Title: Formal support services and (dis)empowerment of domestic violence victims:
Perspectives from women survivors in Ghana
Version: 1 Date: 24 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
Manuscript Review: State Support Services and (Dis)empowerment of Domestic Violence
Victims – Perspectives from Women Survivors in Ghana
This study provides timely information on the services available to survivors of domestic
violence and challenges associated with assessing these services. The study is well done, the
authors had taken the necessary steps to ensure the ethical validity of their study. However, there
are a few concerns with the manuscript:
Major concerns/suggestions:
1. The presentation of study results is a bit confusing. It appears the authors have provided
perceptions from both DV survivors and their experts but the heading on page 9 states:
“Perspectives of women survivors of DV on state sponsored support services”. For instance,
the theme on scope and forms of state supported services includes perspectives of experts
i.e., under sub-heading: The criminal justice services. I suggest the authors either revise the
heading to include expert perspectives in the heading or have separate sections, one on survivors’
perspectives and the other for the experts.
2. The paragraph 3 on page 9 i.e. “None of the 21 women survivors at the time…” seems to
be discussion the survivors’ experiences with the support services and not necessarily the scope
and forms of state support services as the sub-heading implies. This section should be moved to
the theme that discusses survivor experiences. Here, I suggest the authors provide a description
of the different services available and which of these services were utilized by the survivors.
For instance, the authors can explain what “social services and basic material support” services
entail, what are the state-approved services provided by civil society organizations etc.
3. It is not clear how the authors arrived at the conclusion on page 10: “The results also show that
none of the DV survivors knew about the protection and occupation orders…”. Did the authors
ask the survivors if they had any knowledge of this service? This appears to be the perception of
the women’s right activist. Similar to the suggestion made above, I suggest the authors revised
the theme on scope and forms of state support services to focus on survivors’ knowledge and
utilization of the scope and forms of services available. The authors can providers their readers a
comprehensive overview of the different services available i.e., criminal justice services, social
services and basis material support etc., under this theme as well as the number of survivors’
who have knowledge of the availability of these services and those who have not.
It appears survivors are responsible for their medical care after the DV incident even though
free medical care  is part of  support services provided by the government under the DV Act.
How many participants were aware that their medical care should be free? For the sub-theme on
criminal justice services, is a police officer required to accompany survivor of DV to medical
facilities? Is this stipulated under the DV Act?  A overview of the different services available
should be provided. For instance, the sub-theme on social services and basic material support
should highlight the following: Free medical care which includes the provision of a medical
report, the victims of DV support funds that should provide state-sponsored shelter etc., and if
and how many of the survivors were aware of these services. If the authors did not collect data
on number of survivors who were aware of the different services, it is still necessary to provide
their readers information on actual social and material services provided in the act.
4. I suggest the authors create a theme on challenges associated with utilizing these services.
This information appears to be clumped up together with other notable findings of the study. For
instance, under this sub-heading i.e., Social Services and Basic Material Support, the authors
present some information of the services available to survivors as well as the challenges they
face obtaining medical reports. It is clear that a lack of funding is a major challenge; a mere 1%
of the national budget is allocated to the provision of services under the DV Act. This finding
has important policy implications and is a primary finding of the study.
5. The relevance of mediation services from quasi-judicial institutions is not clear. Is this a
stipulated provision under the act? Similar to their reference to Section 8 and Section 29 of
the Act on page 11, the authors need to provide additional information on how these services
are related to the DV Act. Are these services free to survivors? Are survivors referred to these
services? Who refers them to mediation? It seems these mediation services are supplementary
services available to survivors of DV to resolve the dispute between couples and not necessarily
address DV. On page 3, the authors state that DV is considered a criminal offense in Ghana.
However, the section on mediation services appears to classify abuse as mild or extreme. Is this
classification used by the DV Act? Some clarification is needed here.
Also, I would like to point out that marital disputes which mediation services address are entirely
different issues from violence. Including these services as part of state-sponsored services
gives the impression that the government is mediating violent criminal offenses. Also, if the
perpetrators of violence are referred to mediation, it gives the impression that they are not being
held accountable for their crimes. This may be a deterrent for survivors to report incidents of
violence and puts them at risk, if they are sent back home with their abusers. Do officials of
CHRAJ conduct follow-up home visits? Some more context on these mediation services are
necessary.
6. Similar to mediation services, services provided by civil society organizations are
supplementary services to those stipulated by the DV Act. The author may want to make this
delineation since the focus of the manuscript is on state-sponsored services. I suggest the authors
revised the title and objectives of the manuscript to shift the focus from state-sponsored services
to all services available to survivors of DV, both public and private services. Also, the authors
may consider using the term government-sponsored or public support services.
7. I suggest the authors change the theme on expectations of women survivors of DV of support
from state agencies to challenges associated with accessing these services. Here, the authors
can include expert perspectives as well as those of survivors. The authors highlight a number
of challenges to the provision of comprehensive services in their conclusion and implications
section but there is not section that adequately presents these challenges to the reader in the
results section.
8. The authors identify root causes of DV in their section on conclusion and implications but
has not been highlighted anywhere else in the paper. An overview of the literature these root
causes should be included in the background section.
Minor Concerns/Suggestions:
1. I suggest the authors use countries instead of state. See abstract: As part of efforts to…, several
states…” States here give the impression of states in Ghana. See also page 2, background – 2nd
sentence: These concerted international…prescribe how states [can]…”; 3rd sentence: “Several
African states…” and 4th sentence: “Some of these treaties…obliges ratifying states…”.
2. Restructure first sentence in results section in abstract. Maybe: The Ghanaian government
provides a number of services which survivors were aware of.
3. Page 3, paragraph one: replace “…caters for filling of…” with “makes provisions for filling
complaints…”
4. Restructure sentence 4, page 3 paragraph 1: “…has been described as progressive because….
Replace “…aside catering for the services…” with “…because it makes provisions for social
and material support service in addition to services of the police and justice systems. (Something
along these lines).
5. Need to provide references to studies referred to in paragraph 2, page 3.
6. May want to delete the sentence on “lead advocate of one of the local women’s right
organizations’ volunteering to assist research group. This specific information not necessary.
(i.e., sentence 5, under sampling and recruitment of study participants).
7. Revise sentence 2, page 21 (under discussion section). Suggested change: “A majority of our
study sample were married…fit the sub population…”
8. For the statement on vulnerability theory, the authors can strengthen this point by providing
information on the gender disparity in access to these services in Ghana.
9. Revise first sentence, paragraph 2, discussion section. Suggested change: Several studies of
the DOVSSU…have shown that officials are unable adequate services…due to institutional
constraints”. Also, identify the specific constraints found by these studies.
10. Revise first sentence, first paragraph on page  25.