2021. Available at: https://doi.org/10.18690/978-9= 61-286-543-6 .

LIU, Pingyang; = LYNDON, Audrey; HOLL, Jane L.; JOHNSON, Julie; BILIMORIA, Karl Y.; STEY, An= ne M. =93Barriers and facilitators to interdisciplinary communication durin= g consultations: A qualitative study=94. BMJ open, vol. 11 (9), e046111, 2021.

MACHADO, Paulo;= PAIS, L=FAcia; MORGADO, S=F3nia; FELGUEIRAS, S=E9rgio. =93An inter-organis= ational response to domestic violence: The pivotal role of police in Porto,= Portugal=94. European Law Enforcement Research Bul= letin, vol. 21, 121-139, 2021. Available at = https://bulletin.cepol.europa.eu/index.php/bulletin/article/view/418 . = Accessed on: 28 July 2022.

MARQUES, Paulo = Barbosa; PAULINO, Mauro (ed.). Police Psychology: N= ew Trends in Forensic Psychological Science. London: Academic Press,= 2021.

MELA, Marianne;= HOUTSONEN, Jarmo. =93Assessment of IMPRODOVA Training Formats and Material= =94. IMPRODOVA, March 2021. Available at: https://improdova.eu/pdf/Improdova_D4.4_website.pdf?m= =3D1626411131& . Accessed on: 28 July 2022.

MILLER, Daniel;= KWAN, Debbie; NG, Stella; FRIESEN, Farah; LOWE, Mandy; MANIATE, Jerry; LAK= SHMI, Matmari; NIRULA, Latika; RICHARDSON, Denyse. =93Initiating communitie= s of practice for teaching and education scholarship in hospital settings: = A multi-site case study [version 1]=94. MedEdPublis= h, vol. 7, 127, 2018.

MILLER, Laurenc= e. =93Good cop - Bad cop: Problem Officers, Law Enforcement Culture, and St= rategies for Success.=94 Journal of Police and Crim= inal Psychology, vol. 19 (2), 30=9648, 2004.

MOON, Terry; CL= ARK, Thea. =93Interoperability for joint and coalition operations.=94 Australian Defence Force Journal, vol. 151, 23-36= , 2001.

OCTOBER, Martta= ; NIPULI, Suvi. =93IMPRODOVA Policy Development Module: Manual & Checkl= ist=94. IMPRODOVA, May 2020. Available at: <= a target=3D"_blank" href=3D"https://improdova.eu/pdf/Improdova_D3.1_THL_web= site.pdf?m=3D1629136720">https://improdova.eu/pdf/Improdova_D3.1_THL_websit= e.pdf?m=3D1629136720& . Accessed on: 28 July 2022.

OCTOBER, Martta= ; NIPULI, Suvi. =93IMPRODOVA Policy Development Module Assessment Report (D= 4.2)=94. IMPRODOVA, 28 Jan. 2021. Available = at: https://i= mprodova.eu/pdf/IMPRODOVA_D4.2-Policy_Feedback_Cycle_Assessment_Report_Webs= ite.pdf?m=3D1617028916& . Accessed on: 28 July 2022.

PECKOVER, Sue; = GOLDING, Berenice. =93Domestic abuse and safeguarding children: Critical is= sues for multiagency work=94. Child Abuse Review, vol. 26 (1), 40-50, 2017.

RICHARDS, Laura= . =93Domestic Abuse, Stalking and Harassment and Ho= nour Based Violence Identification and Assessment and Management Model=94.<= /span> London: Association of Police Officers (ACPO), 2009.

ROSENZWEIG, Mar= k R.; PAWLIK, Kurt. "The international handbook of psychology=94. London: S= age, 2000.

SONDERN, Lisa; = PFLEIDERER, Bettina. =93Why the integration of gender aspects will improve = domestic violence risk assessment=94. European Law = Enforcement Research Bulletin, vol. 20, 155-165, 2020. Available at:= http://bulletin.cepol.europa.eu/index.php/bull= etin/article/view/413/332. Accessed on: 28 July 2022.

SONDERN, Lisa; = PFLEIDERER Bettina. =93The challenge of involving medical doctors as import= ant frontline responders in fighting domestic violence=94. European Law Enforcement Research Bulletin, vol. 21, 141-150= , 2021. Available at: htt= ps://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=3Dhein.journals/elerb21= =A7ion=3D14 . Accessed on: 28 July 2022.

STOTT, Clifford= ; RADBURN, Matthew. =93Understanding crowd conflict: Social context, psycho= logy and policing=94. Current Opinion in Psychology= , vol. 35, 76-80, 2020.

SZEG=D6, Dora; = HERA, Gabor. =93Assessment of RAIMO: IMPRODOVA Integration Module for HIDV = Risk Assessment Tools and Case Documentation (D4.3)=94. IMPRODOVA, 28 Feb. 2021. Available at: https://improdova.e= u/pdf/IMPRODOVA_D4.3-Evaluation_Report_HIDV_risk_assessment_Case_documentat= ion_website.pdf?m=3D1617028917& . Accessed on: 28 July 2022.

UTSEY, Cory. = =93The impact of COVID-19 on domestic violence in Brazil=94. Borgen Magazine, 7 Aug. 2021. Available at: https://www.borgenmagazine.com/impact-of-covid-19-on-= domestic-violence-in-brazil/ . Accessed on: 28 July 2022.

VOGT, Catharina= . =93A digital communication platform for inter-agency collaboration to man= age high-impact domestic abuse: Structure and essentials=94. In: Lobnikar, = B.; Vogt, C.; Kersten, J. (org.). Improving Frontli= ne Responses to Domestic Violence in Europe. Slovenia: University of= Maribor Press, 2021. p. 279-296. Available at: https://doi.org/10.18690/97= 8-961-286-543-6 .

VOGT, Catharina= . =93Interagency cooperation=94. European Law Enfor= cement Research Bulletin, 19, 153-163, 2020. Available at: http://bulletin.cepol.europa.eu/index.php/bulletin/articl= e/view/412/323 . Accessed on: 28 July 2022.

VOGT, Catharina= ; VAN GILS, Suzanne; VAN QUAQUEBEKE, Niels; GROVER, Steven; ECKLOFF, Tilman= . =93Proactivity at work: The roles of respectful leadership and leader gro= up prototypicality=94. Journal of Personnel Psychol= ogy, vol. 20 (3): 114-123, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000= 275

WESTLEY, Willia= m. =93Responsibilities of the Police=94. In:= Newburn, T. (org.). Policing: Key Readings.= London: Willan Publishing, 2005. p. 137=9640.

WEULEN KRANENBA= RG, Marleen; LEUKFELDT, E R. =93Cybercrime in conte= xt: The human factor in victimization, offending, and policing=94. G= ermany: Springer, 2021.

WITTENBAUM, Gwe= n M.; HOLLINGSHEAD, Andrea B.; BOTERO, Isabel C. "From cooperative to motiv= ated information sharing in groups: Moving beyond the hidden profile paradi= gm." Communication Monographs, vol. 71 (3), = 286-310, 2004.

WORLD HEALTH OR= GANIZATION. =93Violence against women=94. World Hea= lth Organization, 2021. Available at: htt= ps://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-women. A= ccessed on: 5 September 2022.