This study classified domestic violence into spousal abuse, child abuse and elder abuse and reviewed theoretical backgrounds and previous studies for their explanations. In family violence, personal particulars are influential. Furthermore, a conflict in interactions between family and society and other issues such as social perception & culture and legal system are mixed. To analyze the causes of such problems and multi-level factors more systematically, therefore, this study summarized the factors affecting family violence in microsystem, mesosystem and macrosystem based on the ecological structure designed by Kemp (1998).
Regarding family violence-related legislation problems, punishment on violators is lenient since ‘Protection of the Family of Origin’ is about to be legislated. In addition, victims have been poorly protected. The following problems have also been pointed out: legislative vacuum due to the listing of family violence-related acts under the Punishment of Domestic Violence Act, poor protection of informants under the Act on Protection on Specific Crime Informants, absence of authorities such as flagrant offender arrest by the police, unclear criteria for indictment suspension under the condition of consultation, poor punishments on the violation of temporary measures, difficulties in execution by the type of protective disposition including restraining order, poor punishment on the violators of first-aid measure or urgent temporary measure and poor utilization of order of protection and compensation order. Child abuse-related legislation has the following problems: Differences in perception among related agencies due to unclear concept of abuse, absence of measures when a field investigation on child abuse is refused, absence of a system to protect a bona fide informant, limitations in punishing child abusers, difficulties in isolation due to the execution of parental rights by the child abuser. In elder abuse legislation, the following problems were found: unclear concept of abuse such as economic abuse and self-neglect, absence of laws which enables judicial intervention on elder abuse (e.g., Punishment of Elder Abuse Act, etc.), low number of abuse informant groups (8 groups), lack of abuse punishment systems in addition to counseling recommendation, poor victim protection and support system.
To prevent family violence, it is needed to strengthen a social safety net. In the Republic of Korea, a social safety net includes a concept of a social security system, which covers social insurance, public assistance, emergency welfare and social services. If family violence is only focused, in particular, a social safety net can be defined as diverse intervention services designed to prevent such violent crime and minimize the damage. This study introduced the social safety net in report & discovery, service and follow-up stages after diving family violence into spousal abuse, child abuse and elder abuse.
In FGI and questionnaire survey, current responses to family violence were investigated against the employees of victim support organizations and law enforcement agencies. Then, the results revealed both similarity and difference in terms of perception between the two groups. In [Definition on Family Violence], there was a clear difference between victim support and law enforcement agencies.
According to the FGI, victim support organizations defined ‘family violence’ as a crime which covers physical, emotional and economic violence and neglect. In contrast, law enforcement agencies have focused on physical violence only. This difference was found in a questionnaire survey which asked the degree of family violence. In contrast, victim support organizations would see emotional abuse and neglect as well as physical abuse as ‘family violence’ quite often.
According to analysis of [Other Agencies’ Interest in Family Violence], there were a lot of opinions from victim support organizations. In the FGI and questionnaire survey, in particular, the following problems were pointed out: Judicial agency (especially the police)’s poor consciousness of human rights on victims, lack of thorough investigation on family violence-related cases, inactive intervention on abusers. In terms of [Service Linkage with Independent Organization], diverse problems were found while providing services to victims. In particular, there were a lot of complaints on [Poor Shelter Infrastructure] according to the FGI. Specifically, the following problems were observed: Lack of facilities/operating staff, regional disparity in operating facilities, pressure on shelter operation for the sake of administrative expediency, necessity of a serious victim-only shelter. They were confirmed through a questionnaire survey as well.
Most respondents agreed that [Corrective Measure on Abuser] should be strengthened according to the FGI and questionnaire survey. The employees from the family violence relief center mostly believed that family violence assaulters should change by actively taking take part in a rehab program, and that such rehab program for abusers is helpful. On the contrary, child shelter centers agreed that ‘Corrective Measure on Abuser’ should be reinforced. However, they thought that the rehab program should be operated by an abuser control agency, showing a burden of running such program.
When asked about the operation of the [Purposes of Legislation for Current Punishment of Domestic Violence Act] through a questionnaire survey, 46.6% said that the law is operated as intended while 53.4% expressed a negative opinion. In terms of the legislative purposes of the said act, ‘Protection of the Family of Origin’ was most responded with 60.8%, followed by ‘Treatment and Disposition for Rehabilitation (58.4%)’ and ‘Protection of Victims and their Family Members (54.3%)’. In contrast, ‘Punishment of Abuser (20.7%)’ was relatively low.
When asked about [Suggestions for the Amendment of the Punishment of Domestic Violence Act], ‘Establishment of the Ground for Psychotherapy and Disorder/Addiction Treatment’ was most responded with 73.6%, followed by ‘Improvement of the Regulation for Victim Protection while Maintaining Current Purposes of Legislation (51.7%)’ and ‘Enactment of the Abuser Punishment-oriented Laws such as Special Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes (37.3%)’. Regarding the ‘Deletion of the FAMILY OF ORIGIN Part’, 18.8% responded ‘Yes’. Specifically, the figures were higher in victim support organizations (23.4%) than in law enforcement agencies (11.6%).
When asked about [Drinking-related Mitigation of Punishment], ‘Establishment of Punishment Mitigation on all Crimes Including Family Violence’ was most responded with 59.6% with absolute dominance, followed by ‘Partial Mitigation of Punishment on the Domestic Violence Act (20.9%)’, ‘Mitigation of Punishment on All Types of Domestic Violence Act (16.4%)’ and ‘Mitigation of Punishment Depending on Criminal Law (as low as 3.7%)’.
Regarding the [The Parts in which the Punishment of Domestic Violence Act Should be Improved], ‘Introduction of ‘Flagrant Offender Arrest System for Immediate Isolation’ was the highest, followed by ‘Grant of the Claim for Temporary Measures to Judicial Police Officers for Victim Protection’, ‘Establishment of the Grounds for Information Sharing among the Related Agencies’, ‘Continued Monitoring on Temporary and Emergency Measures’ and ‘Integration of Domestic Violence Prevention Act and Punishment of Domestic Violence Act’.
In [The Parts which Should be Improved for the Reinforcement of Victim Protection Regulations], ‘Reinforcement of Victim and Informant Protection’ was the highest, followed by ‘Introduction of Duty Counsel System for Victim’, ‘Introduction of Victim Statement Assistant System’, ‘Expansion of Victim Protection Order Period’, ‘Enactment of Special Act on the Punishment of Elder Abuser’, ‘Diversification of Victim Protection Order Types’ and ‘Promotion of Compensation Order System’.
Lastly, regarding [The Parts Needed to Strengthen Punishment and Rehab for Abuser], ‘Severer Criminal Punishment at Violation of Protective Disposition and Victim Protection Order’ was the highest, followed by ‘Aggravated Punishment on Violation by the Related Person’, ‘Criminal Punishment, no Penalty, on the Temporary Measure Violator’, ‘Launching of Concurrent Sentence of Punishment and Attendance Centre Order’, ‘Expansion of Care & Custody Facilities for Abuser’, ‘Launching of Abuser Counseling & Education Consignment as a Part of Temporary Measures’, ‘Mitigation on the Requirements of Forced Hospitalization for those with Mental Illness Caused by Family Violence’ and ‘Exclusion of Penalty with Family Violence Cases’.
To reduce and prevent family violence crimes, it is needed to strengthen the publicity of social welfare service and family violence-related services as a part of reinforcing a social safety net. In particular, there is a necessity to strengthen family protection through the improvement of family competence and provide customized services to the families vulnerable to domestic violence. Furthermore, a public assistance service designed to mitigate family violence caused by poverty should be reinforced. To improve the publicity of family violence-related service systems, first, it is required to strengthen the management of public cases in the families on the verge of domestic violence. Since it is a long process from the family violence crisis to its end, follow-up effects as well as follow-up treatments are not ensured due to the provision of short and segmental services. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a pan-bureau linkage network which can strengthen counseling for the treatment and prevention of the families vulnerable to domestic violence and respond to multiple demands for the management of public cases.
There should be principles on the criteria as a way to facilitate inter-institutional collaboration system to mitigate and prevent family violence. The Principle #1 is victim-oriented services. To connect the scattered social services in an efficient manner, a system which can approach victims and provide services fast is essential. Some problems such as poor approach to the facilities and lack of specialized facilities have been frequently mentioned in the surveys. In other words, a social safety net should be reorganized in a way to make all facilities and centers in each region freely shared. For this, overall facility restructuring is required such as the reduction of redundant services and discovery of the facilities which are in need of improvement after investigating the current facilities including victim shelter, family violence relief center, child protection agency, senior citizen care institution, psychotherapy agency, alcohol rehabilitation center, medical institution and vocational rehabilitation center. The Principle #2 is the establishment of a leading agency. For the restructuring of a social safety net needed to mitigate and prevent family violence, it is essential to organize pan-bureau task forces and get help from local authorities. After all, it should be a local authority which leads this project because the administrative management and civil support duties are essential even though such services are connected under any methods.
The Principle #3 is the equal guarantee of services. At present, inter-agency and regional disparities are very large. Therefore, it is needed to have a standardized service system by organizing a central unit and inspection teams by local authority.
Lastly, there should be criminal justice policy-oriented management by a risk level to systematize multi-agency collaboration. For this, it is needed to develop a risk assessment tool and establish an organic management system by the risk level. The control and treatment of the criminals in a high-risk group should be strengthened by differentiating the control level by referring to the advanced systems such as the MAPPA in the U.K. In terms of the management of victims, the protection of their human rights should be focused just like the DASH or IDVA in the U.K. In addition, it is necessary to approach a society in which those in a high-risk group live and establish a good relationship with a local community. For a low-intermediate risk group, noncriminal services should be provided. In contrast, criminal justice policy which reinforces criminal judicial management should be provided to a high-risk group.

Keywords: Family Violence, Social Safety Net