The Asian Conference of Women’s Shelters ended on August 29 advocating for the transformation of women’s shelters. Among the experiences shared, the Dutch Orange House was the most noteworthy. Orange House differentiates danger levels with red, orange, and green houses and does not have a closed-end management policy. They do not stop survivors and perpetrators from meeting. In fact, other than in cases of honor killing, Orange House simultaneously gives consultations to survivors and perpetrators to decrease the pressure on both sides. It also has a child support program that accepts women smokers as long as they smoke outdoors on the balcony.

Social worker Claire Loeber of Blijf Groep in Amsterdam said that through deep introspection, Orange House realized that domestic violence is not a personal or private matter but a social problem. To help victims stop the violence, we must focus on the family and social environment to prevent the expansion and intensification of domestic violence, so action must be directed towards a wide range of people including survivors, perpetrators, and witnesses. It is also important to take a comprehensive approach to the various support agencies, like the police and judicial authorities, for professional services.

Orange House started many reforms, such as changing shared rooms to private ones due to Dutch studies that showed shelters lacked an appropriate environment for rehabilitation as residents suffered from excessive pressure from a lack of privacy and space. These reforms, known as the “Orange House path,” include keeping shelters secret while allowing them to be semi-open. Previously, women shared their rooms, including the bathroom, kitchen, and so on, with other women, but now women and their children can have private rooms. In the past, there were no social services offered after 9:00 p.m.; only a contact number was available. But now the front desk is open 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Loeber emphasized the most interesting point: a shelter typically keeps women away from their partners and only informs the latter that the former is receiving counseling. Orange House, on the other hand, invites the women’s partners to the consultations. Now, with the perspectives of both the survivors and perpetrators, the narrative is more complex. In the past, these women could only have contact with their children through a court ruling, but now the two can come together at support meetings. Before, shelters only provided activities for children, but now they offer support programs as well.

In conclusion, Orange House is special in that it is a shelter that seeks to empower women, show them that recovery from self-conflict and self-doubt is a normal process, and let them know they can make their own decisions and contact their partners to reflect together on their current reality. In contrast to Orange House’s progress, Taiwan is still stuck on the issue(s) of whether a woman should be in long-term placement or the assessment stage in shelters. While Orange House had great support from their government and worked closely with law enforcement, Taiwan’s shelters could not become a one-stop service due to a lack of government resources and social awareness. There is still a long way to go in Taiwan.