Family Safety Teams
Pilot Evaluation: Stage One
Baseline Study and Formative
Evaluation
A report prepared for the Ministry of Justice by
Robyn Dixon & Deborah Widdowson
Centre for Child and Family Policy Research
Janet Fanslow & David Thomas
Social and Community Health
School of Population Health
University of Auckland
Trish Knaggs, Latika Vasil, Esther Banbury
Ministry of Justice
31 August 2006
Published in 2008 by the
Ministry of Justice
PO Box 180
Wellington
New Zealand
2008  Crown Copyright
ISBN 978-0-478-29057-8
Disclaimer
All reasonable effort has been made to ensure that the information provided in this publication
is accurate, up to date, and otherwise adequate in all respects as of the date when the report was
completed. Nevertheless, this information is made available strictly on the basis that the
Ministry of Justice disclaims any and all responsibility for any inaccuracy, error, omission, or any
other kind of inadequacy, deficiency, or flaw in, or in relation to, the information; and fully
excludes any and all liability
of any kind to any person or entity that chooses to rely upon the information.
2
Contents
Tables 5
Figures 5
Executive Summary
1
Introduction
2
Context 25
2.1 Background literature
2.2 Purpose and objectives of pilot Family Safety Teams
2.3 Generic logic model
3
Methods 35
3.1 Evaluation Objectives
3.2 Evaluation Design
3.3 Sample: baseline study
3.4 Data Collection
3.5 Formative Process
3.6 Ethics
3.7 Data analysis
4
Results: Baseline findings
4.1 Police recorded family violence offences
4.1.1 National
4.1.2 FST sites
4.2 POL 400s
4.2.1 National
4.2.2 FST sites
4.3 Applications for Protection Orders – Demographic Profile of Applicants and
Respondents
4.3.1 National
4.3.2 FST Sites
4.4 Convictions
4.4.1 National
4.4.2 FST Sites
4.5 Commitments to Domestic Violence Programmes
4.5.1 National
4.5.2 FST sites
4.6 Referrals to agencies
4.6.1 Department of Child, Youth and Family Services
4.6.2 National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges
4.7 Summary of data
4.8 Baseline interviews
4.8.1 Auckland Stakeholders
4.8.2 Wairarapa Stakeholders
4.8.3 Hutt Stakeholders
4.8.4 Overall Summary of Findings
5
Results: Formative phase
5.1 Auckland FST
5.1.1 Team profile
7
23
25
32
33
35
35
36
36
37
38
38
41
42
42
42
43
43
44
45
45
46
47
47
48
50
50
51
53
53
55
56
56
57
69
76
83
85
85
85
3
5.1.2 Physical location and structure
85
5.1.3 Staffing Issues
87
5.1.4 Summary of activities
87
5.1.5 Summary of issues
89
5.1.6 Logic models related to the Auckland Family Safety Team
90
5.2 Wairarapa FST
93
5.2.1 Team profile
93
5.2.2 Physical location and structure
93
5.2.3 Composition/Staffing
94
5.2.4 Staffing issues
94
5.2.5 Summary of activities for Wairarapa
94
5.2.6 Summary of issues
95
5.2.7 Logic models related to the Wairarapa Family Safety Team
96
5.3 Hutt Valley FST
99
5.3.1 Team profile
99
5.3.2 Physical Location and Structure
99
5.3.3 Staffing issues
100
5.3.4 Summary of activities
101
5.3.5 Summary of issues
102
5.3.6 Logic models related to the Hutt Family Safety Team
103
6
Discussion and Suggested Ways Forward
107
6.1 Suggested ways forward: processes for highlighting and addressing issues identified
by evaluation team
108
6.1.1 Scope of practice
108
6.1.2 Relationships with collaborating agencies
109
6.1.3 Ability to address problems within home agencies as they are identified 112
6.1.4 Staffing: fit-for-purpose (employment issues/full complement of skills on
the team)
112
6.1.5 Information sharing and communication
113
6.1.6 Child safety
115
6.1.7 Considerations for the future
115
7
Conclusions
117
References 119
Appendix 1: Stakeholder Interview Schedule
123
Appendix 2: Victim Interview Schedule
127
Appendix 3: Perpetrator Interview Schedule
129
Appendix 4: Participant Information Sheet and Consent Form
131
Appendix 5: Recruitment Guide for Clients (Victims and Perpetrators)
135
Appendix 6: Safety Protocol
137
Appendix 7: Family Violence Statistics: A Baseline Study for the Family Safety Teams
Initiative
141
Appendix 8: Family Safety Team Pilot Project – Twelve Month Update Report August
2006 209
Appendix 9: Report from the Family Safety Team National Steering Committee to the
Evaluation Advisory Group
221
4
Tables
Table 2.1:
Table 2.2:
Table 3.1:
Table 3.2:
Table 3.3:
Table 3.4:
Table 3.5:
Table 3.6:
Table 3.7:
Table 3.8:
Table 4.1:
Table 4.2:
Table 4.3:
Table 4.4:
Table 4.5:
Table 5.1:
Table 5.2:
Table 5.3:
Table 5.4:
Table 5.5:
Table 5.6:
Table 5.7:
Table 5.8:
Table 5.9:
Table 6.1:
Factors that can assist successful collaboration
General intervention logic for Family Safety Teams
Evaluation objectives for baseline study
Outline of baseline study
Number of stakeholders interviewed in Auckland
Number of stakeholders interviewed in Wairarapa
Number of stakeholders interviewed in Hutt Valley
Number of victim and perpetrator interviews according to site
Evaluation objectives and data sources: Formative evaluation study
Summary of contact with FSTs during the formative phase
Details Relating to Applications for Protection Orders 1999 to 2005
Outcome of Prosecutions for Assault on a Child – National Totals
Preventing Violence in the Home (Auckland): referrals and links
Preventing Violence in the Home (Auckland): Education Programmes and
Related Activities
Wairarapa Women’s Refuge: Referrals and links
Auckland FST Logic Model for Objective 1: Formal Systems and Structures
Auckland FST Logic Model for Objective 2: Integrated Interventions
Auckland FST Logic Model for Objective 3: National Best Practice
Wairarapa FST Logic Model for Objective 1: Formal Systems and Structures
Wairarapa FST Logic Model for Objective 2: Integrated Interventions
Wairarapa FST Logic Model for Objective 3: National Best Practice
Hutt FST Logic Model for Objective 1: Formal Systems and Structures
Hutt FST Logic Model for Objective 2: Integrated Interventions
Hutt FST Logic Model for Objective 3: National Best Practice
Summary of identified issues
26
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
37
38
46
48
59
60
69
91
92
93
97
98
99
103
104
105
107
Figures
Figure 4.1:
Figure 4.2:
Figure 4.3:
Figure 4.4:
Figure 4.5:
Figure 4.6:
Figure 4.7:
Figure 4.8:
Figure 4.9:
Figure 4.10:
Police Recorded Family Violence Offence Rates per 10,000 Population
1999–2005
Police Recorded Family Violence Offence Rates per 10,000 Population
in FST Sites 1999–2005
Number of POL 400s Completed by Police per 10,000 Population
1999–2005 – National
Number of POL 400s Completed by the Police per 10,000 Population
in the FST Sites 1999–2005
Applications for Protection Orders – National Summary 1999–2005
Total Number of Applications for Protection Orders – FST Sites
1999–2005
Number of Convictions for Family Violence Related Offences
1999–2005 - National
Number of convictions for male assaults female, by FST Site 1999–2005
Number of Convictions for Breach of Protection Order, by FST Site
1999–2005
Number of Convictions for Assault on a Child, by FST Site 1999–2005
42
43
44
44
45
47
48
49
49
50
5
Figure 4.11:
Figure 4.12:
Figure 4.13:
Figure 4.14:
Figure 4.15:
Figure 4.16:
Figure 4.17:
Figure 4.18:
6
Number of New Commitments to Domestic Violence Programmes and
the Total Number of Applications for Protection Orders 1999–2005
Number of New Commitments for Domestic Violence Programmes for
Respondents – FST Sites
Number of New Commitments for Domestic Violence Programmes for
Adult-Protected Persons – FST Sites
Number of New Commitments for Domestic Violence Programmes for
Children – FST Sites
National Notifications to Child, Youth and Family Services – 2000–2005
Notifications to Child, Youth and Family Services from All Sources –
FST Sites 1999–2005
Notifications to Child, Youth and Family Services from the Police –
FST Sites 1999–2005
Process model for family violence crisis intervention (Police & PVH):
Operations at baseline phase
51
52
52
53
54
54
55
58
Executive Summary
This executive summary contains the main findings and recommendations from the baseline
and formative evaluation of the Family Safety Teams pilot programme, which aims to reduce
family violence. The evaluation is based on an analysis of family violence statistics, and
interviews with staff members of Family Safety Teams (FST), community stakeholders and
victims and perpetrators of family violence in three of the four FST areas: Auckland, Hutt
Valley and Wairarapa.
Family Safety Teams
The FST pilot is a joint initiative between NZ Police, Ministry of Justice, and the Department
of Child, Youth and Family, in collaboration with the community sector, which aims to provide
a coordinated response to family violence from the justice and social services sector. The FSTs
involve collaboration between police investigators and adult and child victim advocates to
ensure that the full range of needs and issues for a family experiencing family violence are
addressed. FSTs were established in 2005 in Auckland, Hamilton, Hutt Valley, and Wairarapa.
The key objectives of the FST initiative are to:
•
provide formal systems and structures to support more effective interagency coordination,
communication and collaboration to respond to family violence
•
provide comprehensive and integrated interventions (whether services or support) for
families experiencing violence
•
contribute to the development of national best practice and promote consistent application
of such practice for agencies working with families experiencing family violence.
These were to be achieved through a focus on the following.
•
Information gathering and assessment
•
Monitoring and evaluating practice and systems
•
Developing new practice and systemic change
•
Proactive Intervention (second tier)
•
Advocacy – to ensure access and connection to 24/7 services and wrap-around services
across all sectors; ensure voices of women and children are integral to all systems and
services; to facilitate addressing gaps in services and support1.
1
Source: Presentation made by Police at the 2005 Annual Conference of National Network of Stopping
Violence Services te Kupenga Whakaoti Mahi Patunga, Courageous Practice in Family Violence.
7
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
The Evaluation Objectives
The objectives of the evaluation were as follows.
Baseline phase
•
Collect information about systems and agencies responding to family violence in place in
each area at the time of introduction of the FSTs.
•
Document the experiences and perceptions of key stakeholders and service users in each
area.
•
Document the extent of collaboration, interagency coordination, and consistency of
practice within and between each pilot area.
•
Identify potential indicators to monitor trends in family violence.
Formative phase
•
Clarify the objectives of the FSTs and help translate these into practice.
•
Develop a programme logic model or framework.
•
Develop success indicators/outcome measures.
•
Monitor and gather information on the three FSTs.
•
Identify information sharing issues.
•
Feed back information to all FSTs.
Findings
Outlined below are the main findings from the baseline and formative phases of the evaluation.
Family violence statistics
•
Analysis of family violence statistics showed that, in general, the trends for the FSTs
reflected those observed nationally. However the rates in these three sites tended to be
higher than the national rate, and the degree of variability in reported rates within FST sites
across the reporting timeframe appeared, in general, to be greater.
Stakeholder interviews
•
The issues identified by community stakeholders centred around provision of services,
information sharing and coordination amongst service providers. The issues raised differed
according to site.
•
All three sites identified a lack of services for children, Maori and Pasifika. In addition,
there appears to be too few services, in general, to meet the need in the Hutt.
•
With regard to information sharing and coordination of services, site differences were in
evidence. Information sharing and coordination occurred more freely in the Wairarapa
where processes had been established prior to the introduction of the FST.
8
Executive summary
__________________________________________________________________
Victim interviews
•
In all cases, adult victims of family violence had experienced some form of intervention
from one or more statutory and non-statutory agencies. Most were very satisfied with the
support received from victim crisis intervention agencies.
•
A variety of sources of support from agencies contributed to perceptions of safety,
including the timely provision of appropriate services, such as information regarding legal
representation, access to personal alarms, provision of knowledge and skills, checks on
well-being and safety, availability of child care and culturally appropriate supports.
•
Victims also noted the importance of the availability of support from family and friends to
one’s sense of safety and personal well-being. In contrast, perceptions of safety were
undermined by perceived scepticism on the part of some police officers, lack of availability
of timely information from some agencies, lack of intervention by CYFS and mental health
services and delays in obtaining Protection Orders.
•
In general, victims believed that services tended to work together fairly well to keep their
families safe, although some gaps were noted.
Barriers to and gaps in services identified by victims included:
•
need for a lead contact person – to provide victim information and referral services
•
need for monitoring of response of individual agencies/professionals
•
need for services beyond Women’s Refuge
•
need for communication between Family and Criminal Courts
•
availability of face-to-face services especially for Maori
•
lack of privacy when reporting incidents to Police and when providing evidence in Court
•
lack of funds to access services
•
limited availability of counselling services
•
the Court processes (e.g. improving victims’ sense of safety at Court)
•
police perceptions of victims’ credibility
•
gaps in treatment for offenders (e.g. mental health, alcohol and drug addiction).
Several victims noted gaps in services for children which impacted on child safety, including:
•
limited access to programmes for children witnessing family violence
•
logistical challenges associated with accessing children’s programmes (e.g. lack of transport,
knowledge about programmes and money)
•
limited availability of, and access to, counselling services for children
•
slow police response
•
lack of understanding regarding the impact on children who witness family violence and the
need for timely provision of information and support.
Perpetrator interviews
•
Perpetrators had received services and support from a range of sources, including
government and non-government organisations, the legal system, and friends and family.
9
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
•
Not all perpetrators reported positive benefits from interventions received, with only some
acknowledging responsibility for their violence.
•
Overall, awareness by perpetrators of collaboration between agencies was limited.
•
Comments made regarding barriers to services suggest that greater publicity is needed for
stopping violence programmes to ensure that those who may benefit from them are aware
of their existence.
•
The importance of monitoring programme attendance was also highlighted.
FST interviews and meetings
Auckland
•
At establishment, during the first half of 2005, the Auckland FST comprised a Police
Supervisor; a Police Investigator; two Child Advocates (job-shared position) and a Victim
Advocate from a local non-governmental organisation (NGO) – Preventing Violence in the
Home (PVH) – which holds the Family Safety Team contract for this area; a Child
Advocate from CYFS, and a Victim Advocate from Te Whare Ruruhau O Meri, an NGO
from outside the area served by the Auckland FST.
•
The Auckland FST office is situated within the Onehunga Police Station. The FST had a
presence in the police station by August 2005, although not all team members were based
there until late March 2006.
•
The Auckland FST is a split team with Hamilton, having just seven members. Initially, the
team has concentrated its efforts on the smaller area of Onehunga and the Auckland City
Eastern area.
•
There were delays in the set-up of office services, which hindered the team’s progress in
those early days. The initial focus for the team was to get the basic systems up and
running, as the lack of IT services was seen as a significant barrier to operationalising the
FST.
•
Initially, access to the PVH database from the FST office was not possible, requiring
advocates to go off-site to obtain information from the PVH offices some distance from
Onehunga. This was identified by team members as a barrier to effective operation.
•
Auckland FST has experienced several personnel changes since its inception, compounding
staffing issues for this split team.
•
Initially, the advocates employed by PVH were required to maintain a significant presence
within PVH, undertaking PVH work for up to 30 hours a week for one of the child
advocates. It is understood that this situation resulted from a lack of clarity within
employment contracts. Advocates from PVH reported difficulties in dividing their time
between the FST and their home organisation. These tensions reportedly impacted on the
team as a whole, reducing opportunities for team building and joint project work.
Despite ongoing staffing issues, the Auckland FST has forged ahead in areas where they
perceive they may have some impact.
•
10
The team has engaged in training of frontline police staff across the policing district,
including training on correct procedures for making referrals to PVH for arrest matters and
CYFS, where children are involved.
Executive summary
__________________________________________________________________
•
The team developed and implemented a monitoring tool for the assessment of core crisis
services for family violence in the East Auckland policing area, and have used this to
conduct a month long assessment of all POL 400s for the month of February 2006. This
has included an assessment of the impact of the training undertaken by the FST with police
staff and identification of gaps and deficiencies in services provided by PVH, CYFS, Courts
and Police.
•
The monitoring exercise has led to further training to increase knowledge of Protection
Orders and Risk and Lethality Assessments.
•
The team has used PVH trainers to run family violence training for new police officers as
part of their induction.
•
The team has extended the monitoring of POL 400s to West Auckland, including all POL
400s for the month of April 2006. Once completed the team will consolidate the
information obtained from both monitoring exercises into a report for Police, CYFS and
PVH and recommendations will be offered.
•
To complement the training and monitoring undertaken, the team has begun looking at
information around family violence prosecutions, examining convictions and discharges by
individual police officers. This information should allow them to personalise training.
They also plan to check what happens to families up to 12 months after a court discharge
has been made, with the intention of conveying findings on further police call outs to
Courts.
•
The team has identified issues regarding information sharing with Courts and with
Probation (e.g. reluctance to share due to perceived breaches of privacy laws) and have
been waiting for information sharing training from Wellington. For further progress to be
made, national policy and best practice guidelines on information sharing need to be
developed, the responsibility for which has been transferred to the Ministry of Social
Development. In the interim, the Auckland FST has successfully worked on developing
informal relationships with Probation and with Victim Advisors, who assisted with
information sharing for the monitoring exercises.
•
The Auckland FST has made significant progress on development of a strategic plan to
direct their operations over the next 12 months.
•
The team has engaged in some ‘hands on’ case management, but this has to be managed
carefully as it tends to ‘tie up’ team members for long periods of time. A high risk case that
the team recently took up and successfully managed will eventually be used by Police as an
example of best practice for training purposes.
•
Informal discussions have been held with Women’s Refuge in the Auckland district. A
need has been identified by the team for greater collaboration between the Refuges, many
of which work in isolation of others. The team is looking at ways to facilitate this.
•
The team has identified a gap in the availability of safe accommodation for victims of
family violence. Information on availability of beds in Refuge safe houses is unreliable and
information sharing inconsistent. Increasing collaboration between Refuge services will
hopefully alleviate this. In addition, the team is looking at ways to alleviate this problem
through discussions with Work and Income regarding the availability of funds for victims
to access safe housing options.
•
Plans are underway to facilitate training with Work and Income on family violence
awareness.
11
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
•
The Child Advocate has visited schools (primary, intermediate and high schools) in the area
to seek their involvement in developing awareness and policy on family violence. So far
four schools are keen to be involved, others are considering it. The Child Advocate is
developing presentations and information kits for school Boards of Trustees and principals,
as well as workshops for teachers. He is also considering developing information kits for
social workers in schools and workshops for students. In addition, he is working on a
policy document. To this end, he has joined a working group in Wellington associated with
the National Network of Stopping Violence Services.
•
The Auckland FST is planning to participate in a pilot project run by CYFS called
Differential Responses Management, which involves all notifications designated as ‘28 day
response’ going to an NGO for assessment. The FST will participate on a trial basis, as
part of their information sharing role.
Logic model: Intermediate objectives
A focus of the evaluation team during the formative phase was to work with the teams to
develop a site-specific intervention logic model. The degree to which this was possible varied,
and depended on the extent to which the issues highlighted in this report impacted on the
individual sites.
With regard to the Auckland FST the primary components of the logic model focussed on the
following objectives and their associated activities.
•
Evaluating the effectiveness of core crisis services.
•
Improving information sharing between agencies.
•
Setting up a core agency case management group.
•
Evaluating local schools’ policies and responses to family violence.
•
Addressing lack of utilisation of all available refuge accommodation when needed
•
Reducing re-victimisation.
•
Ensuring adequate availability of emergency accommodation.
•
Developing the capacity of core services through training on family violence matters.
Outstanding issues
•
Staff losses and delays in employing new staff, have impacted on the scope of action and
progress possible for the Auckland FST. It will be important for the long-term effective
functioning of the team, as well as for the expansion of their geographical range of service
provision, to have a full complement of representatives from the two statutory agencies
and the NGO. This will be assisted by clarification of employment contracts for FST
advocates employed by PVH to avoid any further problems around the release of advocates
from PVH duties to undertake full-time FST work. Employment of a CYFS Child
Advocate will greatly facilitate the scope of action the FST can take in regards to child
safety.
•
The team has identified a bottle-neck in the work of the Police Family Violence
Coordinator for Auckland City District, who is currently charged with reviewing all POL
400s and assessing whether initial action taken on referrals has been met (i.e. referrals have
been made to CYFS or an NGO), in addition to other duties.
12
Executive summary
__________________________________________________________________
•
The team reports that it appears that CYFS is being ‘swamped’ by a high number of
referrals being logged through the call centre. Much current CYFS activity seems to be
directed at finding reasonable ways to manage this workload, including appropriate
identification of, and response to high risk cases, including the Demand Management
Strategy (DMS)2, Differential Response Model (DRM)3 and the 2-tier4. The FST has
recognised that it may be able to facilitate this work by providing advice and support, but is
not staffed to adequately undertake case assessment.
•
Despite setbacks, the team has continued to work towards developing a strategic plan and
has made progress in this regard and in working towards the achievement of their
objectives, even in the face of team instability. Further, notwithstanding problems, such as
the lack of CYFS representation on the team and loss of several team members, the
Auckland FST ha s been proactive in determining ways around difficulties encountered.
•
The complexity of forging relationships and establishing information sharing amidst a large,
diverse and diffuse community of service providers continues to hold particular challenges
for the Auckland team.
•
As a result of their activities, the Auckland FST has realised that it requires the services of a
data analyst. The team does not have the skills or capacity to establish a database of
information they are generating so that appropriate analyses may be conducted and data
searches may be accommodated in the future. Currently, information is being stored in
paper files and collated by hand.
•
Despite making progress in developing relationships with other agencies, the team has
found it difficult. It is still trying to manage expectations within the community regarding
its core business.
Wairarapa
•
In September 2005, the Wairarapa FST comprised a Police Supervisor, who concurrently
supervises the Hutt FST, a Child Advocate and an Adult Victim Advocate employed
through the Wairarapa Women’s Refuge, and a CYFS Child Advocate. A Police
Investigator joined the team in late October. The Refuge’s Child Advocate had worked in
the Family Start early intervention programme and was new to the child advocacy role.
The CYFS Child Advocate had worked as a supervisor in the service.
2
DMS, introduced in 2004, enables NGOs to undertake some care and protection work on behalf of CYFS.
This work involves a mixture of assessments and service provision.
Under the DRM, all care and protection reports receive a Preliminary Assessment which can be done by either
CYFS or Police. This determines the level of seriousness of the report, prioritises the response according to
seriousness and assigns it to one or more of several pathways for action, including: statutory investigation (by
CYFS or Police); Child and Family Assessment (by CYFS social workers or approved NGO agencies) which
may be combined with an investigation if potential for harm is suspected; Referral for Provision of Services (if
Preliminary Assessment determines that CYFS involvement is not required but other services are warranted);
No Further Action.
The 2-tier model: family violence incidents where children are involved, that are considered by Police to be
medium/low risk are forwarded to the local Family Violence Coordinator who attends a meeting with a
representative from CYFS to review these cases. The meeting between CYFS and the Police Family Violence
Coordinator provides an opportunity for CYFS to share information with Police regarding high risk families,
and for Police to share information on the Family Violence Investigation Reports not faxed to the CYFS Call
Centre. This information exchange often means that cases initially thought to be medium to low risk are
escalated to high risk. In such cases, the Family Violence Coordinator will make a referral to the CYFS
National Call Centre.
3
4
13
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
•
The Wairarapa FST, which is a split team with the Hutt, is located within a government
building shared with other family violence agencies (e.g. Stopping Violence Services) in
Masterton.
•
By the beginning of September 2005, the Wairarapa FST members were fairly well
established within their offices. Telephones and computers were in place although email
and printer access were established some time later. While onsite access to the CYFS
database was established early on, the Refuge database cannot be accessed onsite and
requires a visit to Refuge offices.
•
The Wairarapa has a pre-existing, strong network of agencies working in the area of family
violence, in the form of the Family Violence Intervention Group, and a history of
collaboration and information sharing. The small community and functional networks
supporting collaboration and information sharing between agencies have meant that the
Wairarapa FST was able to begin functioning as a unit with relative ease.
•
Early on, some employment contract issues were noted for the Wairarapa team. These
centred on leave entitlement for the advocates employed by the Refuge.
The Wairarapa team has engaged in a variety of activities, including the following.
•
Some ‘hands on’ case management as well as systems level activities. In describing their
case management work, the team states that it actively gathers information and brings
relevant people together in order to assist a family. This work, team members maintain,
gives them credibility in the community and contributes to the development of trust and
relationship building.
•
The CYFS member of the team participates in the CYFS initiated 2-tier model.
•
The team has identified gaps in the system regarding recording situations where children
are witnesses to family violence. The team has been actively engaged in ensuring such
situations are recorded.
•
The team participates in the local Family Violence Intervention Group on a regular basis.
•
A goal of the team has been to examine re-victimisation. This is being accomplished
through information sharing with other agencies in order to initially identify the 20 most atrisk families in the community. After establishing a list consisting of 200 families, the team
decided to tackle the top 10, using a mix of ‘hands on’ and reporting work.
•
The team has undertaken activities to streamline police practice on recording and filing
POL 400s, and in making referrals to Refuge and CYFS.
•
The team successfully applied for a grant to purchase personal alarms which are loaned out
to victims of family violence.
•
The team also worked with Work and Income and the Ministry of Social Development to
ensure funding is available for victims from low socio-economic groups who require an
emergency telephone service to support the use of personal alarms but who cannot afford
to pay for it.
•
The team has met with a member of the Ministry of Social Development and discussed
changes needed to systems within Work and Income to ensure victims of family violence
have ready access to funding in order to access safe housing.
•
Team members have established good relationships with core agencies and others (e.g.
Immigration, Truancy, Work and Income), evidenced by fluid information sharing between
themselves and others. Agencies come to them to discuss family violence issues. While
14
Executive summary
__________________________________________________________________
they have had some formal meetings, most of the contact and work that they do with other
agencies is informal.
•
The team has engaged in team building exercises.
•
Discussions have been held with Refuge around increasing family violence reporting in the
wider Wairarapa. Pamphlet drops of FST, Refuge material or combined materials, have
been made.
•
The team has recently undertaken training of CYFS workers on family violence.
•
As a result of information sharing by the FST Victim Advocate with the Refuge, the Refuge
has begun screening clients (e.g. for mental health issues, criminal activity/history, CYFS
contact). As a result of this screening, Refuge has been making referrals to other agencies
(e.g. for family violence programmes etc.), including making notifications to CYFS, where
appropriate.
•
The team has promoted improved information sharing between agencies by encouraging
agencies to actively check that information is shared, which they believe has further
strengthened community networks.
•
The team has made progress on developing a strategic plan.
Logic model: Intermediate objectives
The primary components of the Wairarapa FST logic model focussed on the following
objectives and their associated activities.
•
Evaluate crisis intervention in the Wairarapa.
•
Improve information sharing between agencies.
•
Work with Police, CYFS and Refuge to ensure National Best Practice procedures are
followed.
•
Improve case management for identified high risk victims and offenders.
•
Identify additional resources needed for effective operation and look at ways resources can
be provided.
•
Raise awareness of statutory agencies involved in family violence operations, especially
judges.
•
Lobby for a Family Violence Court in the Wairarapa.
•
Organise family violence training on procedures for crises core services with Police and
CYFS frontline staff, supervisors, prosecutions where deficiencies are identified.
•
Ensure Protection Orders are issued by the District Court following conviction of a
relevant offence.
Outstanding issues
•
Publicity around the work of the Wairarapa FST has led to greater public awareness of the
sharing of information between statutory agencies and NGOs. This has been viewed
negatively by some members of the public who have reported unease around the perceived
level of information sharing. According to the team, the Refuge has reported that some
women complained to Refuge staff following publicity of the work of the FST. The
implications are that the strict code of confidentiality that has been the hallmark of Refuge
may be seen by some to be in jeopardy, reducing confidence in that agency amongst
victims of family violence. The FST members maintain that this needs to be managed and
15
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
that the agencies concerned need to be more proactive in educating the public about how
information sharing works.
•
Although Wairarapa has had fewer issues to contend with compared with Hutt Valley and
Auckland due to the stability of their workforce and the reportedly strong, functioning
network of agencies in their community, progress towards establishing a clear, long-term
plan of action has been slow. Supervision of this team has, understandably, been limited
due to the high needs of the Hutt Valley team, which may have contributed to slow
development of a strategic plan. However, the team has recently made progress in this
direction.
•
The team sees the need for a Police liaison person, as they say the Police has a huge
amount of information, most of which does not get passed on. Currently, the FST Police
Investigator undertakes much of this work.
•
Wairarapa team members recognise a need for the information they gather and
documentation they produce to be stored in a more easily accessible form than hard copies
housed in folders, but do not believe they have the skills or knowledge needed to create a
database and manage data.
•
Despite reports by the FST of a well-functioning network of agencies in their area, the
team has identified what they believe to be a serious gap in the provision of family violence
services in their area, regarding CYFS processes for family violence, contributing to a lack
of some information sharing. They maintain that this gap is widely recognised in the
community. The Wairarapa FST has recently engaged in training of CYFS workers on
family violence.
•
The Wairarapa FST believes that under-reporting of family violence occurs in rural
communities. To protect the anonymity of individuals in small, close-knit communities,
some agencies (e.g. Education and Health) appear to be attempting to deal with family
violence in isolation, rather than collaborating with other agencies. In extending their
service provision beyond Masterton in the future, the team hopes to challenge the code of
secrecy that may be operating in rural communities.
Hutt
•
Hutt Valley FST is a split team with Wairarapa. The Hutt FST is intended to encompass
the Upper and Lower Hutt areas, but to date the FST has mainly operated within Lower
Hutt. This team took some time to reach full complement, but by October 2005 the team
consisted of the Police Supervisor (concurrently supervising Wairarapa FST), two Police
Investigators, a Child Advocate and an Adult Advocate employed by the Hutt City
Women’s Refuge, and a Maori Child Advocate and Maori Adult Victim Advocate
employed by Kökiri Marae Maori Women’s Refuge. The Hutt FST does not include a
CYFS social worker.
•
The Hutt Valley FST office was situated in the CYFS offices in Lower Hutt. During the
establishment phase the team was not fully functional as they were still grappling with
technology difficulties, including telephone and IT installation problems. These matters
dominated the time of the Police Supervisor at that time. Frustration was still evident in
early October due to continued delays. While telephone and some IT services had been
established, printer and email access was still unavailable. By the beginning of 2006 these
matters had been resolved. However, onsite access to the Police and Refuge databases has
not been possible.
•
Because the Hutt FST does not have a CYFS member, access to the CYFS database is
dependent on the goodwill of an available CYFS worker to obtain the requested
16
Executive summary
__________________________________________________________________
information for an FST worker. This is not always available. Indeed, collaboration and
information sharing between the FST and CYFS is reported to be minimal.
•
Contractual issues for staff employed through the Hutt City Women’s Refuge have been
ongoing since inception of the FST, contributing to the resignation in 2005 of the Child
Advocate employed by Hutt City Women’s Refuge. Moreover, information sharing
between the FST and the Refuge has been problematic from the outset.
•
Due to irreconcilable differences with Hutt City Women’s Refuge, the employer for some
of the FST Victim Advocates, the contract between Hutt FST and the Refuge terminated at
the end of June 2006. The advocates can no longer access the Refuge database.
•
The Hutt FST has been grappling with finding a balance between case management and
working at a systems level. Expectations within the community regarding the role of the
FST in case management require ongoing monitoring to ensure that the team does not get
over-involved in hands on work (e.g. 2-tier CYFS work), as this diminishes their capacity to
undertake systems level tasks.
•
The Hutt team has been attempting to set up a Case Management Working Group made
up of core agencies in the community. However, progress has been slow due to perceived
opposition and entrenched views.
•
Attempts by the team to engage with Courts and Probation in the area were met with
resistance initially, but finally some progress has been made with Courts in Upper Hutt and
Probation. Despite improved relationships with a representative at the Courts, a reluctance
to share information persists.
•
The Hutt FST participated in a half-day team building exercise in late February 2006, and a
full day of team building in conjunction with the Wairarapa FST in mid-March.
•
The team has developed a form to assess Refuges’ crisis intervention and contact with
victims and to gather information on the nature of follow-up offered to victims. It
gathered and documented the information over a period of one month. When completed,
the information is to be provided in the form of a report to the National FST Coordinator,
and meetings will be held with the Refuges and Police to discuss the findings.
•
A goal of the team has been to determine those families most at-risk for family violence in
the area. However, little progress has been made as the team has been unable to obtain the
required information from CYFS, who have argued that they do not have the time to
provide the information and do not believe it to be an important project to pursue.
•
The Hutt FST has had some success in engaging in informal relationship building with
members of other agencies. They have had successful interactions with the Domestic
Violence Coordinator for Work and Income, as well as with representatives of Housing
New Zealand, and describe their relationship with both of these organisations as good. In
addition, the team has developed a relationship with the Open Homes agency in their area,
which has invited the FST to talk with them about family violence when the new Manager
has settled in. Discussions have been held with Barnados regarding children’s domestic
violence programmes. Despite this progress, the team states that information sharing
remains a major problem in the Hutt Valley. Team members find they are only able to get
‘part of the puzzle’ due to reluctance to share by other agencies.
•
More recently, a focus of the Hutt team has been on the processes involving Protection
Orders, as they believe a gap exists in this area around the need for agency support for
victims who obtain Protection Orders. The team plan to gather information on the uptake
of Protection Orders, including the number applied for and the number withdrawn, which
will give them a more objective understanding of the extent of the problem.
17
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
•
The team has worked on developing a strategic plan.
•
Plans by the team to organise a ‘Family Violence-Free Day’ or awareness campaign have
been abandoned for the present time. Progress was made in ‘fits and starts’ but the team
decided that it did not have the time or knowledge to get this underway.
Logic model: Intermediate objectives
The primary components of the Hutt FST logic model focussed on the following objectives
and their associated activities.
•
Compile a list of the ‘Top 20’ family violence repeat victimisation cases, monitor and share
information to reduce re-victimisation.
•
Organise a Domestic Violence Awareness campaign for the Hutt Valley.
•
Establish a community ‘Violence-Free Day’ for the Hutt.
•
Organise a domestic violence services stocktake.
•
Carry out a review of crisis intervention services provided following police attendance.
•
Improve case management in Lower Hutt.
•
Examine youth justice offending and its relationship to family violence incidents involving
high risk and repeat families.
•
Carry out high risk offender profiling for police staff.
•
Research processes around obtaining Protection Orders in the Hutt to explore issues
around the uptake of Protection Orders (e.g. the number applied for and the number
withdrawn).
Outstanding issues
•
Information sharing between CYFS and Hutt FST has been limited, despite sharing
workspace. The information sharing that has occurred has generally been one way: FST
members sharing information with CYFS workers, who tend not to reciprocate. Some
informal sharing of information by CYFS workers has taken place more recently. It was
noted that a lot of work has been done by Police and CYFS around developing a
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) about information sharing between the two. They
have reached an impasse at this point as both want to go back and rethink what they expect
from an MoU.
•
Hutt FST is situated within an area lacking in a pre-existing, coordinated infrastructure for
responding to family violence compared to the other two pilot sites. There is a limited
number of agencies dealing with family violence in the area (as evidenced by the absence of
stakeholders for interviewing), and those in existence would appear to be under-resourced
for the reported level of need. Interview data revealed that organisations tend to work
independently rather than collaboratively.
•
Territorialism appears to be particularly strong, evidenced by information obtained during
stakeholder interviews and site visits. The Hutt team reports that CYFS seem unwilling to
get involved in issues of family violence, as they see their role as primarily concerned with
children. The fact that the team does not have a CYFS member undoubtedly contributes
to this situation.
•
The historical lack of collaboration between agencies here – among Police, CYFS, Courts
and Refuges – contributes to a sense of mistrust and resistance to the FST, making it
difficult for the FST to make progress at a systemic level. In addition, Hutt FST members
18
Executive summary
__________________________________________________________________
report that the high need for resources to deal with family violence in the community and
insufficient number of frontline staff in agencies, contribute to a sense of resentment
towards the FST, which is perceived as ill-use of scarce resources. Like Auckland, the Hutt
FST has sustained a high degree of instability with the loss of two members over the past
10 months.
Suggested ways forward for all three sites
A number of the issues identified above not only hindered the progress of the FSTs, but also
meant that the process undertaken by the evaluation team was not formative in the truest sense.
The impact of these issues, many of which we believe could have been addressed prior to the
establishment of the teams, has been significant and has affected all three teams to a greater or
lesser extent. These are summarised below.
•
Differences observed with access to CYFS information, particularly in the case of Hutt
FST who do not have a CYFS team member and who have experienced limited
information sharing with CYFS, compared with Wairarapa and with Auckland (when that
team had a CYFS member), leads us to strongly suggest that a CYFS member be allocated
to each team, and that ongoing participation by a CYFS member in each team be assured.
•
While the pilot FSTs have, to a greater or lesser extent, successfully undertaken a training
role for frontline police staff on family violence procedures, it should not be the
responsibility of FSTs in the long-term. Training priorities should include information on
the dynamics of family violence, which should be conveyed during initial police training at
Police College, as well as locally-based training on use of the Risk and Lethality Assessment
form and referral protocols.
•
While the FSTs have been subject to differing expectations from other agencies and
individuals about what they will and will not do, they have been quite successful in defining
and adhering to their own priorities, in line with the overall goals for the project. They
have been successful in establishing a degree of mutual trust, and credibility with other key
organisations, including PVH, CYFS, Courts and Victim Advocates, Probation, and various
other service providers.
•
Establishing new teams in areas where there are already existing networks needs to be done
with sensitivity, and appropriate introductions made to established workers. Even in
communities where individuals may be well known, the role that they will be fulfilling
needs introduction to the community and statutory agencies so that expectations are clear.
•
The high volume of family violence cases in the Hutt area and limited services available for
addressing these, clearly highlights the need for increased services and support. The FST
may contribute to this, but before it may be successful, significant additional resources need
to be invested to upgrade the capacity of existing agencies.
•
Additional resourcing within Police in the Hutt is suggested to assist with training of
frontline staff in areas such as completion of POL 400s, risk and lethality assessment and
referral pathways. Additionally, appointment and support of a Family Violence
Coordinator(s) is considered central to the coordination efforts of the Hutt FST.
•
The FSTs have been charged with providing ‘proactive intervention (2nd tier) and
advocacy to ensure access and connection to wrap-around services across all sectors;
ensure voices of women and children are integral to all systems and services and address
gaps in services and support’. In all three locations, the volume of cases precludes the FST
actively undertaking extensive case management themselves.
Instead, they have
appropriately redefined the goal (explicitly in Auckland, implicitly in the Hutt and
Wairarapa) as seeking to identify deficiencies in response within existing systems, and
19
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
seeking to identify current gaps in services and support. In order for this goal to result in
real changes for families in the FST areas, however, it requires that there is both a forum
for raising identified issues with the core agencies where there is currently a deficiency in
response, and a commitment from the home agency to try and address this within-service
problem, or the gap between services. In the Hutt, this need is particularly acute. The
environment and lack of ‘buy-in’ from the local agencies is such that the FST is having
difficulty accessing the information they need to identify current levels of response. There
appears to be little inclination on the part of key players from local organisations to
consider changes in how they respond.
•
There is general consensus that representation by Police, CYFS and advocacy groups is
important for the functioning of the teams. However, interviews with team members in all
locations have identified the need for additional skill sets, in particular, specialised skills in
data collection, analysis and reporting to fulfil the goal of ‘monitoring and evaluating
practice and services’.
The findings of this formative evaluation suggest that:
•
Statistics presented in the report show that direct assaults on children have increased since
1996 while the number of commitments to domestic violence programmes for children
have remained static. Alongside this, figures on Police family violence notifications to
CYFS increased markedly between 2000 and 2005. Given these statistics and reports from
victims regarding gaps in services for children, it is of concern that child safety has not
featured as a major focus of FST activities to date.
•
National guidelines for interagency information sharing are urgently needed.
•
Police, CYFS, and local advocacy agency databases should be accessible to appropriate FST
staff at each site. This includes having the appropriate personnel who are authorised and
trained to access and interpret data from each database, and having the technical capacity
and IT support to enable this access to occur in a timely fashion.
•
A CYFS employee should be an appointed member of every FST.
•
Regular opportunities should be scheduled for FSTs to share experiences and expertise.
•
The Steering Committee should consider ways to ensure that issues are communicated to
parent agencies, or senior level policy makers, who have the power to address them.
•
Finally, it should be acknowledged that all three FSTs have made considerable progress
towards identifying strategies for achieving their goal of reducing family violence.
However, the report has identified obstacles that have inhibited the progress of the teams,
and to this end we have produced the list below, based on the literature and the extensive
data gathered in the course of this project, which we believe could inform not only the
development of FSTs, but any future community-based, collaborative interventions.
Prior to set-up
•
Ensure that the current services available are sufficient.
•
Determine necessary skill sets and employ on this basis.
•
Ensure resources are in place and are accessible (e.g. office infrastructure [computer, fax,
phone], cars, discretionary budget for training and conferences).
•
Ensure access to databases and guidelines for information sharing are in place.
20
Executive summary
__________________________________________________________________
During set-up
•
Ensure there is a shared understanding within the community, statutory agencies and the
teams of the aims, objectives and the role of the teams.
•
As members of teams often have not worked together, team building should be instituted
during the set-up phase.
•
Identify existing community networks and key players.
•
Ensure teams are introduced appropriately to the community, statutory agencies and other
service providers.
Training
•
Provide training on skills necessary for the job (e.g. data recording and analysis, leadership
skills, community development).
On-going support
•
Provide regular opportunities for communication within teams.
•
Ensure there are mechanisms in place to address and respond to concerns, within FSTs
and within home agencies, at both a local and national level.
•
Consider allocating a training budget for Teams and local communities to increase the skill
levels of all parties.
As this was a formative evaluation, it was the intention of the evaluation team to work closely
with the FSTs to help them operationalise their goals and develop an intervention logic.
However, this assumes that the sites were at a stage of development and stability where this was
possible (e.g. having basic resources in place, having the full complement of staff and
community readiness to receive a FST). This was not the case. It was not until the latter half
of the formative evaluation period that the teams were in a position to commence work at this
strategic level, despite some problems not being fully resolved.
Finally, with reference to the ongoing evaluation programme associated with FST
implementation, the Evaluation Team contends that further attempts to evaluate the progress
of the teams should be postponed until there is clear evidence that the substantive issues
highlighted in this report have been resolved. However, in the meantime, we suggest that
systematic, independent monitoring of moves to address the issues and the FSTs’ responses to
these changes, be undertaken. We foresee this monitoring occurring regularly over the next 6
to 12 months at which time the situation should be reassessed with a view to instigating a
process and outcome evaluation if it is clear that the sites are ready for this to be undertaken.
21
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
22
1
Introduction
In August 2004, the Minister of Justice announced the introduction of the Family Safety Teams
pilot programme for the purpose of reducing domestic violence. The Family Safety Team
initiative is designed to ensure there are comprehensive and integrated interventions for families
experiencing family violence. It is a joint initiative between the Ministry of Justice, NZ Police,
and Department of Child, Youth and Family Services and involves police investigators and
adult and child victim advocates working together for families dealing with family violence.
Introduction of the teams in the Wairarapa, Hutt Valley and Auckland City areas was planned
for July 2005. Hamilton was also chosen as a pilot site for an FST but was not included in this
evaluation. The current study was designed to establish baseline information and conduct a
formative evaluation of the pilot initiative (as explained below).
A team of University of Auckland researchers, under the umbrella of Social and Community
Health and the Centre for Child & Family Research (CCFR), undertook the evaluation of the
pilot programmes. This research partnership was managed by Auckland UniServices Limited
and led by the two Principal Investigators (David Thomas and Janet Fanslow) and the Centre
Director (Robyn Dixon). Three researchers from the Ministry of Justice participated in the
project, Trish Knaggs, Latika Vasil and Esther Banbury.
The study, as proposed, consisted of two phases:
•
a baseline study (July – December 2005)
•
a formative evaluation study (October 2005 – June 2006).
The baseline study provides information on systems and agencies in place to respond to family
violence in the three areas, and documents the interventions experienced by victims and
perpetrators prior to the introduction of FSTs. It also functioned to identify potential
indicators to monitor trends in family violence.
It was intended that the formative evaluation would describe the key operational strategies of
the FSTs, document characteristics of service users, identify programme strengths and
weaknesses, describe the monitoring systems that have been established to assess
implementation, and detail the resources, staff competencies and experiences. However,
following identification of systemic issues impacting on the evaluation process, discussions
were held with the Evaluation Advisory Group in March 2006. As a result of this and a
subsequent meeting with the FSTs National Steering Group5, it was agreed that the focus and
audience of the final report would change.
Thus, while the target audience for the final report as originally proposed would have been the
FSTs themselves, the report now, in the first instance, informs the FST Steering Group. To
this end, the report is comprised of two major components – the first being the baseline data
5
The Family Safety Teams National Steering Committee (NSC) is made up of representatives from NZ Police,
Ministry of Justice, Child, Youth and Family and representatives from the community sector. “The NSC oversees
the implementation of the pilot and ensures that the ongoing work of the teams is monitored and supported by a representative
body…The NSC also has oversight of the District Management teams which manage operational issues in each site.” Scott, D.
(August 2006). Family Safety Team Pilot Project – Twelve Month Update Report (see Appendix 8).
23
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
report, the second being a description of progress and activities undertaken by the FSTs
towards achievement of objectives, together with discussion and suggested ways forward.
The report begins with a brief discussion of the literature related to interagency responses to
family violence and a description of the purpose and objectives of the FSTs to provide context
for subsequent discussion, followed by a description of the evaluation methods, including the
generic programme logic model developed. This is followed by the baseline findings, which
include analysis of the rates of family violence in each of the FST areas, and analysis of the
interviews undertaken with key stakeholders, victims and perpetrators that provide the context
for existing services in each site at baseline. The next section, the formative phase, includes a
report on the progress made towards the development of site specific intervention logic models
and provides a description of the activities of each FST, and changes over time. Finally, we use
the information gathered in the course of the evaluation period, with reference to the literature,
to identify and discuss issues that the evaluation team suggests are critical to the successful
implementation of FSTs and could be considered for further action.
24
2
Context
2.1
Background literature
Family violence is increasingly recognised as a major public concern, affecting large numbers of
individuals and families, and resulting in a host of long-term physical, mental and social
problems. Despite the establishment of crisis intervention services and development of policy
and practice guidelines within particular organisations over the past few decades, demands on
specialist family violence services and general community service providers (e.g. Police, health
care services, Child Youth and Family Services) have continued to increase (Fanslow, 2005).
High profile cases of tragic child deaths from family violence have fuelled public outcry, and
requests to ‘do something’.
The complexity of responding to family violence and the multiple needs that such families often
face have led to recognition (locally and internationally) of the need for increased collaboration
and coordination between services. Collaboration is now frequently regarded as an essential
means of addressing the multifaceted needs of many client groups. It is also viewed as a
mechanism for increasing the cost-effectiveness of service provision, and for reducing the
fragmentation that has resulted from the development of singular-focused services (Gardiner,
2000).
The Family Safety Teams are not the first multiagency initiative that has attempted to respond
to family violence. In New Zealand, the Hamilton Abuse Intervention Pilot Project was
established in 1991 to ‘achieve a consistent, co-ordinated response to family violence by all
primary agencies involved’ (Dominick, 1995). This programme is modelled on the Duluth
Abuse Intervention Project (DAIP) in the USA, which is widely regarded as one of the leaders
in this field. In the U.K., a circular from the Home Office was issued in 1995, encouraging
interagency coordination as one of the principal planks of government policy on domestic
violence. A national study of these interagency responses to domestic violence has been
conducted (Hague, 2001; Malos, Hague, and Dear, 1996; Hester and Westmarland, 2005).
Description and evaluation of these initiatives provides considerable background on the
community context, types of programmes that have been implemented elsewhere, and factors
that have contributed to the success of programmes (or acted as barriers to their success). In
the interest of brevity, this literature will not be comprehensively reviewed, but will be referred
to, as appropriate, with reference to the findings of this study.
Nevertheless, a variety of factors that can contribute to successful collaboration have been
identified. While not comprehensive, the following table (Table 2.1), provides a summary of
some of the things that can assist or impede the progress of multiagency initiatives, listed under
six categories.
25
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Table 2.1:
Factors that can assist successful collaboration
Factors that contribute to successful collaboration
Number of studies out of 18
identifying collaboration as
a factor for success
1. Environment (Pre-existing geographic or social context)
History of collaboration or cooperation in the community
6
Partners have history as leaders in the community
3
Political/social climate favourable – support from resource
holders
3
2. Membership characteristics
Mutual respect, understanding and trust, shared norms and values
11
Appropriate cross-section of service providers and consumers
11
Members see collaboration as in their self-interest which
outweighs costs
6
Partners able to compromise when agency interests conflict
3
3. Process/Structure
Members share sense of ownership, a stake in both process and
outcome
6
Multiple layers (management and workers) participate in decision
making
6
Flexible and open to various options to achieving goals
4
Development of clear roles, policy and procedural guidelines
4
Adaptable to changing conditions, able to sustain itself through
challenge
3
4. Communication
Open and frequent communication, sharing of information
9
Established informal and formally agreed channels of
communication
5
5. Purpose
Clear, concrete, attainable goals and objectives
5
Development of shared vision, agreed mission, objectives, strategy
4
Unique purpose of new structure, differs from each member
organisation
3
6. Resources
Sufficient ongoing financial support
8
Skilled convenor with organisational and interpersonal skills
7
Source: Mattessich & Monsey (1992), cited in Gardiner, 2000
26
Context
__________________________________________________________________
2.1.1
Barriers to effective collaboration
Some barriers to effective collaboration are listed below, as adapted from Gardiner 2000.
Ideology
Ideology can be a barrier when participants hold so strongly to values and beliefs that
irresolvable differences are generated and the flexibility necessary for negotiation and
compromise is diminished.
Organisational culture and language
Differences in organisational culture and language can result in misunderstanding, blocks to
negotiation and unwillingness to change practices. Participants must work to understand
others’ culture and language to communicate effectively.
Structures and systems
Agencies have different roles, histories, cultures, power and work priorities, as well as different
expectations regarding accountability, supervision and responsibility for decision-making.
Ability to work together can be further compromised by the need to work to agreed standards,
under pressure, where each agency has a workforce in constant flux, across wide geographic
areas.
Leadership
Leadership at both the individual and agency level is required. Leaders must have sufficient
skills, power and authority, and charisma to bring stakeholders together.
Self-interest
Self-interest is always present, and can be an important motivator to take risks and develop new
ways of doing things. However, self-interest needs to be declared early in the life of the group.
Power
Sources of power must also be declared early, as power will never be equal among members.
Successful collaborations work to address power imbalances, make them less pronounced, and
to value the different types of power individuals and organisations bring to the joint effort.
History
Previous or historical negative experiences or antagonisms can affect the functioning of groups.
Competition
Organisations and individuals can come together for their own advantage, for example, to
obtain funding for their own programme. Competition for resources needs to be overcome.
Personal style
Different personal styles can impact on the processes of joint working. Healthy collaboration
recognises values and draws on the diversity of the group.
27
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Lack of resources
Organisations must be able to commit the necessary resources to support participation (e.g.
time required for attendance at meetings and follow-up work, nominating employees with
appropriate skills or decision-making authority).
Ongoing commitment to funding
collaborative initiatives is essential, or initial efforts to establish coordination can be wasted.
Conflict
There should be agreed methods for managing conflict. However, disagreement should not be
avoided if new strategies and ways of working are to be explored.
Communication
Disagreements can exist as to the level of information sharing required to achieve the goals of
the collaboration, and what constitutes a breach of confidentiality. What is regarded as essential
to one, may seem peripheral to another.
Personal risk
Individuals who take ‘risks’ in their work by stepping outside their usual practices may be cut
off from organisational culture and marginalised by their peers.
Interagency initiatives specifically to address family violence
In addition to the research available on collaborative initiatives in general, there have been some
specific efforts to assess the effectiveness of family violence related initiatives. Some of the
unique features related to the success of these initiatives are summarised here, based on their
country of origin. The section finishes with a summary of the Hamilton Abuse Intervention
Project, the most well-established NZ effort at interagency collaboration related to family
violence.
2.1.2
UK experience
Effectiveness and representation, intersecting with power
Gardiner (2000) summarised the UK experience as follows. As with general collaborative
initiatives, commitment from senior management and policy-making was identified as essential
for progress. Police often demonstrated considerable commitment, but if they were not
prepared to relinquish control, ways of working carried out by less powerful voluntary agencies
were diluted or overlooked. Police-initiated projects worked best in circumstances where police
officers adopted a facilitative rather than a directive role.
Effectiveness of interagency response was also linked to having representation by Women’s
Refuge, in particular, under circumstances where there were specific strategies or policies to
minimise the possibility of Refuge worker views being marginalised or struggling to have their
opinions taken seriously. Some strategies included having reserved places on management
committees, or having the Refuge representative take the chair. The UK experience also noted
that there were very few interagency forums that had established links with victims/survivors to
provide advisory or monitoring roles. Equity and access issues have also received only minimal
attention.
28
Context
__________________________________________________________________
‘Lowest common denominator’ effect
Initiatives can be held back by agencies with little experience of family violence, or with the
least developed views about it.
Concern about information sharing
Disagreement can exist both on the content of what is shared, and the actual value of talking
together at all. What one person thinks is essential to communicate may be regarded as a
breach of confidentiality, or peripheral to another. (Morrison, 1996, cited in Gardiner, 2000).
Hester and Westmarland (2005) regard information sharing as an important piece of
interagency collaboration, and recommended that:
•
Data collection should be negotiated between funders and projects leading to a realistic and
‘do-able’ data collection system (electronic if possible).
•
A dedicated data monitoring post should be costed on top of service provision costs.
•
More guidance should be made available on the collection of data, with an emphasis on the
ability to provide ‘trackable’ data.
•
Projects should collect as much cost data as possible, record which interventions the costs
relate to, and be clear about what the data does and does not include.
There is a need for clear government policy within different government agencies to address
issues of:
•
Building interagency domestic violence work into job descriptions
•
Formally ‘releasing’ employees to enable them to participate in interagency work
•
Ensuring representatives are in a position to facilitate change within their agency and to
commit their agency to changes in policy and practice
•
Access to resources as part of national strategy
•
Ensuring appropriate levels of management and policy-making authority within agencies
are available to build a coordinated domestic violence strategy
•
The extent of commitment that can be expected from agencies
•
Providing guidance on, and recognition of, the key role of the movement in campaigning
against domestic violence.
Further information on the multiagency initiatives in the UK can be obtained from the Home
Office website http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors290.pdf
2.1.3
Coordinated community approaches in USA
According to research summarised by Gardiner (2000), interagency approaches originated from
realisation that isolated components of system and agency responses were increasing the danger
to women. For example, one system encouraged women to take certain actions (e.g. take out a
restraining order), while other systems did not provide support for this. The inconsistency of
action potentially leaves women vulnerable to increased risks in activating the first system (e.g.
taking out the restraining order) but without the supports. This ‘parallel reform’, with systems
developing in isolation, actually operated to exacerbate fragmentation. In addition, many
attempted reforms increased the burdens for the advocacy community (e.g. to provide support
29
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
through legal services, or to access housing, transportation, employment, childcare, safety
planning and/or relocation).
Many of the interagency family violence collaborations in the US have been established to
enhance criminal justice system accountability to battered women. The most well-known of
these is the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project (DAIP), operating out of Duluth, Minnesota.
Further descriptions of the DAIP model, on which the Hamilton Abuse Intervention Pilot
Project (HAIPP) was based, is available from: http://www.duluth-model.org/.
2.1.4
Hamilton (New Zealand) Abuse Intervention Project
The Hamilton Abuse Intervention Pilot Project (HAIPP) was established in 1991 as part of a
three year pilot project, to provide an integrated approach to family violence, and to reduce
offending and reoffending. Based on the Duluth Abuse Intervention Project (DAIP),
considered to be one of the world leaders in responding to family violence, the HAIPP sought
to promote consistency of responses among the multiple agencies responding to family
violence. The pilot was extensively evaluated, with over 18 reports assessing the project. These
initial evaluations were summarised by Dominick (1995). Dominick’s report provided the
information contained in the summary of HAIPP, below. Following the pilot phase, the
HAIPP intervention project has continued. The summary below is offered in order to provide
some examples of l‘ocal learning’ that were available prior to the start of the Family Safety
Teams. It does not necessarily provide the most up-to-date picture of the activities of HAIPP,
which has continued to evolve, and is now one of the partner agencies with the Hamilton FST.
The goals of the HAIPP were to:
•
achieve a consistent, coordinated approach to family violence by all primary agencies
•
provide safety at all times for the victims of family violence
•
hold the offender fully accountable.
Elements of the project aimed at response across all sectors, and followed closely on the DAIP.
They included:
•
an active Police policy of arresting abusers
•
the sentencing of convicted abusers to a structured education programme
•
advocacy and support for victims of abuse
•
close cooperation between community groups and statutory agencies
•
monitoring of agency performance and compliance with project policies.
Implementation structure
HAIPP involved five key agencies: Police, Women’s Refuge (Te Whakaruruhau and Hamilton
Refuge and Support Services), Community Corrections, the District and Family Courts, and the
HAIPP office staff (seven full-time staff equivalents).
HAIPP staff undertook a broad range of functions, including coordination and liaison with key
agencies, monitoring of agency compliance with protocols, running the men’s education
programme, running the women’s education programme, providing court advocacy services,
providing women’s advocacy services, and responding to crisis calls during the day. It is
important to note that the level of direct service provision undertaken by HAIPP staff differed
30
Context
__________________________________________________________________
from the original conception of the programme, which was for HAIPP office staff solely to
coordinate and monitor family violence responses offered by statutory and community
agencies. This development meant that the monitoring and coordination functions did not
occur independently of service provision, as was originally intended. It should also be noted
that the HAIPP service provision relied heavily on volunteers who served different functions,
such as assisting the court advocate, facilitating the men’s programme, and monitoring women
whose partners attended the programme. In addition, further support in the community was
offered by the Women’s Refuge, who provided crisis line and call-out advocacy work.
Following the DAIP model, the focus of the intervention was on altering the response of the
criminal justice system to family violence. Activities were centred on this goal. However,
expectations also arose that the HAIPP would achieve outcomes related to health and child
welfare, yet agencies with the power to influence these were not included in the core staff.
Lessons relevant to the introduction of the model elsewhere, as summarised by Dominick
(1995) are listed below.
Successes
•
Individual women were safer, and systems, crisis services and the justice system were more
responsive to their needs.
•
Improvements in offender accountability were achieved, in the sense that more offenders
experienced arrest and conviction after the introduction of HAIPP. However, further
improvements in accountability, delivery and effectiveness were needed.
•
Increased communication and cooperation between agencies, the development and use of
agreed protocols, and internal and external monitoring to ensure consistency of response
occurred.
•
Increases in arrests, prosecutions, convictions and sentencing of assailants to structured
men’s education programmes resulted.
•
Cost increases for participating agencies were experienced, due to increased numbers of
clients, and ‘netwidening’.
Replication
According to Dominick (1995), other geographical areas need not follow the HAIPP model
exactly. Priority should be given to providing an adequate infrastructure for response to victims
and perpetrators, with sufficient linkage and coordination to ensure the safety of victims. In
addition, participating agencies should have procedures for monitoring their performance (or
have others who monitor their performance), so that agencies have opportunities to improve
their responses.
Adaptations of interagency forums need to take into account the characteristics of individual
communities. This requires active participation from all agencies, and from all levels within
agencies. Key features that need to be agreed on include: mechanisms for networking,
information systems, and feedback mechanisms within and across agencies.
31
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
2.2
Purpose and objectives of pilot Family Safety Teams
The Family Safety Team (FST) pilot is a joint initiative between the Ministry of Justice, NZ
Police, and the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services that aims to provide a
coordinated response to family violence from the justice and social services sector. The Family
Safety Teams involve collaboration between police investigators and adult and child victim
advocates to ensure that the full range of needs and issues for a family experiencing family
violence are addressed. The main impetus for the development of the initiative was concerns
raised by family violence service providers and practitioners that the current response to family
violence is often fragmented, narrow, and lacking the formal systems required for effective
interagency coordination and collaboration.
For example, in November 2003 the
Commissioner for Children’s Report into the deaths of Saliel and Olympia Aplin stated:
…this report identifies the effect of sequential or cumulative errors and omissions on the part of
professionals. Once again this investigation has shown the need for bringing together the pieces
of information held by each agency and worker is of fundamental importance in being able to
determine a clear picture of what is happening for a child or in this case, children.
The FST initiative was designed to address these concerns by facilitating a more holistic
response to family violence.
In summary the key desired outcomes of the FST initiative are to:
•
provide formal systems and structures to support more effective interagency coordination,
communication and collaboration to respond to family violence
•
provide comprehensive and integrated interventions (whether services or support) for
families experiencing violence
•
contribute to the development of national best practice and promote consistent application
of such practice for agencies working with families experiencing family violence.
These were to be achieved through a focus on the following:
•
Information gathering and assessment
•
Monitoring and evaluating practice and systems
•
Developing new practice and systemic change
•
Proactive Intervention (second tier)
•
Advocacy – to ensure access and connection to 24/7 services and wrap-around services
across all sectors; ensure voices of women and children are integral to all systems and
services; to facilitate addressing gaps in services and support.
The FST initiative is currently operating in four sites: Auckland City; Hamilton; Wairarapa; and
the Hutt Valley. In 2006 two more sites will be added: Counties Manukau and Christchurch
City. However, only three sites – Auckland, Wairarapa and Hutt – participated in this
evaluation. They were reportedly selected as representing an urban-rural mix, differing levels of
existing community collaboration, and as sites that would benefit from participation in the
formative phase.
32
Context
__________________________________________________________________
2.3
Generic logic model
The purpose of the generic logic model is to outline the overall programme’s theory of action,
and the causal links among components such as goals, resources, activities, and short and longterm outcomes. As well as illuminating key elements of the programme, the logic model is
intended to show how programme activities lead to planned outcomes, help understand
programme processes, and identify key questions and areas of investigation for the formative
evaluation and for subsequent evaluations. There were three purposes in using logic models in
the baseline and formative evaluation of the FSTs.
•
First, the general logic model was intended to provide an overview of the rationale and
structure of the FSTs as seen from a national perspective. This model was also used to
develop specific questions relevant to the evaluation objectives.
•
Second, the site-specific logic models initially created by the evaluators were intended to
link specific programme objectives with key activities and the intended outcomes from
these activities.
•
Third, the site-specific models provided a means for each of the FSTs to think about and
communicate their planning ideas to the evaluation team through their involvement in the
development of the logic models for their team.
The generic model presented below provides a national perspective which is relevant to all
three of the FSTs included in the evaluation. The site-specific models, which are presented
later in the report under the site-specific sections, show the linkages among the objectives,
activities and intended outcomes for each of the three sites, as seen by the FSTs at each site.
Table 2.2 shows the general intervention logic for the Family Safety Teams. Information
shown in this Table was taken from documents relating to the national operation of FSTs. The
evaluation questions in the right column provide a starting point for elaboration of the data
collection for the evaluation.
33
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Table 2.2:
General intervention logic for Family Safety Teams
Component
Description
Theory of
action
Ensuring the safety and well-being of family members who are
victims of violence and improving the accountability of
offenders.
Goals
Identifying and closing gaps in existing systems in family
violence and child protection sectors.
Addressing factors such as health, economic independence and
social support, which may be impeding families’ ability to solve
or escape from family violence problems.
Main
Objectives
1. Establish formal systems and structures for better
coordination and collaboration.
2. Ensure comprehensive and integrated interventions for
families.
3. Develop national best practice.
Resources
$15.2 million dollars for 49 new positions over three financial
years funded by government.
Seven District Family Violence Coordinator positions:
•
Activities
1 National Family Violence Coordinator
•
Four family safety teams (10 staff each)
•
1 National Coordinator (Police).
Information gathering and assessment.
Monitoring and evaluating practice and systems.
Developing new practice and systemic change.
Evaluation Focus
How do the setting
up of the teams and
development of
operations address
the primary goals of
FSTs?
What progress has
been made towards
the objectives of the
FSTs over the first 10
months of operation?
How were resources
allocated over initial
setting up period?
Description of the
composition of the
teams.
Report of the main
activities of the three
teams over the setting
up period.
Proactive intervention.
Advocacy – to ensure access and connection to 24/7 services
and wrap-around services across all sectors; ensure voices of
women and children are integral to all systems and services; to
facilitate addressing gaps in services and support.
Short-term
outcomes
Provide formal systems and structures to support more
effective interagency coordination, communication and
collaboration to respond to family violence.
Provide comprehensive and integrated interventions (whether
services or support) for families experiencing violence.
Identify feasible
short-term outcomes
and report on data
availability and trends.
Develop national best practice and promote a consistent
application of such practice for agencies working with families
experiencing family violence.
Long-term
outcomes
Decrease in family violence murder rate.
Increase in convictions for family violence related crime.
Increase in expertise in agencies responding to family violence.
More effective collaboration between govt. and non-govt.
agencies.
Fewer repeat family violence incidents.
34
Report on feasibility,
data availability and
trends in long-term
indicators.
3
Methods
In this section, we describe the methods used to gather the information that informs this
report. In the first instance, we present the evaluation objectives and then set out the process
undertaken to gather baseline data, followed by that used in the formative phase of the
evaluation.
3.1
Evaluation Objectives
Table 3.1:
Evaluation objectives for baseline study
Baseline Objectives
1.
Collect information about systems and structures for responding to family violence that
are in place in each area at the time of introduction of the FSTs.
2.
Document the experiences and perceptions of key stakeholders and service users in
each area.
3.
Document the extent of collaboration, interagency coordination, and consistency of
practice within and between each pilot area.
4.
Identify potential indicators to monitor trends in family violence.
3.2
Evaluation Design
Table 3.2:
Outline of baseline study
Key objectives
Data sources
Methods
What are the current systems and
structures that respond to family
violence in each area at the time of
introduction of the FSTs?
What interventions have victims
experienced? To what extent have
victims experienced agencies working
together to keep them safe?
What interventions have perpetrators of
family violence experienced? To what
extent have perpetrators experienced
agencies working together to meet the
needs of their children?
Identify feasible indicators to monitor
trends in family violence.
Key stakeholder groups
including existing
service providers.
Interviews with 21–30
stakeholders (7–10 in
each area).
Victims.
Interviews with 30
victims (up to 10 from
each centre).
Perpetrators.
Interviews with 30
perpetrators (up to10
from each area).
Research, Evaluation &
Modelling Unit,
Ministry of Justice.
Existing reports.
35
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
3.3
Sample: baseline s tudy
FST members from the three sites were interviewed during the baseline phase. Stakeholders
from other agencies, both government and non-government, within each locale who
participated in interviews were identified by FST members, members of the home organisations
from whence they came (e.g. Women’s Refuge, Preventing Violence in the Home, Police), and
other agencies, (e.g. Ministry of Justice [District and Family Courts]). Victims of family
violence were drawn from those who had had contact with crisis intervention agencies, such as
Women’s Refuge and PVH, and who were willing to be interviewed. Perpetrators were drawn
from those who had undertaken men’s programmes. Both victims and perpetrators were, in
the first instance, identified and invited to participate by crisis intervention agencies and men’s
programme providers, respectively, and therefore represent samples of convenience. FST
members were interviewed in August and September 2005, community stakeholders between
September 2005 and January 2006 and victims and perpetrators between October 2005 and
January 2006.
In addition, an analysis of some family violence statistics was undertaken by the Ministry of
Justice members of the evaluation team. This provides baseline information and one source of
measurement against which the FSTs can determine progress toward achievement of their
medium and long-term goal of reducing family violence.
3.4
Data Collection
Tables 3.3 to 3.5 show the number of interviews conducted with various stakeholders in each
site. The stakeholder interview questionnaire is shown in Appendix 1. This questionnaire was
adapted where needed to address the specific work position and agency where the stakeholders
worked.
Table 3.3:
Number of stakeholders interviewed in Auckland
Stakeholders
FST Staff (2 Police, 4 NGO/PVH workers, 1 CYF staff)
Plunket
PVH Men’s programme
PVH Manager
District Court Victim Advisor
Table 3.4:
Number of stakeholders interviewed in Wairarapa
Stakeholders
FST Staff (2 Refuge staff, 1 CYF staff)
Wellington Police/Supervisor
Dept of Corrections & Community Probation
Stopping Violence Services
Women’s Refuge
District Court Victim Advisor
36
Number of
Interviews
7
2
1
1
1
Number of
Interviews
3
1
2
1
2
1
Methods
__________________________________________________________________
Table 3.5:
Number of stakeholders interviewed in Hutt Valley
Number of
Interviews
3
2
1
Stakeholders
FST Staff (1 Police, 2 Refuge staff)
Refuge Managers
District Court Victim Advisor
Table 3.6 shows the number of interviews conducted with victims and perpetrators of family
violence in each site. The victim interview questionnaire is shown in Appendix 2 and the
perpetrators interview questionnaire, in Appendix 3.
Table 3.6:
Victims
Perpetrators
3.5
Number of victim and perpetrator interviews according to site
Auckland
Hutt Valley
Wairarapa
5
3
5
2
5
1
Formative Process
Table 3.7 below outlines the original primary objectives for the formative evaluation and the
associated data sources. However, it has not been possible, for reasons that will be outlined in
this report, to meet all the objectives.
Table 3.7:
Evaluation objectives and data sources: Formative evaluation study
Formative Evaluation Objectives
Clarify the objectives of the FSTs and help
translate these into practice.
Develop a programme logic model or framework.
Develop success indicators/outcome measures.
Monitor and gather information on three FSTs.
Identify information sharing issues.
Feedback information to all FSTs.
Data sources
FST interviews
Stakeholder interviews
Document review
Meeting attendance
Stakeholder interviews
FST interviews
Document review
Success case studies from FST members
Interviews with victims and perpetrators
Ministry documents
Literature review
FST interviews
Stakeholder interviews
FST interviews
Stakeholder interviews
Victim and perpetrator interviews
Progress reports, interim report, final report
37
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Table 3.8 summarises the contact with the FST teams and supervisors during the formative
phase of the evaluation.
Table 3.8:
Summary of contact with FSTs during the formative phase
Contacts
Auckland
Hutt/Wairarapa
Formal Site visits
4
4/4
Telephone/Email/Meetings
35
71
During the site visits, which each took place over half a day, the FSTs were given the
opportunity to describe progress to date and identify barriers to progress. The evaluation team
provided feedback and literature-based resources on possible ways forward.
In the last six months, as some of the systemic issues have moved towards resolution, the focus
of the visits and communication with the teams has centred on the development of site specific
intervention logic models. In addition, although not originally scheduled, there was regular
telephone and email contact and several face-to-face meetings between the evaluation team and
the National Coordinator of Family Safety Teams. This ensured the Coordinator was aware of
the nature of the contact between the FST and the evaluation team and provided opportunities
for information sharing which assisted the formative process.
3.6
Ethics
Prior to the commencement of the project an application was made to the University of
Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee for approval to undertake the evaluation
which was duly granted (Ref no. 2005/270). All participants were invited to take part and
required to give informed consent (see Appendix 4, Participant Information Sheets and
Consent Forms). Recruitment protocols were developed to guide recruitment of clients, i.e.
victims and perpetrators (Appendix 5), and safety protocols were developed to guide those
involved in interviewing victims and perpetrators (Appendix 6).
3.6.1
Interviews with children
It should be noted that while the evaluation team agrees that it is important that the voices of
children be heard, we felt that it was inappropriate to interview children in this phase of the
evaluation. The reason for this was that the disadvantages were considered significant –
children could be re-traumatised, parents might not want to subject their children to further
procedures, and young children would not have the level of understanding of the system
dynamics to provide valid feedback. However, information on child safety was sought
throughout the interviews with stakeholders, including victims and perpetrators.
3.7
Data analysis
Descriptive statistics were employed to analyse data drawn from family violence statistics to
provide a baseline summary for each of the three FST sites (Auckland City, the Wairarapa, and
Hutt Valley) and comparisons to the national figures. Stakeholder interviews were transcribed
38
Methods
__________________________________________________________________
and written up and analysed inductively in relation to the evaluation objectives with the use of
thematic analysis. While a member of the research team took overall responsibility for the
analysis of a particular section of the data (e.g. victim and perpetrator interviews or stakeholder
interviews) the integrity of the analysis was ensured as each member of the team read and
reviewed all transcripts and associated analyses.
39
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
40
4
Results: Baseline findings
The results are organised into two sections. First, an analysis of data related to the goals of
FSTs, drawn from family violence statistics, is presented to provide an understanding of the
environment in which Family Safety Teams were established, and to contribute to the
establishment of a baseline against which progress toward the achievement of FST goals may
be gauged. Next, analysis of community stakeholder interviews and victim and perpetrator
interviews is provided to further establish the context for the baseline phase. This information
is organised by site. Although FST members were interviewed during the baseline phase (in the
first few months following inception of the FST pilot sites) these data are analysed as part of
the formative phase (reported in Chapter 5) as they contribute to the team profiles that have
been built up for each site.
Selected material from ‘Family Violence Statistics: A Baseline Study for the Family Safety
Teams Initiative’, (Appendix 7) has been included in the body of this report. Moreover, in
reading the material from the ‘Family Violence Statistics’ report, it is important to note that
there are a number of limitations to monitoring trends in family violence. These include
obtaining reliable data, difficulties in determining the extent to which changes in family
violence-related statistics can be attributed to FSTs or to other factors, and being able to
correctly interpret any increases or decreases in measures over time. The data in this report
were collated from a number of sources and include data recorded by NZ Police; Child, Youth
and Family Services; National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges, and Ministry of
Justice. Different data sets have different boundaries and catchment areas, which not only
differ from each other, but have undergone changes over time.
A recent report by the Ministry of Justice highlighted the need to consider operational and
policy changes when evaluating measures of recorded family violence.6 In some cases,
initiatives designed to reduce family violence result in more victims reporting family violence.
This results in increased recorded family violence when the actual incidence rate could be stable
or even decreasing. Other factors that can affect these statistics are the recording practices of
frontline staff, the willingness of victims to report offences and media coverage of family
violence.
Data obtained from the Police and Court records is likely to underestimate the true extent of
family violence, as many incidents go unreported. The NZ National Survey of Crime Victims
2001 found that 88 percent of sexual victimisations, 82 percent of violence by heterosexual
partners, and 80 percent of threats were not reported to the Police. 7
6
7
Bartlett E, Is Domestic Violence Increasing or Decreasing? Various Measures of Trends in Domestic Violence, Ministry of
Justice. 2005 (unpublished).
Morris & Reilly, New Zealand National Survey of Crime Victims 2001.
41
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
4.1
Police recorded family violence offences
4.1.1
National
Data from the NZ Police shows the national rate of recorded family violence offences per
10,000 head of population in New Zealand.8 Family violence is recorded by Police as an
offence attribute rather than a separate offence category.9 Figure 4.1 shows an increasing trend
in the rate of Police-recorded family violence offences. The rate has increased from 49 per
10,000 in 1999 to 73 per 10,000 in 2005. (See Appendix 7 for the actual number of recorded
family violence offences). Changes in Police recording practices, together with the greater
awareness of family violence within Police, are likely to explain a large portion of this increase.
Bartlett (2005) recommended that Police-recorded family violence offence rates are not used to
monitor family violence until it is known that recording practices are applied consistently over
time and across Police districts.
Figure 4.1:
Police Recorded Family Violence Offence Rates per 10,000
Population 1999–2005
Rate per 10,000 population
Police recorded family violence offence rates per
10,000 population - National
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Year
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice
4.1.2
FST sites
Figure 4.2 shows the recorded family violence offence rates per 10,000 head of population in
the three pilot areas10. Lower Hutt had the greatest increase over this period, from 26 per
10,000 in 1996, to 97 per 10,000 head of population in 2005. In 2005, Auckland City Central
had 74 recorded family violence offences per 10,000 head of population which was almost
identical to the national rate of 73 per 10,000 head of population. Once again, these figures
need to be interpreted with caution due to changes in Police recording practices over time and
between the sites.
8
9
10
42
It should be noted that recorded crime refers only to crimes recorded by the Police and therefore may not
accurately represent the actual incidence of crimes.
Family violence represents the number of recorded offences of any type that involved some degree of family
violence as determined by the attending police officer.
The population used in these calculations is the estimate National population, which may differ from the sum
of all Police area populations.
Results: Baseline findings
__________________________________________________________________
Figure 4.2:
Police Recorded Family Violence Offence Rates per 10,000
Population in FST Sites 1999–2005
Police recorded family violence offence rates per 10,000
population, compared with the national rate
Rate per 10,000 population
140
120
100
Auckland City Central
80
Wairarapa
60
Lower Hutt
40
National
20
0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice
4.2
POL 400s
A POL 400 is the code given to a Police form completed by staff who attend either incidents or
offences involving family violence. An incident is a job attended by Police that does not
involve the commission of an offence (e.g. stock wandering on highways). It must be noted
that the figures below may be influenced by recording practices, a greater awareness of family
violence within Police, as well as changes in the actual number of family violence offences
committed. 11
4.2.1
National
Figure 4.3 shows that the rate of POL 400s completed had a generally increasing trend since
1999 with the exception of a decrease in the rate in 2004. In 1999, the rate of POL 400s
completed by Police was 98 per 10,000 population, this rate increased to 138 per 10,000 in
2005.
11
POL 400 data for 2004 and 2005 is provisional only.
43
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Figure 4.3:
Number of POL 400s Completed by Police per 10,000 Population
1999–2005 – National
Rate per 10,000 population
POL 400s per 10,000 Population - National
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Year
Source: New Zealand Police
4.2.2
FST sites
The three FST sites had similar rates of POL 400s per 10,000 population in 2004 and 2005.
Prior to 2003, the Auckland FST site had the highest rate, peaking at 179 per 10,000 head of
population in 2001. In the Wairarapa, the rate of POL 400s was stable from 2002 to 2004 but
increased from 130 per 10,000 head of population to 147 in 2005. Lower Hutt saw the largest
percentage increase over the period, from 95 per 10,000 head of population in 1999 to 154 per
10,000 head of population in 2005.
Figure 4.4:
Number of POL 400s Completed by the Police per 10,000
Population in the FST Sites 1999–2005
Rate per 10,000 Population
POL 400s per 10,000 Population - FST Sites
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Auckland City
Central
Wairarapa
Lower Hutt
1999
2000
2001
2002
Year
Source: New Zealand Police
44
2003
2004
2005
Results: Baseline findings
__________________________________________________________________
4.3
Applications for Protection Orders – Demographic Profile of
Applicants and Respondents
4.3.1
National
Under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act 1995, which came into force in 1996, a
victim of violence within a close personal relationship can apply for a protection order.
Applications for Protection Orders can be made ‘on notice’, when the respondent is advised of
the application and has a chance to be heard before the order is made, or ‘without notice’. An
application filed ‘without notice’ may result in a temporary protection order being issued
without the respondent being notified. Once the order is served the respondent can take steps
to defend the application. The temporary order stays in force until a decision is made about a
final order.
Some ‘without notice’ applications, rather than resulting in a temporary order, are ‘put on
notice’. They are then treated as an ‘on notice’ application; the respondent is notified and can
defend the application. An application will usually be made or put ‘on notice’ if it is thought
that the applicant or other parties are not in immediate danger.
As shown in Figure 4.5 most applications for protections orders are filed ‘without notice’ (89
percent of applications were ‘without notice’ in 2005).12
Figure 4.5:
Applications for Protection Orders – National Summary 1999–2005
Number
Applications for Protection Orders – National
Summary
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Total Applications
On Notice
Without Notice
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
Source: Family Court Database, manual returns and Case Management System, Ministry of Justice.
Arguably an application put ‘on notice’ may allow for the possibility of the respondent exerting
pressure on the applicant to withdraw the application. A process evaluation of the Domestic
12
Data about protection orders was combined from several sources over the years – manual returns for small
courts, the Family Court database (FCDB) for larger courts and the Case Management System (CMS) from
2003 onwards.
45
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Violence Act 1995 found that there was a much higher withdrawal rate for those applications
that were put ‘on notice’.13
As can be seen in Figure 4.5 there has been a decreasing trend overall in the number of
applications for Protection Orders. The total number of applications dropped by 30 percent
between 1999 and 2005. The number of ‘without notice’ applications decreased at a similar
rate, reducing from 5859 in 1999 to 4034 in 2005. ‘On notice’ applications saw a steady decline
between 2002 and 2005.
Table 4.1 shows more detailed information on the types of applications for Protection Orders
made and orders granted. The percentage of all applications that were filed ‘without notice’ has
remained fairly steady over the period. In 2005, 89 percent of all applications were filed
‘without notice’; 77 percent of applications filed ‘without notice’ resulted in temporary orders
and 53 percent of all applications resulted in final orders.
Table 4.1:
Details Relating to Applications for Protection Orders 1999 to 2005
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
6520
6015
5820
5568
5092
4662
4545
661
638
720
766
698
611
511
Applications Filed ‘Without Notice’
5859
5377
5100
4802
4394
4051
4034
Temporary Orders Made
4926
4262
3879
3649
3396
3105
3109
Final Orders Made
Percentage of Applications Filed
‘Without Notice’
Temporary Orders Made as a
Percentage of Applications Filed
‘Without Notice’
Final Orders Made as a Percentage of
Total Applications Filed in the same
time period
4066
3699
3408
3284
2835
2774
2412
90%
89%
88%
86%
86%
87%
89%
84%
79%
76%
76%
77%
77%
77%
62%
61%
59%
59%
56%
60%
53%
Total Number of Applications Filed
Applications Filed ‘On Notice’
Source: Family Court Database, manual returns and Case Management System, Ministry of Justice.
4.3.2
FST Sites
The number of applications for Protection Orders in the Auckland District Court decreased by
32 percent over the period 1999 to 2005. Applications in the Lower Hutt District Court
decreased by 35 percent. These changes are similar to the national number of applications
which decreased by 30 percent over this period. The Masterton District Court saw the greatest
drop, decreasing 58 percent from 83 applications in 1999 to 35 in 2005 (Figure 4.6).
13
46
Barwick, H., Gray., & Macky, R. (2000). Domestic Violence Act 1995: Process Evaluation. Wellington: Ministry of
Justice
Results: Baseline findings
__________________________________________________________________
Figure 4.6:
Total Number of Applications for Protection Orders – FST
Sites 1999–2005
Applications for Protection Orders - FST Sites
600
Number
500
Auckland
400
Masterton
300
Lower Hutt
200
100
0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
Source: Family Court Database, manual returns and Case Management System, Ministry of Justice
4.4
Convictions
4.4.1
National
Ministry of Justice data show the number of convictions for the three selected offences that
relate to family violence (Figure 4.7).14
As shown in Figure 4.7, the number of convictions for male assaults female steadily decreased
from 1996 to 2002 but has increased by 36 percent since 2002. From 1996, when the Domestic
Violence Act 1995 came into effect, the number of convictions relating to breaches of
Protection Orders increased dramatically (from 496 in 1996 to 2,360 in 2001). The number
dropped in 2002 but the number of convictions increased from 2002 to 2005. Convictions for
assault on a child have fluctuated during the period, showing an overall decrease of 12 percent
since 1996.
More detailed information on assaults on a child is presented in Table 4.2.
14
Figures for 2005 are provisional. The 2004 court data may differ slightly from the figures previously supplied.
47
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Figure 4.7:
Number of Convictions for Family Violence Related Offences
1999–2005 - National
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Male Assaults
Female
Breach Protection
Order
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
Assault on a child
1996
Number
Convictions for Family Violence Related Offences
Year
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice
Table 4.2:
Outcome of Prosecutions for Assault on a Child – National Totals
Outcome
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Convicted
Youth Court proved
326
5
298
3
294
8
304
4
280
1
294
3
291
3
253
3
312
3
287
0
Discharged without conviction
5
13
7
15
14
21
19
12
18
28
Dismissed
67
55
62
36
32
46
35
34
45
45
Discharged
12
9
15
10
23
21
43
34
18
45
Withdrawn
122
120
139
159
188
189
170
172
158
174
Acquitted
9
8
11
13
24
22
18
13
14
56
11
8
9
4
27
6
24
28
18
25
9
1
2
3
2
1
3
2
1
2
Total
566
515
547
548
591
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice
603
606
551
587
662
Other not proved
Other assault on a child
4.4.2
FST Sites
Data relating to convictions for family violence offences in the FST sites shows a more variable
picture than the national data.
Male assaults female
Figure 4.8 shows the number of convictions for male assaults female between 1999 and 2005 in
the three FST sites. Convictions in Auckland decreased over this period. In Masterton the
number of convictions has remained fairly stable and in Lower Hutt the number of convictions
has shown a general increasing trend since 1999.
48
Results: Baseline findings
__________________________________________________________________
Figure 4.8:
Number of convictions for male assaults female, by FST Site
1999–2005
Convictions for male assaults female - by FST site
Number
500
400
Auckland
300
Masterton
200
Lower Hutt
100
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
0
Year
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
Breach of Protection Order
In each of the courts, the number of convictions for breach of Protection Orders (Figure 4.9)
tended to increase from 1996 to 2001, after the introduction of the Domestic Violence Act
1995, with more variable numbers from 2002 onwards.
Figure 4.9:
Number of Convictions for Breach of Protection Order, by
FST Site 1999–2005
Convictions for breach of protection order - by
FST site
150
Auckland
100
Masterton
Lower Hutt
50
0
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
Number
200
Year
49
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Assault on a child
The number of prosecutions for assault on a child increased slightly from 566 in 1996 to 662 in
2005. Over a quarter of all prosecutions were withdrawn in 2005. Convictions for assault on a
child dropped from 56 percent of prosecutions for this charge in 1996 to 43 percent in 2005,
although it fluctuated in the intervening years.
Figure 4.10 shows the wide variation, both across and within the FST sites, in the number of
convictions for assault on a child during the period 1996 to 2005.
Figure 4.10: Number of Convictions for Assault on a Child, by FST Site
1999–2005
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Auckland
Masterton
20
05
20
03
20
04
20
02
20
00
20
01
Lower Hutt
19
98
19
99
19
96
19
97
Number
Convictions for assault on a child - by FST site
Year
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
4.5
Commitments to Domestic Violence Programmes
The Domestic Violence Act 1995 provides programmes for people whose lives are affected by
domestic violence and who are protected by Protection Orders. The programmes for adultprotected persons and children, contribute to the legislation’s primary objective of providing
greater protection for victims of domestic violence. In accordance with the Act's rehabilitative
focus, the Court must also direct respondents to attend specified programmes, unless the court
considers there is good reason not to.
4.5.1
National
As shown in Figure 4.11, between 1999 and 2005, new commitments for domestic violence
programmes for respondents decreased by 18 percent.15 The number of new commitments for
programmes for adult protected persons remained fairly stable between 1999 and 2002 and
then started to decline slightly in the following years. New commitments for programmes for
children showed a steady increase between 1999 and 2004, but dropped slightly from 2004 to
2005. Over this period the number of applications for Protection Orders has been declining.
15
50
Due to data migration issues, pre-2003 data for small courts is not available. These data account for
approximately 20% – 25% of Family Court volume in 1999 and 5% – 10% from 2000.
Results: Baseline findings
__________________________________________________________________
Figure 4.11:
Number of New Commitments to Domestic Violence
Programmes and the Total Number of Applications for
Protection Orders 1999–2005
Commitments to DV programmes and the number
of applications for protection orders - National
Respondents
7000
6000
Number
5000
4000
Adult protected
Persons
3000
Children
2000
1000
Total New
Commitments
0
1999 2000 2001
2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
Applications for
Protection Orders
Source: Case Management System, Ministry of Justice.
4.5.2
FST sites
The following section shows the number of commitments to domestic violence programmes
for respondents, adult protected persons, and children by the Courts in three FST areas.16
Programmes for respondents
Auckland and Lower Hutt District Courts mirrored the national trend of decreased numbers of
commitments. Auckland saw a spike in the number of commitments in 2002. This spike is
also evident in the commitments to programmes for adult protected persons and children in
Auckland. The number of commitments in the Masterton District Court increased from 0 in
1999 to 44 in 2005. The number of commitments in Lower Hutt varied from 208 in 1999 to 94
in 2004.
16
Data for the Auckland District Court uses the combined sources of manual returns, the FCDB and CMS. The
data for the other sites relies on CMS only and is less accurate.
51
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Figure 4.12: Number of New Commitments for Domestic Violence
Programmes for Respondents – FST Sites
Number
Number of new commitments of respondents to
Domestic Violence Programmes - FST sites
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Auckland
Masterton
Lower Hutt
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Year
Source: Family Court Database and Case Management System, Ministry of Justice
Programmes for adult-protected persons
Auckland saw a general decrease in commitments for adult-protected persons, dropping from
140 in 1999 to 48 in 2005. The number of commitments in Masterton increased from 1999 to
2004 then dropped in 2005. In Lower Hutt, commitments increased from 1999 to 2002 then
began to decline.
Figure 4.13: Number of New Commitments for Domestic Violence
Programmes for Adult-Protected Persons – FST Sites
Number
Number of new commitments of adult protected
persons to Domestic Violence Programmes - FST
sites
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Auckland
Masterton
Lower Hutt
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Year
Source: Family Court Database and Case Management System, Ministry of Justice
52
Results: Baseline findings
__________________________________________________________________
Programmes for children
The number of new commitments for domestic violence programmes for children shows
differing trends across the FST sites (see Figure 4.14). The number of commitments in
Auckland peaked in 2002. The number of new commitments in Masterton increased over this
period, while Lower Hutt stayed relatively stable.
Figure 4.14: Number of New Commitments for Domestic Violence
Programmes for Children – FST Sites
Number of new commitments of children to
Domestic Violence Programmes - FST sites
120
Number
100
Auckland
80
Masterton
60
Lower Hutt
40
20
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Year
Source: Family Court Database and Case Management System, Ministry of Justice
4.6
Referrals to agencies
4.6.1
Department of Child, Youth and Family Services
National
Figure 4.15 shows the total number of notifications to CYFS call centres from 2000 to 2005
from all sources (including police, education, and health staff, and the public).17 Also detailed
are the numbers of notifications from police staff (family violence and non-family violence
notifications are shown separately). After a drop between 2000 and 2001, there was a 91
percent increase in total notifications from 2000 to 2005. Police non-family violence
notifications increased by 38 percent over the period. Police family violence notifications
increased markedly from 266 in 2000 to 13,476 in 2005. It is likely that a substantial proportion
of the increase is due to changes in police practice. In many Police areas, there has been a
greater appreciation of the negative effects on children who witness family violence, and this
has contributed to increasing notifications to CYFS.
17
The data provided differs slightly from the data provided in the previous baseline report for the same period.
This is a consequence of a lag in data entry and is unavoidable.
53
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Figure 4.15: National Notifications to Child, Youth and Family Services –
2000–2005
National Notifications to Child, Youth and Family
70,000
60,000
All Sources
Number
50,000
40,000
Police (non-FV)
30,000
Police Family
Violence
20,000
10,000
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Year
Source: Child, Youth and Family Services.
FST sites
Figure 4.16 shows the total number of notifications to CYFS from all sources (including the
Police, other agencies, and the public) in the FST sites between 1999 and 2005.18 The FST sites
show a similar trend to the national average with each of the sites showing a large overall
increase from 2000 to 2005. The greatest percentage increase in notifications was seen in the
Hutt Valley with a 223 percent increase from 908 in 2000 to 2,936 in 2005.
Figure 4.16: Notifications to Child, Youth and Family Services from All
Sources – FST Sites 1999–2005
Notifications to CYF from all sources - FST sites
4,000
3,500
Number
3,000
2,500
Auckland City
2,000
Masterton
1,500
Hutt Valley
1,000
500
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Year
Source: Child, Youth and Family Services.
18
54
Data provided for Masterton and the Hutt Valley in the previous baseline report was incorrect. Amended data
has now been provided.
Results: Baseline findings
__________________________________________________________________
The total number of notifications to CYFS from police staff (family violence and non-family
violence notifications) also showed marked increases from 2001 to 2005. Once again, Hutt
Valley showed the largest increase from 208 notifications from police in 1999 to 1,857 in 2005.
As mentioned earlier, it is likely that a substantial proportion of the observed changes are due to
changes in police practice.
Figure 4.17: Notifications to Child, Youth and Family Services from the
Police – FST Sites 1999–2005
Number
Notifications to CYF from Police - FST sites
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Auckland City
Masterton
Hutt Valley
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Year
Source: Child, Youth and Family Services.
4.6.2
National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges
The National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges is the primary family violence
service provider in New Zealand. Currently, there are 51 Refuges throughout the country
providing safe house accommodation, counselling, education programmes, advocacy, advice
and information to women and children experiencing family violence. Women's Refuges also
work with government agencies and other groups to raise awareness of family violence in
communities. The data below collected by the National Collective of Independent Women’s
Refuges provides an overview of their activities as well as a profile of their client base. During
2004 and 2005:
•
Women’s Refuge supported 12,364 women experiencing family violence.
•
Women’s Refuge delivered family violence prevention programmes to 5,732 women and
children.
•
Women’s Refuge provided safe-house accommodation to 5,156 women and children. The
average stay in the safe house was 33.5 nights, a week longer than in 2003 and nearly three
weeks longer than the average stay in 2000.
•
Over 5,500 Refuge clients received targeted education and counselling support services.
•
The women who used Refuge services identified their ethnicity as follows:
− 44% Maori
− 34% Pakeha/NZ European
− 5% Pasifika
55
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
− 2% Asian
− 4% Other ethnicity
− 11% Undisclosed.
•
Children’s ethnicities were identified as:
− 55% Maori
− 25% Pakeha/NZ European
− 7% Pasifika
− 1% Asian
− 4% Other ethnicity
− 8% Undisclosed.
•
The majority of women referred themselves to Women’s Refuge. Women using Refuge
services are commonly referred by Refuge to lawyers, Police, Work and Income, Housing
and Accommodation services, and health professionals.
4.7
Summary of data
The data above have been presented in order to provide an understanding of the context in
which FSTs were established and a baseline against which progress within sites can be assessed,
in the medium to longer term. In general, the trends for the FSTs portrayed in the tables and
graphs reflect those observed nationally. However the rates in these three sites tend to be
higher than the national rate, and the degree of variability in reported rates within sites across
the reporting timeframe appears, in general, to be greater.
4.8
Baseline interviews
In order to understand the context in which FSTs were being introduced, interviews were
conducted with community stakeholders, and victims and perpetrators.
Community
stakeholders were interviewed between September 2005 and January 2006, and victims and
perpetrators between October 2005 and January 2006. It should be noted that the following
discussions of systems and structures in each site were those that existed at the beginning of the
evaluation, prior to the FSTs becoming fully operational.
This first section provides site specific information relating to each of the three pilot FSTs
based on interviews conducted with stakeholders from those communities. The information
obtained for all stakeholders (community agency representatives, victims and perpetrators)
from within a particular community is presented together for each of the three sites.
The second section uses information from interviews with victims and perpetrators. When
reading the following analysis of the victim and perpetrator interviews it is important to realise
that these may well reflect selection bias as the evaluation team was reliant on the service
providers to recruit participants. (Note: Detailed criteria for recruitment of victims and
perpetrators are provided in Appendix 5.)
56
Results: Baseline findings
__________________________________________________________________
Fifteen interviews (five in each site) were undertaken with women who had experienced family
violence services and programmes. Although the number of interviews is small, the
information gained provides some indication of:
•
the range of support and services experienced by these women
•
the extent to which they perceived existing family violence services and programmes helped
to keep them and their children safe
•
the extent to which these services were working together to keep them and their children
safe.
All but one of the women interviewed had children, and for all but one the perpetrator had
been a partner or husband. One participant was interviewed about her daughter’s experiences.
The findings from victim interviews are presented under the three themes identified above and
by FST site.
Six interviews (three in Auckland, two in the Hutt Valley, and one in Wairarapa) were
undertaken with perpetrators of family violence. To the extent possible from this small
number, we have gained an indication of:
•
the range of support and services experienced by these perpetrators
•
the extent to which these perpetrators perceived that interventions have held them
accountable
•
to extent to which these perpetrators perceived that services were working together to hold
them accountable.
Three men had been violent towards their wives, and three to their partners. Four of the six
had children, and three families were living together when interviewed. The low number of
perpetrator interviews reflects the greater difficulty that providers had in recruiting them
compared to victims.
The findings from perpetrator interviews are presented under three themes identified above
and by FST site.
4.8.1
Auckland Stakeholders
Interviews with community agency stakeholders
Current systems and structures that respond to family violence
A prominent crisis intervention service in the Auckland area covered by the Auckland FST is
that of Preventing Violence in the Home (PVH). PVH has a formal partnership with the local
police district which involves an agreement that all POL 400s will be sent by local police to
PVH. Based on the initial stakeholder interviews, a process model of the standard patterns of
operation for crisis intervention by police and PVH has been developed. This model is shown
in Figure 4.18. Following initial identification of family violence cases during police call-outs, a
POL 400 form is completed. If an arrest is made the POL 400 is faxed to PVH immediately.
If not, they are sent in the mail to PVH. PVH assesses the information in the POL 400 form,
assigns advocates, and arranges for the victim(s) to be visited by the advocates.
57
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Figure 4.18: Process model for family violence crisis intervention (Police & PVH):
Operations at baseline phase
Police callout to
incident
Incident classified as
DV
POL 400 form
completed
If an arrest made, police
fax PVH Crisis Line with
family details during shift
PVH volunteer advocates
visit victim after hours or
PVH advocates complete
a risk assessment (24
hour service)
PVH assesses POL 400 and
other information and
advocates either phone, visit
or send letter, depending on
availability/need
Police fax/send through all
POL 400s to PVH staff for
both arrest and non-arrest
cases
Two advocates visit family:
Adult Victim Advocate & Child
Advocate
PVH provides initial information
& support for victim and child to
achieve immediate safety
PVH makes referrals for family
members to other services for
ongoing support
Information obtained during the baseline phase revealed that PVH provides a range of
operations and services addressing family violence. These are summarised in Table 4.3 and
show the sources of referrals, operations and services, and organisations to which PVH refers
cases.
58
Results: Baseline findings
__________________________________________________________________
Table 4.3:
Preventing Violence in the Home (Auckland): referrals and links
PVH Operations
Referrals to PVH
Referrals from PVH
and services
Police
Callout advocacy service for
victims
Women’s Refuge, DV
programmes, legal, medical,
counselling, Work and
Income and other services
Police
Telephone crisis line
Women’s Refuge, DV
programmes, legal,
medical, counselling, and
other services
Police
Child Crisis Team (provides up
to 4 home visits, includes safety
planning)
CYFS, counselling services,
DV programmes
Health services including
ADHB and community
nursing services (midwives,
plunket nurses, district
health nurses), general
practitioners, mental health,
community alcohol and
drug services.
As above
Courts, probation and selfreferrals
Men’s Stopping Violence
Programme (No excuses)
Health services
As well as direct services related to family violence, PVH also provides several education
programmes and related activities which are summarised in Table 4.4. The education
programmes are: Men’s Stopping Violence Programme, Professional Intervention Skills
Training, community education, DVFREE for employers, SAFTINET interagency
coordination.
59
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Table 4.4:
Preventing Violence in the Home (Auckland): Education Programmes
and Related Activities
PVH Education
Clients
programmes & other
activities
Men's Stopping
Court referrals, probation referrals and self-referrals
Violence Programme
Provides a group-based education programme for men who have
(No excuses)
used violence against family members. In “No Excuses”,
women and men co-facilitate a curriculum designed to explore
belief systems, behaviours and effects of abuse, putting the safety
of women and children as the highest priority
Professional
Intervention Skills
Training
Social workers, nurses, probation officers, teachers
Community education
For friends/family/colleagues/neighbours. A basic
understanding of the dynamics of family violence, and
information about where to go for assistance
DVFREE for
employers
Programme that works with employers to support and assist staff
who are victims of domestic violence through consultation on
HR policies, general awareness training for staff and in-depth
training for managers
SAFTINET interagency This forum helps to set up policies and practices to promote the
coordination
safety of victims and hold abusers accountable for their violence.
SAFTINET coordinates and monitors a seamless approach to
domestic violence cases between government and community
agencies. It also monitors agencies' adherence to these policies.
Gaps in services are identified and strategies to improve are
negotiated
Gaps in family violence services
Stakeholders noted a gap in the provision of family violence services for children, noting that
there were an insufficient number of approved providers for Domestic Violence Programmes
for Children in Auckland city, particularly Maori programmes and group programmes, given the
need. Lack of coordination of information on programme availability appears to be a further
problem, as are long waiting lists for programmes and transportation requirements, given the
distance often required to travel in a large urban city like Auckland and the financial
circumstances of some families. As a result of this, and the lack of funding available to attend
these programmes in the absence of a Protection Order, uptake is often low. The following
quote is indicative of the situation:
From the SafetiNet meetings I have been to it sounds like the referral process can be quite
difficult for a number of reasons, like if it’s done through the Family Court; because mum has
applied for a Protection Order the programme will need to wait for the Court to send through
the right documentation before they can actually put the child through to the programme; and
then if a mum wants to take her child to a programme but she doesn’t have a Protection Order
or can’t afford to pay for the programme that’s another setback for her. And then there’s things
like transport and all of those things.
60
Results: Baseline findings
__________________________________________________________________
Several stakeholders noted that some organisations, including Ministry of Justice (District and
Family Courts) and CYFS, are very wary about information sharing, which impacts on the
provision of family violence services in a variety of ways. One example given is that Courts
may be reluctant to divulge information on bail conditions for offenders, which can jeopardize
the provision of intervention by organisations like PVH. A need to formalise informationsharing processes was identified as essential:
I think if everything was sort of formalised it would make everybody feel a whole lot better about
sharing information. I mean, because I have to say there are times when you know it’s urgent
and you know the client will want to find out from the case worker anyway, or she knows he’s
going to get bail and you know that the case worker will put her into Refuge, and the case
worker is the only point of contact that you have, then I would share the information.
(ASkh4)
Often, information sharing is dependent on sufficient understanding of the services provided
and the existence of personal relationships, where trust is high.
…there are some services I would refer to because I agree with the way they work and then there
are some services that I don’t know enough about to trust what they do. (ASkh4)
One stakeholder described an attempt to formalise an information-sharing process between
PVH and the District Court:
We tried to get a protocol going with PVH so that we’re able to inform the case workers about
what’s happening with the particular case if they were dealing with the same client. But because
of the Privacy Act and everybody wanting to protect ourselves, I suppose, as well as the PVH
workers, it didn’t work because legally we’re not supposed to give them information about a case
unless a client has given us express consent to do so. And that can be really hard if you haven’t
really had contact with the client yourself. So what we’ll do if we know that a client has a case
worker at PVH we will ask them if it is ok that we share the information with them as well
and often they say yes and we make an admin note on the file about that. In terms of sharing
information, basically we can’t share anything unless we’ve got the client’s permission….
(ASkh4)
Coordination between agencies for family violence services was described by one stakeholder as
a ‘hit and miss’ situation and by another as non-existent: ‘I don’t think we’ve got any coordination’
(ASkh3). SafetiNet meetings where different family violence agencies come together regularly
have been run more as a networking opportunity rather than as a concerted joint effort to
tackle systems issues. The reason given for this was because everyone is too stretched and no
one is in a position to spearhead the initiative. Also, key managers from agencies tend not to
attend the meetings, sending substitutes in their place.
Another stakeholder stated that a major barrier to coordination lay in ‘territorialism’ between
agencies:
I think the territorial stuff is huge, not just with the agencies, with the Court when you talk
about somebody deciding on where a client should go. I mean I’ve had clients who’ve been sent
from other agencies to me, Family Court clients, who actually live and work closer to me. So
somebody in Court has decided to send them elsewhere, so that relationship is actually quite
important with us, and the referrals shouldn’t be based on a relationship, if you know what I
mean. If we’re all doing the work, same paperwork, it should simply be about where you live.
So, that’s really the only barrier really. (ASkh2)
61
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Another stakeholder believed that more education was required to inform others of services:
I think there are too many agencies out there…and a lack of knowledge, a full understanding
of what they do…and it’s not until we get people in to talk to [us] at a staff meeting that these
agencies start getting used because then [we] really understand what their role is. Handing out
pamphlets really doesn’t do it all that well…if they have someone come and talk to them they’re
more likely to remember what they do and who they are. (ASkh3)
Extent to which current programmes and interventions keep families safe
Some stakeholders maintained more is still needed to be done in order to ensure the safety of
families. When asked how well coordinated interventions were, one stakeholder had this to say:
Not very well at all. I think that fits in quite closely with the victims’ safety. If the offenders
aren’t accountable, the victims aren’t safe. Not always, but in many ways that’s true. When a
guy knows that he can get away with beating his wife again and again, etc and he doesn’t go to
prison until it gets to grievous bodily harm, what’s the incentive to not do it? (ASkh1)
Improved intervention to hold perpetrators accountable was viewed as a key strategy in keeping
families safe. Another stakeholder believed that more timely communication was key:
I think it has to be timely, the communications between the agencies has to be really good and
ongoing. (ASkh3)
Interviews with victims
Interventions or services experienced by victims
All five women in Auckland had Protection Orders. One also had a monitor installed, and
another a personal alarm system. Most had experienced engagement with the Police, the
Family Court, the District Court, and some had engagement with a lawyer. Other interventions
and services experienced included Child, Youth and Family Services, Preventing Violence in the
Home (PVH), Work and Income, counselling, Strengthening Families, and the ‘James Family’19.
Friends, family and employers were also mentioned as providing support.
The extent victims perceive that these interventions or services had kept them and their
families safe
Some of these women believed existing interventions or services had helped to keep them and
their children safe. Timely, readily accessible, and appropriate services from agencies such as
Police and PVH appeared to contribute to perceptions of safety. This ranged from assistance
such as Police providing a phone number for a lawyer, through to PVH installing personal
alarms for two women.
19
62
James Family is a community social services provider, a child and family division of Presbyterian Support
Northern.
Results: Baseline findings
__________________________________________________________________
Others noted how services had improved their knowledge and skills. One remarked how much
safer she felt having information and support from PVH:
Speaking to the lawyer with PVH they sent me this card with all the things that controlling
people do…but now from having this knowledge and having the Protection Order I feel a lot
stronger, I don’t take things like I would have…and if I think we’re at risk, I know what to
do. (AV3)
This woman also noted how PVH had provided an important source of support:
They got in touch with me because of the Police, and they were just the best help there. They
used to ring up at times just to see how I was doing, and they were so helpful on the phone
because no-one else had rung. (AV3)
Others appreciated the support provided to their children. This included the availability of
good information, access to children being supervised, and additional resources being available
at schools. One noted:
From the children’s perspective it worked really well. They put in an action plan for when their
dad came back, a safety plan. By having the alarm the children felt a lot safer in their own
home, especially the older son because he wasn’t going to sleep. (AV5)
The importance of culturally appropriate support for children was also noted:
I had a Maori CY & F caseworker because the children’s father is Maori. I think the
questions she asked were important. (AV5)
Ongoing, and often substantial, sources of support such as that provided by family, friends and
some work places also contributed to perceptions of safety. For example, one woman reported
the following:
[My employer] offered to pay for me to stay in a motel…there was an instance when he
[perpetrator] made me call up [workplace] to resign my job. They suspected and they actually
went out of their way and reported to the Police. (AV2),
And another reported that:
… [the perpetrator] turned up at my workplace…so my bosses rang me to give me some time to
get out of my house. (AV4)
Some women, however, also described experiences which may have jeopardised their own and
their children’s safety. One believed the Police had not been particularly supportive, choosing
to believe her husband, rather than her.
…I never knew till the last time that the Police believed me…my partner works as a sales
manager and he is really good at talking, and the other times like they just dismissed me and
that I was neurotic, that I was making it up. (AV3)
She also reported:
…I really felt like they didn’t believe me and that I was making it up and it was really
depressing. (AV3)
Although another woman had a Protection Order, she said she still felt unsafe because of her
partner’s drug use and his ability to manipulate interactions with the Probation Service.
I mean I am a lot firmer. I wave my Protection Order in his face if I have to. But I am a lot
tougher with him and I know I can ring the Police straight away. He has access to all the
63
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
drugs in the world and there’s no real monitoring. If he goes into a psychotic stage again, I am
in danger. A Probation Officer sees him only once a week where all he has to do is just
pretend, for one hour, that everything is fine with him. (AV4)
Some women felt that Child, Youth and Family Services had also let them down. One felt they
had failed to provide her with the type of support that she wanted for her 15-year-old daughter
because:
they have a lot of younger ones to work with, so when they hit a certain point they don’t care.
(AV1).
Other difficulties experienced with Child, Youth and Family Services included lost files, an
inability to reach them on the phone, and their failure to record up-to-date contact details in
spite of them being provided. (AV3)
Not being able to provide relevant and appropriate information at the right time was also
perceived as jeopardising safety. While not the case for all support services, one woman
reported:
If you asked anyone on the spot for certain specific information, everyone had to go back and
find out… The one good thing about the Domestic Violence Centre20 is that they actually
turned up with their own personal folder and they would run through things with me. (AV4)
The extent to which victims perceive that services were working together to keep them
and their children safe
Overall most participants perceived services were working together reasonably well to keep
them and their children safe. One said, ‘they sort of got together…and my minister, they all work
together’. (AV1)
Another said:
a copy of the file was sent over to DV or something along those lines and that night I had
people come…to my house at 11 o’clock at night. That’s how quick it is. (AV2)
The links developed by PVH appeared to be particularly effective. This service was seen as
having ‘lots of contact with the Police’ and as an agency where a victim was able to:
pick up the phone, call and tell them and they’ve got things done…organised a meeting with
WINZ [Work and Income] straight away. (AV2)
Another participant reported that:
…probably the best thing about it [was] that the Police actually stepped in and contacted all
those services for me. (AV4)
Some aspects of service coordination were not so well regarded. Agencies did not always work
together to ensure the safety of these women and children. One participant, who had already
been advised by the Victim Adviser of the offender’s bail conditions, described a lack of
cohesion in relation to the length of time it took for Police to receive information about bail
20
64
Now called ‘Preventing Violence in the Home’, but a number of participants referred to this service by their
previous name of ‘Domestic Violence Centre’, or ‘DV’.
Results: Baseline findings
__________________________________________________________________
decisions, and their reluctance to accept her reporting breaches. This was one of the occasions
in which PVH assistance had been required to ensure an improved police response.
I got [person at PVH]. She rang up and just told off or blasted them off. They were there
next minute at my door. (AV2)
Another woman experienced similar issues with finding out about the outcome of a court
appearance:
None of the agencies, not even the Police actually, could come back to me and give me
information straight away if my ex-partner had been released on bail or not. (AV4)
Other examples of a lack of service cohesion were also described. One participant felt, ‘it seemed
like everything didn’t connect so well’ (AV3), while another reported:
I was informed that only one agency can work with you, whereas if you had two agencies and
one fell short with one thing and the other has that stuff, why can’t you benefit from both?
(AV4)
Service coordination also needs to ensure the focus remains on the victim.
Protection Order was breached, one participant noted:
When her
…in the end, he’d been given so many chances, I think he thought it was a big joke…he’d go
to Court and stumble back and end up on the back porch abusing me… He’s not even doing
his PD. The PD system rung me to see if I knew where he was…like…that’s great! (AV5)
The importance of culturally appropriate support was mentioned, and that people need to know
this is available. One was not told about Shakti21 until after the event and she noted:
There needs to be more for ethnic women... I am Indian and I was getting a lot of flak from the
community… (AV4)
The point at which information should be provided, how much, and for how long, requires
careful assessment on a case-by-case basis. As one woman explained, too much support can be
overwhelming:
It is so confusing because so many people have rung lately, and I’m getting a bit lost with it all.
I never heard from anyone and now everyone is coming. (AV3)
While there are obvious benefits in providing a full range of services in these situations, in some
cases, the level of involvement became difficult for the victim to manage.
From my side it was good because having so many things at the time and different agencies and
groups. It was lot to take in for me. And I was sort of like getting pulled from one end to the
other, and I was like a bit of a walking zombie actually when [PVH Victim Advocate] got to
me. And she was really like a main rock. (AV5)
Another woman, who used PVH to intervene on her behalf to encourage a greater level of
police response when her husband breached the Protection Order, noted how a lead contact
provided some clarity.
The Shakti Asian Women's Centre provides a 24-hour crisis call centre, advocacy, legal and counselling services,
and education and training for ethnic women. Shakti also runs a Drop-In Centre.
21
65
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Others described how services sometimes needed to be there when they were not, or instances
when they misjudged what was required.
I used to be at home alone with my daughter and didn’t see many people, and for a long time I
didn’t really think the picture was that bad. Just myself…perhaps I was doing things to annoy
him. If I had help more then that would’ve been good. (AV3)
…even though he was violent towards me, he was a good person as well. When he’s angry he
loses everything. So I don’t think [DV] wanted to see that. Their priority is to get me into a
safe place and get him out of my life. You couldn’t talk to anyone. I have the feeling I have noone to talk to. (AV2)
Most of the women with children (4) reported that their children had received assistance
through the PVH Crisis Intervention Team and were generally positive about the service.
Once I’d met [PVH Victim Advocate] from there we went to the children’s advocate side of
thing…the Child Crisis team came out and they probably had three or four meetings with the
children, which the children really enjoyed. [The end result was that] …we put all these
safety measures and things in so Child, Youth and Family were quite satisfied that things were
alright…it was a children’s programme and the two oldest went through and it was a social
skills type of programme… (AV5)
However, some women noted a lack of ongoing support from other agencies:
I don’t really know but when they (the children) come out and say it, you think, that’s right,
they need help for the violence they have seen… I just think it is important, when they’ve got
like counselling and that… I mean, I knew the James Family, but if someone knows nothing
that’s when the downfall comes. But I’m still waiting for the courts to come and say I need
some counselling for (my son)… and they really need it – kids need it.” (AV1)
Barriers or gaps in services
Participants identified a number of barriers to service access and use. For two women the
public nature of the Police counter represented significant barriers, and could have resulted in
them deciding not to report the violence they were experiencing.
The counter service was really bad. “I’m told to come and report to you guys and you guys don’t
want to know anything about it”. He goes “Stop moaning”. I go “Oh my god.” (AV1)
I was just asked publicly. There were other people standing there and listening. “Why are you
reporting this now?”… there were other people standing behind me and I feel… embarrassed
and ashamed… The reporting part was horrible. That needs to be sorted out…criminals are
there and victims are there and everybody’s listening to everybody else’s stories. (AV2)
Costs were also a barrier to access for some:
If you ain’t got the money, no good… I wanted to do anger management but I had to go there.
No transport, no money. It’s too hard for people to get there if they got no transport and no
money…otherwise people won’t go. (AV1)
This woman was also reluctant to go to refuge, because she would also have to pay rent for her
own flat while she was staying with them.
66
Results: Baseline findings
__________________________________________________________________
Another said:
…working women who maybe are above the threshold still don’t have funds, you know. All
our funds are tied up in rent, electricity, petrol, food, counselling. (AV4)
A perceived imbalance between the money available to victims and offenders was also noted:
[The offender] comes back out with money in their hands whereas for the victim…I mean
there were some weeks where I didn’t get full wages…that’s the practical reality. (AV4)
Two described how relocation funds were not available to women who were employed, and a
further believed that the number of free counselling sessions available was insufficient.
Some women were fearful of being in close proximity to their abusers during court
appearances, and this represented another barrier. As one woman reported:
…it was scary, really scary…I was going to change my mind ‘cos you’re in the same building.
I mean he was around, and they kept me in the police room until I got called up but being in
the same room is so scary. You don’t wanna be there, but you have to be. (AV1)
Another woman said she preferred to hear about the outcome of a court appearance from a
person at the court, rather than attend herself ‘because there was no way I was wanting to go
into court, to be around him.’ (AV5)
A lack of drug testing was also identified as a gap. This woman, whose partner was involved
with ‘P’, was concerned ‘they don’t do regular drug testing or anything so everything is unchecked’. Her
partner had not been able to begin drug rehabilitation because ‘they still are trying to find a unit’.
(AV4)
Interviews with perpetrators
Support and services experienced by these perpetrators
All three men in Auckland had experiences of the Police, lawyers, court, PVH programmes, and
support from family and friends.
The extent to which perpetrators perceived that interventions have held them
accountable
Two accepted they were accountable for their violent behaviour:
No excuse, I basically take full responsibility for my actions. I chose to do what I did, it was
my choice and I’m aware of that. (AP1)
The fault lay entirely with me. There is no two ways about that. (AP3)
The courses had also changed their lives, and given them tools to manage their violence:
It’s made a helluva improvement in my overall life…on pretty much everything…it’s basically
getting into a mindset where I’m more comfortable and in control and respectful to other people.
(AP1)
Unbelievable how I have changed…and it’s only because of the re-education the programme has
offered. Making you realise and think about your actions and other people’s. (AP1)
67
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
One admitted, however, his efforts to change his behaviour had not been entirely successful:
I took a lot out of that programme, …in some places it has worked and some places it hasn’t…I would
like to be realistic and say that I wish we could argue less. That is not going to happen. (AP3)
As a result of attending the programme, one man now recognised the impact of children
witnessing violent behaviour:
…even basic arguments and stand-offs and things like that can affect your child and it’s just being
aware of it…it re-educated me I suppose. (AP1)
The third believed his attitude had changed quite a bit, and he needed to find other ways of
dealing with people. However, he also noted that:
I just grabbed her throat in anger but I didn’t squeeze her to try and kill her or anything. It was just a
minor incident. She got angry too. (AP2)
The extent to which these perpetrators perceived that services were working together to
hold them accountable
These men had no clear perception of services working together to hold each of them
accountable.
One, who was not ordered by the court to attend a programme, explained that somebody at the
court suggested he enrol because:
it would look good for me if I went and got involved with prevention violence courses, and they
gave me the leaflet. (AP1)
For another, his wife gave him a pamphlet about the programme:
There was a pamphlet she picked up somewhere, I don’t know where, and I called the number
on the pamphlet. (AP3)
Taking a wider view on service collaboration and accountability, one described what occurred
when somebody failed to attend a programme:
The police called him again and asked him why he was not going to the class, so this is the
fourth or fifth time they are actually calling him. (AP3)
Gaps or barriers to perpetrators being held accountable
Lack of publicity about the courses, and support for those who attend programmes were
mentioned as possible barriers.
I think these courses need to be more advertised…and just being part of such a group helps to
control your temper and to prevent those incidents… There are many people out there that could
take such a course. (AP1)
I can’t really see what would happen if my dad and mum were not there…I might have been
sleeping in the van somewhere…they support me if I have problems…they are quite supportive
of my wife as well as myself. (AP2)
68
Results: Baseline findings
__________________________________________________________________
4.8.2
Wairarapa Stakeholders
Interviews with community agency stakeholders
Current systems and structures that respond to family violence
The Wairarapa also has a multi-agency case management group, the Family Violence
Intervention Group (FVIG), which consists of individuals from CYFS, Police, Corrections,
Stopping Violence Services, Ministry of Justice (District/Family Courts), Relationship Services,
and Women’s Refuge, who meet fortnightly. This group discusses information on all POL 400s
and shares information from each participating agency to consider how each case is being
managed and what more could be done. The group had been operating in this way for the
preceding 12 months.
In Wairarapa, the Women’s Refuge runs a number of family violence interventions. They run a
24-hour crisis intervention phone line, a safe house, provide advocacy for victims, education
programmes – including Women’s Programmes and Child DV Programmes, both individual
and group.
Table 4.5:
Wairarapa Women’s Refuge: Referrals and links
Referrals to
Refuge operations and
Referrals from Refuge
Refuge
services
Police
FVIG
Crisis intervention
phone line
DV programmes, counselling,
Police, legal, medical, mental
health services, budgeting services,
Women’s Centre, Work and
Income and other services
Women’s DV
Programmes
DV programmes, counselling,
Police, legal, medical, mental
health services, budgeting services,
Women’s Centre, Work and
Income and other services
Children’s DV
Programmes
CYFS, counselling services, DV
programmes, mental health
services
Self-referrals
Police
FVIG
Self-referrals
Police
FVIG
In the Wairarapa, men’s DV programmes are run through Stopping Violence Services, who run
16-week group programmes and 10-week individual programmes. In addition, they run
individual programmes for youth, and have run some anger management programmes for
women. They also run individual programmes for women victims and separate ones for men
victims, and support programmes for men and women. Most of their referrals come from
Family Court, Community Corrections, and self-referrals.
A further group, a family violence networking team that came out of the ‘Violence Free
Wairarapa’ Campaign, exists in the Wairarapa, which functions as a networking opportunity for
a broader array of organisations working in the area or on the fringes of family violence, such as
Alcohol and Drug Addiction services.
69
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
In general, information sharing and coordination of services was viewed as very good. The
importance of personal relationships was identified as contributing to this state of affairs. The
existence of the FVIG and the ‘Violence Free Wairarapa, Rise Above It’ campaign22 in the
Wairarapa have contributed to this and forged strong relationships that support coordination
and information sharing.
According to stakeholders interviewed, each of the individuals who attend the FVIG has the
full trust of the other, and information sharing is fluid. One stakeholder described the
organisation of the group in the following way:
That is where we think that the key here with our group is, that it is the people that [have]
established the relationship, and not the organisations. Because if we were to go to the Head
Office of all our organisations, my own included, we would still be waiting for approval which
we probably wouldn’t get to go ahead and do what we are doing. You establish the trust and
the relationship with the person, and we all know now that no-one in that group is going to
misuse that trust or put us in a position that is going to cause problems. Because we are all in
it for the same reason. That is why it works as well as it does. I think that is one of the issues
that other areas have got problems with, is that there is a lack of trust because the organisations
are going along there representing their organisation as opposed to a genuine interest in the field
they are working in. If you have got a genuine interest in the field you are working in, then
things like that, there are ways around it. (WSkh2)
Gaps in family violence services
Two stakeholders noted gaps in services for children. As one stakeholder put it, ‘there is not a
lot here for children’. One major gap identified is in the provision of mental health services for
children affected by family violence. Another stakeholder stated that there was a lack of
effective programmes for youth and children. In addition, this stakeholder maintained that
some women were not taking advantage of the voluntary children’s domestic violence
programmes and, as a result, children were not accessing programmes.
A lack of Maori services for Maori clients was identified as gap and a barrier to participation by
Maori victims and perpetrators in programmes.
An area in which communication was lacking, according to one stakeholder, was between the
Family and Criminal Courts and in the degree to which the Courts held perpetrators
accountable for family violence. The following comments were made in this regard:
I think there is a lot of men in particular who are going through the court system who are not
referred to programmes for one reason or another, who should be or who would benefit. Rather
than doing community work, or yes… I think there has probably been an under-utilisation of
the service in the court system. Also Community Corrections has a limited budget. They would
like to refer a lot more to us locally, but because of their regional budget they can’t do that… So
barrier one is I think that the Family Court and criminal Court, there is very poor
communication between the two courts. They are not aware of who they are dealing with, when
that could make a difference. I think some of the sentencing that the judges are doing locally is
poor and misjudged. That perpetrators are not being held accountable for their violence. It is
22
70
‘The ‘Violence Free Wairarapa, Rise Above It’ campaign is a community-wide response to violence based on
four principles: community partnerships, changing attitudes, improving well-being, and improving coordination
in the community.
Results: Baseline findings
__________________________________________________________________
often minimised or colluded in the court system. There is very little follow-through on getting
them to attend programmes if they don’t attend. I think women are being put at risk at times
because of the sentencing and bail conditions that are being given to people that we have got
concerns about. And being able to feed that back to judges is all but impossible. So people
making decisions which are impacting on our community and they are not really aware.
(WSkh3)
Extent to which current programmes and interventions keep families safe
Stakeholders believe that current programmes and interventions do a fairly good job of keeping
families safe. As one stakeholder put it:
I think that the programmes that we are doing are meeting a need and if there is…I think we
could be providing things either side of that group. So preventative stuff before they even get to
here. (WSkh3)
For this stakeholder, current programmes were achieving their aims, and the next step was to
add additional programmes of a preventative nature.
Other stakeholders believed that their current interventions and programmes do keep families
safe, but that it was down to the individuals themselves to make use of programmes:
We can only keep them safe while we are talking to them. Once they walk out the door, we
can’t. (WSkh1)
Interviews with victims
Interventions and services experienced by victims
Three of the women interviewed in Wairarapa had Protection Orders. Support for these
women was provided by the Police, Refuge, Family Court, Child, Youth and Family Services,
Work and Income, Mental Health Services, Relationships Services, and Victim Support. Other
support experienced included counselling, supervised access, and the Open Home Foundation.
The extent to which victims perceive that interventions have kept them and their
families safe
Most believed their engagement with various services had helped them and their children feel
safer. One said:
All these services are just so great…whatever you need, they will find. They’ll turn every leaf
over. (WV1)
Women’s Refuge was perceived as providing particularly strong support:
They are there for you and they are understanding…I found them a great support. (WV3)
All my needs were met…if they didn’t have it they would go out of their way to find what it
was that I needed at that time. I can’t fault them at all. (WV1)
I couldn’t have done what I did without them. (WV4)
71
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
The accessibility of, and information provided by, Family Court staff was also mentioned
favourably. For one participant, the Family Court had helped her understand what was
happening at the court, and she talked very positively about the counselling she had received
(WV4). Another said:
I think the courts were good. Victim support at the courts is really good. I can call up there or
go up there at any time and get the information I need. (WV5)
Positive comments were made about Work and Income, the significant support available at one
child’s school, and the Police. This woman reported that the Police ‘…were really good…they were
really supportive’. (WV1)
The Probation Service’s rapid response when bail conditions were breached was singled out by
one participant (WV1), as were the ‘awesome’ arrangements put in place by the organisation
responsible for supervising access with her children. (WV2)
Engagement with Child, Youth and Family Services had been uncomfortable for one
participant. While noting ‘they were knowledgeable…they knew what they were talking about’, she
described her experiences with them as ‘…scary…I think anything to do with them is really
scary…because you feel like you are, sort of, really watched.’ (WV4)
The ongoing benefit of such assistance, and its contribution to enhancing safety, is illustrated
here:
The long term outcome of it all is becoming very successful with all these services. It is breaking
the cycle…You can reap so much benefit from all of them. (WV1)
It has made me stronger and really made my mind up about what I want to do. (WV3)
Some participants, however, did not express a greater sense of security as a result of engaging
with local services and interventions:
At the time my oldest child…he did need something…so I organised it myself and had to pay
for it myself. He had a great deal of anger… He was probably the one that was most
aware…and he had witnessed some of the stuff that was going on. (WV2)
Another also commented on her children not being offered counselling:
My children saw a lot of things that children their age should never see. I’ve got a 7 year old.
It has affected him badly. (WV3)
Another was critical of the response of Family Court staff because she had difficulty obtaining
information from them, and one woman had concerns about access:
…that really pissed me off. They just seem really keen to let him have access and I just don’t
think it would be a safe environment for my daughter. (WV5)
In some women’s view, slow police response could have compromised safety:
…like when I needed them, I needed them there and then, not like five hours later sort of
thing…maybe they didn’t think I was a high priority on the list. (WV3)
It was a 111 call…They were a bit slack at arresting him because he lived out in the
country… They just said he lived too far away for them to go and get him now. It was a bit
slack ‘cause I had two small kids. (WV5)
72
Results: Baseline findings
__________________________________________________________________
One woman knew she was in danger because of her husband’s gang affiliations, but was also
realistic about the extent to which the Police could keep her and her children safe:
My partner was in a gang. He was very intimidating. Running to the Police was not a good
idea…so I always turned to Refuge…I knew the Police were there for me, but I knew the
consequences…being called a nark and all that…so I kept the Police out of it until last year.
(WV3)
Gaining information from Police, Child, Youth Services and Family, and a legal aid lawyer was
problematic for some. One woman commented about her lawyer that she ‘would like to be able to
talk to her more. I need more information, but she’s busy.’ (WV4)
The ability of mental health services to keep victims safe was a concern for one participant.
Describing her husband’s alcohol, drug and mental health issues she commented:
They couldn’t make him do anything to make it safe for me and the kids…and they pretty
much left him there. In reality he was a threat to me…There were times when I was quite
scared… (WV2)
Another felt that the focus of one service provider was inappropriate. She felt her safety was
compromised because their focus was on ‘getting people back together again [but] …that wasn’t where I
was at. It just didn’t work.’ (WV2)
The extent victims perceive that services were working together to keep them and their
children safe
Most of these women perceived that local services were working together to keep them and
their children safe:
I found all the services were well coordinated…the advocacy person, it is like a link, they all
link up to one another…they have access to everything…It’s like a ripple effect. (WV1)
This collaboration had benefited her and her family because, ‘from that one assault we now have so
many people, support mechanisms around us, all these services.’ (WV1)
Others commented about specific agencies and organisations working together to enhance their
safety:
[Refuge] helped me liaise with lawyers and different organisations…Child, Youth and
Family, and Work and Income… (WV4)
The Courts and the Police and the Women’s Refuge have all worked together, and they’ve been
really good. (WV5)
Two participants felt services were not coordinated; as one commented:
I felt like they weren’t working together and in the end I ended up just going through [Refuge
worker] and she was doing it all. (WV3)
Going to Refuge had also been difficult for this woman because:
…my partner…he was well known, so at one stage I couldn’t go into refuge ‘cause a good
friend of his was there. (WV3)
73
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
The level of coordination between the two courts was an issue for one woman:
Maybe if the Family Court and the criminal Courts could share files, with full histories,
because I think it is relevant. Who wants to give their baby to someone who had committed
aggravated robbery? And this guy, as soon as he found out I was pregnant, he said get rid of
it…and now all of a sudden he wants a ccess. I don’t think so. (WV5)
Safety also becomes an issue when there are no witnesses:
So if he done something to me he would make sure there were no witnesses around, and it more
or less ended up my word against his word. And I know at the end of the day if you go to court
you’ve got to have witnesses and things like that. So in the end I just gave up and carried on
with life…I lived with it for eight years. (WV3)
The level of service and support available as women move on with their lives may be a point at
which safety for some might be compromised. When asked what she would do when her
partner was released from prison, one said ‘I would be out of here. I’d just have to pack up and move’.
(WV3)
One had more general concerns about her future safety:
I think what is really hard is when you leave there and basically you are on your own. This is
when you need the support. That is when a lot of women fall down, after they left the
organisation. (WV4)
…post-refuge…there needs to be money put into it as well. (WV4)
However, when women were asked specifically about how well their children’s needs were met,
responses were mixed. One concern related to access to programmes for children. Two
mothers who had Protection Orders reported the following in this regard:
No they weren’t offered anything. At the time my oldest child, he did need something at the
time, so I organised it myself and had to pay for it myself. He had a great deal of anger
involved in what had happened. He was probably the one that was most aware, because of his
age, at the time he was 10 or 11, and he had been witnessed some of the stuff that was going
on. Cause he was the only one that was up as late as most of it occurred. So he had a lot of
issues, so I went and got him counselling but there wasn’t anything offered at all to the children,
and that could’ve been something that may have been beneficial. (WV2)
My son hasn’t, but I’m having other problems with him at the moment…it wasn’t until I got
the temporary protection order that I even knew that anything was available and at that stage it
had been so long, cause I didn’t get the protection order until August and the incident was in
April… I haven’t really had any agencies do anything like that. They haven’t worked with
the children at all. Just with me. I s’pose they figure if I’m okay, the kids are okay. (WV5)
One mother reported that her child did receive support from a court-appointed psychologist
and through Open Homes Foundation.
Barriers or gaps in services
Three service providers were identified. One participant noted she would have liked ‘some other
form of counselling possibly’. (WV2)
And another believed ‘victim support could’ve been better, and the courts could’ve been way better’. (WV3)
74
Results: Baseline findings
__________________________________________________________________
One woman’s feelings during the Family Court process were also described:
…it was hard, it was difficult too. It was hard to be judged by a judge, made you feel how
inferior you are, you know. It was very intimidating and a process I wouldn’t have wanted to
go through. (WV4)
Cost was identified as a barrier for one who wanted to be relocated:
Well the situation with WINZ [Work and Income] is pretty tight ‘cause I’ve used up all my
entitlements and everything. And in the end WINZ is the only one that can help me if I have
to get away, ‘cause you know you’re going to need the bond and everything to get into a house.
(WV3)
While grateful for the support she received from a local service organisation one commented
‘they are very hard to deal with, they can be quite judgemental’. (WV4)
Reception from Police was a potential barrier here:
…he was too clever. And if I went to say something they would probably just think I was
exaggerating. (WV5)
Interview with perpetrator
Support and services experienced by perpetrator
Only one perpetrator was willing to be interviewed in the Wairarapa. The following discussion
is based on his responses. This man had been involved with the Police, court, Probation
Service, and lawyers. He had also been in prison, and had previously attended a number of
programmes.
The extent to which this perpetrator perceived that interventions have held him
accountable
When asked whether he felt accountable, he noted:
Not really. She was supposed to come around the next day and there was just a note on my
door saying it was all over…and that’s what sparked me off. I ran around like a
maniac…and got done for [various offences]. (WP1)
He had attended courses in the past. This one though was ‘going good. It feels different this time’,
and his behaviour had now changed:
Count to 10, go “time out”, remove myself from the situation…if things do start to get out of
hand just walk away, go home and give her a ring in a couple of days or so. (WP1)
The extent to which this perpetrator perceived that services were working together to
hold him accountable
He had not attended a programme in prison because he was not there long enough. However,
he knew stopping violence courses were available to people in prison. On release he attended
the programme because it was ordered by the court, and:
they jacked up the anger management in a matter of a couple of weeks and I just started going
with that. (WP1)
75
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Some collaboration towards holding him accountable occurred when he was required to report
regularly to the Probation Service, and through monitoring his attendance at a stopping
violence programme and drug and alcohol counselling:
We just have a talk and see how my week’s been and then straight after that I do anger
management here. (WP1)
He already knew his current Probation Officer, and was pleased he didn’t have to deal with a
new one.
It’s actually good to stick to one Probation Officer cause they know where you’re coming from
and know what you’re doing and that. (WP1)
Gaps or barriers to perpetrators being held accountable
None were identified.
4.8.3
Hutt Stakeholders
Interviews with community agency stakeholders
Current systems and structures that respond to family violence
Hutt City Women’s Refuge provides therapeutic services in the form of counselling and
women’s groups for victims of family violence, and administers men’s DV programmes. It has
a crisis line but this is not operated continuously. The Hutt City Women’s Refuge receives
POL 400s from Police, and mails those involving Maori victims to Kökiri Marae Maori
Women’s Refuge. Kökiri Marae Maori Women’s Refuge provides culturally safe support and
counselling to Maori Women and their whanau. It also provides a safe house, community
education programmes, and advocacy/court support. These organisations send out letters to
victims to inform them of services. These are followed up by another letter and a phone call, if
no response is received. The process of mailing information means that there are usually time
delays in responding to victims.
Gaps in family violence services
One stakeholder highlighted the limited crisis intervention services available for victims in the
Hutt:
[The Refuge] don’t have the workers for one, and they just don’t seem to me to have worked out
a referral path that works. They’ve reduced their hours of work so they’re only open until, I
think, 3 or 4 o’clock and then you go to a call centre which is just useless because they are just
phone operators not trained refuge workers…I tried for three weeks to get hold of Refuge to talk
to them and that was just constantly leaving messages. And Victim Support, I mean, here
they’ve had …1, 2, 3…about 3 managers since I’ve been [here], so it’s that lack of change.
And then it’s the lack of knowledge, just the lack of general knowledge about what’s going on.
(HSkh3)
This stakeholder noted a big gap in the provision of services for Pasifika people ‘there is a huge
gap with Pacific Island services. Just getting decent services.’ (HSkh3)
76
Results: Baseline findings
__________________________________________________________________
With regard to interventions for children, one stakeholder felt that programmes were currently
of limited success. When asked whether interventions were keeping children safe, the following
response was received:
I don’t know if we are very successful in doing that, but I don’t know how we could do that any
differently because it is up to the women and what they choose to do, and so often they want to
remain with their partner. I guess that the more that they attend programmes the more
knowledge they gain and more better equipped they will be in dealing with that – but I don’t
expect miracles. I don’t expect them to come to a programme and their life just completely
changes. I would just hope that they would get some knowledge and some understanding of their
situation and the effect it has on the kids. Often they accept violence done to them but they
won’t accept it done to their kids. (HSkh2)
Another stakeholder commented that, to date, interventions had not met the needs of children
well:
I think we are starting on that one. We have always been really careful because we wouldn’t do
anything that wasn’t going to be safe or have a better outcome. So that’s why we didn’t do
anything for along time with children. We are moving in that direction now. Anything we do
has to be backed up by the courts or those other systems will fail. (HSkh 1)
Information sharing and coordination of services was reported by stakeholders, generally, to be
poor. This was attributed to a lack of resources, both financial and human. In addition, some
basic processes enabling coordination were lacking, as evidenced in the following quote from
one stakeholder:
…they [Police] used to fax [the POL 400s] through to us but we had a great deal of difficulty
reading them so now they simply post them and that has been good… at some times there was a
great deal of time in getting the information…in September we had 18 faxed referrals that we
couldn’t read at all and I have no way of knowing if we later received all of those in the mail or
if we only received some of them. But it is better now that we are getting them in the post.
(HSkh2)
This stakeholder felt that information sharing and collaboration were seriously lacking:
I think we all work in isolation. That is due partly to the nature of our business and
confidentiality. And the Refuge philosophy of keeping that confidential under most
circumstances. You know talking about it… Whereas our contracts and our work are moving
more and more towards sharing information and getting things out in the open. So I feel that
there is a little bit of a clash and I’m sure over time the thinking will change and be a bit more
relaxed. I strongly believe we need to share information to help women. (HSkh2)
Another stakeholder noted general confusion in knowing who to contact to determine whether
a referral for family violence services had been made. This confusion has persisted for at least
the past five years, and is indicative of the general lack of coordination noted:
I also maybe contact Women’s Refuge to see if they have received the referral, or Victim
Support, because they still haven’t kind of sorted that one out, really…who is actually receiving
the referrals, is it Victim Support or is it Women’s Refuge?... I know how it works, how it
worked where I’d come from, I‘m not quite sure what they are doing here. So I have had
meetings with them to try and discuss the referral path from Police. So I don’t feel that has
been sorted yet and I don’t see it as my role to sort it but it can make it a bit ‘muddley’ because
one of the first things that I am asking my clients is: ‘Have you had contact with Women’s
Refuge?’ or ‘Have you had contact from Victim Support?’. Some are saying, ‘Yes I’ve had
77
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
contact from Victim Support’. And others are saying ‘I had a letter from Women’s Refuge’.
So I need to kind of make sure that there are, that they are in place for my victims. (HSkh3)
This stakeholder noted that a family violence networking group operated in the Hutt, but stated
that this did not facilitate information sharing:
There is…how many agencies are there involved…30 agencies. I think it’s got a bit big, to be
honest. I think it doesn’t feel so safe as it used to feel which is…always the way it goes. I was
in the one where I came from before and set it up and it’s the same thing – it gets too big and
the same thing has happened here. They have, like, the elder abuse team and citizens advice, all
sorts of people are on it, it makes it – I’m not gonna talking about cases there, if we talk about
them, then we talk about them really, really broadly. We talk about them more as a mishmash really, and we just talk about what the agencies are doing… (HSkh3)
Another barrier to coordination identified was in Police process, particularly in response to
breaches of Protection Orders, ‘and particularly where they’ve been back to the house a number of times,
where they minimise and marginalise the incident’. (HSkh3)
A lack of mental health services to assist families, especially young people, to deal with the
effects of family violence was identified as another gap:
Mental health – huge issue. Massive issue. I have discussed it at a number of occasions at our
Family Violence Network Meetings. And even the Mental Health have come in to talk about
it. Their hands are tied. But I mean that is a massive problem for all agencies, is mental
health issues. (HSkh3)
Extent to which current programmes and interventions keep families safe
Some stakeholders maintained that resource limitations reduced the extent to which
programmes and interventions keep families safe. The following comment was made in this
regard:
It’s all down to resources. They don’t have the resources. They don’t have the people to provide
the service. They are all on limited hours. They’ll say they have got…we are working we are
functioning. They are not, they are only doing it for four hours a day, or three times a week,
four hours a day. I mean, that’s useless…The only ones that keep victims safe, are the
victims…the programme’s not gonna keep the child safe. (HSkh3)
Interviews with victims
Interventions and services experienced by victims
All but one of these five women had a Protection Order, and all had sought help from the
Police for family violence issues. Other support and assistance was provided by Child, Youth
and Family Services, Kokiri Marae Maori Women’s Refuge, Hutt City Women’s Refuge,
Housing New Zealand, and Work and Income. In addition, assistance was accessed through
the Family and District Courts, Work and Income, lawyers, counselling and Family Start.
78
Results: Baseline findings
__________________________________________________________________
The extent to which victims perceive that interventions have kept them and their
families safe
Two participants believed interventions had kept them and their families safe, and one said:
I think the resources were good…they just had it all there and I just chose what I wanted to do.
(HV1)
Kokiri Marae’s face-to-face approach when informing people about their services, their
children’s programmes, and their speed in arranging a lawyer, legal aid, a benefit and a house,
was particularly noted:
I think Kokiri was pretty good. They just got things rolling and they were like face-to-face
whereas other departments were just through letters and that. (HV5)
…Kokiri Marae are really into the children…I didn’t know that they offered that kind of
programme…it’s great, it’s all about family…what everyone needs who has the problems I’m
having. (HV1)
Another talked about ‘Naku Enei Tamariki, it’s a Maori service, like a support group for mother’s and
children.’ (HV2), which another felt was ‘…helping me to know what’s right and wrong in my own
family…meeting lots of people and whanau.’ (HV1)
Others recognised the benefits of seeking help and how it could assist them to protect their
children. One woman noted ‘…the help that we are getting is helping us to come up with solutions when
stuff happens.’ (HV1)
Child, Youth and Family Services had been involved with some participants. One woman
explained that her meeting with them was necessary because:
…they have to do it by law for the child’s sake to see if he is safe here. What are you doing to
rectify it? How are you going to make your child safe? (HV1)
Another had been told by Child, Youth and Family Services that ‘if they had any more complaints
they were taking the children’. (HV4)
Police support also helped women perceive that they were safe because:
…they let us know…and if we needed any help where to go, numbers for the court, and the
duty solicitor…talk to her if I had any questions. (HV1)
For another, when the Police queried why she had not rung them immediately when a
Protection Order had been breached, they had ‘…explained that to use it properly you have to do it this
way’. (HV2)
Although dissatisfied with her first contact with the Police, one participant assumed this was
because ‘…they’ve dealt with hundreds of domestic violence cases and it’s just another one’. However, she
acknowledged that ‘there were some good ones…the ones that came on the call-out were good.’
She was impressed with the Police’s speedy response when ‘he came and jumped in the car and tried
to get my son. They were there just like that.’ (HV5)
79
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Assistance provided by Work and Income, lawyers, Family Court, Women’s Centre and
Women’s Refuge also helped these women feel safer. Support from Refuge was noted as:
Brilliant. I got a little bit of counselling through the women’s refuge there, and lots of support
and stuff’. (HV3)
A number described support provided by family and friends. While one said ‘I could go and stay
at their place…if I was feeling insecure here…’ (HV3), another believed her family support was
limited because:
they don’t like what [partner] does, and that prevents me from getting the full support that I
need from my family. (HV1)
In spite of various interventions and services, some participants perceived their safety had not
increased. One described her increasing frustration at the time it was taking to get a Protection
Order. She described how it:
has gone through the courts and everything but it is still dragging out, months later, because he
keeps fighting it all the time…but this is just ridiculous…it is just dragging on and on and on.
(HV3)
This woman perceived that these delays put her and her children at risk.
Another described how police officers had not arrested the respondent to her daughter’s
Protection Order, in spite of being assured that this would happen:
The Police said they’d put it on the front line if they’re called there, they’ll take him away.
Well lo and behold, we rung the first time, they came, they didn’t arrest him. [And then]
…they were going to arrest him. So the three times she rung they didn’t do it. (HV4)
One participant was also concerned that when her husband breached his bail conditions, the
court:
…just said to him, you’re not meant to be going near her, keep away. This is a warning.
(HV3)
One recognised that her child should have a lawyer, and that access visits should be supervised,
but she was concerned that the lawyer:
…kind of just showed up out of the blue…I thought he was quite out of touch. He’d just show
up at court, he knew nothing about us…he said what hours can [son] be dropped off. I didn’t
like that…like he was a sack of spuds. (HV5)
Another encountered reluctance from Housing Corporation when her daughter requested a
move to a single storey house so that she would feel safer:
The Housing Corp man turned around and said if we move her, he’ll find her and go there.
(HV4)
The extent to which victims perceive that services were working together to keep them
and their children safe
All but one was aware of the collaboration between Child, Youth and Family and Police:
I know they work together. With the Police if there’s any domestic violence issues, if they get a
statement, or something’s happened if there’s children involved, they take a note of all your
80
Results: Baseline findings
__________________________________________________________________
children and their birthdays, and CY & F get advised. So that’s why CY & F come in. So
I think they do work together closely. (HV2)
They said it’s a new thing now that the Police have to let them know of any family violence.
(HV1)
CYFS got in touch…and said we’ve had these reports through. (HV4)
They were also aware that other agencies and service providers were collaborating. One
described how Refuge:
helped me get a lawyer, and get the Protection Order in place, and helped me get housing. They
wrote references to Housing NZ. (HV5)
When there’s a call to a domestic violence incident [Police] call CY & F then, ‘cos they’re so
overloaded, they give it out to places like Kokiri. (HV5)
CY and F are saying that’s their new thing now. They pass it on to the Maori services. You
know if we are Maori or whatever, they deal with family violence as well. (HV1)
Others, however, described experiences which indicated services needed to improve their
collaboration:
…they are working very separately at the moment. It just happened to be a fluke that my
counsellor and the women’s refuge were working together. (HV3)
…I don’t think [refuge] can do a lot in the way of making the Police do what they’re
supposed to do. [Refuge worker] was very angry with Child Youth and Family. (HV4)
When asked specifically about how well her children’s needs were met, one mother responded
as follows:
I don’t think any of them have met my daughter’s needs. I think my daughter is the one that
has been left… Worst really…just the fact too that she still brings up about that TV being
kicked over, and even now , how much time has gone by, she’ll say, ‘Papa is naughty, he kicked
the TV down’. I don’t know how to deal with that. (HV3)
Barriers or gaps in services
One victim suggested the way in which agencies communicated was a barrier to engagement:
…other departments were just through letters and that…I don’t think a lot of people would
approach them… To me it just looked like a standard letter like, ‘oh I got your name and if
you need help give us a call’. (HV5)
Engaging with Child, Youth & Family Services was a barrier for another one:
I just wanted to get out and get a house and didn’t want my kids labelled as being CYPS. I
thought one day it might come back to haunt me somehow. (HV5)
Particularly for those without family support, not knowing about other support was a barrier.
One believed women in this situation ‘…could get lost, give up and go back to their partner ‘cos it’s
easier’. (HV5)
81
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Another who did not know about Protection Orders believed:
…they should tell you about all these things like Protections Orders and counselling…knowing
how to go about it, what the court process is. (HV3)
A lack of counselling for children, Maori counsellors, and not enough time with legal aid
lawyers were also mentioned as service gaps.
A lead person for contact with agencies was also suggested ‘…a liaison, someone who’s been through
it and knows how to talk to all the departments’, could be useful because her dealings with Police,
Child, Youth & Family Services, and going to Court was ‘a big headache, all that puts you off’, and
this is where ‘a lot get lost.’ (HV5)
Interviews with perpetrators
Support and services experienced by perpetrators
In Lower Hutt, two had attended Network for Stopping Violence programmes, and one had
been involved with programmes through Child, Youth & Family Services.
The extent to which these perpetrators perceived that interventions have held them
accountable
Before the course one believed his wife and children had contributed to events, but since
completing the programme he had accepted responsibility, and realised the benefits attending:
I now have different ways of dealing with the same event, and because I didn’t have that
previously I was keen to blame anybody else but me. (HP1)
Until I went to the Living without Violence programme I didn’t realise what kind of
personality I had. I’ve got quite a dominating personality when it comes to dealing with kids…
I didn’t realise…and that really brought it down to me with a thump. (HP2)
He understood his children’s safety was paramount, and described tools he had learned:
Instead of coming inside and dealing with the kids straight away, ask them calmly and quietly
if I could have five minutes to wind down from the day, and then I’ll be ready to deal with
whatever problems they’ve got. (HP2)
The other described a strategy he had learned to use:
If I felt I was going to lose control of the situation I would go and see [wife] and ask her to
take the matter over for me. So that the children can remain safe, so they can still feel it’s OK
to be around Dad. (HP1)
After completing the course one had returned for a while ‘because no-one is perfect’, and he noted ‘it
was good to know that the coordinators are there and willing to help’. (HP2)
The extent to which these perpetrators perceived that services were working together to
hold them accountable
One had some awareness of agencies working together to hold him accountable. For example,
he knew his counsellor would let Child, Youth & Family know how many sessions he had
82
Results: Baseline findings
__________________________________________________________________
completed (HP2). He also thought his children’s school may have passed on his name to
CYFS, but he was not sure.
The other realised services were working together, in one area at least, because he knew
programme attendance was monitored:
Those men who were there under court order or something similar…a report was written up at
the end of the course. It was sent to the Department of Justice to say that so and so has missed
this number of sessions, things like that… and that information would be handed to the judge.
(HP1)
Overall, however, he believed that services were not working together:
I think there are a lot of social groups out there, working hard, but it’s almost like the structure
out there is fragmented. I think if they all worked together there would be better coordination,
and perhaps better funding for them because of the agencies rely on contributions from the public.
(HP1)
Gaps or barriers to perpetrators being held accountable
Delays in receiving information, and lack of Child, Youth & Family Service support were
identified:
You feel like you’re left in the lurch, no communication, no nothing from them for about two or
three weeks. (HP2)
Child, Youth & Family said ‘OK, you can do this and this’ and then you’re left on your own
once you walk out of their office…as soon you walk out, that’s finished, on to the next one.
(HP2)
4.8.4
Overall Summary of Findings
Summary of stakeholder interviews for all sites
The issues identified by community stakeholders centred around provision of services,
information sharing and coordination amongst service providers. The degree to which these
were issues differed according to site. All three sites identified a lack of services for children,
Maori and Pasifika and in addition there appears overall, to be too few services in general, to
meet the need in the Hutt. With regard to information sharing and coordination of services,
again, there were site differences, with this being less of an issue for Wairarapa where processes
for coordination and information sharing between services were more established. Central to
this appears to be the existence of interpersonal relationships based on trust. Such relationships
existed in the Wairarapa prior to the introduction of FSTs, enabling and supporting information
sharing and service coordination with FST members and other agencies.
Summary of victim interviews for all sites
In summary, in all cases, adult victims of family violence had experienced some form of
intervention from one or more of a range of statutory and non statutory agencies. Most were
very satisfied with the support received from victim crisis intervention agencies. A variety of
sources of support from agencies were noted by adult victims that contributed to perceptions
of safety, including the timely provision of appropriate services, such as information regarding
83
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
legal representation, access to personal alarms, provision of knowledge and skills, checks on
well-being and safety, availability of child care and culturally appropriate supports. In addition,
victims noted the importance of the availability of support from family and friends to one’s
sense of safety and personal well-being. In contrast, perceptions of safety were undermined by
perceived scepticism on the part of some police, lack of availability of timely information from
some agencies, experiences with CYFS and mental health services and delays in obtaining
Protection Orders.
In general, victims interviewed believed that services tended to work together fairly well to keep
their families safe, although some gaps were noted. Barriers and gaps to services identified
included:
•
need for a lead contact person – to provide victim information and referral services
•
need for monitoring of response of individual agencies/professionals
•
need for ongoing support services after Refuge
•
need for communication between Family and Criminal Courts
•
availability of face-to-face services especially for Maori
•
a lack of privacy when reporting incidents to Police and when providing evidence in Court
•
a lack of funds to access services
•
limited availability of counselling services
•
the Court processes (e.g. improving victims’ sense of safety)
•
Police perceptions (victims’ credibility)
•
Gaps in treatment for offenders e.g. mental health, alcohol and drug addiction.
Several victims noted gaps in services for children which impacted on child safety, including:
•
limited access to programmes for children witnessing family violence
•
limited availability of and access to counselling services for children
•
slow Police response
•
lack of understanding regarding the impact on children who witness family violence and the
need for timely provision of information and support.
Summary of Perpetrator Interviews
Perpetrators interviewed had received services and support from a range of sources, including
government and non-government organisations, the legal system, and friends and family. Not
all perpetrators reported positive benefits from interventions received, with only some
acknowledging responsibility for their violence. Overall, awareness by perpetrators of
collaboration between agencies was limited. Comments made regarding barriers to services
suggest that greater publicity is needed for stopping violence programmes to ensure that those
who may benefit from them are aware of their existence in the community. Gaps in services
identified included lack of support and timely information sharing by Child, Youth and Family
Services. The importance of monitoring programme attendance was also highlighted.
84
5
Results: Formative phase
Information presented for the formative phase was gathered from the time following initial
establishment of the FSTs through to the end of May 2006. FST members were interviewed in
August and September 2005. For the reasons noted above, this does not represent a true
formative evaluation as originally designed. Rather, it presents information gathered during
ongoing formation of the teams that may inform the National FST Steering Group.
5.1
Auckland FST
5.1.1
Team profile
During the first half of 2005, the Auckland FST comprised:
•
one Police Supervisor
•
one Police Investigator
•
two Child Advocates (job-shared position) and one Victim Advocate from a local NGO –
Preventing Violence in the Home – who hold the Family Safety Team contract for this area
•
one Child Advocate from CYFS
•
one Victim Advocate from Te Whare Ruruhau O Meri, an NGO from outside the area
served by the Auckland FST.
A second Police Investigator later joined the team, as did another Child Advocate, filling the
position left open following resignations of other members. These changes are discussed
further below.
Team members employed by Preventing Violence in the Home (PVH) had a range of
experience including the Coordinator from the Child Crisis Team; Case Worker for adult
victims of family violence, which included helping victims with safety planning and arranging
Protection Orders; Child Advocate and Men’s Programmes Facilitator; and Programme and
Policy Developer for at-risk youth and individuals with disabilities.
The Adult Victim Advocate who was employed through Te Whare Ruruhau o Meri, had a
Bachelor of Social Practice Degree, had worked as a counsellor for children’s domestic violence
programmes and as a facilitator for women’s domestic violence programmes.
The Police Supervisor had worked in Youth Aid, while the Police Investigator had been part of
criminal investigations.
5.1.2
Physical location and structure
The Auckland FST office is situated within the Onehunga Police Station. The FST had a
presence in the police station by August 2005, although not all team members were based there
until late March 2006.
85
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
The Auckland FST has some distinctive features in that it is intended to service a large area of
the country’s largest city, encompassing a diverse ethnic and socio-economic mix. The
Auckland FST is a split team with Hamilton, having just seven members, and this has posed
challenges in ensuring effective coverage of a large geographical area with high needs. To this
end, the team has concentrated their efforts on the smaller area of Onehunga . It is anticipated
that the team will eventually extend their services to other areas within the district, as capacity
allows.
Delays were reported in August 2005 in the set up of office services, which hindered the team’s
progress in those early days. Telephones and some computers were in place by August,
however, email access was not established until some time later. The initial focus for the team
was to get the basic systems up and running, as the lack of IT services was seen as a significant
barrier to operationalising the FST. Frustrations were noted again in September 2005 over
delays in establishing full access to IT services, although these appeared to have been alleviated
by early October with the advent of email access. As at the end of May 2006, the team’s fax
machine was still non-operational.
Being housed in the police station, the team had immediate access to the Police databases.
Initially, access to the PVH database from the FST office was not possible, requiring advocates
to go off-site to obtain information from the PVH offices some distance from Onehunga. This
was identified by team members as a barrier to effective operation. Access to the CYFS
database was available onsite, although the CYFS Child Advocate found it useful in the
beginning to visit the local CYFS office regularly. However, loss of the CYFS representative in
late 2005 precluded further information sharing between the team and CYFS. Access to
databases was reportedly important to the team as it allowed them to obtain information on
high-risk cases and to monitor systems in place for responding to family violence.
The Auckland FST operates in an open-plan office space within which there are individual
workstations for the team members. Having a communal office space shared by all team
members was identified early on as an important factor for team building for this FST.
However, as noted, not all team members were able to be accommodated there initially. Now
that all team members are housed onsite, they have been able to work together on joint projects
and report a high degree of satisfaction with their work environment.
The team finds that being based at the police station does not interfere with relationship
building activities with other agencies, because in a large urban area like Auckland, networking
and relationship building does not tend to proceed as it might in smaller communities. The
Auckland FST operates amidst various agencies for family violence, spread across a fairly large
area. Most of these agencies do not have a strong history of collaboration. Because
organisations are dispersed throughout the Auckland community, this reduces the tendency for
‘drop-ins’ by service providers. In general, appointments are made and meetings scheduled for
networking and relationship building purposes. The team finds it more effective to go out to
other organisations for this. In this endeavour, however, the Auckland FST state that their task
of relationship building would be greatly facilitated by the addition of a form of identification,
such as business cards, as this would provide a measure of credibility when they go out into the
community to introduce the work they do. They have been awaiting business cards since being
established.
86
Results: Formative phase
__________________________________________________________________
5.1.3
Staffing Issues
Auckland FST has experienced several personnel changes since its inception, compounding
staffing issues for this split team.
Initially, the advocates employed by PVH were required to maintain a significant presence
within PVH, undertaking PVH work, up to 30 hours a week for one of the Child Advocates. It
is understood that this situation resulted from a lack of clarity within employment contracts.
Advocates from PVH reported difficulties in dividing their time between FST and their home
organisation. These tensions reportedly impacted on the team as a whole, reducing
opportunities for team building and joint project work.
The CYFS Child Advocate took extended bereavement leave during August and September of
2005, and soon after returning to work, she resigned. To date, her position has not been filled.
Staff turnover at CYFS Grey Lynn, the site from which the CYFS worker for FST came, has
meant that no one there is familiar with the history and work of the FST, hence support for the
FST from CYFS Grey Lynn appears limited. Prior to her resignation, the CYFS Advocate had
spent most of her time at the Royal Oak CYFS office as that was where most of the cases she
dealt with were directed. However, Royal Oak CYFS has been unable to find a replacement
worker to join the Auckland FST. A CYFS liaison person for the Auckland FST was to be
appointed in the interim until a replacement could be found for the CYFS Child Advocate, but
this has not happened. Recently, the FST Adult Victim Advocate has been visiting the CYFS
office and requesting information from CYFS workers, as needed, to try to fill the gap.
In the first few months of 2006, one of the two Child Advocates who were job sharing, left the
team and returned to his home organisation. The remaining Child Advocate resigned soon
after. The resignations of both the PVH and CYFS Child Advocates left a significant gap in the
team which was without child advocacy for a period of time. In May of 2006, a new Child
Advocate was appointed. Work on clarifying the employment contract for this position is
ongoing.
The Adult Victim Advocate (PVH) has recently managed to clarify her role in FST and is no
longer required to undertake client work in her home organisation. This has freed her up to
engage in joint project work with FST colleagues.
Other team changes that are imminent include the resignation of one of the Police Investigators
and loss of the Adult Advocate from Te Whare, who leaves the team at the end of June,
reducing the team to just three of the original members and one new member. It is understood,
however, that a replacement for the Te Whare Advocate is planned.
5.1.4
Summary of activities
Despite ongoing staffing issues, the Auckland FST has forged ahead in areas where they
perceive they may have some impact.
•
The team has engaged in training of frontline police staff at Onehunga and Avondale to
ensure POL 400 compliance, including Police training on correct procedures for handling
POL 400s to ensure referrals are made, according to Police procedures, to PVH and CYFS,
where children are witnesses to, or involved in, family violence incidents.
•
The team developed and implemented a monitoring tool for the assessment of core crisis
services for family violence in the East Auckland policing area and have used this to
87
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
conduct a month-long assessment of all POL 400s for the month of February 2006. This
has included an assessment of the impact of the training undertaken by the FST with police
staff and identification of gaps and deficiencies in services provided by PVH, CYFS, Courts
and Police.
•
The monitoring exercise has led to further training to increase knowledge around
Protection Orders and Risk and Lethality Assessments.
•
The team has arranged for PVH trainers to take up family violence training of new police
officers as part of their induction.
•
The team has extended the monitoring of POL 400s to West Auckland, including all POL
400s for the month of April 2006. Once completed the team will consolidate the
information obtained from both monitoring exercises into a report for Police, CYFS and
PVH and recommendations will be offered.
•
To complement the training and monitoring undertaken, the team has begun looking at
information around family violence prosecutions, examining convictions and discharges in
relation to the prosecutions made by individual police officers. This information should
allow them to personalise training. They also plan to check what happens to families for 12
months after a court discharge has been made, with the intention of conveying findings on
further police call-outs to Courts.
•
The team has identified issues regarding information sharing with Courts and with
Probation (e.g. reluctance to share due to perceived breaches of privacy laws) and has been
waiting for information sharing training from Wellington. For further progress to be made,
national policy and best practice guidelines around information sharing need to be
developed, the responsibility for which has been transferred to the Ministry of Social
Development. In the interim, the Auckland FST has successfully worked on developing
informal relationships with Probation and with Victim Advisors, who assisted with
information sharing for the monitoring exercises.
•
The Auckland FST has made significant progress on development of a strategic plan to
direct their operations over the next 12 months.
•
The team has engaged in some ‘hands on’ case management but find that this has to be
managed carefully as it tends to ‘tie up’ team members for long periods of time. A recent
case that the team took up and successfully managed will be taken by Police back to CIB
for training purposes.
•
Informal discussions have been held with Refuge agencies in the Auckland district. A need
has been identified by the team for greater collaboration between the Refuges, many of
which work in isolation of others. The team is looking at ways to facilitate this.
•
The team has identified a gap in the availability of safe accommodation for victims of
family violence. Information on availability of beds in Refuge safe houses is unreliable and
information sharing inconsistent. Increasing collaboration between Refuge services will
hopefully alleviate this. In addition, the team is looking at ways to alleviate this problem
through discussions with Work and Income regarding the availability of funds for victims
to access safe housing options.
•
Plans are underway to facilitate training with Work and Income on family violence
awareness.
•
The Child Advocate has visited schools (primary, intermediate and high schools) in the area
to seek their involvement in developing awareness and policy around family violence. So
far, four schools are keen to be involved, and others are considering it. The Child
88
Results: Formative phase
__________________________________________________________________
Advocate is developing presentations and information kits for school Boards of Trustees
and principals, as well as workshops for teachers. He is also considering developing
information kits for social workers in schools and workshops for students. In addition, he
is working on a policy document. To this end, he has joined a working group in
Wellington associated with the National Network of Stopping Violence Services.
•
The Auckland FST is planning to participate in a pilot project run by CYFS called
Differential Responses Management, which involves all notifications designated as ‘28 day
response’ going to an NGO for assessment. The FST will participate on a trial basis, as
part of their information sharing role.
5.1.5
Summary of issues
•
Staff losses and delays in employing new staff have impacted on the scope of action and
progress possible for the Auckland FST. It will be important for the long-term effective
functioning of the team, as well as for the expansion of their geographical range of service
provision, to have a full complement of representatives from the two statutory agencies
and the NGO. This will be assisted by clarification of employment contracts for FST
advocates employed by PVH to avoid any further problems around the release of advocates
from PVH duties to undertake full time FST work. Employment of a CYFS Child
Advocate will greatly facilitate the scope of action the FST can take in regards to child
safety.
•
The team has identified a bottle-neck in the work of the Police Family Violence
Coordinator for Auckland, who is currently charged with reviewing all POL 400s and
assessing whether referrals should be made to CYF or an NGO, in addition to other duties.
•
The team reports that it appears that CYFS is being ‘swamped’ by a high number of
referrals being logged through the call centre. Much current CYFS activity seems to be
directed at finding reasonable ways to manage this workload, including appropriate
identification of and response to high risk cases. Programmes to deal with this situation
have come under various titles, including ‘2-tier’, demand management, and differential
response model (DRM). The FST has recognised that it may be able to facilitate this work
by providing advice and support, but is not staffed to adequately undertake case
assessment.
•
Despite setbacks, the team has continued to work towards developing a strategic plan and
has made progress in this regard and in working towards the achievement of their
objectives even in the face of team instability. Further, notwithstanding problems, such as
the lack of CYFS representation on the team and loss of several team members, the
Auckland FST ha s been proactive in determining ways around difficulties encountered.
•
The complexity of forging relationships and establishing information sharing amidst a large,
diverse and diffuse community of service providers continues to hold particular challenges
for the Auckland team.
•
As a result of their activities, the Auckland FST has realised that it requires the services of a
data analyst. The team does not have the skills or capacity to develop a database of
information they are generating so that appropriate analyses and data searches may be
conducted in the future. Currently information is being stored in paper files and collated
by hand.
•
Despite making progress in developing relationships with other agencies, the team has
found it difficult. They are still trying to manage expectations within the community
regarding their core business.
89
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
5.1.6
Logic models related to the Auckland Family Safety Team
The following tables provide an overview of the rationale, context and operation of the
Auckland FST. It should be noted that the Auckland FST operation was primarily focused in
Onehunga (where the FST is located), as the larger police district the FST was intended to
cover was too large for the capacity of the Auckland FST.
The Evaluation Team worked with the Auckland FST to develop an intervention logic model.
The initial draft of the logic model sent to the FST was based on discussions held in a meeting
with the FST Supervisor, his immediate supervisor in Police, the Service Manager from PVH, a
representative from CYFS and a representative from Te Whare Ruruhau o Meri. Topics from
that meeting were put into the template and sent back to the FST Supervisor. It was then
revised with input from the rest of the team. The most recent version of the Auckland model is
shown in Tables 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3. These tables are organised according to the three primary
national objectives: (i) provide formal systems and structures, (ii) provide comprehensive and
integrated interventions, and (iii) develop national best practice. The long-term goals have been
omitted from these tables as they are the same for all three primary objectives. The specific
barriers and challenges identified by the Auckland FST, which were applicable to all the
objectives, were:
•
Large size of pilot site and large number of incidents of family violence
•
Limited capacity to manage cases
•
Difficulties accessing information from three different databases
•
Numerous gaps in services
•
Lack of collaboration between agencies
•
Lack of cultural expertise/representation for the diverse population
•
Limited capacity of Refuges and shortage of Refuge accommodation
•
Need for interagency/relationship building.
In summary, the primary components of the Auckland FST logic model focussed on the
following objectives and their associated activities:
•
Evaluating the effectiveness of core crisis services
•
Improving information sharing between agencies
•
Setting up a core agency case management group
•
Evaluating local schools’ policies and response to family violence
•
Addressing the lack of utilisation of all available refuge accommodation when needed
•
Reducing re-victimisation
•
Ensuring adequate availability of emergency accommodation
•
Developing the capacity of core services through training on family violence matters.
90
Results: Formative phase
__________________________________________________________________
Table 5.1:
Auckland FST Logic Model for Objective 1: Formal Systems and
Structures
National Objective 1: Provide formal systems and structures to support more effective
interagency coordination, communication and collaboration to respond to family violence
*Monitoring and evaluating practice and systems
*Information gathering and assessment
*Proactive intervention (2nd tier), with high risk families
Local FST
Evaluate crisis core services
Improve information
Objectives
for East Auckland Policing Area. sharing between
To be extended to both Western agencies.
& Central Areas.
Activities
Short-term
outcomes
4-week monitoring of crisis core
services to quantitatively assess
effectiveness of systems (identify
deficiencies/ strengths in those
core services Feb - 2006).
Achieved by assessing
information from files, PVH and
CYFS databases of all cases dealt
with by the area for a monthly
period, and where possible
facilitating change or reporting
inconsistencies to that agency.
Quantitative info on responses
by core services (Police, CYFS,
PVH, Justice) that identifies any
deficiencies and strengths in
systems.
Compare with West and Central
areas as measure of effectiveness
of training and for issues to be
addressed in future training or
change in protocols /
procedures.
Intermediate Quantitative assessment of wider
outcomes
service (e.g. Court) response to
deficiencies & strengths.
Undertake qualitative assessment.
Instigating a core
agency case
management group
for family violence.
Facilitate information
sharing training (Info
sharing between govt
departments and
NGOs), facilitate a rep
from Police HQ to
deliver training
specifically on info
sharing.
Establish an
interagency work group
to work collectively on
high-risk cases
involving Police, CYFS
and PVH and other
relevant agencies.
Awaiting availability of
representative from
Police HQ, as
significant interest has
been shown in
Auckland.
Establish a working
agreement with the
core services initially,
Police, CYFS and PVH.
Review/establish MoUs
with agencies, re: infosharing/ casework
coordination.
Monthly meetings to
discuss/manage a
coordinated response
to high risk families
within the Royal Oak
area.
*Note these objectives added by Auckland FST.
91
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Table 5.2:
Auckland FST Logic Model for Objective 2: Integrated Interventions
National Objective 2: Provide comprehensive and integrated interventions (whether services or support)
for families experiencing violence
*Proactive intervention (2-tier), with high risk families
*Advocacy: ensuring ‘victims’ voices are heard, ensuring access to wrap-around services across all sectors and
addressing gaps in services and support
*Monitoring and evaluating practice and systems
*Developing new practice and systemic change
Local FST
Evaluate local
Improve
Reduce rates of reExplore
Objectives
schools’ policies and
utilization of
victimisation
possibilities with
response to family
refuge
other agencies to
violence, including
accommodation
improve access to
reporting/ response,
Community agencies
emergency
existing programmes,
are not utilising all
accommodation
deficiencies.
refuge facilities
After hours (short
available. This
term) when refuges
includes the
are full (Funding).
Collective refuges
(Pacific peoples and
Asian Specialist
Refuges).
Activities
Survey of existing
Identify what
Assist the FST
Explore
school-based services,
barriers are
coordinator in
possibilities with
policies and practice to
contributing to lack
reducing family
Work & Income,
respond to abuse. To
of collaboration
violence reCYFS and other
be undertaken primarily between some
victimsation using
agencies on similar
by PVH Child
NGOs and Refuge.
Police & PVH
agreement
Advocate with
Police staff of FST
advocates.
established in
assistance from
initially to determine Assist in developing
Wairarapa. To be
Whanau advocate. All
causes of the
best practice model /
undertaken by PVH
schools, public /
problem. Meeting
policy for visits with at Adult Advocate.
private and
with Collective
risk families.
kindergartens /
Refuge staff at Sub
Facilitate training of
Kohanga Reo's, in
Regional Meeting
Community Constable
Onehunga site area to
(April)
and PVH Victim
be surveyed.
advocates.
Short-term
List the schools within
Identify what the
Increase the quality of If available and
outcomes
the Onehunga FST
issues are (regarding joint visits conducted
viable, establish a
Site. Establish what is
use of refuges).
with a view to
similar protocol for
currently in place in
Attempt to resolve
producing quality
Auckland.
relation to family
the underlying
interventions.
violence disclosure /
causes of the
reporting by that
problem.
school, what their
policy is.
Intermediate
outcomes
Analyse the
information obtained
from that research to
identify sound policy
and gaps in services.
Advise schools of a
best practice model.
Report findings to
National Coordinator
for national
consideration of
Ministry of Education.
*Note these objectives added by Auckland FST.
92
Improved
communication
between refuge and
other community
agencies.
Improved working
relationships
between all parties.
Assist the Police
Family Violence
Coordinator in the
decrease of family
violence victimisation.
Families able to
access emergency
accommodation as
needed.
Results: Formative phase
__________________________________________________________________
Table 5.3:
Auckland FST Logic Model for Objective 3: National Best Practice
National
Objective 3
Develop national best practice and promote consistent application
of such practice for agencies working with families experiencing
family violence
*Developing new practice and systemic change
Local FST
objectives
Assist developing the capacity of core services through training on family
violence matters.
Activities
Assist the Police Family Violence Coordinator with training for the
following groups:
Frontline staff, supervisors, recruits and other staff as required.
Training to cover identified deficiencies and best practice at: District
Training and NCO training, recruitment induction by FST Police, CYFS
& PVH staff. Extend training to CYFS and PVH staff.
Short-term
Outcomes
Reduce deficiencies in core services response. Can be measured by
further monitoring and assessment of area core service response.
*Note these objectives added by Auckland FST.
5.2
Wairarapa FST
5.2.1
Team profile
In September 2005, the Wairarapa FST was comprised of a Police Supervisor, who
concurrently supervises the Hutt FST; a Child Advocate and an Adult Victim Advocate
employed through the Wairarapa Women’s Refuge, and a CYFS Child Advocate. A Police
Investigator joined the team in late October. The Refuge’s Child Advocate had worked in the
Family Start early intervention programme and was new to the child advocacy role. The CYFS
Child Advocate had worked as a Supervisor in the service (CYFS).
5.2.2
Physical location and structure
The Wairarapa FST, which is a split team with Hutt, is located within a government building
shared with other family violence agencies (e.g. Stopping Violence Services) in Masterton. By
the beginning of September 2005, the Wairarapa FST members were fairly well established
within their offices. Telephones and computers were in place, although email and printer
access were established some time later. While onsite access to the CYFS database was
established early on, the Refuge database cannot be accessed onsite and requires a visit to
Refuge offices. The team members share a common space within the main office, and have
their own meeting room. Their presence amidst other family violence agencies works well for
this FST. It is easily accessed by non-team members, including members of the public.
Wairarapa FST members believe their accessibility has encouraged people to drop in, thus
assisting networking and relationship building within the community.
The geographical area that Wairarapa is intended to cover is large and extends from the top of
the Rimutaka Hill to the top of Mt Bruce, and out to the East Coast, essentially, the Wairarapa
Police District. Due to the large size of the geographical area, to date, most of the team’s work
has been concentrated in Masterton, although they have worked with some families that have
moved into the wider Wairarapa. Eventually, the team plans to have a presence in South
Wairarapa. However, they will need to build relationships there for this to happen.
93
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
The Wairarapa has a pre-existing, strong network of agencies working in the area of family
violence, in the form of the Family Violence Intervention Group, and a history of collaboration
and information sharing. The small community and functional networks supporting
collaboration and information sharing between agencies have meant that the Wairarapa FST
was able to begin functioning as a unit with relative ease.
Team members have noted that they are still waiting for their business cards. They say it is
difficult trying to work in the community without such things, which provide them a degree of
credibility.
5.2.3
Composition/Staffing
The Wairarapa FST membership has remained stable throughout the period of evaluation. Due
to the high needs of the Hutt Valley team, the FST Supervisor has not spent as much time with
the Wairarapa team as with the Hutt team. This does not appear to have posed a major
problem for the Wairarapa team, who have noted considerable support from the pre-existing
network of agencies working in the area of family violence in the Wairarapa.
5.2.4
Staffing issues
Early on, some employment contract issues were noted for the Wairarapa team. These centred
on leave entitlement for the advocates employed by the Refuge. Currently, advocates are
uncertain whether these issues have been thoroughly resolved, but understand that the National
FST Coordinator is working on clarifying future employment contract details with the Refuge.
Late 2005, the FST members reported that there was some uncertainty over the continued
presence of the CYFS Advocate in the team, however, this was resolved and the member
remained with the team. More recently, it was reported that the CYFS member suffered
criticism and complaints from colleagues in CYFS due to her work with FST. Apparently,
these colleagues objected to identification by the CYFS/FST member of deficiencies and gaps
in CYFS practices.
The CYFS Child Advocate’s contract with FST ended in June 2006, when she will return to her
home agency. She will be replaced by another CYFS person, who will be trained by the outgoing member.
5.2.5
Summary of activities for Wairarapa
The Wairarapa team has engaged in a variety of activities. These include:
•
Some ‘hands on’ case management as well as systems level activities. In describing their
case management work, team members state that they actively gather information and bring
relevant people together in order to assist a family. This work, they maintain, gives them
credibility in the community and contributes to the development of trust and relationship
building.
•
The CYFS member of the team participates in the CYFS initiated 2-tier model23.
•
The team has identified gaps in the system with regard to recording situations where
children are witnesses to family violence. It has been actively engaged in ensuring such
situations are recorded.
23
94
Refer to Footnote 4.
Results: Formative phase
__________________________________________________________________
•
The team participates in the local Family Violence Intervention Group on a regular basis.
•
A goal of the team has been to examine re-victimisation. This is being accomplished
through information sharing with other agencies in order to initially identify the 20 most atrisk families in the community. After establishing a list consisting of 200 families, the team
have decided to tackle the top 10, using a mix of ‘hands on’ and reporting work.
•
The team has undertaken activities to streamline police practice around recording and filing
POL 400s, and in making referrals to Refuge and CYFS.
•
The Wairarapa team successfully applied for a grant to purchase personal alarms which are
loaned out to victims of family violence.
•
The team has also worked with Work and Income and the Ministry of Social Development
to ensure funding is available for victims from low socio-economic groups who require an
emergency telephone service to support the use of personal alarms but who cannot afford
to pay for it.
•
The team has met with a member of the Ministry of Social Development and discussed
changes needed to systems within Work and Income to ensure victims of family violence
have ready access to funding in order to access safe housing.
•
The Wairarapa team members have established good relationships with core agencies and
others (e.g. Immigration, Truancy, Work and Income), evidenced by fluid information
sharing between themselves and others. Agencies come to them to discuss family violence
issues. While they have had some formal meetings, most of the contact and work that they
do with other agencies is informal.
•
The team has engaged in team building exercises.
•
Discussions have been held with Refuge around increasing family violence reporting in the
wider Wairarapa. Pamphlet drops of FST or Refuge material, or combined materials, have
been made.
•
The team has recently undertaken training of CYFS workers on family violence.
•
As a result of information sharing work undertaken by the FST Victim Advocate with the
Refuge, the Refuge has begun screening clients for mental health needs, criminal activity
history, contact with CYFS etc. As a result of this screening, has been making referrals to
other agencies (e.g. for family violence programmes), including making notifications to
CYFS, where appropriate.
•
The team has promoted improved information sharing between agencies by encouraging
agencies to actively check that information is shared, which they believe has further
strengthened community networks.
•
The team has made progress on developing a strategic plan.
The team is aware that they need to shift their activities further towards the systemic level.
5.2.6
Summary of issues
Publicity around the work of the Wairarapa FST has led to greater public awareness of the
sharing of information between statutory agencies and NGOs. This appears to have been
viewed negatively by some members of the public, who have reported unease around the
perceived level of information sharing. According to the team, the Refuge has reported that
some women complained to Refuge staff following publicity of the work of the FST. The
implications are that the strict code of confidentiality that has been the hallmark of Refuge may
95
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
be seen by some to be in jeopardy, reducing confidence in that agency amongst victims of
family violence. The FST members maintain that this needs to be managed and that the
agencies concerned need to be more proactive in educating the public about how information
sharing works.
Although Wairarapa has had fewer issues to contend with compared with Hutt Valley and
Auckland, due to the stability of their workforce and the reportedly strong, functioning network
of agencies in their community, progress towards establishing a clear, long-term plan of action
has been slow. Supervision of this team has, understandably, been limited due to the high
needs of the Hutt Valley team, which may have contributed to slow development of a strategic
plan. However, the team has recently made progress in this direction.
The team see the need for a Police liaison person, as they say that the Police has a huge amount
of information, most of which does not get passed on. Currently, the FST Police Investigator
undertakes much of this work.
Wairarapa team members recognise a need for the information they gather and documentation
they produce to be stored in a more easily accessible form than hard copies housed in folders,
but do not believe they have the skills or knowledge needed to create a database and manage
data.
Despite reports by the FST of a well functioning network of agencies in their area, the team has
identified what they believe to be a serious gap in the provision of family violence services in
their area, regarding CYFS processes for family violence, contributing to a lack of some
information sharing. They maintain that this gap is widely recognised in the community. The
Wairarapa FST has recently engaged in training of CYFS workers on family violence.
The Wairarapa FST believes that under-reporting of family violence occurs in rural
communities. To protect the anonymity of individuals in small, close-knit communities, some
agencies (e.g. Education and Health) appear to be attempting to deal with family violence in
isolation, rather than collaborating with other agencies. In extending their service provision
beyond Masterton in the future, the team hopes to challenge the code of secrecy that may be
operating in rural communities.
5.2.7
Logic models related to the Wairarapa Family Safety Team
The following tables provide an overview of the rationale, context and operation of the
Wairarapa Family Safety Team. The Evaluation Team worked with the Wairarapa FST to
develop an intervention logic model. Following development of an initial draft of the logic
model by the Evaluation Team, the Wairarapa FST subsequently revised the model so that it
included the FST’s main objectives and activities. Tables 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6 show the intervention
logic for the Wairarapa FST in relation to the objectives and long-term outcomes from the
national programme. Information relating to the local objectives, activities and short-term
outcomes has been identified from the relevant documents sent by the Wairarapa FST,
including the strategic plan and monthly reports. As evident in the Tables below, there was a
specific focus on developing more effective crisis intervention services and improving
information sharing among agencies involved with family violence. Another important focus
was on training for police and staff in other agencies to ensure ‘best practice’ procedures are
used. A specific concern in both Wairarapa and the Hutt districts was to change the apparent
leniency among judges in relation to sentencing of violent offenders. To this end, the
96
Results: Formative phase
__________________________________________________________________
Wairarapa FST was lobbying for setting up a family violence court in the Wairarapa as they feel
a specialised family violence court will provide more effective hearings and sentencing.
In summary, the primary components of the Wairarapa FST logic model focussed on the
following objectives and their associated activities.
•
Evaluate crisis intervention in the Wairarapa
•
Improve information sharing between agencies
•
Work with Police, CYFS and Refuge to ensure National Best Practice procedures are
followed
•
Improve case management for identified high risk victims and offenders
•
Identify additional resources needed for effective operation and look at ways resources can
be provided
•
Raise awareness of statutory agencies involved in DV operations, especially among judges
•
Lobby for a Family Violence Court in the Wairarapa
•
Organise DV training on procedures for crisis core services with Police and CYFS frontline
staff, supervisors, prosecutions where deficiencies are identified
•
Have Protection Orders granted at the District Court more effectively
Table 5.4:
Wairarapa FST Logic Model for Objective 1: Formal Systems and
Structures
National Objective 1: Provide formal systems and structures to support more effective
interagency coordination, communication and collaboration to respond to family violence
Information gathering and assessment
Monitoring and evaluating practice and systems
Local FST
Evaluate Crisis
Improve information
Objectives
Intervention for the
sharing between agencies.
Wairarapa.
Activities
Short-term
outcomes
Collecting
information, stats on
POL 400s going to
Refuge, Attend
FVIG.
Collect information
on existing groups,
what others are doing.
Start discussions with
key agencies.
Intermediate
outcomes
Present information
to Police, Refuge and
CYFS. Improved
intervention.
Encourage interagency
meetings and support.
Build relationships with
other service providers.
Improved information flow
between Police, Refuge and
CYFS and some NGO
agencies.
Arranged agency meetings,
encouraging collaboration,
set up Youth Intervention
Group .
Ensure agencies have
MoU's together for
information sharing.
Get agencies to join local
Rise Above it Campaign
and sign charter.
Work with Police, CYFS
and Refuge to ensure
National Best Practice
procedures are followed.
Look at current practice &
systems. Identify and
address gaps. Promote
new initiatives.
CYFS DV training.
Monitor case files.
Building relationships
between services.
Strategically planning
preventative initiatives.
Provide family violence
training to police staff.
Make inroads with personal
beliefs and practices.
97
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Table 5.5:
Wairarapa FST Logic Model for Objective 2: Integrated Interventions
National Objective 2: Provide comprehensive and integrated interventions (whether services
or support) for families experiencing violence
Local FST
Objectives
Improve case
management for identified
high-risk victims and
offenders.
Identify additional
resources needed for
effective operation and
look at ways resources
can be provided .
Activities
Ensure access and
connection to 24/7 wraparound services.
Develop links with Victim
Advisor.
Develop links with Victim
Support Service
Coordinator.
Develop links with "Rise
Above it" campaign coordinator.
Develop links with local
district council and ensure a
line of communication.
Develop links with local Iwi.
Develop links with local
total immersion (Maori)
school.
Introductions complete.
Liaisons ongoing.
Not enough Police
alarms to provide for
high at risk domestic
violence victims. There
is no Work and Income
benefit or grant to
provide telephone lines
for high at risk domestic
violence Victims, even if
they require an alarm.
Short-term
outcomes
98
Develop a system
whereby we can provide
Domestic Violence Panic
Alarms to high at risk
victims. Including
setting up procedures,
installation of alarms and
funding.
Develop a system
whereby victims of
domestic violence have
access to phone lines.
Consultation with Work
& Income and MSD.
Raise awareness of
statutory agencies
involved in DV
operations.
Concerns that judges
have not had enough
training around DV
and that judges
minimise violence and
hand out lenient
sentences.
Lobbying for Family
Violence Court in the
Wairarapa.
Moving towards
having a Family
Violence Court in the
Wairarapa. Now given
possible start date of
March 2007.
Results: Formative phase
__________________________________________________________________
Table 5.6:
Wairarapa FST Logic Model for Objective 3: National Best Practice
National Objective 3: Develop national best practice and promote consistent application of
such practice for agencies working with families experiencing family violence
Local FST
Objectives
Activities
Short-term
outcomes
DV training on procedures for
crises core services.
Instigate training with Police
and CYFS frontline staff,
supervisors, prosecutions where
deficiencies are identified.
Prepare and deliver training to
CYFS social workers.
To have Protection Orders granted at the
District Court more effectively.
Work on this as a project in progress.
Monthly meeting with the other half of FST
team.
Find out what happened in
Counties/Manukau where a similar service
was implemented.
Increases in arrests for family
violence.
Compile statistics.
Elimination of deficiencies in
core services.
Intermediate
outcomes
Police frontline training –
informal/formal.
5.3
Hutt Valley FST
5.3.1
Team profile
To have an improved Protection Order
procedure working in court.
Hutt Valley FST is a split team with Wairarapa . This team took some time to reach full
complement, but by October 2005 the team consisted of the Police Supervisor (concurrently
supervising Wairarapa FST), two Police Investigators, a Child Advocate and an Adult Advocate
employed by the Hutt City Women’s Refuge, and a Maori Child Advocate and Maori Adult
Victim Advocate employed by Kökiri Marae Maori Women’s Refuge. The Hutt FST does not
include a CYFS social worker.
The Police Supervisor has a background as a criminal investigator for 14 years, worked as part
of the child abuse team within the Police, and as a supervisor for Police complaints. The Maori
Adult Victim Advocate came from 20 years employment as a frontline social worker for Child,
Youth and Family, with experience in diagnostic interviewing of children subject to abuse. The
Maori Child Advocate was also funded through the Kökiri Marae Maori Women’s Refuge,
where she was based up until joining the FST. The Child Advocate employed by Hutt City
Women’s Refuge was trained in social work and counselling and had worked as an ACC sexual
abuse trauma counsellor, supervised social workers who work in community organisations, and
facilitated women’s support and learning groups for women with Protection Orders. Prior to
that, this Advocate had worked with CYFS for 15 to 20 years, mainly in child protection and
evidential interviewing of children.
5.3.2
Physical Location and Structure
The Hutt Valley FST office is situated in the CYFS offices in Lower Hutt. It consists of an
open plan office space shared with CYFS workers, while the Police Supervisor has a separate
office off the shared space.
FST members had a presence in the office by mid-July 2005. However, the team was not fully
functional at that time as they were still grappling with technology difficulties, including
99
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
telephone and IT installation problems. These matters dominated the time of the Police
Supervisor at that time. In addition, progress was slowed by a lack of vehicles and other
equipment. Frustration was still evident in early October due to continued delays. While
telephone and some IT services had been established, printer and email access was still
unavailable. By the beginning of 2006 these matters had been resolved. However, onsite access
to the Police and Refuge databases has not been possible. This means that FST members must
visit the respective offices for access. Because the Hutt FST does not have a CYFS member,
access to the CYFS database is dependent on the goodwill of an available CYFS worker to
obtain the requested information for an FST worker. This is not always available. Indeed,
collaboration and information sharing between FST and CYFS is reported to be low, as
evidenced by the lack of information flow to the FST.
Due to irreconcilable differences with Hutt City Women’s Refuge, the employer for some of
the FST victim advocates, the contract between Hutt FST and the Refuge will terminate at the
end of June 2006. The advocates can no longer access the Refuge database themselves.
Currently, FST advocates have ongoing access to the POL 400 domestic violence incident
information held by the Hutt City Women’s Refuge, which the Refuge has been providing upon
request, although it is not clear what will happen beyond June. The relationship with Kökiri
Marae Maori Women’s Refuge, the employer for the Maori advocates, is unchanged, and is
described as a business relationship. Kökiri Marae Maori Women’s Refuge also share their
POL 400 information.
Access to the FST office by the public is limited due to security measures in place for CYFS.
FST members find this problematic, as they believe there is a need to be more accessible to the
public to facilitate networking and relationship building in their community. They maintain that
other agencies do not make an effort to visit because it is difficult to just drop in. All team
members have found it isolating from the community. The inaccessibility, it is claimed, impacts
on the provision of services and best practice. The team believes that networking and
information sharing would be facilitated if people could drop in more easily. As of early June
2006, it is understood that new premises have been found for the team and that a move is
imminent. The new offices are situated next to the police station and will be easily accessed by
the public.
The Hutt FST is intended to encompass the Upper and Lower Hutt areas, but to date the FST
has mainly operated within Lower Hutt. However, some work has been undertaken in Upper
Hutt, which has involved FST members attending community meetings and organising
meetings with community agencies. This is expected to increase with time.
5.3.3
Staffing issues
Contractual issues for staff employed through the Hutt City Women’s Refuge have been
ongoing since inception of the FST, contributing to the resignation last year of the Child
Advocate employed by Hutt City Women’s Refuge. In mid-January of 2006, another Child
Advocate was employed. Moreover, information sharing between the FST and the Refuge has
been problematic from the outset.
Problems experienced by FST advocates employed by Hutt City Women’s Refuge have been
around work responsibilities to Hutt City Women’s Refuge and completion of timesheets for
funding claimed by the Refuge. More generally, information sharing with the FST has caused
difficulties. As noted, however, the contract with Hutt City Women’s Refuge terminates in
June at which time a new employer for the advocates and partner for the FST will be
100
Results: Formative phase
__________________________________________________________________
contracted. This situation means that the advocates who have been employed through the Hutt
City Women’s Refuge are facing uncertainty over who their new employer will be and the
conditions under which they are to be employed after June. The advocates have questions over
current contractual issues, such as annual leave entitlements come June, and future contractual
conditions to be determined with a new employer. This degree of uncertainty is very unsettling
for the advocates.
In March 2006, the Maori Child Advocate took stress leave and subsequently resigned. To
date, a replacement appointment has not been made.
One of the Police Investigators was seconded to the Solomon Islands for a period of time in
April 2006, but has since rejoined the team. This person has signalled her intention to resign
but is awaiting a replacement. Both Police Investigators have struggled with their roles in the
FST as they expected that the job would involve more ‘hands on’ work than it has. This
expectation resulted from the job descriptions provided in their contracts. They do not feel
they are equipped for the current role which, in their opinion, requires someone with data
analysis skills. Further, the Police Investigators do not feel supported by their home
organisation, NZ Police, whom they believe does not value the work of the FST.
5.3.4
Summary of activities
•
The Hutt FST has been grappling with finding a balance between case management and
working at a systems level. Expectations within the community regarding the role of FST
in case management require ongoing monitoring to ensure that the team does not get overinvolved in hands on work (e.g. 2-tier CYFS work), as this diminishes their capacity to
undertake systems level tasks.
•
The Hutt team has been attempting to set up a Case Management Working Group made
up of core agencies in the community. However, despite efforts to start conversations with
other service providers, progress has been slow due to perceived opposition and
entrenched views.
•
Attempts by the team to engage with Courts and Probation in the area were met with
resistance initially, but finally some progress has been made with Courts in Upper Hutt and
Probation. Despite improved relationships with a representative at the Courts, a reluctance
to share information persists.
•
The Hutt FST participated in a half day team building exercise in late February 2006, and a
full day of team building in conjunction with the Wairarapa FST in mid-March.
•
The team has developed a form to assess the Refuges’ crisis intervention and contact with
victims and to gather information on the nature of follow-up offered to victims. Team
members have gathered and documented the information over a period of one month.
When completed, the information is to be provided in the form of a report to the National
FST Coordinator, and meetings will be held with the Refuges and Police to discuss the
findings.
•
A goal of the team has been to determine those families most at-risk for family violence in
the area. However, little progress has been made as the team have been unable to obtain
the required information from CYFS, who have argued that they do not have the time to
provide the information and do not believe it to be an important project to pursue.
•
The Hutt FST has had some success in engaging in informal relationship building with
members of other agencies. They have had successful interactions with the Domestic
Violence Coordinator for Work and Income, as well as with representatives of Housing
101
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
New Zealand, and describe their relationship with both of these organisations as good. In
addition, the team has developed a relationship with the Open Homes agency in their area,
which has invited the FST to talk with them about family violence when the new Manager
has settled in. Discussions have been held with Barnados regarding children’s domestic
violence programmes. Despite this progress, the team states that information sharing
remains a major problem in the Hutt Valley. Members find they are only able to get ‘part
of the puzzle’ due to reluctance to share by other agencies.
•
More recently, a focus of the Hutt team has been on the processes involving Protection
Orders, as they believe a gap exists in this area around the need for agency support for
victims who obtain Protection Orders. The team plans to gather information on the
uptake of Protection Orders, including the number applied for and the number withdrawn,
which will give members a more objective understanding of the extent of the problem.
•
The team has worked on developing a strategic plan.
•
Plans by the team to organise a Family Violence-Free Day or Awareness Campaign have
been abandoned for the present time. Progress was made in ‘fits and starts’ but the team
decided that it does not have the time or knowledge to get this underway. Team members
believe that the initiative needs to come from the broader community and not just the FST
to be successful. They have decided that it is not the right time for them to spearhead this
as they need to be better established in the community in order to pull it off successfully.
5.3.5
Summary of issues
Information sharing between CYFS and Hutt FST has been limited, despite sharing workspace.
The information sharing that has occurred has generally been one way: FST members sharing
information with CYFS workers, who tend not to reciprocate. Some informal sharing of
information by CYFS workers has taken place more recently. It was noted that a lot of work
has been done by Police and CYFS around developing a Memorandum of Understanding
(MoU) about information sharing between the two agencies. They have reached an impasse at
this point as both want to go back and rethink what they expect from an MoU.
Hutt FST is situated within an area lacking in a pre-existing, coordinated infrastructure for
responding to family violence compared to the other two pilot sites. There is a limited number
of agencies for dealing with family violence in the area (as evidenced by the absence of
stakeholders for interviewing), and those in existence would appear to be under-resourced for
the reported level of need. Interview data revealed that organisations tend to work
independently rather than collaboratively. Territorialism or ‘turfism’ appears to be particularly
strong, evidenced by information obtained during stakeholder interviews and site visits. The
Hutt team reports that CYFS seem unwilling to get involved in issues of family violence, as they
see their role as primarily concerned with children. The fact that the team does not have a
CYFS member undoubtedly contributes to this situation. The historical lack of collaboration
between agencies here – Police, CYFS, Courts and Refuges – contributes to a sense of mistrust
and resistance to the FST, making it difficult for the FST to make progress at a systemic level.
In addition, Hutt FST members report that the high need for resources to deal with family
violence in the community and insufficient number of frontline staff in agencies, contribute to a
sense of resentment towards the FST, which is perceived as an ill-use of scarce resources. Like
Auckland, the Hutt FST has sustained a high degree of instability, with the loss of two members
over the past 10 months.
102
Results: Formative phase
__________________________________________________________________
5.3.6
Logic models related to the Hutt Family Safety Team
The following tables provide an overview of the rationale, context and operation of the Hutt
Family Safety Team. The Evaluation Team provided the Hutt FST with an initial intervention
logic model. The Hutt FST subsequently revised the model so that it included the FST’s main
objectives and activities. Tables 5.7, 5.8 and 5.9 show the intervention logic for the Hutt FST
with the overall objectives and long-term outcomes from the national programme. Information
relating to the local objectives, activities and short-term outcomes has been identified from the
relevant documents sent by the Hutt FST, including the strategic plan and other reports. As
evident in the Tables below, most of the objectives and activities have focussed on setting up
systems and structures to support more effective interagency coordination, communication and
collaboration.
Table 5.7:
Hutt FST Logic Model for Objective 1: Formal Systems and Structures
National Objective 1: Provide formal systems and structures to support more effective
interagency coordination, communication and collaboration to respond to family violence
Monitoring and evaluating practice and systems
Information gathering and assessment
Local FST
Reduce repeat
Domestic Violence
Domestic Violence
Objectives
victimisation
Awareness campaign (Hutt Services stocktake
Compile a list of the ‘Top
Valley)
20’ family violence repeat
Establish a community
victimisation cases,
‘Violence-Free Day’ for the
monitor and share
Hutt.
information to reduce revictimisation.
Activities
Work with CYF, Refuge
Presented to local
Identify local
(Kökiri) and Police to
interagency group for
agencies currently
obtain information.
discussion. Further
operating in the Hutt
Engage in relationship
investigation as to scope
that provide services
building with agencies,
and funding to be
in the Hutt valley in
promote awareness of FST undertaken by separate
relation to DV.
in community.
working group to be
established.
Liaise with community
agencies, research how to
establish ‘Violence-Free
Day’.
Short-term
Progress on top 20 at-risk
The ‘Family Violence-Free
outcomes
families project: The team
Day’ or Awareness
said that they met a road
Campaign has been shelved
block when it came to
for the present time.
obtaining needed
information from CYFS.
This project has been
shelved at this point as a
result of the lack of
information from CYFS.
103
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Table 5.8:
Hutt FST Logic Model for Objective 2: Integrated Interventions
National Objective 2: Provide comprehensive and integrated interventions (whether
services or support) for families experiencing violence
Local FST
Monitor Crisis
Improve Case
Youth Offending and
Objectives
Intervention. Review Management
its relationship to family
of services post-police
violence incidents
(Lower Hutt)
attendance.
involving high risk/
repeat families.
Activities
Evaluate crisis
intervention services in
the Hutt area and flow
of information to
agencies for follow up
with the victims of
domestic violence.
Short-term
outcomes
FST will be in a
position to better
identify the gaps in the
current system for crisis
intervention and, in
consultation with the
agencies, establish
better methods of
operation.
Intermediate
outcomes
Quicker more detailed
response to victims of
domestic violence.
104
Reintroduction of
interagency case
management meeting for
high-risk DV cases.
Establishing formal MoU
between agencies and
best practice.
Better risk analysis and
identification of repeat
victims/offenders by
NGOs. Enhanced level
of information sharing.
Staff to obtain details of
youth involved in
offending and their
parents, and all details
relating to offending and
incidents of domestic
violence involving the
parents.
Evaluate the links
between local youth
offending and DV
incidents involving high
risk/repeat families, to
establish better
information sharing
protocols internally
between local YAS,
FVC, and CYFS Youth
Justice.
Better risk analysis and
identification of repeat
victims/offenders by
NGOs. Enhanced level
of information sharing.
Results: Formative phase
__________________________________________________________________
Table 5.9:
Hutt FST Logic Model for Objective 3: National Best Practice
National Objective 3: Develop national best practice and promote consistent application
of such practice for agencies working with families experiencing family violence
Local FST
High risk offender profiling
Protection Orders to be implemented
Objectives
for police staff
more effectively
Activities
Short-term
outcomes
Establish for Lower Hutt police
staff individual offenders and
family profiles for initial police
response where attending
incidents involving repeat/ high
risk offenders.
More effective case
management of high risk cases.
Research the impact of Protection Orders
across the Hutt to better identify why
Protection Orders are not being followed
through from the application stage to final
notice.
Delivery of Protection Orders in a timely
manner.
In summary, the primary components of the Hutt FST logic model focussed on the following
objectives and their associated activities:
•
Compile a list of the ‘Top 20’ family violence repeat victimisation cases, monitor and share
information to reduce re-victimisation
•
Organise a domestic Violence Awareness campaign for the Hutt Valley (currently on hold)
•
Establish a community ‘Violence-Free Day’ for the Hutt (currently on hold)
•
Organise a domestic violence services stocktake
•
Carry out a review of crisis intervention services provided following police attendance
•
Improve case management in Lower Hutt
•
Examine youth offending and its relationship to family violence incidents involving high
risk and repeat families
•
Carry out high-risk offender profiling for police staff
•
Research processes around obtaining Protection Orders in the Hutt to explore issues
around the uptake of Protection Orders (e.g. the number applied for and the number
withdrawn).
105
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
106
6
Discussion and Suggested Ways
Forward
Being a formative evaluation it was the intention of the evaluation team to work closely with
the FSTs to help them operationalise their goals and develop an intervention logic. However,
this assumes that the sites were at a stage of development and stability where this was possible,
e.g. basic resources are in place, having the full complement of staff and community readiness
to receive an FST. As we have demonstrated in this report, the extent to which this level of
readiness existed differed according to site. It was not until the latter half of the formative
evaluation period that the teams began to be in a position to begin working at this strategic
level. Despite these factors not being fully resolved, each of the sites has managed to make
significant progress. All three have begun to develop an intervention logic/strategic plan and
undertaken a number of related activities as summarised earlier in this report.
In this section, we bring together information obtained from the interviews, site visits, review
of documentation, and literature review, and identify a number of issues, some generic and
some site specific, that we believe have impeded the initial establishment and progress of the
FSTs participating in this evaluation. The issues identified, and suggested ways forward, may
differ according to the local conditions within which the FSTs are operating.
Table 6.1:
Summary of identified issues
Main Issue
Relationships with
collaborating agencies
Associated Issues
•
Contracts with family violence agencies
•
Gaps in service provision infrastructure
•
Support from national bodies
•
Stability of the teams
•
CYFS input
•
Clarification of employment contracts
•
Timely employment of new team members
•
Administration/information management
FST geographical coverage
•
Large areas/split teams
Information sharing
•
Protocols/guidelines and national training
Timeframe for formative
evaluation
•
Lack of progress
•
Capacity for engagement with evaluation
team
Staffing
107
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
6.1
Suggested ways forward: processes for highlighting and
addressing issues identified by evaluation team
A number of the issues identified above not only hindered the progress of the FSTs but also
meant that the process undertaken by the evaluation team was not formative in the truest sense.
The impact of these issues, many of which we believe could have been addressed prior to the
establishment of the teams, has been significant and has affected all three teams to a greater or
lesser extent. Therefore in this final section of the report we wish to address these issues and in
doing so provide ways forward for the pilot FSTs and inform the establishment of new FSTs.
6.1.1
Scope of practice
Case management versus systems level activity
Over time it became clear that there was some tension related to the FSTs’ role in ‘systems’
monitoring, versus their responsibilities in relation to ‘case management’. This tension created
confusion, and was evident at a number of levels.
Team members sometimes reported feeling pressure from others’ expectations, internally and
externally (core agencies, or other service providers within the community), to primarily
undertake case management. Much of the external pressure to become involved directly in case
management, came from the core agencies in the community. In some cases the teams had
been billed as ‘the elite family violence team’, or staff in already over-burdened positions held
the hope that the FST would help with the caseload. FSTs had difficulty brokering these
expectations when they were not themselves clear about the focus of their activity.
By contrast, some team members also reported feeling that the level of direct contact with
‘cases’ was less than they were happy with, due to their obligations to undertake systems level
work. They felt that this mix of responsibility had not been accurately described in the initial
job descriptions. Others missed having frequent ‘hands on’ contact with clients, but recognised
the importance of the systems level work they did, even though they sometimes felt the steep
learning curve associated with skills necessary to understand ‘the system’.
After a year of operation, the different teams are finding their own balance around the
appropriate degree of case management. For example, the Auckland FST is now clear that they
do not have the staffing resources to undertake much casework, even at the high-risk end,
because the high risk cases are often extremely complex and therefore very staff intensive to
progress. As a consequence, they chose their engagement with particular cases with great care.
One ‘success’ they described is engagement with an extremely high-risk case, where they
believed the man was very likely to kill his partner. Not only was the team able to gather the
necessary information to enable them to arrest the man, but they had plans to put a description
of the case and its investigation before the local CIB, in order to fulfil their objective of
increasing capacity and understanding within the system. Engagement on these occasional
cases also fulfilled the desires of some of the team for helping ‘real people’.
Training role
While the pilot FSTs have, to a greater or lesser extent, successfully undertaken a training role
for frontline police staff on family violence procedures, it should not be the responsibility of
FSTs in the long-term. Training priorities should include information on the dynamics of
family violence which should be conveyed during initial police training at Police College, as well
108
Discussion and Suggested Ways Forward
__________________________________________________________________
as locally-based training on use of the Risk and Lethality Assessment form, and referral
protocols.
Implications for the future
Further clarification and articulation of the role of the FSTs would also assist both existing and
new teams in brokering expectations of what they will be able to achieve among other agencies
working with family violence, and in the wider community. While the existing FSTs are
gradually finding a balance of activities, and identifying how their work can enhance and extend
the activities being undertaken by other agencies, further delineation of the FSTs’ role would be
of benefit. In particular, better definition of the scope of practice of the FSTs would assist
those that are being newly established. It would assist in preparation of job descriptions, and
identification of the skill sets that are required to do the work. This, in turn, might enhance
levels of job satisfaction for those employed. At present, this articulation is difficult, because
there is not necessarily shared or widespread understanding of what is meant by words like
‘monitoring’ of systems, and what activities this entails. Confusion is increased by the presence
of alternative models of interagency collaboration, such as HAIPP, which include considerable
levels of service provision, in addition to the monitoring activities they undertake. Assistance in
this clarification of roles may be best undertaken by further consultation with the existing FSTs
about their emerging understanding of their tasks.
6.1.2
Relationships with collaborating agencies
Existing infrastructure/capacity of existing agencies
The Family Safety Team initiative is predicated on the notion of interagency collaboration.
However, the sites in which the three pilots are situated have differed in terms of initial levels of
collaboration between family violence agencies and this has impacted on the extent to which
the teams have been able to address the goals of FST. The communities in which these teams
are operating vary widely too in terms of the level of existing infrastructure. As a result of these
site differences, some of our suggestions are applicable to all sites, while others have specific
relevance to a particular site.
Appropriate levels of resources for the FSTs and their parent and partner organisations are also
important. As Hague (2001) has noted:
Inter-agency work can only work if situated within a wider, overall policy framework of support,
and including adequate general service provision (e.g., of housing options, social security benefits,
refuge and other outreach services)… Adequate resourcing for inter-agency domestic violence
work is essential if the approach is to be successful. (pg. 275–305).
Differences observed with respect to access to CYFS information, particularly in the case of
Hutt FST, which does not have a CYFS team member and experienced limited information
sharing with CYFS compared with Wairarapa and with Auckland (when that team had a CYFS
member), leads us to strongly advise that a CYFS member be allocated to each team, and that
ongoing participation by a CYFS member in each team be assured.
109
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Auckland
The Auckland FST is working in an area where there is a high volume of cases, within an urban
community, with a large, ethnically and socio-economically diverse population. There are
several community agencies (large and small) working in the family violence area, and there are
existing formal (e.g. MoU between PVH and Police) and informal arrangements to encourage
referrals, networking and sharing of information.
While the FST has been subject to differing expectations from other agencies and individuals
about what they will and will not do, it has been quite successful in defining and adhering to its
own priorities, in line with the overall goals for the project. Members have established a degree
of mutual trust and credibility with other key organisations, including PVH, CYFS, Courts and
Victim Advocates, Probation, and various other service providers. However, the FST would
benefit from having the CYFS FST position filled in an ongoing manner. They are currently
getting by because they have established a good relationship with CYFS staff, which facilitates
information sharing. When necessary an FST victim advocate visits the local CYFS office to
obtain information.
Ways forward
To ensure ongoing information sharing with CYFS, Auckland FST would benefit from having a
permanent CYFS member as part of the team. This should be part of policy for all new FSTs
established.
Wairarapa
The Wairarapa FST operates in a small urban and rural community. As a result of several highprofile child fatalities in the region, a multiagency forum (FVIG) for discussing family violence
cases in the community has been operating for several years. Good communication between
most agencies existed prior to the FST being set up. Because of this existing case management
forum, the FST has been able to concentrate on high-risk cases, and is beginning to focus its
attention more on systems level responses, knowing that there are individuals in all the key
agencies who they can refer to. Some issues that arose at the beginning included a minor sense
of unease by members of the existing multiagency forum as to the role the FST would fill, and
how this would overlap or impinge on the work already being undertaken. As the FST has
become clearer on its role, this concern has dissipated. Over time, however, there has been a
need for clarification of roles, and identification of which organisational ‘hat’ individuals are
wearing when they come to meetings (e.g. as a representative of CYFS, or of the FST).
However, of the three FSTs involved in the evaluation, the Wairarapa site has had the least
problematic entry into the community. We believe that this is attributable to the pre-existing,
strong, collaborative infrastructure in this community. This assertion is supported by the
literature.
Ways forward
Establishing new teams in areas where there are already existing networks needs to be done
with sensitivity, and appropriate introductions to established workers. Even in communities
where individuals may be well-known, the role that they will be fulfilling needs introduction to
the community, so that expectations are clear. This can minimise personal risk for FST
members, who are then less likely to encounter challenges from their parent organisations or
members of the public.
110
Discussion and Suggested Ways Forward
__________________________________________________________________
Hutt
As documented earlier, the agency capacity within the Hutt FST area is extremely limited, and
the case volume is high. Networking is limited or non-existent. Considerable reluctance by
both statutory and non-statutory agencies to engage with the Hutt FST to explore new ways of
working is apparent. Breakdown of relationships, including the non-renewal of the contract
between the FST and Hutt City Refuge are indicative of mistrust between agencies.
In light of these factors, the Hutt FST has appropriately revised its goals and objectives.
Systems monitoring is not possible, as they do not have ready access to the CYFS database, and
only marginal access to the Refuge database. The FST instead is concentrating on relationship
building and monitoring in the service areas where they are able to obtain information, and
seeking to build networks, with the aim of establishing a functional local case management
group.
Ways forward
The high volume of family violence cases in the Hutt area and limited services available for
addressing these clearly highlights the need for increased services and support. The FST may
contribute to this, but before it may be successful, significant additional resources need to be
invested to upgrade the capacity of existing agencies.
Given the evidence presented (see stakeholder interviews) suggesting low levels of readiness to
engage with active response to family violence in this community, it would seem that while
support from the national bodies of the key agencies is required, a simple ‘top down’ approach
to directing agencies to engage with FST may produce limited results.
In light of the above, based on a community readiness analysis (Edwards et al, 2000), strategies
that might be considered to promote engagement include:
•
Small group and one-on-one discussions with community and agency leaders on the health,
psychological and social costs of family violence.
•
Educational sessions on the health, psychological and social costs of family violence to
community leaders and community groups who might be interested in supporting local
programmes.
•
Use local incidents that illustrate harmful consequences of family violence and lack of
coordinated action in one-on-one discussions and educational outreach programmes.
•
Education sessions on national and local prevalence rates, and service use. Include local
incidents as illustration.
•
Local media campaigns (e.g. community newspapers) that illustrate harmful consequences
of family violence. Later, use such campaigns to showcase ways of reducing and/or
responding effectively to family violence.
•
Education sessions that introduce the concept of prevention, and illustrate specific
programmes that have been tried by communities with similar profiles.
In addition, development of the existing infrastructure needs to be supported to make
coordination and collaboration possible. Additional efforts need to be put into adequately
resourcing the key agencies within the Hutt to increase capacity and relieve pressure.
Specifically, it is suggested that within Police there is a need for training of frontline staff in
areas such as completion of POL 400s, risk and lethality assessment and referral pathways. The
111
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
appointment and support of a Family Violence Coordinator(s) is central to coordination efforts
of the FST.
6.1.3
Ability to address problems within home agencies as they are identified
Information from the published literature on multiagency initiatives documents the importance
of the teams working in an environment where there is high-level support from the ‘home’ or
core agencies. Of particular relevance to the current project, Giacomazzi and Smithy (2001)
stress the importance of having key players involved from the implementation phase (e.g.
particularly ‘leaders’ of organisations who have the power to make organisational changes in
policy and practice). In addition, Hague (2001) highlights the importance of having national
and local guidance from central and local government, and from national coordinating agencies,
in order to facilitate the involvement of all relevant agencies. It would seem that such support
is critical if the FSTs are to achieve the goal of providing comprehensive and integrated
interventions for families experiencing violence. An important clarification of this goal is that
while the FSTs have been charged with ensuring ‘access and connection to wrap-around
services across all sectors’ and to ‘address gaps in services and support’, in all of the three
locations the volume of cases precludes the FST actively undertaking extensive case
management themselves. Instead, they have appropriately redefined the goal (explicitly in
Auckland, implicitly in Hutt and Wairarapa) as seeking to identify deficiencies in response
within existing systems, and seeking to identify current gaps in services and support.
In order for this goal to result in real changes for families in the FST areas, however, it requires
both a forum for raising identified issues with the core agencies where there is currently a
deficiency in response, and a commitment from the home agency to try and address this withinservice problem, or the gap between services.
In the Hutt, this need is particularly acute. The environment and lack of ‘buy-in’ from the local
agencies is such that the FST is having difficulty accessing the information that they need to
identify current levels of response. There appears to be little inclination on the part of key
players from local organisations to consider changes in how they respond.
In Auckland, there are a few forums where issues of this nature may be discussed (e.g. local
Saftinet meetings, although there is a reported lack of attendance at these meetings by key
managers), or where support from the core agencies can be accessed to address identified issues
as they arise. However, it should be recognised that some of the issues identified are beyond
the scope of local managers to address (e.g. the fact that there is only one Police Family
Violence Coordinator to assess and process all POL 400s). If improved response to families is
to be achieved, there needs to be commitment from parent organisations to address problems
identified within their own organisations.
6.1.4
Staffing: fit-for-purpose (employment issues/full complement of skills on the
team)
There is general consensus that representation by Police, CYFS and advocacy groups is
important for the functioning of the teams. However, interviews with team members in all
locations have identified the need for additional skill sets to those that currently exist within the
teams. In particular, the teams have identified the need for specialised skills in data collection,
analysis and reporting to fulfil the goal of ‘monitoring and evaluating practice and services’.
The need for specific data collection skills in such teams has been noted in the literature (e.g.
Hall & Wright, 2003). Some team members have also noted the need for clear and precise job
112
Discussion and Suggested Ways Forward
__________________________________________________________________
descriptions prior to employment. These team members expected more ‘frontline’ face-to-face
client engagement and less data-related work than their roles have provided. To this end, it is
recommended that job descriptions for team members accurately reflect the skill base required,
and the mix of activities expected during the course of the job. As one FST member stated,
‘We are not researchers. We really need someone with analyst skills directly on the team. We can access the files
and get the data, but then we need someone who knows what to do with it and how to present it.’
Given the above, it would seem imperative that FSTs have either, within their team someone
with the prerequisite skills in data management and analysis, or at the very least, ready access to
such a person. Alternatively, if neither of these are viable options, then existing staff members
would benefit from training and support to undertake these tasks.
Finally, employing members with skills and experience in other domains relevant to the goals
and objectives of the FST may also be an advantage, as the teams develop. Additional relevant
skill sets include policy and guideline development, and organisational change. Access to these
skill sets within the teams would support achievement of the third goal of FSTs, i.e. developing
national best practice and systems change. If funding for new positions is not available, then
training in these areas should be provided to existing team members. It is noted that the
Auckland FST has just employed a team member with skills of this nature, which might be
expected to support and enhance the work of that team.
6.1.5
Information sharing and communication
Gardiner, (2000) identifies the development of clear roles, policy and procedural guidelines as
being factors central to successful collaboration. The basic premise of the FST is that exchange
of information between agencies will enable a more complete picture to be obtained, and, as a
consequence, better decisions can be made on how to help and support families. Thus, access
to databases from the core agencies is one of the fundamental tools required by FSTs in order
to achieve their goals. Only by information sharing between agencies can pictures be built up
of ‘high-risk’ cases, by pooling information and (repeat) contact with statutory and NGO
groups. Similarly, FSTs require access to databases, or, at a minimum, pooled information from
key agencies, in order to fulfil their goals of providing systems and structures to support
interagency work. It is only through access to this information that the FSTs can provide
feedback to individual agencies on their performance (e.g. the number of clients at first contact
who are supported to a successful conclusion and/or held accountable for their actions), or
advise on gaps between services (e.g. individuals encountered in one domain, who are
appropriately transferred over for help and support/response by another agency).
In Auckland, information sharing is primarily occurring because of personal relationships.
While there is a high degree of personal trust that allows this to occur, there is also a degree of
disquiet about what level of information sharing is permissible without violating other aspects
of good practice. ‘Everyone in Auckland is screaming for it’ [guidelines and training on
information sharing]. (FST member). Initial discussions with Police National Headquarters
indicated that there was an ‘in-house’ expert who could provide local training on information
sharing, but this initiative has never come to fruition as the development of national level
guidelines on information sharing have now moved to the MSD portfolio. There is openly
expressed concern on the part of FST members that this will cause further delays, up to ‘three
years before [guidelines] see the light’. Access to the local advocacy database and Police
databases presently exists without complications. Access to CYFS database is possible through
advocate contact with (and a physical visit to) the local CYFS office. This situation works
113
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
because of good relationships and trust. Should the personal relationships fail, FST access to
the CYFS database could be compromised.
In the Wairarapa, where there was a pre-existing network, there is still concern about what level
of information sharing is acceptable. Access to the three key databases is readily available on
the FST site. In addition, information from other services (e.g. probation) is also available to
the FST through the existing Family Violence Intervention Group. Thus, the FST has direct
access to several key databases, and access to more extended information as a result of personal
relationships involving trust with other personnel from services external to the FST.
In the Hutt, there is little or no information sharing and access to all key databases is limited.
No CYFS worker was ever employed on the team, and access to the CYFS database through
local CYFS employees has been intermittent. Access to the Refuge database is only available
indirectly, on FST request to the organisation, and is subject to staff availability and willingness
to provide this information. It is not clear what access to the database will be available once the
contract with Refuge expires.
It could be argued that the establishment of clear channels of communication is as important as
the existence of guidelines for information sharing. In fact, Gardiner (2000) identifies the
established informal and formally agreed channels of communication and open and frequent
communication and sharing of information as the keys to successful collaboration. Within
FSTs, communication occurs at several levels. While there have been instances where team
members were not always ‘up with the play’, in general, internal communication between team
members has been good. At the level of FST to FST, it was frequently expressed that while
some opportunities to meet and share experience and expertise existed at the supervisor level,
and more recently between team members from the Hutt and Wairarapa, further opportunities
to meet formally with other FSTs would be valuable.
Much work has been undertaken by the National Coordinator and FST supervisors to
streamline reporting systems. The good relationships established between the National
Coordinator and the supervisors provide a good base from which to move forward.
Communication between the FSTs and Steering Group has primarily occurred through the
National Coordinator. In addition, a preliminary evaluation report was made available to the
Steering Group in May 2006 in which responsibility for communication of identified issues was
raised. To date, it is unclear whether mechanisms have been put in place to ensure issues
presented to the Steering Group can be conveyed back to parent agencies, or senior level policy
makers, who might have the power to address them. It is hoped the Steering Committee will
consider how they might extend their role to ensure this happens.
Ways forward
•
The development of guidelines for interagency information sharing needs to be prioritised.
•
Police, CYFS, and local advocacy agency databases should be accessible to appropriate FST
staff at each site. This includes having the appropriate personnel who are authorised and
trained to access and interpret data from each database, and having the technical capacity
and IT support to enable this access to occur in a timely fashion.
•
A CYFS employee should be an appointed member of every FST.
•
Regular opportunities should be scheduled for FSTs to share experiences and expertise.
114
Discussion and Suggested Ways Forward
__________________________________________________________________
•
Steering Committee should consider ways to ensure that issues are communicated to parent
agencies, or senior level policy makers, who have the power to address them.
6.1.6
Child safety
We highlighted earlier in the report the reasons children were not interviewed in this phase of
the evaluation. However, information was gained through interviews with victims. It is
important to note that the statistics presented in the report show that, nationally, direct assaults
on children have increased since 1996, while the number of commitments to domestic violence
programmes for children have remained static. This trend is generally reflected in the FST sites.
Alongside this, national figures on Police family violence notifications to CYFS increased
markedly between 2000 and 2005. Given these statistics and the reports from victims regarding
services for children it is of concern that child safety does not feature as a major focus of FST
activities to date.
6.1.7
Considerations for the future
It should be acknowledged that all three FSTs have made considerable progress towards
identifying strategies towards achieving their goal of reducing family violence. However, the
journey to date has not been easy for these teams as this report has highlighted. The report has
identified obstacles which have inhibited the progress of the teams and to this end we have
produced the list below, based on the literature and the extensive data gathered in the course of
this project which we believe could inform not only the development of FSTs but any future
community based, collaborative interventions.
Prior to set-up
•
Ensure that there is shared understanding of the aims and objectives of the FSTs among
the core agencies involved, particularly in relation to the balance of ‘systems’ work and case
management.
•
Ensure that the current services available have the capacity to support the increased
demands likely to come from interagency activity.
•
Determine necessary skill sets and employ on this basis.
•
Ensure resources are in place and are accessible (e.g. office infrastructure [computer, fax
phone], cars, discretionary budget for training and conferences).
•
Ensure access to databases, and guidelines for information sharing are in place.
•
Have agreed processes for identifying difficulties, and referring these on to those who are
able to resolve them (within core agencies, and by negotiation between agencies).
During set-up
•
As members of teams often have not worked together, team building should be instituted
during the set-up phase.
•
Identify existing community networks and key players.
•
Ensure teams are introduced appropriately to the community and other service providers.
115
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Training
•
Provide training on skills necessary for the job (e.g. data recording and analysis, leadership
skills, community development)
Ongoing support
•
Provide regular opportunities for communication within each FST, with other FSTs, and
with the Steering Group and parent organisations.
•
Ensure there are mechanisms in place to address and respond to concerns, within FSTs
and within home agencies at both a local and national level.
•
Consider allocating training budget for teams and local communities to increase the skill
levels of all parties.
Being a formative evaluation it was the intention of the evaluation team to work closely with
the FSTs to help them operationalise their goals and develop an intervention logic. However,
this assumed that the sites were at a stage of development and stability where this was possible
(e.g. having basic resources in place, having the full complement of staff, community readiness
to receive an FST). As we have demonstrated in this report, this was not the case. It was not
until the latter half of the formative evaluation period that the teams were in a position to begin
working at this strategic level, despite these factors not being fully resolved.24
24
116
Although the contract for the evaluation ended in July 2006 and contact with the teams ended in May of the
same year, the Evaluation Team had informal contact beyond that period and was provided with additional
information on the ongoing activities of the FSTs appended (see Appendices 8 and 9).
7
Conclusions
Within the operating constraints identified in this report the three FSTs have all made progress
towards identifying their role, and establishing plans of action. The degree to which they
continue to move forward towards achievement of their long-term goals will be dependent on
the degree to which the challenges associated with staffing and support of the teams are
adequately addressed. It will also depend on the degree to which mechanisms are established
for addressing identified problems within the parent agencies. Some of these are likely to be
beyond the scope of the FSTs to change. These challenges are not new to interagency
collaborations.
These challenges need to be addressed without flinching, if the true goal of ensuring safety of
families is to be met. Positive steps in this direction include the move toward expanding the
National Coordinator position into a Secretariat, which may expand the ability of the FSTs to
raise and address issues at the national level. Other mechanisms may need to be considered.
This evaluation of the first year of operation of the FSTs demonstrates that these programmes
can contribute to the safety of families, but that they will require additional time and additional
support if they are to achieve their full potential. As we have long known of the entrenched
and complex nature of family violence, this outcome should not surprise us. It does, however,
reinforce the need for continued investment in time and commitment if the initial investment in
the FSTs is not to be wasted.
Finally, with reference to the ongoing evaluation programme associated with FST
implementation, the Evaluation Team contends that further attempts to evaluate the progress
of the teams should be postponed until there is clear evidence that the substantive issues
highlighted in this report have been resolved. However, in the meantime, we suggest that
systematic, independent monitoring of moves to address the issues, and the FSTs’ responses to
these changes, be undertaken. We envisage that this monitoring would occur regularly over the
next 6 to 12 months at which time the situation should be reassessed with a view to instigating
a process and outcome evaluation if it is clear that the sites are ready for this to be undertaken.
117
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
118
References
Bartlett, E. (2005). Is Domestic Violence Increasing or Decreasing? Various Measures of Trends in
Domestic Violence. Ministry of Justice, (unpublished).
Barwick, H., Gray. A,, & Macky, R. (2000). Domestic Violence Act 1995: Process Evaluation.
Wellington: Ministry of Justice.
Brinkerhoff, R. O. (2003). The success case method: Find out quickly what's working and what's not. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Dominick C. (1995) Overview of the Hamilton Abuse Intervention Pilot Project (HAIPP) Evaluation.
Wellington, Ministry of Health (New Zealand Health Information Service).
Edwards, R. Jumper-Thurman, P. Plested, B.A. Oetting, E.R. Swanson, L. Community
Readiness: Research to Practice. (2000). J of Community Psychology, 28 (3): 291–307.
Fanslow, J.L. (2005). Beyond Zero Tolerance: Key issues and future directions for family violence work in
New Zealand. Wellington: Families Commission.
Gardiner, J. (2000). Literature review on models of co-ordination and integration of service delivery.
Domestic Violence Prevention Unit, Western Australia,
http://familyanddomesticviolence.communitydevelopment.wa.gov.au/content/pubs/litre
view.pdf
Giacomazzi A.L. & Smithey M. (2001). Community policing and family violence against
women: lessons learned from a multi-agency collaborative. Police Quarterly, 4 (1): 99–122.
Hague, G. (2001). Multi-agency initiatives. In: What works for reducing domestic violence: A
comprehensive guide for professionals. Judy Taylor-Browne (ed). London: Whiting and Birch,
Ltd. Pages 275–305.
Hall, T. & Wright, S. (2003). Making it count: A practical guide to collecting and managing
domestic violence data. Nacro Community Safety Briefings.
Hester, M. & Westmarland, N. (2005). Tackling Domestic Violence: effective interventions and
approaches. Research Study 290. London: Home Office Research, Development and
Statistics Directorate. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors290.pdf
Malos E, Hague G, & Dear W (1996). Inter-agency intiatives as a response to domestic
violence. Social Policy Research 101.
http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/socialpolicy/sp101.asp. Accessed 07/03/2005.
Morris, A., & Reilly, J. (with Berry, S. & Ransom, R.J. (2003) New Zealand National Survey of Crime
Victims, 2001, Wellington, Ministry of Justice.
Office of the Commissioner for Children. (2000). Final report on the investigation into the death of
Riri-o-te-Rangi (James) Whakaruru. Wellington: Ministry of Social Policy. Online at
(executive summary only): http://www.occ.org.nz/media/files/whakaruru. Accessed
26/05/2005.
Office of the Commissioner for Children. (2003). Report into the investigation into the deaths of Saliel
Jalessa Aplin and Olympia Marisa Aplin. Wellington: Office of the Commissioner for
Children. Online at: http://www.occ.org.nz/media/files/aplin_report_2003. Accessed
26/05/2005.
119
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
120
Appendices
Appendix 1: Stakeholder Interview Schedule
Appendix 2: Victim Interview Schedule
Appendix 3: Perpetrator Interview Schedule
Appendix 4: Participant Information Sheet and Consent Form
Appendix 5: Recruitment Guide for Clients (Victims and Perpetrators)
Appendix 6: Safety Protocol
Appendix 7: Family Violence Statistics: A Baseline Study for the Family Safety Teams
Initiative
Appendix 8: Family Safety Team Pilot Project – Twelve Month Update Report August
2006
Appendix 9: Report from the Family Safety Team National Steering Committee to the
Evaluation Advisory Group
121
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
122
Appendix 1: Stakeholder Interview Schedule
Updated: 24 Aug 2005
Evaluation of the Family Safety Teams
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR KEY STAKEHOLDERS
(Includes representatives from government and non-governmental agencies, programme providers
and support services.)
Note: This interview schedule is conducted as a semi-structured flexible interview. The questions may
be varied depending on the responses of the interviewee. The questions below are guidelines for
topics to be covered, not a standardized interview schedule.
1. Could you tell me which agency you work in currently and your job role or roles in that
agency.
A. Current systems and structures that respond to family violence in this region
2. What are the main systems and procedures that are currently operating to respond to family
violence within your agency in Auckland/Hutt Valley/ the Wairarapa region?
3. Are there any other specific initiatives currently operating within your agency for adults and
children who are experiencing family violence and/or perpetrators of family violence in this
region?
B. Response of specific agency to people experiencing family violence including children,
victims and perpetrators
4. How does your agency currently respond to victims and perpetrators of family violence?
5. What specific programmes or services does your agency provide for children in families
experiencing violence?
6. Does your agency make referrals to other agencies in this area?
How does this occur in each case?
7. Does your agency receive referrals from other agencies in this area?
How does this occur in each case?
8. How could referrals be improved in your agency?
C. Communication and working in partnership among agencies responding to family violence
9. What current lines of communication (formal and informal) are there between your agency
and others in this area? On specific cases? On services?
10. How well are these lines of communication working?
11. How well do other agencies communicate with your agency in response to family violence?
123
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
12. What partnerships exist between your agency and other agencies which focus on family
violence in this region?
13. How do these partnerships influence the way your agency responds to victims and
perpetrators of family violence?
14. How do these partnerships influence the way your agency responds to children in families
experiencing violence?
15. In general to what extent do agencies in this area coordinate their responses to family
violence? For specific cases? For services generally?
16. What are the main barriers to effective coordination in this area?
17. How could the coordination among agencies in this area be improved?
D. Extent to which key stakeholders perceive interventions for families experiencing violence
to be integrated
18. How well integrated are the current interventions in this region for families experiencing family
violence?
19. How could interventions in this region be improved to ensure more coordinated practice to
keep victims safe?
20. How could interventions in this region be improved to ensure more coordinated practice to
keep children safe?
21. How could interventions in this region be improved to ensure more coordinated practice to
hold perpetrators of family violence accountable?
22. Any other comments?
E. Extent to which interventions for families experiencing violence meet needs and provide
safety
23. How well do your current programmes and interventions meet the needs of victims
experiencing violence?
What more could be done?
24. How well do your current programmes and interventions meet the needs of children
experiencing violence?
What more could be done?
25. To what extent do you think your current programmes and interventions keep victims safe?
What more could be done?
26. To what extent do you believe your current programmes and interventions keep children
safe?
What more could be done?
124
Appendix 1
__________________________________________________________________
27. To what extent do you current programmes and interventions hold perpetrators of family
violence accountable for their behaviour?
What more could be done?
28. What do you expect the Family Safety Team in your area will achieve?
F. Client numbers & services provide by agency in the previous year
Ask only for interviewees with access to information requested (e.g., managers)
29. How many clients who had experienced family violence did your agency work with in the last
12 months? (Approximately if not known specifically)
30. Could you describe the different types of clients you serve (e.g., adults, children, families)?
31. What are the main services provided for each type of clients?
G. Consistency of practice in responding to family violence (for national offices of government
& non-government agencies)
Ask only for interviewees with access to information requested (e.g., managers)
32. What guidelines and policies does your agency currently have in place for responding to
family violence?
33. What specific practices and procedures are embodied in these guidelines to promote sound
and consistent practice?
34. Are there any gaps/other areas in your agency where guidelines need to be developed?
35. Are you aware of any guidelines operating in other agencies in this area?
(Prompt if needed) What aspects of those guidelines have you heard about or seen?
36. Any other comments?
H. Agency auditing/monitoring of responses to family violence
Ask only for interviewees with access to information requested
37. To what extent does your agency monitor and assess responses to family violence? On
specific cases? Other agency responses? System responses?
38. In your agency, what is the nature of the monitoring and assessment undertaken?
39. How often does your agency currently review your responses to family violence?
40. To what extent does your agency share information related to monitoring and reviewing family
violence services? Can you give an example?
41. How could the sharing be imp roved?
125
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
I. Development of Family Safety Teams
Ask only for interviewees involved with Family Safety Teams
42. Where are things at now with the development of this region’s Family Safety Team?
43. What are the development plans or phases for the FST over the next few months?
44. What is/will be your specific role in the Family Safety Team?
Thanks very much for agreeing to be interviewed and providing the information
126
Appendix 2: Victim Interview Schedule
Evaluation of the Family Safety Teams
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR VICTIMS
Version: 4 October 2005
Preamble:
Explanation of purpose for interview (ie. ‘To find out which services or people you have had contact
with and to ask you about your experiences of this support’)
Explain that you (the interviewer) do not know details of the circumstances or events that brought the
person into contact with these services or what agencies they have had contact with. The person can
tell you as much or as little as they want to.
A. Introductory Information
What is your relationship to the other person involved in these events? How long have you been (were
you in) this relationship?
Do you have any children?
If yes, can you please tell me their ages, and whether or not they are living with you now?
B. What did the person want to happen?
In terms of the events that have happened to you recently, from your point of view, what would be the
best thing that could happen for you and your family?
Prompt: What about safety for you and your kids?
To what extent do you think your partner shares your view on best things that could happen?
How much to do you think others (e.g. agencies like police, advocates) share your view on best things
that could happen?
C. What contacts have you had with people or agencies (responding to you) following these
events?
Prompt: Family, friends
Prompt: Police
Legal agencies (eg., lawyers, courts) (Note: Clarify roles/job titles given by asking: Is/was that the
person’s position? For Courts, clarify if person works in Family or District court.)
Advocacy groups (eg., Refuge, Preventing violence) (Note: Clarify roles/job titles given by asking:
Is/was that the person’s position?)
Child Youth and Family
Other Agencies/Services
127
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
D. To what extent did these people or agencies help meet your needs?
What worked well about the agencies/services response(s)?
Prompt: How good were the people/agencies you had contact with at giving you the information you
needed?
Why or why not?
Prompt: How well did the people/agencies you had contact with seem to work together to respond to
your needs?
Why or why not?
Prompt: How well did the people/agencies you had contact with work together to respond to your
child(ren)? How well did they work together to meet the needs of your child(ren)?
Why or why not?
Were there any gaps in the response that agencies provided?
Were there any barriers to getting the response you needed to meet your needs?
E. Your thoughts for the Future
The needs of your children?
Have you made any changes to your interactions with your partner/family as the result of your contact
with these agencies?
What has helped (or not helped) these changes to happen?
What changes do you think you will make in future?
What would help (or not help) you to make these changes?
Anything else you want to add?
128
Appendix 3: Perpetrator Interview Schedule
Evaluation of the Family Safety Teams
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR OFFENDERS
Version: 4 Oct 2005
Preamble:
Explanation of purpose for interview (ie. To find out which services or people you have had contact
with and to ask you about your experiences). Explain that you (the interviewer) do not know details of
the circumstances or events that brought the person into contact with these services or what agencies
they have had contact with. The person can tell you as much or as little as they want to.
A. Introductory Information
What is your relationship to the other person involved in this event? How long have you been (were
you in) this relationship?
Do you have any children?
If yes, can you please tell me their ages, and whether or not they are living with you now?
B. What does the person want to happen?
In terms of the events that have happened to you recently, from your point of view, what would be the
best thing that could happen for you and your family?
To what extent do you think your partner shares your view on the best thing that could happen?
How much to do you think others (e.g. agencies like police, courts, etc) share your view on the best
thing that could happen?
C. What contacts have you had with people or agencies (responding to you) following these
events?
Prompt: Family, friends
Prompt: Police
Legal agencies (eg., lawyers, courts) (Note: Clarify roles/job titles given by asking: Is/was that the
person’s position? For Courts, clarify if person works in Family or District court.)
Advocacy groups (eg., Refuge, Preventing Violence in the Home) (Note: Clarify roles/job titles
given by asking: Is/was that the person’s position?)
Child Youth and Family
Other Agencies/Services
129
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
D. To what extent did these people or agencies help you achieve what you wanted to?
What worked well about the agencies/services response(s)?
Prompt: How good were the people/agencies you had contact with at giving you the information you
needed to achieve the outcomes you wanted?
Why or why not?
Prompt: How well did the people/agencies you had contact with seem to work together?
Why or why not?
Prompt: How well did the people/agencies you had contact with work together to respond to your
child(ren)? How well did they work together to meet the needs of your child(ren)?
Why or why not?
Were there any gaps in the system to getting the response you wanted?
Were there any barriers to getting the service provision or support you needed?
E. Responsibility for Events
How much do you think you contributed to causing the events?
Have you made any changes to your interactions with your partner/family as the result of your contact
with these agencies?
What has helped (or not helped) these changes to happen?
What changes do you think you will make in future?
What would help (or not help) you to make these changes?
Anything else you want to add?
130
Appendix 4: Participant Information Sheet
and Consent Form
Contact: Robyn Dixon or David Thomas
The University of Auckland
Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences
Private Bag 92019
Auckland
Ph 09 3737 599, ext. 87388, or email: [email protected]
Ph 09 3737 599, ext. 85657, or email: [email protected]
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation
Participant Information Sheet for Clients
Researchers:
Professor David Thomas and Associate Professor Robyn Dixon
You are invited to take part in an interview about the services you have received
The Ministry of Justice has provided funding to a research team at the University of Auckland to evaluate the Family Safety Teams
Pilot Project. The Family Safety Teams are being established initially in three areas: Auckland City, the Hutt Valley and the Wairarapa.
The evaluation will assist operational and policy teams within the Ministry to understand the effectiveness of Family Safety Teams in
terms of their objectives to improve the coordination of services for people who have experienced family violence and for developing
services to operate more effectively.
The Centre for Child and Family Policy Research and the School of Population Health at The University of Auckland have been
contracted to conduct the evaluation. In addition two members of the research team work for the Ministry of Justice. People who have
had contact with services related to family violence are being invited to participate.
We would like to invite you to take part in an interview about your experiences with services related to family violence. Your
experiences and opinions will be an essential contribution to informing the project.
We will also be requesting information from service providers about the number of visits and services received by clients of their
services. This will not involve individuals being identified, that is we will be asking the providers for the number of individuals
accessing various services we will not be asking service providers to identify or provide details of individual clients.
What will happen if I agree to take part in the interview?
A researcher from the University will call you to arrange a time to conduct an interview, either face-to- face at a time and location
convenient to you or if you prefer, by telephone. The interview will take around between 30 and 45 minutes to complete. The
researcher will ask you questions about your experiences related to family violence services. If you agree, the interview will be audiotaped. If you agree to being taped, you can choose to have the audio-recorder turned off at anytime. The audiotape, which may be
transcribed, will be used to supplement the researcher’s interview notes.
Your responses will be processed to remove any identifying information so the information you provide will be anonymous. If any of
the comments you provide are included in a report or published, this will be done in a way that does not identify you as the source.
You may stop the interview at any time, without giving any reason. You are also able to withdraw the information you provide up to 2
weeks from the date of the interview. Any information you provide, including audio- tapes of interviews, will be stored securely in the
researcher’s office for a period of 6 years for possible use for journal or other publications by the research team. All identifying
information will be stored separately from the raw data and the identifying information will be destroyed at the end of the project (e.g.,
by deleting the electronic documents).
You do not have to participate. Whether you choose to participate or not, this will not affect your access to any family violence or other
services.
131
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
If you agree to help us with the evaluation, you will be asked to fill in a consent form. If you prefer, you may give oral consent to be
interviewed so that you do not have to write your name on anything.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss the study further, please call or email David Thomas or Robyn Dixon using the
contact details above.
If you wish to receive a copy of the executive summary of the report, please provide your name and mailing address to the interviewer.
The executive summary will be available after the final report has been accepted by the Ministry of Justice, which is likely to be about
0ctober 2006.
You will be offered a list of contacts for organisations in your area that may provide help if you feel you need help or advice following
the interview.
We would greatly appreciate your assistance in this project and hope that you will be willing to take part.
Head of School is: Professor Alistair Woodward, School of Population Health, the University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019,
Auckland, Ph: 373 7599, ext. 86361
For ethical concerns contact: The Chair, The University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee, office of the Vice
Chancellor, Research Office, Level 2, 76 Symonds St, Auckland. Tel: 09 373 -7599 extn. 87830.
Approved by the University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee
on 20/07/2005 for a period of 3 years: Reference number 2005 / 270
132
Appendix 4
__________________________________________________________________
Contact: Robyn Dixon or David Thomas
The University of Auckland
Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences
Private Bag 92019
Auckland
Ph 09 3737 599, ext. 87388, or email: [email protected]
Ph 09 3737 599, ext. 85657, or email: [email protected]
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation
Participant Consent Form for Interviews with Clients
I have read the information sheet about the Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation and I understand the reasons
for the evaluation.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
?
?
?
I have been given the opportunity to discuss this study with the researcher. I am satisfied
with the information I have been given.
I understand that taking part in this study is voluntary and that I may withdraw from the
interview at any time.
I understand that I may withdraw any information provided by me without giving a reason up
until (2 weeks from the date of the interview).
Any information I provide will be stored securely in the researcher’s office for a period of 6
years after which time it will be destroyed through secure destruction services.
I understand that I will not be identified in any reports.
I understand that audio-tape recording may be transcribed for use as a backup to note taking
in this interview.
I understand that I may choose to stop audio-tape recording at any time during the interview.
I understand that if needed a list of contacts for assistance and support will be provided to
me.
I agree that the interview can be audio-tape recorded
I do not want the interview to be audio-tape recorded
I would like to be interviewed by telephone
I agree to take part in an interview
I
(print full name)
of
hereby consent to take part in the interview.
Signature of participant giving consent_________________________________________
Date______/______/_____
Approved by the University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee
on 20/07/2005 for a period of 3 years: Reference number 2005 / 270
133
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
134
Appendix 5:
Recruitment Guide for Clients
(Victims and Perpetrators)
Contact: Robyn Dixon or David Thomas
The University of Auckland
Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences
Private Bag 92019
Auckland
Ph 09 3737 599, ext. 87388, or email: [email protected]
Ph 09 3737 599, ext. 85657, or email: [email protected]
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation
Recruitment protocol for Clients
24 August 2005
Researchers:
Professor David Thomas and Associate Professor Robyn Dixon
Guidelines for service providers
Selection criteria for clients to be interviewed
Victims of family violence
People with whom local service providers are likely to have contact
From local FST area (e.g., Avondale or Onehunga areas in Auckland)
Likely to be at high risk on FST criteria
Have had contact with more than one agency or multiple contacts with an agency
Seeking 10 completed interviews with victims so will need about 15 initial consents (including 2 initial
names for piloting the interview protocol, which, will most likely form part of the total 10 interviews)
Offenders
People with whom local service providers are likely to have contact
From local FST area (e.g., Avondale or Onehunga areas in Auckland)
Have had contact with more than one agency (not just police and courts) or multiple contacts with an
agency
Seeking 10 completed interviews with offenders so will need about 15 initial consents (including 2 initial
names for piloting the interview protocol, which, will most likely form part of the total 10 interviews)
The following approach for recruiting participants is suggested:
Initial contact with clients
Telephone call or during face-to-face contact is appropriate
Explain Evaluation being carried out (see 3 below)
Ask if willing to be interviewed by a member of Evaluation team
Explain that information given by client will be anonymous and not affect access or outcomes from any
services
135
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
The following process is suggested:
Explanation of project to clients
See sheet on following page
Read out or paraphrase as you see fit
Allow opportunity to ask questions
Obtain oral consent to be interviewed and explain that written consent will be requested by Evaluation team
Record contact details
Ask how client prefers to be contacted (e.g., by phone) and what times of day or week
Ask if they have any preference to be interviewed by a person of same gender or ethnicity
Tell client that they will be contacted by a member of the evaluation team in 1-2 weeks
Providing contact information to Evaluation Team
Pass on list with first names and contact details to specified contact person in evaluation team
Please ensure that by passing names onto the evaluation team that the safety of interviewer or interviewee will not be
compromised.
Information for clients
Service provider to read out information below or paraphrase as appropriate
The Ministry of Justice is funding an evaluation of the Family Safety Teams Pilot Project.
Information provided by people like yourself will be used to help improve family violence services.
A team of researchers at The University of Auckland and the Ministry of Justice have been contracted to conduct the
evaluation. People who have had contact with services related to family violence are being invited to participate.
You are invited to take part in an interview about your experiences with services related to family violence.
If you agree to take part in the interview, a researcher will call you to arrange a time to conduct an interview. The interview
will be conducted either by telephone or face-to- face, which ever you prefer, at a time and location convenient to you. The
interview will take around 30 to 45 minutes to complete. The Evaluation Team will initially confirm your consent to be
interviewed. The researcher will ask you questions about your experiences of services related to family violence. If you
agree, the interview will be audio-taped.
The information you provide will be treated confidentially. If any of the comments you provide are included in a report or
published, this will be done in a way that does not identify you as the source.
You do not have to participate. Whether you choose to participate or not, this will not affect your access to any family
violence services or other services.
If you agree to help us with the evaluation, we will provide the Evaluation team with your contact details. If you have any
preferences about the time of day or day of the week to be contacted, I will note those preferences.
Do you have any questions?
Project approved by the University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee
on 20 July 2005 for a period of 3 years: Reference number 2005/270
136
Appendix 6:
Safety Protocol
Family Safety Team Interviews - Safety Protocol
This safety protocol provides guidelines that should be followed if it becomes clear during an interview that
someone’s safety is at risk.
These guidelines relate to the safety of:
•
•
•
•
the person being interviewed
another adult member of the public
a child
the interviewer.
When there is risk of serious harm, the principle of confidentiality is suspended.
Note that this safety protocol has been designed for use by staff who are interviewing victims and/or offenders
who have already consented to be contacted by the FST Evaluation Team . The interviewees will already have
some contact with local service/support agencies.
1. Setting up the interview
Telephone Interviews
Try to arrange to conduct interviews by telephone. This will alleviate many of the potential safety concerns. Do
not identify yourself or the project until hyou are sure you are speaking with the right person. (This will avoid
putting women in the situation of having to explain who they have been talking to.)
When you contact the interviewee by telephone, always ask if this is a good time for them to talk.
Face-to-face Interviews
All interviewers should carry working cell phones and should inform a supervisor when an interview is due to
start, and when the interview has concluded.
With Victims: Ensure that the interview is set up in private, in a location that is comfortable, and where you
cannot be overheard. As a general rule, no child over the age of two should be present.
With Offenders: When interviewing perpetrators face-to-face, the needs for privacy and confidentiality of the
information need to be balanced with safety of the interviewer. Options for location of the interview, such as in
private room within a larger service organisation where others are present, should be considered.
2. Concerns about safety of the person you are interviewing
Immediate threat of physical harm
If during a face-to-face interview…
•
•
you witness someone being seriously physically harmed
it becomes apparent that someone’s safety is seriously at risk. (by serious risk we mean it becomes
apparent that the person you are interviewing, yourself or someone else on the premises is in
immediate physical danger)
In the first instance you must keep yourself safe. In this situation you should leave the room and then contact
the police immediately. Then notify your project team leader at the earliest opportunity.
137
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
If the interview is by telephone, contact the Police and your project team leader immediately after the telephone
call.
If the person being interviewed has indicated that they intend to harm themselves (ie. suicide) and there does
not appear to be any physical danger to yourself or others, stay with the participant and ask them if they would
like you to assist them in making contact with a support/advocacy group. If they agree make sure they are
speaking to a counsellor before you leave. If they don’t agree you must phone a counsellor (e.g. Lifeline) for
further advice at the earliest opportunity.
In either case, you must also report the incident to your project team leader at the earliest opportunity.
If the interview is by telephone, read out the telephone number of the relevant support/advocacy group and ask
the participant if they would like you to assist them in making contact with the group. Report the incident to
your project team leader immediately after the telephone call.
Potential for/fearful of serious harm (not an immediate physical threat)
If the person you are interviewing:
•
•
•
tells you they are fearful of physical harm, or feel unsafe
has disclosed recent abuse during interview
does not disclose recent abuse during the interview but appears to be upset or distressed
Ask if they have shared this information with the advocate they are working with, and if they feel that adequate
steps are being taken to ensure their safety. If they have not shared the information with the advocate,
encourage them to do so, and offer to assist them to make the contact during the interview. If actions to ensure
their safety are already underway, make sure that the participant has the contact details for the local
support/advocacy/help groups.
At the earliest opportunity after completing the interview, discuss your concerns with your project team leader.
If further follow-up is needed, the project team leader can contact the advocacy service, and ask them to
contact the victim directly.
If the interview is by telephone, read out the telephone number of the relevant support/advocacy group and ask
the participant if they would like you to assist them in making contact with the group. Report the incident to
your project team leader immediately after the telephone call. If further follow-up is needed, the project team
leader can contact the advocacy service, and ask them to contact the victim directly.
3. Concerns about safety of another adult member of the public or a child
Immediate threat of physical harm
If during an interview…
•
•
•
you witness someone being seriously physically harmed
it becomes apparent that someone’s safety is seriously at risk. (by serious risk we mean it becomes
apparent that someone on the premises is in immediate physical danger)
an adult indicates they intend serious harm to another adult or child.
In the first instance you must keep yourself safe. In this situation you should immediately leave the room and
then contact the police immediately. Then notify your project team leader at the earliest opportunity.
If the interview is by telephone, contact the Police and your project team leader immediately after the telephone
call.
138
Appendix 6
__________________________________________________________________
Disclosing serious crime
If a participant indicates that they have committed a serious crime (such as sexual abuse or rape) and they
have not been convicted of this offence:
• The interviewer has an obligation to report the crime.
• The interviewer should tell the participant that the information will be passed on to the police unless doing
so is likely to endanger the victim or someone else.
• If the participant does not want to take any action the interviewer should talk to the project team leader,
and the team will then decide the appropriate steps to take in the situation.
4. Concerns about safety of the interviewer.
Immediate threat of physical harm
If during an interview you believe that your safety is at risk you should leave the room immediately and then
contact the police, and then notify your project team leader at the earliest opportunity.
Your personal safety is of paramount importance. Ensure you are safe before taking any action that may be
required. Don't get personally involved in any of the above situations any more than absolutely necessary. The
Police, CYFS, Womens Refuge along with the agencies provided on your list have trained staff who will deal
with the situation. Never give out your personal contact details.
Interviewer support and wellbeing
You will be interviewing a wide range of people who may present you with issues you are uncomfortable with or
need to talk to someone about. If you need to debrief on issues raised during interviews:
• talk to your project team leader and/or other interviewers on the team.
• talk to a counsellor. The Employee Assistance Programme provides confidential, professional counselling
for University of Auckland Team members and can be contacted 24 hours -0800 327 669. SEED provides
a similar 24 hour service for Ministry of Justice staff and can be contacted on 0508 664 981.
5. Summary
Although the risks described above are unlikely, they cannot be discounted. It is not possible to cover all types
of potentially harmful situations that might occur when interviewing on this project. If you are unsure as to what,
if any, action you should take please contact your project team leader immediately. Remember that:
• your safety is of paramount importance
• you are an interviewer. Your role is to provide information of support agencies and you should not provide
support yourself
• you have the support of your project team leader and the other interviewers for debriefing
• you also have Employee Assistance if you require support for your wellbeing.
139
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
140
Appendix 7: Family Violence Statistics: A
Baseline Study for the Family
Safety Teams Initiative
141
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Contents
1.
Introduction
1.1 Limitations in Monitoring Trends in Family Violence
149
150
1.2 Outline of Report
150
2.
Police Recorded Family Violence Offences
2.1 National
151
2.2 FST Sites
151
3.
4.
151
POL 400s
152
Applications for Protection Orders – Demographic Profile of Applicants and
Respondents
4.1 National
155
155
4.2 FST Sites
157
5.
Prosecution Outcomes – National
159
6.
Convictions
161
6.1 National
161
6.2 FST Sites
162
7.
Sentencing
7.1 National
7.2 FST Sites
8.
Custodial Length
164
164
165
167
8.1 National
167
8.2 FST Sites
168
9.
Commitments to Domestic Violence Programmes
170
9.1 National
170
9.2 FST Sites
171
9.3 Programmes for Respondents
171
9.4 Programmes for Adult Protected Persons
172
9.5 Programmes for Children
10.
Referrals to Agencies
173
173
10.1 Department of Child, Youth and Fam ily
173
10.2 National
173
10.3 FST Sites
174
10.4 National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges
175
11.
Family Violence Data: Auckland City
176
11.1 Police Recorded Family Violence Offences
176
11.2 POL 400s
177
11.3 Applications for Protection Orders – Demographic Profile of Applicants and
Respondents
177
11.4 Prosecution Outcomes
179
142
Appendix 7
__________________________________________________________________
11.5 Convictions
181
11.6 Sentencing
181
11.7 Commitments to Domestic Violence Programmes
182
11.8 Referrals to Child, Youth and Family
182
12.
Family Violence Data: Wairarapa
12.1 Police Recorded Family Violence Offences
183
183
12.2 POL 400s
184
12.3 Applications for Protection Orders – Demographic Profile of Applicants and
Respondents
184
12.4 Prosecution Outcomes
186
12.5 Convictions
12.6 Sentencing
187
188
12.7 Commitments to Domestic Violence Programmes
189
12.8 Referrals to Child, Youth and Family
189
13.
Family Violence Data: Lower Hutt
190
13.1 Police Recorded Family Violence Offences
190
13.2 POL 400s
191
13.3 Applications for Protection Orders – Demographic Profile of Applicants and
Respondents
13.4 Prosecution Outcomes
191
13.5 Convictions
194
13.6 Sentencing
195
13.7 Commitments to Domestic Violence Programmes
195
13.8 Referrals to Child, Youth and Family
196
Appendix 1
192
197
1 Police Recorded Family Violence Offences
197
2 Applications for Protection Orders
3 Convictions
197
198
4 Sentencing
199
5 Custodial Length
200
6 Commitments to Domestic Violence Programmes
200
7 Referrals to Child, Youth and Family
201
143
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Tables
Table 1
Number of POL 400s Completed by Police per 10,000 Population in the Auckland City
Central Police Area
154
Table 2
Number of POL 400s Completed by Police per 10,000 Population in the Wairarapa
Police Area
154
Table 3
Number of POL 400s Completed by Police per 10,000 Population in the Lower Hutt
Police Area
154
Table 4
Details Relating to Applications for Protection Orders 1999 to 2005
156
Table 5
Sex of Applicants
157
Table 6
Sex of Respondents
157
Table 7
Ethnicity of Applicants
157
Table 8
Ethnicity of Respondents.
157
Table 9
Outcome of Prosecutions for Male Assaults Female - National Totals
160
Table 10
Outcome of Prosecutions for Breach of Protection Orders Including Failing to Attend a
Programme - National Totals
160
Table 11
Outcome of Prosecutions for Assault on a Child - National Totals
161
Table 12
Average Custodial Sentence Length (months) for Assault on a Child in the FST Sites
170
Table 13
Number of Recorded Family Violence Offences in Auckland City Central Police Area
176
Table 14
Recorded Family Violence Offence Rate per 10,000 Population in Auckland City
Central Police Area
177
Table 15
Number of POL 400s Completed by Police in the Auckland City Central Police Area
177
Table 16
Applications for Protection Orders in Auckland City District Court
177
Table 17
Sex of Applicants for Protection Orders in the Auckland District Court
178
Table 18
Sex of Respondents to Protection Orders in the Auckland District Court
178
Table 19
Ethnicity of Applicants for Protection Orders Filed in the Auckland City District Court
178
Table 20
Ethnicity of Respondents to Protection Orders Filed in the Auckland City District
Court
178
Table 21
Outcome of Prosecutions for Male Assaults Female in the Auckland District Court
179
Table 22
Outcome of Prosecutions for Breach of Protection Orders Including Failing to Attend a
Programme in the Auckland District Court
180
Table 23
Outcome of Prosecutions for Assault on a Child in the Auckland District Court
180
Table 24
Number of Convictions for Family Violence Related Offences in the Auckland District
Court
180
Table 25
Percentage of Convictions Resulting in a Custodial Sentence for Family Violence
Related Offences in the Auckland District Court
181
Table 26
Average Custodial Sentence (months) for Family Violence Related Offences in the
Auckland District Court
182
Table 27
Number of New Commitments for Domestic Violence Programmes for Respondents,
Adult Protected Persons and Children and Applications for Protection Orders in the
Auckland District Court
182
144
Appendix 7
__________________________________________________________________
Table 28
Total Number of Notifications to CYF from all Sources and Police 2000 – 2005 Auckland
183
Table 29
Percentages of Notifications from All Sources and Police Only, Requiring Further
Action - Auckland
183
Table 30
Number of Recorded Family Violence Offences in the Wairarapa Police Area
184
Table 31
Recorded Family Violence Offence Rate per 10,000 Population in the Wairarapa Police
Area
184
Table 32
Number of POL 400s Completed by Police in the Wairarapa Police Area
184
Table 33
Number of Applications for Protection Orders in the Masterton District Court
184
Table 34
Sex of Applicants for Protection Orders in the Masterton District Court
185
Table 35
Sex of Respondents to Protection Orders in the Masterton District Court
185
Table 36
Ethnicity of Applicants for Protection Orders in the Masterton District Court
185
Table 37
Ethnicity of Respondents to Protection Orders filed in the Masterton District Court
185
Table 38
Outcome of Prosecutions for Male Assaults Female in the Masterton District Court
186
Table 39
Outcome of Prosecutions for Breach of Protection Orders Including Failing to Attend a
Programme in the Masterton District Court
187
Table 40
Outcome of Prosecutions for Assault on a Child in the Masterton District Court
187
Table 41
Number of Convictions for Family Violence Related Offences in the Masterton District
Court
188
Table 42
Percentage of Convictions Resulting in a Custodial Sentence for Family Violence
Related Offences in the Masterton District Court
188
Table 43
Average Custodial Sentence (months) for Family Violence Related Offences in the
Masterton District Court
189
Table 44
Number of New Commitments for Domestic Violence Programmes for Respondents,
Adult Protected Persons and Children and Applications for Protection Orders in the
Masterton District Court
189
Table 45
Total Number of Notifications to CYF from All Sources and Police 2000 – 2005 in the
Wairarapa
190
Table 46
Percentages of Notifications from All Sources and Police Only, Requiring Further
Action in the Wairarapa
190
Table 47
Number of Recorded Family Violence Offences in the Lower Hutt Police Area.
190
Table 48
Recorded Family Violence Offence Rate per 10,000 Population in the Lower Hutt
Police Area
190
Table 49
Number of POL 400s Completed by Police in the Lower Hutt Police Area
191
Table 50
Number of Applications for Protection Orders in the Lower Hutt District Court
191
Table 51
Sex of Applicants for Protection Orders in the Lower Hutt District Court
191
Table 52
Sex of Respondents to Protection Orders in the Lower Hutt District Court
192
Table 53
Ethnicity of Applicants for Protection Orders in the Lower Hutt District Court
192
Table 54
Ethnicity of Respondents to Protection Orders in the Lower Hutt District Court
192
Table 55
Outcome of Prosecutions for Male Assaults Female in the Lower Hutt District Court
193
Table 56
Outcome of Prosecutions for Breach of Protection Orders Including Failing to Attend a
Programme in the Lower Hutt District Court
195
145
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Table 57
Outcome of Prosecutions for Assault on a Child in the Lower Hutt District Court
195
Table 58
Number of Convictions for Family Violence Related Offences in the Lower Hutt
District Court
195
Table 59
Percentage of Convictions Resulting in a Custodial Sentence for Family Violence
Related Offences in the Lower Hutt District Court
195
Table 60
Average Custodial Sentence (months) for Family Violence Related Offences in the
Lower Hutt District Court
195
Table 61
Number of New Commitments for Domestic Violence Programmes for Respondents,
Adult Protected Persons and Children and Applications for Protection Orders in the
Lower Hutt District Court
196
Table 62
Total Number of Notifications to CYF from All Sources and Police 2000 – 2005 – Hutt
Valley
196
Table 63
Percentages of Notifications from All Sources and Police Only, Requiring Further
Action – Hutt Valley
196
Table 64
Number of Police Recorded Family Violence Offences in New Zealand – National
197
Table 65
Police Recorded Family Violence Offence Rate per 10,000 Population – National
197
Table 66
Police Recorded Family Violence Offence Rate per 10,000 Population – FST Sites
197
Table 67
National Number of POL 400s Completed by Police
197
Table 68
Number of POL 400s Completed by Police in the FST Sites.
197
Table 69
Applications for Protection Orders – National Summary
197
Table 70
Number of Applications for Protection Orders – FST Sites
198
Table 71
On Notice Applications for Protection Orders – FST Sites
198
Table 72
Without Notice Applications for Protection Orders – FST Sites
198
Table 73
National Number of Convictions for Family Violence Related Offences
198
Table 74
Number of Convictions for Male Assaults Female, by FST Site
198
Table 75
Number of Convictions for Breach of Protection Order, by FST Site
198
Table 76
Number of Convictions for Assault on a Child, by FST Site
199
Table 77
Percentage of Convictions Resulting in a Custodial Sentence for Family Violence
Related Offences, 1996 to 2005 - National Totals
199
Table 78
Percentage of Convictions for Male Assaults Female Resulting in a Custodial Sentence
in the FST Sites
199
Table 79
Percentage of Convictions for Breach of Protection Order Resulting in a Custodial
Sentence in the FST Sites
199
Table 80
Percentage of Convictions for Assault on a Child Resulting in a Custodial Sentence in
the FST Sites
199
Table 81
Average Custodial Sentence Length (months) for Family Violence Related Offences,
1996 to 2005 - National Totals
200
Table 82
Average Custodial Sentence Length (months) for Male Assaults Female in the FST Sites
200
Table 83
Average Custodial Sentence Length (months) for Breach of Protection Order in the
FST Sites
200
Table 84
Average Custodial Sentence Length (months) for Assault on a Child in the FST Sites
200
Table 85
Number of New Commitments for Domestic Violence Programmes - National
200
146
Appendix 7
__________________________________________________________________
Table 86
Number of New Commitments for Respondents to Domestic Violence Programmes –
FST Sites
201
Table 87
Number of New Commitments for Adult Protected Persons to Domestic Violence
Programmes – FST Sites
201
Table 88
Number of New Commitments for Children to Domestic Violence Programmes – FST
Sites
201
Table 89
Total Number of Notifications to CYF 2000 – 2005 - National Totals
201
Table 90
Number of Notifications to CYF from All Sources – FST Sites
201
Table 91
Number of Notifications to CYF from the Police – FST Sites
201
147
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Figures
Figure 1
Police Recorded Family Violence Offence Rates per 10,000 Population 1999 –
2005
151
Figure 2
Police Recorded Family Violence Offence Rates per 10,000 Population in FST
Sites 1999 – 2005
152
Figure 3
Number of POL 400s Completed by Police 1999 – 2005 – National Totals
153
Figure 4
Number of POL 400s completed by the Police in the FST sites 1999 – 2005
153
Figure 5
Applications for Protection Orders – National Summary 1999 - 2005
156
Figure 6
Total Number of Applications for Protection Orders – FST Sites 1999 – 2005
158
Figure 7
Number of On Notice Applications for Protection Orders – FST Sites 1999 –
2005
158
Figure 8
Number of Without Notice Applications for Protection Orders – FST Sites 1999 –
2005
159
Figure 9
Number of Convictions for Family Violence Related Offences 1999 – 2005 National
162
Figure 10
Number of Convictions for Male Assaults Female, by FST Site 1999 – 2005
163
Figure 11
Number of Convictions for Breach of Protection Order, by FST Site 1999 – 2005
163
Figure 12
Number of Convictions for Assault on a Child, by FST Site 1999 – 2005
164
Figure 13
Percentage of Convictions for Family Violence Related Offences that Result in
Custodial Sentences 1999 – 2005 - National
165
Figure 14
Percentage of Convictions for Male Assaults Female Resulting in a Custodial
Sentence – FST Sites 1999 – 2005
166
Figure 15
Percentage of Convictions for Breach of Protection Order Resulting in a Custodial
Sentence– FST Sites 1996 – 2005
166
Figure 16
Percentage of Convictions for Assault on a Child Resulting in a Custodial Sentence
– FST Sites 1999 – 2005
167
Figure 17
Average Custodial Sentence Length (in months) for Family Violence Related
Offences
168
Figure 18
Average Custodial Sentence Length for Male Assaults Female in the FST Sites
169
Figure 19
Average Custodial Sentence Length for Breach Protection Order in the FST Sites
169
Figure 20
Number of New Commitments to Domestic Violence Programmes and the Total
Number of Applications for Protection Orders 1999 – 2005
171
Figure 21
Number of New Commitments for Domestic Violence Programmes for
Respondents – FST Sites
172
Figure 22
Number of New Commitments for Domestic Violence Programmes for Adult
Protected Persons– FST Sites
172
Figure 23
Number of New Commitments for Domestic Violence Programmes for Children
– FST Sites
173
Figure 24
National Notifications to Child, Youth and Family - 2000 – 2005
174
Figure 25
Notifications to Child, Youth and Family from All Sources – FST Sites 1999 –
2005
174
Figure 26
Notifications to Child, Youth and Family from the Police – FST Sites 1999 – 2005
175
148
Appendix 7
__________________________________________________________________
1.
Introduction
The Family Safety Team (FST) pilot is a joint initiative between the Ministry of Justice, Police,
and the Department of Child, Youth and Family that aims to provide a coordinated response to
family violence from the justice and social services sector. The Family Safety Teams involve
collaboration between Police investigators and adult and child victim advocates to ensure that
the full range of needs and issues for a family experiencing family violence are addressed. The
main impetus for the development of the initiative was concerns raised by family violence
service providers and practitioners that the current response to family violence is often
fragmented, narrow, and lacking the formal systems required for effective inter-agency
coordination and collaboration. For example, in November 2003 the Commissioner for
Children’s Report into the deaths of Saliel and Olympia Aplin stated:
…this report identifies the effect of sequential or cumulative errors and omissions on the part of
professionals. Once again this investigation has shown the need for bringing together the pieces
of information held by each agency and worker is of fundamental importance in being able to
determine a clear picture of what is happening for a child or in this case, children.
The FST initiative has been designed to address these concerns by facilitating a more holistic
response to family violence.
In summary the key desired outcomes of the FST initiative are to:
•
provide formal systems and structures to support more effective inter-agency coordination,
communication and collaboration to respond to family violence;
•
provide comprehensive and integrated interventions (whether services or support) for
families experiencing violence; and
•
contribute to the development of national best practice and promote consistent application
of such practice for agencies working with families experiencing family violence.
The Family Safety Team initiative is currently being piloted in three areas; Auckland City,
Wairarapa, and the Hutt Valley. In 2006 two more sites will be added: Counties Manukau and
Christchurch City.
A baseline study has been carried out to provide information on the situation prior to the
establishment of FSTs. Following the implementation of the pilot a three-stage evaluation
(formative, process and then outcome) will be conducted to assess the effectiveness of the
Family Safety Teams.
The purpose of this report is to contribute to the baseline study by summarising available family
violence statistics from a range of agencies, both nationally and in the three FST areas of
Auckland, Wairarapa, and Lower Hutt. The following family violence indicators provide a
‘snapshot’ of the current situation and provide a basis for comparison following the
implementation of FSTs:
•
Police recorded family violence offences and recorded family violence offence rate per
10,000 population
149
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
POL 400s25
Applications for Protection Orders
Sentencing outcomes
Number of convictions for offences relating to family violence
Number of new commitments for DV Programmes
Referrals to Agencies – Child, Youth and Family and the National Collective of
Independent Women’s Refuges
•
•
•
•
•
•
Trends in this data over time, from pre- to post-implementation, can be analysed to contribute
to our understanding of the effectiveness of the initiative.
1.1
Limitations in Monitoring Trends in Family Violence
It is important to note that there are a number of limitations to monitoring trends in family
violence. These include obtaining reliable data, difficulties in determining the extent to which
changes in family violence related statistics can be attributed to FSTs or to other factors, and
being able to correctly interpret any increases or decreases in measures over time.
The data in this report was collated from a number of sources and includes data recorded by
Police, Child, Youth and Family, and Courts. Different data sets have different boundaries and
catchment areas which not only differ from each other, but have undergone changes over time.
A recent report by the Ministry of Justice26 highlighted the need to consider operational and
policy changes when evaluating measures of recorded family violence. In some cases, initiatives
designed to reduce family violence result in more victims reporting family violence. This results
in increased recorded family violence when the actual incidence rate could be stable or even
decreasing. Other factors that can affect these statistics are the recording practices of frontline
staff, the willingness of victims to report offences and media coverage of family violence.
Data obtained from the Police and Court records is likely to underestimate the true extent of
family violence, as many incidents go unreported. The NZ National Survey of Crime Victims
200127 found that 88 percent of sexual victimisations, 82 percent of violence by heterosexual
partners, and 80 percent of threats were not reported to the Police.
1.2
Outline of Report
The first part of the report presents national data and provides comparisons between three FST
sites (Auckland City, the Wairarapa, and Lower Hutt). The tables relating to this part of the
report can be found in Appendix 1. Following a description of the national data and
comparisons between the FST sites, each site is considered separately to more thoroughly
examine trends in each area over time.
Within each section the ordering of the information reflects the progression of family violence
cases through the justice system; from initial reporting to the Police through to their processing
in the courts.
25
26
27
150
A POL400 is the code given to a Police form completed by staff who attend either incidents or offences
involving family violence.
Bartlett E, Is Domestic Violence Increasing or Decreasing? Various Measures of Trends in Domestic Violence, Ministry of
Justice. 2005 (unpublished)
Ministry of Justice. New Zealand National Survey of Crime Victims 2001, 99.
Appendix 7
__________________________________________________________________
2.
Police Recorded Family Violence Offences
2.1
National
Data from the NZ Police shows the national rate of recorded family violence offences per
10,000 population in New Zealand28. Family violence is recorded by Police as an offence
attribute rather than a separate offence category29. Figure 1 shows an increasing trend in the
rate of Police recorded family violence offences. The rate has increased from 49 per 10,000 in
1999 to 73 per 10,000 in 2005. (See Appendix 1 for the actual number of recorded family
violence offences). Changes in Police recording practices are likely to explain a large portion of
this increase. It is recommended that Police recorded family violence offence rates are not used
to monitor family violence until it is known that recording practices are applied consistently
over time and across Police districts30.
Figure 1
Police Recorded Family Violence Offence Rates per 10,000
Population 1999 – 2005
Rate per 10,000 population
Police recorded family violence offence rates per
10,000 population - National
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Year
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
2.2
FST Sites
Figure 2 shows the recorded family violence offence rates per 10,000 population in three FST
areas31. Lower Hutt had the greatest increase over this period, from 26 per 10,000 in 1996, to
97 per 10,000 population in 2005. In 2005, Auckland City Central had 74 recorded family
violence offences per 10,000 population which was almost identical to the national rate of 73
28
29
30
31
It should be noted that recorded crime refers only to crimes recorded by the Police and therefore may not
accurately represent the actual incidence of crimes.
‘Family violence’ represents the number of recorded offences that involved some degree of family violence as
determined by the attending Police Officer.
Bartlett E, Is Domestic Violence Increasing or Decreasing? Various Measures of Trends in Domestic Violence, Ministry of
Justice. 2005 (unpublished)
The population used in these calculations is the estimate National population, which may differ from the sum
of all Police Area populations.
151
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
per 10,000 population. Once again, these figures need to be interpreted with caution due to
changes in Police recording practices over time and between the sites.
Figure 2:
Police Recorded Family Violence Offence Rates per 10,000 Population in
FST Sites 1999 – 2005
Police recorded family violence offence rates per 10,000
population, compared with the national rate
Rate per 10,000 population
140
120
100
Auckland City Central
80
Wairarapa
60
Lower Hutt
40
National
20
0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
3.
POL 400s
A POL 400 is the code given to a Police form completed by staff who attend either incidents or
offences involving family violence. An incident is a job attended by Police that does not
involve the commission of an offence, e.g. stock wandering on highways. It must be noted that
the figures below may be influenced by recording practices as well as changes in the actual
number of family violence offences committed32.
3.1
National
Figure 3 shows that the rate of POL 400s completed had a generally increasing trend since 1999
with the exception of a decrease in the rate in 2004. In 1999, the rate of POL 400s completed
by Police was 98 per 10,000 population, this rate increased to 138 per 10,000 in 2005.
32
152
POL400 data for 2004 and 2005 is provisional only.
Appendix 7
__________________________________________________________________
Figure 3
Number of POL 400s Completed by Police per 10,000
Population 1999 – 2005 – National
Rate per 10,000 population
POL 400s per 10,000 Population - National
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Year
Source: New Zealand Police
3.2
FST Sites
The three FST sites had similar rates of POL 400s per 10,000 population in 2004 and 2005.
Prior to 2003 the Auckland FST site had the highest rate, peaking at 179 per 10,000 population
in 2001. In the Wairarapa, the rate of POL 400s was stable from 2002 to 2004 but increased
from 130 per 10,000 population to 147 in 2005. Lower Hutt saw the largest percentage increase
over the period, from 95 per 10,000 population in 1999 to 154 per 10,000 population in 2005.
Figure 4
Number of POL 400s Completed by the Police per 10,000
Population in the FST Sites 1999 – 2005
Rate per 10,000 Population
POL 400s per 10,000 Population - FST Sites
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Auckland City
Central
Wairarapa
Lower Hutt
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Year
Source: New Zealand Police
153
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
3.3
POL 400s (Auckland)
Table 1 shows the number of POL 400s completed by Police per 10,000 population in the
Auckland City Central Police Area. The number fluctuated over the period 1999 to 2005,
peaking at 179 per 10,000 population in 2001.
Table 1: Number of POL 400s Completed by Police per 10,000 Population in the
Auckland City Central Police Area
Police Area
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Auckland City Central
134
150
179
162
128
134
141
Source: New Zealand Police
3.4
POL 400s (Wairarapa)
As seen in Table 2, the number of POL 400s per 10,000 population has fluctuated in the
Wairarapa Police Area. The rate decreased from 1999 to 2001, stabilised from 2002 to 2004
then increased to 147 per 10,000 population in 2005.
Table 2: Number of POL 400s Completed by Police per 10,000 Population in the
Wairarapa Police Area
Police Area
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Wairarapa
117
112
109
129
133
130
147
Source: New Zealand Police.
3.5
POL 400s (Lower Hutt)
Table 3 shows the number of POL 400s completed by Police per 10,000 population in the
Lower Hutt Police Area. There has been an overall increasing trend. The rate increased by 61
percent from 95 per 10,000 in 1999 to 154 per 10,000 in 2005.
Table 3: Number of POL 400s Completed by Police per 10,000 Population in the Lower
Hutt Police Area
Police Area
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Lower Hutt
95
116
131
130
150
136
154
Source: New Zealand Police
154
Appendix 7
__________________________________________________________________
4.
Applications for Protection Orders – Demographic
Profile of Applicants and Respondents
4.1
National
Under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act (1995), which came into force in 1996, a
victim of violence within a close personal relationship can apply for a protection order.
Applications for protection orders can be made ‘on notice’, when the respondent is advised of
the application and has a chance to be heard before the order is made, or ‘without notice’. An
application filed without notice may result in a temporary protection order being issued without
the respondent being notified. Once the order is served the respondent can take steps to
defend the application. The temporary order stays in force until a decision is made about a final
order.
Some without notice applications, rather than resulting in a temporary order, are ‘put on notice’.
They are then treated as an on notice application; the respondent is notified and can defend the
application. An application will usually be made or put on notice if it is thought that the
applicant or other parties are not in immediate danger.
As shown in Figure 533 most applications for protections orders are filed without notice (89
percent of applications were ‘without notice’ in 2005).
Arguably an application put on notice may allow for the possibility of the respondent exerting
pressure on the applicant to withdraw the application. A process evaluation of the DV Act
199534 found that there was a much higher withdrawal rate for those applications that were put
‘on notice’.
As can be seen in Figure 5 there has been a decreasing trend overall in the number of
applications for Protection Orders. The total number of applications dropped by 30 percent
between 1999 and 2005. The number of without notice applications decreased at a similar rate,
reducing from 5859 in 1999 to 4034 in 2005. On notice applications saw a steady decline from
2002 to 2005
33
34
Data about protection orders was combined from several sources over the years - manual returns for small
courts, the Family Court database (FCDB) for larger courts and the Case Management System (CMS) from
2003 onwards.
Barwick, H., Gray., & Macky, R. (2000). Domestic Violence Act 1995: Process Evaluation. Wellington: Ministry of
Justice.
155
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Figure 5: Applications for Protection Orders – National Summary 1999 - 2005
Number
Applications for Protection Orders – National
Summary
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Total Applications
On Notice
Without Notice
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
Source: Family Court Database, manual returns and Case Management System, Ministry of Justice
Table 4 shows more detailed information on the types of applications for Protection Orders
made and orders granted. The percentage of all applications that were filed without notice has
remained fairly steady over the period. In 2005, 89 percent of all applications were filed
without notice, 77 percent of applications filed without notice resulted in temporary orders and
53 percent of all applications resulted in final orders.
Table 4:
Details Relating to Applications for Protection Orders 1999 to 2005
1999
Total Number of Applications Filed
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
6520
6015
5820
5568
5092
4662
4545
661
638
720
766
698
611
511
Applications Filed Without Notice
5859
5377
5100
4802
4394
4051
4034
Temporary Orders Made
4926
4262
3879
3649
3396
3105
3109
Final Orders Made
4066
3699
3408
3284
2835
2774
2412
Percentage of Applications Filed Without
Notice
90%
89%
88%
86%
86%
87%
89%
Temporary Orders Made as a Percentage of
Applications Filed Without Notice
84%
79%
76%
76%
77%
77%
77%
Final Orders Made as a Percentage of Total
Applications Filed in the same time period
62%
61%
59%
59%
56%
60%
53%
Applications Filed On Notice
Source: Family Court Database, manual returns and Case Management System, Ministry of Justice.
As seen in Tables 5 to 8, the demographic profile of applicants and respondents to protection
orders has not changed much over the last six years35.
35
156
Sex and ethnicity have been counted by the number of applicants and/or respondents for protection order
applications recorded in CMS, i.e., if multiple applications for a person exist in a given year, they are counted
only once for each role type (applicant or respondent). This differs from the method used in the Family Court
Statistics (2004), where each application was counted.
Appendix 7
__________________________________________________________________
Applicants in 2005 were typically female (88%) and of NZ European (41%) or NZ Maori
(21%) ethnicity. Respondents in 2005 were typically male (87%) and of NZ European (37%) or
NZ Maori ethnicity (21%). There are however a large number of both applicants and
respondents for whom ethnicity is unknown, particularly in 2004 and 2005.
Table 5:
Sex of Applicants
Sex
Female
Male
Unknown
2000
87%
8%
5%
2001
87%
8%
5%
2002
89%
8%
3%
2003
88%
9%
3%
2004
89%
8%
3%
2005
88%
8%
4%
2002
9%
88%
3%
2003
10%
87%
3%
2004
10%
86%
4%
2005
9%
87%
4%
2002
49%
23%
5%
3%
3%
17%
2003
46%
20%
5%
4%
2%
23%
2004
39%
19%
5%
3%
1%
32%
2005
41%
21%
4%
4%
1%
30%
2002
44%
23%
7%
3%
3%
19%
2003
41%
21%
6%
3%
2%
26%
2004
34%
20%
7%
3%
1%
35%
2005
37%
21%
6%
3%
1%
31%
Source: Case Management System, Ministry of Justice
Table 6:
Sex of Respondents
Sex
Female
Male
Unknown
2000
9%
86%
5%
2001
9%
87%
4%
Source: Case Management System, Ministry of Justice
Table 7:
Ethnicity of Applicants
Ethnicity
European
Maori
Pacific Peoples
Asian
Other Ethnic Groups
Not Stated
2000
49%
21%
6%
3%
2%
20%
2001
49%
21%
6%
3%
3%
18%
Source: Case Management System, Ministry of Justice
Table 8:
Ethnicity of Respondents
Ethnicity
European
Maori
Pacific Peoples
Asian
Other Ethnic Groups
Not Stated
2000
44%
22%
7%
3%
3%
21%
2001
44%
23%
7%
3%
3%
20%
Source: Case Management System, Ministry of Justice
4.2
FST Sites
The number of applications for protection orders in the Auckland District Court decreased by
32 percent over the period 1999 to 2005. Applications in the Lower Hutt District Court
decreased by 35 percent. These changes are similar to the national number of applications
which decreased by 30 percent over this period. The Masterton District Court saw the greatest
drop, decreasing 58 percent from 83 applications in 1999 to 35 in 2005 (Figure 6).
157
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Figure 6:
Total Number of Applications for Protection Orders – FST
Sites 1999 – 2005
Applications for Protection Orders - FST Sites
600
Number
500
Auckland
400
Masterton
300
Lower Hutt
200
100
0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
Source: Family Court Database, manual returns and Case Management System, Ministry of Justice.
Figure 7 shows the number of on notice applications for protection orders in the FST sites.
The number of on notice applications in the Auckland District Court increased from 1999 to
2003 then declined from 2003 to 2005. Both the Masterton and Lower Hutt District Courts
saw increased applications from 1999 to 2001 but both sites had fewer applications in 2005
than in 2001.
Figure 7:
Number of On Notice Applications for Protection Orders –
FST Sites 1999 – 2005
Number
On Notice Applications for Protection Orders FST sites
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Auckland
Masterton
Lower Hutt
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Year
Source: Family Court Database, manual returns and Case Management System, Ministry of Justice.
158
Appendix 7
__________________________________________________________________
Without notice applications for protection orders have shown a general decrease in each of the
FST sites. Wairarapa had the greatest percentage reduction, dropping by 57 percent from 81
applications in 1999 to 35 in 2005.
Figure 8:
Number of Without Notice Applications for Protection Orders
– FST Sites 1999 – 2005
Without Notice Applications for Protection Orders FST sites
600
Number
500
400
Auckland
300
Masterton
200
Lower Hutt
100
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Year
Source: Family Court Database, manual returns and Case Management System, Ministry of Justice.
5.
Prosecution Outcomes – National
The offence types listed below represent a substantial proportion of offences that relate to
family violence, however, they are also inclusive of a proportion of offences that do not relate
to family violence.
Assault by a male on a female – Section 194(b) of the Crimes act 1961
Contravention of Protection Orders – Section 49 of the Domestic Violence Act 1995. This
offence also covers failing to attend a programme.
Assault on a child – Section 194(a) of the Crimes Act 1961
Tables 9 to 11 give a national summary of the prosecutions for family violence related offences
during the period 1996 to 200536 and detail the outcomes of these prosecutions37. Convictions
for each of the offences are examined in more detail later in this section.
Male Assaults Female
There were 6357 prosecutions for male assaults female in 2005 compared with 5926
prosecutions for the same charge in 1996. Convictions for male assaults female dropped from
63 percent of prosecutions for this charge in 1996, to 56 percent in 2005. Large numbers of
36
37
Data for 2005 are provisional
The 2004 court data may differ slightly from the figures previously supplied.
159
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
prosecutions for male assaults female were withdrawn, ranging from 936 in 1997 to 1577 in
2004.
Table 9:
Outcome of Prosecutions for Male Assaults Female - National Totals
Outcome
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Convicted
Youth Court proved
3752
25
3335
13
3145
16
3043
23
2916
18
2916
28
2625
23
2870
14
3116
27
3574
20
Discharged without conviction
89
85
109
127
134
93
104
136
206
219
Dismissed
850
687
588
525
476
574
542
549
696
946
Discharged
68
81
55
69
72
74
96
93
88
121
Withdrawn
1054
936
1003
1003
1149
1315
1443
1521
1577
1355
Acquitted
36
43
42
43
49
49
52
30
46
61
Other not proved
47
28
18
21
22
36
40
24
29
51
Other male assaults female
5
4
7
4
3
2
7
0
2
10
5087
4932
5237
5787
6357
Total
5926 5212 4983 4858 4839
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
Breach of Protection Order
The Domestic Violence Act 1995 came into force in July 1996, as a result the number of
prosecutions for breach of protection order increased sharply from this point. In 2005 there
were 3870 prosecutions for breach of protection order, a major increase from 1948 in 1997 (the
first complete year that the Act was in force). The number of prosecutions that were
withdrawn has also increased, growing from 383 in 1997 to 921 in 2005. In 2005, 62 percent of
all prosecutions for breach of protection orders resulted in a conviction.
Table 10:
Outcome of Prosecutions for Breach of Protection Orders Including Failing
to Attend a Programme - National Totals
Outcome
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Convict ed
496
1223
1881
2117
2257
2360
2027
2254
2265
2385
Youth Court proved
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
Discharged without conviction
15
35
44
60
55
57
58
41
77
46
Dismissed
133
292
376
267
299
303
320
333
328
405
Discharged
0
4
12
28
27
116
33
25
24
51
Withdrawn
201
383
565
810
783
900
951
1066
935
921
Acquitted
0
2
7
10
12
13
11
5
8
21
Other not proved
1
6
38
11
6
9
22
33
32
40
Other breach protection order
3
3
3
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
3759
3424
3757
3670
3870
Total
849
1948 2926
3304 3439
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
160
Appendix 7
__________________________________________________________________
Assault on a child
The number of prosecutions for assault on a child increased slightly from 566 in 1996 to 662 in
2005. Over a quarter of all prosecutions were withdrawn in 2005. Convictions for assault on a
child dropped from 56 percent of prosecutions for this charge in 1996 to 43 percent in 2005,
although it fluctuated in the intervening years.
Table 11: Outcome of Prosecutions for Assault on a Child - National Totals
Outcome
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Convicted
326
298
294
304
280
294
291
253
312
287
Youth Court proved
5
3
8
4
1
3
3
3
3
0
Discharged without conviction
5
13
7
15
14
21
19
12
18
28
Dismissed
67
55
62
36
32
46
35
34
45
45
Discharged
12
9
15
10
23
21
43
34
18
45
Withdrawn
122
120
139
159
188
189
170
172
158
174
Acquitted
9
8
11
13
24
22
18
13
14
56
Other not proved
11
8
9
4
27
6
24
28
18
25
Other assault on a child
9
1
2
3
2
Total
566
515
547
548
591
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
6.
Convictions
6.1
National
1
3
2
1
2
603
606
551
587
662
Ministry of Justice data38 show the number of convictions for the three selected offences that
relate to family violence (Figure 9) 39.
38
39
Figures for 2005 are provisional.
The 2004 court data may differ slightly from the figures previously supplied.
161
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Figure 9: Number of Convictions for Family Violence Related
Offences 1999 – 2005 - National
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Male Assaults
Female
Breach Protection
Order
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
Assault on a child
1996
Number
Convictions for Family Violence Related Offences
Year
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
As shown in Figure 9, the number of convictions for male assaults female steadily decreased
from 1996 to 2002 but has increased by 36 percent since 2002. From1996, when the Domestic
Violence Act 1995 came into effect, the number of convictions relating to breaches of
protection orders increased dramatically (from 496 in 1996 to 2,360 in 2001. The number
dropped in 2002 but the number of convictions increased from 2002 to 2005. Convictions for
assault on a child have fluctuated during the period, showing an overall decrease of 12 percent
since 1996.
6.2
FST Sites
Data relating to convictions for family violence offences in the FST sites shows a more variable
picture than the national data.
Male Assaults Female
Figure 10 shows the number of convictions for male assaults female between 1999 and 2005.
Convictions in Auckland decreased over this period. In Masterton the number of convictions
has remained fairly stable and in Lower Hutt the number of convictions has shown a general
increasing trend since 1999.
162
Appendix 7
__________________________________________________________________
Figure 10:
Number of Convictions for Male Assaults Female, by FST
Site 1999 – 2005
Convictions for male assaults female - by FST site
Number
500
400
Auckland
300
Masterton
200
Lower Hutt
100
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
0
Year
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
Breach of Protection Order
In each of the courts, the number of convictions for breach of protection orders (Figure 11)
tended to increase from 1996 to 2001, after the introduction of the Domestic Violence Act
(1995), with more variable numbers from 2002 onwards.
Figure 11:
Number of Convictions for Breach of Protection Order, by
FST Site 1999 – 2005
Convictions for breach of protection order - by
FST site
Number
200
150
Auckland
100
Masterton
Lower Hutt
50
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
0
Year
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
163
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Assault on a Child
Figure 12 shows wide variation, both across and within the FST sites, in the number of
convictions for assault on a child during the period 1996 to 2005.
Figure 12:
Number of Convictions for Assault on a Child, by FST
Site 1999 – 2005
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Auckland
Masterton
Lower Hutt
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
Number
Convictions for assault on a child - by FST site
Year
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
7.
Sentencing
7.1
National
As shown in Figure 13, the use of custodial sentences for family violence related offences has
fluctuated over the period of 1996 to 200540,41. In 2005, custodial sentences were given for 15
percent of convictions for male assaults female, 17 percent of breach of protection order
convictions and 11 percent of convictions for assault on a child.
40
41
164
Figures for 2005 are provisional
The 2004 court data may differ slightly from the figures previously supplied.
Appendix 7
__________________________________________________________________
Figure 13:
Percentage of Convictions for Family Violence Related Offences
that Result in Custodial Sentences 1999 – 2005 - National
Percentage of convictions resulting in a custodial
sentence for family violence related offences
Percentage
20
15
Male assaults female
10
Breach protection
order
5
Assault on a child
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
0
Year
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
7.2
FST Sites
Figures 14 to 16 show the percentage of convictions resulting in a custodial sentence from 1996
to 2005 in the District Courts in three FST areas.
Male Assaults Female
As seen in Figure 14, there was no clear pattern across the FST sites regarding custodial
sentences for convictions for male assaults female. Auckland showed a general increase in
custodial sentences over the period 1996 to 2005. Masterton and Lower Hutt varied over the
years with no clear pattern in Masterton and a general decrease in Lower Hutt since 1998.
165
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Figure 14:
Percentage of Convictions for Male Assaults Female Resulting in
a Custodial Sentence – FST Sites 1999 – 2005
Percentage of convictions for male assaults
female that result in a custodial sentence - FST
Sites
25
Percentage
20
Auckland
15
Masterton
10
Lower Hutt
5
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
Breach of Protection Order
Custodial sentences for breach of protection orders varied widely for each FST site over the
period 1996 to 2005. In 2005 the percentage of convictions resulting in a custodial sentence
was 13 percent in Masterton, 17 percent in Lower Hutt and 25 percent in Auckland.
Figure 15:
Percentage of Convictions for Breach of Protection Order
Resulting in a Custodial Sentence– FST Sites 1996 – 2005
Percentage of convictions for breach of a
protection order that result in a custodial
sentence - FST Sites
30
Percentage
25
20
Auckland
15
Masterton
10
Lower Hutt
5
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
166
Appendix 7
__________________________________________________________________
Assault on a Child
Custodial sentences for assault on a child also varied widely for each FST site over the period
1996 to 2005. The very low number of convictions for this offence limit the conclusions that
can be made from this data.
Figure 16:
Percentage of Convictions for Assault on a Child Resulting in a
Custodial Sentence – FST Sites 1999 – 2005
Percentage of convictions for assault on a child
that result in a custodial sentence - FST Sites
100
Percentage
80
Auckland
60
Masterton
40
Lower Hutt
20
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
8.
Custodial Length
8.1
National
Ministry of Justice data42 in Figure 17 shows the average custodial sentence length for each of
the offences relating to family violence43.
The average length of the custodial sentences imposed for male assaults female was fairly stable
from 1996 to 2004 then dropped in 2005. In 1996 the average prison sentence for male assaults
female was 6.8 months compared with 6.3 months in 2005. The length of custodial sentences
for breach of protection order increased slightly from 1997 to 2003 but remained relatively
constant since. The length of custodial sentences for assault on a child fluctuated during the
decade, peaking at 9.5 months in 2003.
42
43
Figures for 2005 are provisional
The 2004 court data may differ slightly from the figures previously supplied.
167
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Figure 17:
Average Custodial Sentence Length (in months) for Family
Violence Related Offences
Average custodial sentence length imposed (in
months) for family violence related offences National
8
Male assaults female
6
4
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
Assault on a child
1999
0
1998
Breach protection
order
1997
2
1996
Months
10
Year
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
8.2
FST Sites
Male Assaults Female
Figure 18 shows the average custodial sentence length for male assaults female in the FST
sites44. The sentence lengths were fairly similar across the sites. Auckland had the longest
average sentence length in 2005 (5.3 months).
44
168
Average sentence length cannot be calculated in the years where no custodial sentences were imposed.
Appendix 7
__________________________________________________________________
Figure 18:
Average Custodial Sentence Length for Male Assaults Female in
the FST Sites
Months
Average custodial sentence length imposed for
Male Assaults Female - FST sites
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Auckland
Masterton
Lower Hutt
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
Breach of Protection Order
Figure 1945 shows the avera ge sentence lengths for breach of protection order. Auckland and
Lower Hutt saw very similar average sentence lengths for this offence from 2001 to 2005.
Figure 19:
Average Custodial Sentence Length for Breach Protection Order
in the FST Sites
Average custodial sentence length imposed for
Breach Protection Order - FST sites
12
Months
10
8
Auckland
6
Masterton
4
Lower Hutt
2
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
45
Average sentence length cannot be calculated in the years where no custodial sentences were imposed.
169
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Assault on a Child
As seen in Table 12, the sentence lengths for assault on a child vary considerably across sites
and over the years. The low number of convictions for this offence limits the interpretation of
this data.
Table 12: Average Custodial Sentence Length (months) for Assault on a Child in the
FST Sites
Site
Auckland
Masterton
Lower Hutt
1996
6.0
12.0
-
1997
8.0
9.5
1998
6.0
-
1999
3.0
-
2000
6.0
-
2001
11.0
-
2002
4.0
9.0
8.0
2003
12.0
6.0
2004
-
2005
15.0
3.0
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
9.
Commitments to Domestic Violence Programmes
The Domestic Violence Act 1995 provides programmes for people whose lives are affected by
domestic violence and who are protected by Protection Orders. The programmes for adult
protected persons, and children, contribute to the legislation's primary objective of providing
greater protection for victims of domestic violence. In accordance with Act's rehabilitative
focus, the court must also direct respondents to attend specified programmes, unless the court
considers there is good reason for not making such directions.
9.1
National
As shown in Figure 2046, between 1999 and 2005, new commitments for domestic violence
programmes for respondents decreased by 18 percent. The number of new commitments for
programmes for adult protected persons remained fairly stable between 1999 and 2002 and
then started to decline slightly in the following years. New commitments for programmes for
children showed a steady increase between 1999 and 2004 but dropped slightly from 2004 to
2005. Over this period the number of applications for protection orders has been declining.
46
Due to data migration issues, pre 2003 data for small courts is not available. This data accounts for approximately
20% – 25% of Family Court volume in 1999 and 5% – 10% from 2000).
170
Appendix 7
__________________________________________________________________
Figure 20: Number of New Commitments to Domestic Violence Programmes and the
Total Number of Applications for Protection Orders 1999 – 2005
Commitments to DV programmes and the number
of applications for protection orders - National
Respondents
7000
6000
Number
5000
4000
Adult protected
Persons
3000
Children
2000
1000
Total New
Commitments
0
1999 2000 2001
2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
Applications for
Protection Orders
Source: Case Management System, Ministry of Justice
9.2
FST Sites
The following section shows the number of commitments to domestic violence programmes
for respondents, adult protected persons, and children by the Courts in three FST areas47.
9.3
Programmes for Respondents
Auckland and Lower Hutt District Courts mirrored the national trend of decreased numbers of
commitments. Auckland saw a spike in the number of commitments in 2002. This spike is
also evident in the commitments to programmes for adult protected persons and children in
Auckland. The number of commitments in the Masterton District Court increased from 0 in
1999 to 44 in 2005. The number of commitments in Lower Hutt varied from 208 in 1999 to 94
in 2004.
47
Data for the Auckland DC uses the combined sources of manual returns, the FCDB and CMS. The data for the
other sites relies on CMS only and is less accurate.
171
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Figure 21:
Number of New Commitments for Domestic Violence
Programmes for Respondents – FST Sites
Number
Number of new commitments of respondents to
Domestic Violence Programmes - FST sites
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Auckland
Masterton
Lower Hutt
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Year
Source: Family Court Database and Case Management System, Ministry of Justice
9.4
Programmes for Adult Protected Persons
Auckland saw a general decrease in commitments for adult protected persons, dropping from
140 in 1999 to 48 in 2005. The number of commitments in Masterton increased from 1999 to
2004 then dropped in 2005. In Lower Hutt, commitments increased from 1999 to 2002 then
began to decline.
Figure 22: Number of New Commitments for Domestic Violence
Programmes for Adult Protected Persons– FST Sites
Number
Number of new commitments of adult protected
persons to Domestic Violence Programmes - FST
sites
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Auckland
Masterton
Lower Hutt
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Year
Source: Family Court Database and Case Management System, Ministry of Justice
172
Appendix 7
__________________________________________________________________
9.5
Programmes for Children
The number of new commitments for domestic violence programmes for children shows
differing trends across the FST sites (see Figure 23). The number of commitments in Auckland
peaked in 2002. The number of new commitments in Masterton increased over this period
while Lower Hutt stayed relatively stable.
Figure 23: Number of New Commitments for Domestic Violence
Programmes for Children – FST Sites
Number of new commitments of children to
Domestic Violence Programmes - FST sites
120
Number
100
Auckland
80
Masterton
60
Lower Hutt
40
20
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Year
Source: Family Court Database and Case Management System, Ministry of Justice
10.
Referrals to Agencies
10.1
Department of Child, Youth and Family
10.2
National
Figure 24 shows the total number of notifications48 to CYF call centres from 2000 to 2005
from all sources (including the police, education, health, and the public). Also detailed are the
number of notifications from the Police (family violence and non family violence notifications
are shown separately). After a drop between 2000 and 2001, there was a 91 percent increase in
total notifications from 2000 to 2005. Police non-family violence notifications increased by 38
percent over the period. Police family violence notifications increased markedly from 266 in
2000 to 13,476 in 2005. It is likely that a substantial proportion of the increase is due to
changes in Police practice.
48
The data provided differs slightly from the data provided in the previous baseline report for the same period. This
is a consequence of a lag in data entry and is unavoidable.
173
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Figure 24: National Notifications to Child, Youth and Family - 2000 – 2005
National Notifications to Child, Youth and Family
70,000
60,000
All Sources
Number
50,000
40,000
Police (non-FV)
30,000
Police Family
Violence
20,000
10,000
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Year
Source: Child, Youth and Family
10.3
FST Sites
Figure 25 shows the total number of notifications to CYF from all sources (including the
police, other agencies, and the public) in the FST sites between 1999 and 200549. The FST sites
show a similar trend to the national average with each of the sites showing a large overall
increase from 2000 to 2005. The greatest percentage increase in notifications was seen in the
Hutt Valley with a 223 percent increase from 908 in 2000 to 2,936 in 2005.
Figure 25: Notifications to Child, Youth and Family from All Sources –
FST Sites 1999 – 2005
Notifications to CYF from all sources - FST sites
4,000
3,500
Number
3,000
2,500
Auckland City
2,000
Masterton
1,500
Hutt Valley
1,000
500
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Year
Source: Child, Youth and Family
49
Data provided for Masterton and the Hutt Valley in the previous baseline report was incorrect. Amended data has
now been provided.
174
Appendix 7
__________________________________________________________________
The total number of notifications to CYF from the Police (family violence and nonfamily violence notifications) also showed marked increases from 2001 to 2005. Once again,
Hutt Valley showed the largest increase from 208 notifications from the Police in 1999 to 1,857
in 2005. As mentioned earlier, it is likely that a substantial proportion of the observed changes
are due to changes in Police practice.
Figure 26: Notifications to Child, Youth and Family from the Police –
FST Sites 1999 – 2005
Number
Notifications to CYF from Police - FST sites
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Auckland City
Masterton
Hutt Valley
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Year
Source: Child, Youth and Family
10.4
National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges
The National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges is the primary family violence
service provider in New Zealand. Currently, there are 51 Refuges throughout the country
providing safe house accommodation, counselling, education programmes, advocacy, advice
and information to women and children experiencing family violence. Women's Refuges also
work with government agencies and other groups to raise awareness of family violence in
communities. The data below collected by the National Collective of Independent Women’s
Refuges provides an overview of their activities as well as a profile of their client base. During
2004-2005:
Women’s Refuge supported 12,364 women experiencing family violence.
Women’s Refuge delivered family violence prevention programmes to 5732 women and
children
Women’s Refuge provided safe-house accommodation to 5156 women and children. The
average stay in the safe house was 33.5 nights, a week longer than in 2003 and nearly three
weeks longer than the average stay in 2000.
Over five and a half thousand Refuge clients received targeted education and counselling
support services.
175
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
The women who used Refuge services identified their ethnicity as follows:
44% Maori
34% Pakeha/NZ European
5% Pacifika
2% Asian
4% Other ethnicity
11% Undisclosed.
Children’s ethnicities were identified as:
55% Maori
25% Pakeha/NZ European
7% Pacifika
1% Asian
4% Other ethnicity
8% Undisclosed
The majority of women referred themselves to Women’s Refuge. Women using Refuge
services are commonly referred by Refuge to lawyers, the Police, WINZ, Housing and
Accommodation services, and health professionals.
11.
Family Violence Data: Auckland City
11.1
Police Recorded Family Violence Offences
Table 13 shows that there has been a 100 percent increase in the number of recorded family
violence offences during the period 1999 to 2005 in Auckland City50. The recorded family
violence offence rate per 10,000 population shows an increase of 12 percent in the same period
from 66 per 10,000 population in 1999 to 74 per 10,000 in 2005 (Table 14). Care must be taken
when interpreting these figures as changes in Police recording practices are likely to impact on
the observed trends.
Table 13: Number of Recorded Family Violence Offences in Auckland City Central
Police Area
Police Area
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Auckland City Central
201
263
363
256
304
327
401
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
50
It should be noted that reco rded crime refers only to crimes recorded by the Police and therefore may not
accurately represent the actual incidence of crimes.
176
Appendix 7
__________________________________________________________________
Table 14:
Recorded Family Violence Offence Rate per 10,000 Population in Auckland
City Central Police Area
Police Area
Auckland City Central
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
66
82
110
70
70
65
74
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
11.2
POL 400s
Table 15: Number of POL 400s Completed by Police in the Auckland City Central
Police Area
Police Area
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Auckland City Central
408
484
593
591
554
Not available
11.3
2005
Applications for Protection Orders – Demographic Profile of
Applicants and Respondents
As seen in Table 16 the total number of applications for Protection Orders filed in the
Auckland City District Court declined during the period 1999 to 200551,52. The number of
applications for on notice protection orders increased from 1999 to 2003 then declined sharply
thereafter. The number of without notice applications decreased from 1999 to 2005 but
fluctuated in the intervening years. The percentage of all applications filed without notice
decreased from 94 percent in 1999 to 85 percent in 2004 but then increased to 90 percent in
2005.
Table 16: Applications for Protection Orders in Auckland City District Court
Applications for on notice PO’s
Applications for without notice PO’s
Percentage of applications filed without notice
Total number of applications for PO’s
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
32
37
43
54
65
59
34
484
437
380 384
367
344 315
94% 92% 90% 88% 85% 85% 90%
516
474
423 438
432
403 349
Source: Family Court Database, manual returns and Case Management System, Ministry of Justice
Tables 17 to 20 indicate that the demographic profile of applicants and respondents for
protection orders in the Auckland District Court has not changed much over the period 2000
to 200553.
51
Data about protection orders was combined from several sources over the years - manual returns for small courts,
the Family Court database (FCDB) for larger courts and the Case Management System (CMS) from 2003 onwards.
53
Sex and ethnicity have been counted by the number of applicants and/or respondents for protection order
applications recorded in CMS, i.e., if multiple applications for a person exist in a given year, they are counted only
once for each role type (applicant or respondent). This differs from the method used in the Family Court Statistics
(2004), where each application was counted.
177
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Applicants in 2005 were typically female (85%) and NZ European (34%) or Asian (15%),
although ethnicity was not stated for a large percentage of applicants and respondents (31% and
33% respectively). Respondents in 2005 were typically male (83%) and NZ European (31%)
ethnicity.
Table 17: Sex of Applicants for Protection Orders in the Auckland District Court
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Female
79%
78%
82%
84%
88%
85%
Male
13%
13%
13%
12%
9%
10%
Not Stated
8%
9%
5%
4%
3%
5%
Source: Case Management System, Ministry of Justice.
Table 18: Sex of Respondents to Protection Orders in the Auckland District Court
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Female
Male
11%
80%
8%
81%
11%
84%
11%
83%
10%
86%
12%
83%
Not Stated
9%
11%
6%
6%
4%
5%
Source: Case Management System, Ministry of Justice.
Table 19: Ethnicity of Applicants for Protection Orders Filed in the Auckland City
District Court
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
European
47%
37%
39%
41%
34%
34%
Maori
12%
14%
15%
12%
13%
9%
Pacific Peoples
11%
10%
14%
13%
12%
7%
Asian
12%
13%
11%
15%
11%
15%
Other Ethnic Groups
7%
9%
7%
6%
4%
4%
Not Stated
11%
17%
13%
13%
25%
31%
Source: Case Management System, Ministry of Justice.
Table 20: Ethnicity of Respondents to Protection Orders Filed in the Auckland City
District Court
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
European
43%
35%
32%
34%
30%
31%
Maori
12%
13%
14%
13%
14%
10%
Pacific Peoples
13%
11%
18%
16%
15%
13%
Asian
11%
11%
11%
13%
9%
10%
Other Ethnic Groups
7%
10%
8%
7%
4%
2%
Not Stated
14%
20%
17%
17%
28%
33%
Source: Case Management System, Ministry of Justice
178
Appendix 7
__________________________________________________________________
11.4
Prosecution Outcomes
Tables 21 to 23 show the number and outcomes of prosecutions for family violence related
offences in Auckland District Court during the period 1996 to 200554,55. Conviction numbers
for each of the offences are examined in more detail in the next section.
Male Assaults Female
The total number of prosecutions for male assaults female in the Auckland District Court
varied over the period, ranging from 385 in 2002 to 578 in 1997. The number of prosecutions
that were dismissed increased from eight percent of prosecutions in 1999 to 24 percent in 2005.
The percentage of prosecutions that resulted in convictions dropped from 70 percent of
prosecutions for this charge in 1996 to 48 percent in 2005.
Table 21: Outcome of Prosecutions for Male Assaults Female in the Auckland District
Court
Outcome
Convicted
Youth Court proved
Discharged without
conviction
Dismissed
Discharged
Withdrawn
Acquitted
Other not proved
Other male assaults female
Total
1996
341
0
1997
396
0
1998
318
0
1999 2000
344 282
0
0
2001
279
0
2002 2003
222 207
0
0
2004 2005
207 221
0
0
18
41
42
44
31
27
15
24
35
33
41
11
67
1
9
1
489
36
8
92
4
1
0
578
31
7
124
12
4
0
538
24
11
100
7
6
0
536
42
2
117
12
1
0
487
49
9
111
8
4
0
487
35
22
78
10
3
0
385
30
6
123
2
1
0
393
63
5
151
4
6
0
471
113
5
81
3
6
1
463
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
Breach of Protection Order
The Domestic Violence Act 1995 came into force in July 1996, as a result the number of
prosecutions for breach of protection order increased sharply from this point. From 1997 on,
the number of prosecutions for breach of protection order varied, peaking at 313 prosecutions
in 1999. Convictions for breach of protection orders, including failing to attend a programme
decreased from 78 percent of prosecutions for this charge in 1996 to 52 percent in 2005. A
large number of prosecutions ended with the charge being withdrawn (an average of 23 percent
of all prosecutions over the decade).
54
55
Figures for 2005 are provisional.
The 2004 court data may differ slightly from the figures previously supplied. The difference occurred because the
figures were from different sources. The data for 2004 from the new Courts Management System (CMS) was not
available until late 2005. For this reason 2004 data from the Law Enforcement System (LES) were used to provide
the figures supplied previously.
179
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Table 22:
Outcome of Prosecutions for Breach of Protection Orders Including Failing
to Attend a Programme in the Auckland District Court
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Convicted
Youth Court proved
46
0
108
0
125
0
175
0
176
0
166
0
118
0
115
0
183
1
121
0
Discharged without conviction
4
5
16
11
4
4
5
2
9
8
Dismissed
2
11
18
9
21
23
9
16
22
27
Discharged
0
0
0
4
2
1
4
1
11
15
Withdrawn
6
25
32
112
49
83
55
64
80
50
Acquitted
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
Other not proved
1
1
14
0
1
0
0
7
2
9
Other breach protection order
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
278
191
206
308
231
Outcome
Total
59
151
205
313
253
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
Assault on a Child
There were comparatively few prosecutions for assault on a child in the Auckland District
Court (56 in 2005). The conviction rate for this offence dropped slightly from 48 percent of
prosecutions for this charge in 1996 to 43 percent in 2005, although it fluctuated in the
intervening years. In 2005, 41 percent of all prosecutions for assault on a child were
withdrawn.
Table 23: Outcome of Prosecutions for Assault on a Child in the Auckland District
Court
Outcome
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Convicted
19
26
21
34
15
31
16
20
17
24
Youth Court proved
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Discharged without conviction
2
5
2
2
2
4
1
0
3
2
Dismissed
4
1
2
2
5
2
4
1
5
2
Discharged
2
2
1
1
1
1
6
12
1
1
Withdrawn
9
5
11
12
4
8
14
14
7
23
Acquitted
0
4
0
2
0
0
4
3
0
3
Other not proved
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
Other assault on a child
3
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
Total
40
44
37
53
28
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
47
46
50
34
56
180
Appendix 7
__________________________________________________________________
11.5
Convictions
As shown in Table 2456, during the period 1995 to 200557 the number of convictions for male
assaults female in the Auckland District Court fluctuated, ranging from 396 in 1997 to 207 in
2003 and 2004. In 1996 the Domestic Violence Act 1995 came into effect. Subsequently the
number of convictions relating to breaches of protection orders increased dramatically between
1996 and 1999 (from 46 to 175). Since 2000 the number of convictions for this offence
fluctuated, with a peak of 183 seen in 2004. There were generally few convictions for assault on
a child over the period, from 15 in 2000 to 34 in 1999.
Table 24: Number of Convictions for Family Violence Related Offences in the
Auckland District Court
Offence
Male assaults female
Breach protection order
Assault on a child
1996
341
46
19
1997 1998 1999 2000
396 318 344 282
108 125 175 176
26
21
34
15
2001 2002
279 222
166 118
31
16
2003 2004 2005
207 207 221
115 183 121
20
17
24
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
11.6
Sentencing
Ministry of Justice data58 shows the percentage of convictions for the selected family violence
offences resulting in a custodial sentence, and the average length (in months) of the custodial
sentences imposed, in the Auckland City District Court59 (see Tables 25 and 26). As seen in
Table 23 above, the low number of convictions for assault on a child mean that the following
data must be interpreted with caution. Table 22 shows that there has been an increase in the
use of custodial sentences for each of the family violence related offences reported over the
decade.
Table 25: Percentage of Convictions Resulting in a Custodial Sentence for Family
Violence Related Offences in the Auckland District Court
Offence
Male assaults female
Breach protection order
Assault on a child
1996 1997 1998
3%
8%
6%
14% 4% 10%
11% 6%
0%
1999 2000 2001
6%
8% 10%
6%
5% 11%
5% 25% 4%
2002 2003
6% 12%
19% 24%
8%
0%
2004
16%
12%
0%
2005
10%
25%
18%
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
The proportion of custodial sentences for male assaults female increased from three percent in
1996 to ten percent in 2005. The average custodial sentence length remained fairly stable
(averaging 7.2 months) but was lowest in 2005. Custodial sentences for breach of protection
order varied over the decade with no apparent trend. Custodial sentences for breach of
protection order were the shortest of the three selected offences, averaging at 4.2 months
56
57
58
59
The 2004 court data may differ slightly from the figures previously supplied.
Figures for 2005 are provisional.
ibid.
The 2004 court data may differ slightly from the figures previously supplied.
181
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
between 1996 and 2005 but spiking to 9.0 months in 1997. There was an increase in the
percentage of convictions resulting in custodial sentences for assault on a child from 11 percent
in 1996 to 18 percent in 2005, although in the intervening years the figures fluctuated
considerably. The average custodial sentence for assault on a child ranged from three months
in 1999 to 15 months in 2005.
Table 26: Average Custodial Sentence (months) for Family Violence Related Offences
in the Auckland District Court
Offence
Male assaults female
Breach protection order
Assault on a child
1996
6.4
3.3
6.0
1997
6.0
9.0
8.0
1998
6.9
3.6
-
1999
6.8
4.8
3.0
2000
8.1
3.2
6.0
2001
7.9
2.4
11.0
2002 2003 2004
8.6
7.9
7.6
4.4
5.0
3.1
4.0
-
2005
5.3
2.8
15.0
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
11.7
Commitments to Domestic Violence Programmes
The number of new commitments to domestic violence programmes for respondents varied,
ranging from 391 commitments in 1999 to 165 in 2003. There was a significant rise in new
commitments for respondents from 230 in 2001 to 309 in 2002 (Table 27). The number of
new commitments to programmes for adult protected persons fluctuated over the period with a
high of 140 commitments in 1999 and a low of 48 commitments in 2005. Commitments for
programmes for children also varied over the years and in 2005 the number was 24 percent less
than in 1999. During this period the number of applications for protection orders decreased by
32%.
Table 27: Number of New Commitments for Domestic Violence Programmes for
Respondents, Adult Protected Persons and Children and Applications for
Protection Orders in the Auckland District Court
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Respondents
391
242
230
309
165
227
207
Adult Protected Persons
140
111
86
138
51
62
48
Children
75
69
64
97
51
48
57
Applications for Protection Orders
516
474
423
438
432
403
349
Source: Family Court Database, manual returns and Case Management System, Ministry of Justice.
11.8
Referrals to Child, Youth and Family
Table 28 shows data from the Department of Child, Youth and Family relating to the total
number of notifications to CYF 60 in Auckland City61 from all sources62 and specifically from
the Police63 during the period 2000 to 2005.
60
61
The data provided differs slightly from the data provided in the previous baseline report for the same period. This
is a consequence of a lag in data entry and is unavoidable.
Data has been captured by the specific Service Delivery Units (SDU) or Service Delivery Locations (SDL) where
the Family Safety Teams will be located. Data for Auckland City is based on Royal Oak SDU and Grey Lynn SDU.
182
Appendix 7
__________________________________________________________________
As shown in Table 25, notifications from all sources increased 130 percent over the period
2000 to 2005. Notifications from the Police showed an even larger increase of 358 percent
from 321 in 2000 to 1,470 in 2005.
Table 28: Total Number of Notifications to CYF from all Sources and Police 2000 –
2005 - Auckland
Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
All Sources
1,549
1,542
2,060
2,479
3,028
3,565
321
247
601
908
1,240
1,470
Police
Source: Child, Youth and Family.
Table 29 shows that in the Auckland FST site the percentage of Police notifications requiring
further action is seven percent lower than the percentage of all notifications that require further
action.
Table 29: Percentages of Notifications from All Sources and Police Only, Requiring
Further Action - Auckland
Auckland City
All Sources
Police
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
90%
82%
89%
90%
87%
76%
85%
75%
84%
76%
84%
77%
Source: Child, Youth and Family.
12.
Family Violence Data: Wairarapa
12.1
Police Recorded Family Violence Offences64
Data from the New Zealand Police show the number of recorded family violence offences as
well as the recorded family violence offence rates per 10,000 population in the Wairarapa Police
Area. Table 30 shows that there has been a 61 percent increase in the number of recorded
family violence offences during the period 1999 to 2005. The recorded family violence offence
rate per 10,000 population shows a similar increase of 60 percent in this period (Table 31).
These figures must be interpreted with caution as changes in Police recording practices are
likely to have had impact on the observed trends.
62
63
64
For the purpose of this report, all sources includes police notifications
Police notifications to CYF are made in three categories – Police, Police with Safety Assessment, and Police Family
Violence. For the purpose of this report data has been combined from all these categories to account for regional
variation and recording practices of family violence notifications. The vast majority of Police notifications to CYF
are in relation to family violence.
It should be noted that recorded crime refers only to crimes recorded by the Police and therefore may not
accurately represent the actual incidence of crimes.
183
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Table 30: Number of Recorded Family Violence Offences in the Wairarapa Police
Area
Police Area
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Wairarapa
281
225
295
403
387
396
453
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
Table 31: Recorded Family Violence Offence Rate per 10,000 Population in the
Wairarapa Police Area
Police Area
Wairarapa
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
72
58
75
103
99
101
115
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
12.2
POL 400s
Table 32: Number of POL 400s Completed by Police in the Wairarapa Police Area
Police Area
1999
2000
2001
Wairarapa
12.3
2002
2003
2004
2005
Not available
Applications for Protection Orders – Demographic Profile of
Applicants and Respondents
Table 33 shows the number and types of applications for protection orders made in the
Masterton District Court between 1999 and 200565. The total number of applications for
protection orders decreased from 93 in 2000 to 35 in 2005. The percentage of applications
filed without notice decreased from 1999 to 2001 but increased from 2001 to 2005.
Table 33: Number of Applications for Protection Orders in the Masterton District
Court
Applications for on notice PO’s
Applications for without notice PO’s
Percentage of applications filed
without notice
Total number of applications for PO’s
1999
2
81
2000
8
85
2001
13
60
2002
8
60
2003
7
69
2004
3
59
2005
0
35
98%
91%
82%
88%
91%
95% 100%
83
93
73
68
76
62
35
Source: Family Court Database and Case Management System, Ministry of Justice
Tables 34 to 37 show the demographic characteristics of applicants and respondents in the
Masterton District Court from 2000 to 200566. Applicants in 2005 were all female (100%) and
65
66
Data about protection orders was combined from several sources over the years - manual returns for small courts,
the Family Court database (FCDB) for larger courts and the Case Management System (CMS) from 2003 onwards.
Sex and ethnicity have been counted by the number of applicants and/or respondents for protection order
applications recorded in CMS, i.e., if multiple applications for a person exist in a given year, they are counted only
184
Appendix 7
__________________________________________________________________
of either NZ European (39%), or Maori (8%) ethnicity, although a large percentage of
applicants and respondents did not state their ethnicity (53% and 51% respectively).
Respondents in 2005 were typically male (97%) and of NZ European (31%), or Maori ethnicity
(17%).
Table 34: Sex of Applicants for Protection Orders in the Masterton District Court
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Female
92%
89%
89%
96%
97%
100%
Male
8%
9%
11%
4%
3%
0%
Not Stated
0%
3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Source: Cas e Management System, Ministry of Justice
Table 35: Sex of Respondents to Protection Orders in the Masterton District Court
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Female
8%
10%
9%
3%
7%
0%
Male
90%
88%
91%
97%
92%
97%
Not Stated
1%
3%
0%
0%
2%
3%
Source: Case Management System, Ministry of Justice
Table 36: Ethnicity of Applicants for Protection Orders in the Masterton District Court
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
European
44%
58%
42%
62%
46%
39%
Maori
35%
26%
28%
19%
20%
8%
Pacific Peoples
4%
3%
0%
0%
3%
0%
Asian
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Other Ethnic Groups
2%
0%
1%
4%
0%
0%
Not Stated
14%
13%
28%
15%
31%
53%
Source: Case Management System, Ministry of Justice
Table 37: Ethnicity of Respondents to Protection Orders filed in the Masterton
District Court
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
European
45%
55%
36%
47%
31%
31%
Maori
34%
27%
26%
25%
19%
17%
Pacific Peoples
4%
5%
1%
0%
2%
0%
Asian
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Other Ethnic Groups
1%
0%
1%
4%
0%
0%
Not Stated
17%
13%
35%
24%
49%
51%
once for each role type (applicant or respondent). This differs from the method used in the Family Court Statistics
(2004), where each application was counted.
185
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Source: Case Management System, Ministry of Justice
186
Appendix 7
__________________________________________________________________
12.4
Prosecution Outcomes
Tables 38 to 40 show the number of prosecutions in Masterton District Court and the outcome
of these prosecutions during the period 1996 to 200567,68. Convictions for each of the offences
are examined in more detail in the next section.
Male Assaults Female
The total number of prosecutions for male assaults female in the Masterton District Court
fluctuated over the period. Between 1996 and 2005, an average of 54 percent of all
prosecutions resulted in a conviction. Large numbers of prosecutions resulted in charges being
either withdrawn or dismissed, in 2005 these figures were 16 and 26 respectively.
Table 38: Outcome of Prosecutions for Male Assaults Female in the Masterton District
Court
Outcome
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Convicted
Youth Court proved
56
0
47
0
54
0
42
0
43
0
33
0
38
0
32
0
36
0
55
0
Discharged without conviction
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
4
4
Dismissed
24
8
18
11
14
11
9
12
9
26
Discharged
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
Withdrawn
26
14
19
15
16
24
30
21
27
16
Acquitted
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other not proved
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other male assaults female
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Total
107
69
91
70
74
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
69
78
65
76
102
Breach of Protection Order
Prosecutions for breach of protection orders, including failing to attend a programme increased
sharply following the introduction of the Domestic Violence Act (2005), the number dropped
in 2000 then increased from 2001 to 2005. In 2005, 54 percent of all prosecutions for this
offence resulted in a conviction and 25 percent were dismissed.
67
68
Figures for 2005 are provisional.
The 2004 court data may differ slightly from the figures previously supplied. The difference occurred because the
figures were from different sources. The data for 2004 from the new Courts Management System (CMS) was not
available until late 2005. For this reason 2004 data from the Law Enforcement System (LES) were used to provide
the figures supplied previously.
187
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Table 39: Outcome of Prosecutions for Breach of Protection Orders Including Failing
to Attend a Programme in the Masterton District Court
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Convicted
Youth Court proved
4
0
14
0
22
0
35
0
17
0
18
0
24
0
19
0
27
0
26
0
Discharged without conviction
0
0
1
1
0
0
2
1
3
0
Dismissed
1
8
6
11
3
3
2
11
4
23
Discharged
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
8
Withdrawn
2
9
9
22
15
13
7
10
16
13
Acquitted
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other not proved
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other breach protection order
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
7
31
38
71
35
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
34
35
41
52
70
Outcome
Assault on a Child
The number of prosecutions for assault on a child in Masterton District Court was typically
low, ranging from four in 1997 to 15 in 2002. In 2005, two of the prosecutions resulted in
convictions, one was discharged without conviction and the remaining three were withdrawn.
Table 40: Outcome of Prosecutions for Assault on a Child in the Masterton District
Court
Outcome
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Convicted
6
3
9
5
3
4
8
4
2
2
Youth Court proved
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Discharged without conviction
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
Dismissed
0
0
4
1
2
1
0
1
0
0
Discharged
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Withdrawn
1
1
1
3
2
5
6
4
2
3
Acquitted
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other not proved
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other assault on a child
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
10
15
9
5
6
Total
7
4
14
9
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
12.5
Convictions
Table 41 shows the number of convictions69 for the three selected family violence related
offences in the Masterton District Court during the period 1999 to 200570. During this period,
the number of convictions for male assaults female remained fairly stable, averaging at 44 per
69
70
The 2004 court data may differ slightly from the figures previously supplied.
Figures for 2005 are provisional.
188
Appendix 7
__________________________________________________________________
year. In 1996 the Domestic Violence Act 1995 came into effect, subsequently the number of
convictions relating to breaches of protection orders increased dramatically between 1996 and
1999 (from 4 to 35). From 2000 to 2005 the number of convictions for this offence was more
stable, averaging at 22 per year. There were a very small number of convictions for assault on a
child over the period.
Table 41: Number of Convictions for Family Violence Related Offences in the
Masterton District Court
Offence
Male assaults female
Breach protection order
Assault on a child
1996
56
4
6
1997 1998 1999 2000
47
54
42
43
14
22
35
17
3
9
5
3
2001 2002
33
38
18
24
4
8
2003 2004 2005
32
36
55
19
27
26
4
2
2
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
12.6
Sentencing
Ministry of Justice data shows the percentage of convictions resulting in a custodial sentence,
and the average length (in months) of the custodial sentences imposed, for each of the selected
offences from 1996 to 200571 in the Masterton District Court (see Tables 42 and 43)72. As seen
in Table 40 above, the low number of convictions for assault on a child means that the
following data must be interpreted with caution.
For cases of male assaults female the proportion of convictions leading to a prison sentence
fluctuated, ranging from 14 percent in 1997 to zero percent in 1999 and 2004. The average
custodial sentence length imposed for this offence peaked at 9.0 months in 2000. The use of
custodial sentences for breach of protection order varied over the decade with no apparent
trend. The average custodial sentence for this offence ranged from 2.0 months in 1999 to 10.0
months in 2004. For cases of assault on a child, the number of prosecutions is too low to allow
meaningful interpretation of the data.
Table 42: Percentage of Convictions Resulting in a Custodial Sentence for Family
Violence Related Offences in the Masterton District Court
Offence
Male assaults female
Breach protection order
Assault on a child
1996
10%
0%
33%
1997 1998 1999 2000
14% 7%
0%
3%
13% 8%
4%
0%
0% 17% 0%
0%
2001 2002
11% 7%
0%
0%
0% 50%
2003 2004 2005
9%
0%
2%
0%
7% 13%
25% 0%
0%
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
71
72
Figures for 2005 are provisional
The 2004 court data may differ slightly from the figures previously supplied
189
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Table 43: Average Custodial Sentence (months) for Family Violence Related Offences
in the Masterton District Court
Offence
Male assaults female
Breach protection order
Assault on a child
1996
7.0
12.0
1997 1998 1999 2000
4.6
5.0
9.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
6.0
-
2001 2002
8.7
6.0
9.0
2003 2004 2005
6.5
4.0
10.0
5.0
12.0
-
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
12.7
Commitments to Domestic Violence Programmes
Table 44 shows the number of new commitments for respondents, adult protected persons,
and children to domestic violence programmes in the Masterton District Court between 1999
and 200573. The number of new commitments for respondents remained relatively constant
over the period, peaking at 58 in 2003. New commitments for adult protected persons also
peaked in 2004 with 28. The number of commitments for children’s programmes steadily rose
from one in 2000 to 11 in 2005. The number of applications for protection orders decreased
from 93 in 2000 to 35 in 2005.
Table 44: Number of New Commitments for Domestic Violence Programmes for
Respondents, Adult Protected Persons and Children and Applications for
Protection Orders in the Masterton District Court
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Respondents
-
44
50
38
58
50
44
Adult Protected Persons
-
6
14
15
25
28
13
Children
-
1
3
3
5
7
11
83
93
73
68
76
62
35
Applications for Protection Orders
Source: Family Court Database, manual returns and Case Management System, Ministry of Justice
12.8
Referrals to Child, Youth and Family
Table 45 shows data from the Department of Child, Youth and Family relating to the total
number of notifications to CYF 74 in the Wairarapa 75 from all sources76 and specifically from the
Police during the period 2000 to 2005.
Notifications from all sources increased 112 percent from 426 in 2000 to 904 in 2005.
Notifications from the Police also increased, from 74 in 2000 to 286 in 2005.
73
74
75
76
The data provided differs slightly from the data provided in the previous baseline report for the same period. This
is a consequence of a lag in data entry and is unavoidable.
Data provided for Masterton and the Hutt Valley in the previous baseline report was incorrect. Amended data has
now been provided.
Data for the Wairarapa is based on the Masterton SDL.
Police notifications to CYF are made in three categories – Police, Police with Safety Assessment, and Police Family
Violence. For the purpose of this report data has been combined from all these categories to account for regional
variation and recording practices of family violence notifications. The vast majority of Police notifications to CYF
are in relation to family violence.
190
Appendix 7
__________________________________________________________________
Table 45: Total Number of Notifications to CYF from All Sources and Police 2000 –
2005 in the Wairarapa
Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
All Sources
426
440
423
533
869
904
Police
74
68
73
149
349
286
Source: Child, Youth and Family
In the Wairarapa FST site in 2005 the percentage of Police notifications requiring further action
was 18 percent lower than the percentage of all notifications that require further action (Table
46).
Table 46: Percentages of Notifications from All Sources and Police Only, Requiring
Further Action in the Wairarapa
All Sources
Police
Masterton
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
74%
77%
89%
85%
87%
75%
88%
74%
78%
62%
77%
59%
Source: Child, Youth and Family
13.
Family Violence Data: Lower Hutt
13.1
Police Recorded Family Violence Offences
Data from the New Zealand Police show the number of recorded family violence offences as
well as the recorded family violence offence rates per 10,000 population in the Lower Hutt
Police Area77. Table 47 shows that there has been a 276 percent increase in the number of
recorded family violence offences in Lower Hutt during the period 1999 to 2005. The recorded
family violence offence rate per 10,000 population shows a similar increase of 272 percent in
the same period, increasing from 26 offences per 10,000 population in 1999 to 97 per 10,000 in
2005 (Table 48). These figures must be interpreted with caution as changes in Police recording
practices are likely to have had an impact on the observed trends.
Table 47: Number of Recorded Family Violence Offences in the Lower Hutt Police
Area
Police Area
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Lower Hutt
260
572
719
670
860
863
977
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
Table 48: Recorded Family Violence Offence Rate per 10,000 Population in the Lower
Hutt Police Area
Police Area
77
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
It should be noted that recorded crime refers only to crimes recorded by the Police and therefore may not
accurately represent the actual incidence of crimes.
191
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Lower Hutt
26
58
73
67
86
86
97
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
13.2
POL 400s
Table 49: Number of POL 400s Completed by Police in the Lower Hutt Police Area
Police Area
1999
2000
2001
Lower Hutt
13.3
2002
2003
2004
2005
Not available
Applications for Protection Orders – Demographic Profile of
Applicants and Respondents
As can be seen in Table 50 the total number of applications for Protection Orders filed in the
Lower Hutt District Court declined during the period 1999 to 200578. The number of
applications for on notice protection orders peaked in 2001 with 34 applications. The number
of without notice applications fluctuated from 1999 to 2001 and showed a slight decreasing
trend from 2002 to 2005. The percentage of applications filed without notice dropped from
1999 to 2000 but was fairly stable from 2000 to 2005.
Table 50: Number of Applications for Protection Orders in the Lower Hutt District
Court
Applications for on notice PO’s
Applications for without notice PO’s
Percentage of applications filed without notice
Total number of applications for PO’s
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
18
29
34
27
33
25
23
179
123
134 138
118
112 106
91% 81% 80% 84% 78% 82% 82%
197
152
168 165
151
137 129
Source: Family Court Database and Case Management System, Ministry of Justice
Tables 51 to 54 show the demographic profile of applicants and respondents to protection
orders in the Lower Hutt District Court from 2000 to 200579.
Applicants in 2005 were typically female (83%) and of NZ European (43%) or Maori (29%)
ethnicity, although ethnicity was not recorded for a large percentage of applicants and
respondents (20% and 24% respectively). Respondents in 2005 were typically male (85%) and
of NZ European (36%) or Maori (29%) ethnicity.
Table 51:
Female
78
79
Sex of Applicants for Protection Orders in the Lower Hutt District Court
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
87%
83%
86%
88%
85%
83%
Data about protection orders was combined from several sources over the years - manual returns for small courts,
the Family Court database (FCDB) for larger courts and the Case Management System (CMS) from 2003 onwards.
Sex and ethnicity have been counted by the number of applicants and/or respondents for protection order
applications recorded in CMS, i.e., if multiple applications for a person exist in a given year, they are counted only
once for each role type (applicant or respondent). This differs from the method used in the Family Court Statistics
(2004), where each application was counted.
192
Appendix 7
__________________________________________________________________
Male
5%
8%
8%
10%
8%
9%
Not Stated
7%
10%
6%
2%
7%
8%
Source: Case Management System, Ministry of Justice
Table 52:
Sex of Respondents to Protection Orders in the Lower Hutt District Court
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Female
6%
9%
9%
13%
11%
7%
Male
83%
85%
88%
85%
82%
85%
Not Stated
11%
5%
4%
3%
7%
8%
Source: Case Management System, Ministry of Justice
Table 53: Ethnicity of Applicants for Protection Orders in the Lower Hutt District
Court
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
European
Maori
55%
15%
57%
22%
46%
25%
50%
25%
30%
24%
43%
29%
Pacific Peoples
9%
4%
6%
3%
7%
6%
Asian
1%
2%
6%
3%
4%
1%
Other Ethnic Groups
1%
1%
4%
4%
1%
1%
Not Stated
19%
14%
13%
15%
35%
20%
Source: Case Management System, Ministry of Justice
Table 54: Ethnicity of Respondents to Protection Orders in the Lower Hutt District
Court
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
European
44%
49%
36%
45%
31%
36%
Maori
23%
20%
26%
29%
22%
29%
Pacific Peoples
7%
10%
11%
3%
6%
7%
Asian
2%
2%
5%
2%
3%
2%
Other Ethnic Groups
3%
5%
4%
5%
2%
1%
Not Stated
21%
13%
18%
17%
36%
24%
Source: Family Court Database and Case Management System, Ministry of Justice
13.4
Prosecution Outcomes
Tables 55 to 5780 show the number of prosecutions for the three family violence related
offences in the Lower Hutt District Court and the outcome of these prosecutions during the
80
The 2004 court data may differ slightly from the figures previously supplied. The difference occurred because the
figures were from different sources. The data for 2004 from the new Courts Management System (CMS) was not
available until late 2005. For this reason 2004 data from the Law Enforcement System (LES) were used to provide
the figures supplied previously.
193
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
period 1996 to 200581. Conviction numbers for each of the offences are examined in more
detail in the next section.
Male Assaults Female
The total number of prosecutions for male assaults female in the Lower Hutt District Court has
fluctuated over the period. Between 1996 and 2005, an average of 61 percent of all
prosecutions resulted in a conviction. Large numbers of prosecutions resulted in charges being
either dismissed or withdrawn, in 2005 these figures were 60 and 47 respectively.
Table 55: Outcome of Prosecutions for Male Assaults Female in the Lower Hutt
District Court
Outcome
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Convicted
Youth Court proved
94
0
53
0
78
0
52
0
68
0
105
0
88
0
99
0
100
0
117
0
Discharged without conviction
0
1
0
2
2
4
5
9
8
10
Dismissed
45
11
12
12
13
21
16
23
18
60
Discharged
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Withdrawn
19
23
13
19
22
33
49
42
42
47
Acquitted
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other not proved
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Other male assaults female
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
163
158
173
169
237
Total
158
89
103
85
105
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
Breach of Protection Order
Prosecutions for breach of protection orders, including failing to attend a programme,
increased sharply after the introduction of the Domestic Violence Act (2005) but dropped in
2002 and fluctuated since then. In 2005, 51 percent of all prosecutions for this offence resulted
in a conviction, 23 percent were dismissed, and 22 percent were withdrawn.
Table 56: Outcome of Prosecutions for Breach of Protection Orders Including Failing
to Attend a Programme in the Lower Hutt District Court
81
Outcome
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Convicted
11
27
44
64
63
84
61
63
60
56
Youth Court proved
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Discharged without conviction
0
1
0
3
0
1
0
0
3
3
Dismissed
9
3
18
7
12
8
6
13
11
24
Discharged
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
Withdrawn
5
9
9
25
28
53
20
37
16
25
Acquitted
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other not proved
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other breach protection order
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Figures for 2005 are provisional.
194
Appendix 7
__________________________________________________________________
Total
25
40
71
99
104
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
146
87
113
90
110
Assault on a Child
The number of prosecutions for assault on a child in the Lower Hutt District Court was
typically low, ranging from 14 to 26 prosecutions over the decade. In 2005, eight of the
prosecutions resulted in convictions.
195
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Table 57: Outcome of Prosecutions for Assault on a Child in the Lower Hutt District
Court
Outcome
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Convicted
Youth Court proved
12
0
8
0
9
0
10
0
5
0
9
0
9
0
9
0
7
0
8
0
Discharged without conviction
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
2
Dismissed
7
2
5
1
4
1
0
0
1
4
Discharged
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Withdrawn
7
5
5
3
4
10
5
5
6
4
Acquitted
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other not proved
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other assault on a child
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
20
14
15
14
19
Total
26
15
19
14
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
13.5
Convictions
Table 5882 shows the number of convictions for the three selected family violence related
offences in the Lower Hutt District Court83.
During the period 1995 to 2005, the number of convictions for male assaults female in the
Lower Hutt District Court varied greatly, ranging from 52 in 1999 to 117 in 2005. In 1996 the
Domestic Violence Act 1995 came into effect. The number of convictions relating to breaches
of protection orders increased steadily between 1996 and 2001 (from 11 to 84). Between 2002
and 2005 the number of convictions has been more steady, averaging at 60 convictions per
year. Convictions for assaults on a child were relatively steady, averaging at nine convictions
per year.
Table 58: Number of Convictions for Family Violence Related Offences in the Lower
Hutt District Court
Offence
Male assaults female
Breach protection order
Assault on a child
1996
94
11
12
1997 1998 1999 2000
53
78
52
68
27
44
64
63
8
9
10
5
2001 2002
105
88
84
61
9
9
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
82
83
Figures for 2005 are provisional.
The 2004 court data may differ slightly from the figures previously supplied.
196
2003 2004 2005
99
100 117
63
60
56
9
7
8
Appendix 7
__________________________________________________________________
13.6
Sentencing
Ministry of Justice data shows the percentage of convictions resulting in a custodial sentence,
and the average length (in months) of the custodial sentences from 1996 to 200584 in the Lower
Hutt District Court (see Tables 59 and 60)85. As seen in Table 57 above, the low number of
convictions for assault on a child means that the following data must be interpreted with
caution.
For cases of male assaults female the proportion of convictions leading to a prison sentence
dropped from 20 percent in 1996 to eight percent in 2005. The average custodial sentence
length imposed for this offence ranged from 3.3 months in 2005 to 7.0 months in 2004. The
percentage of convictions for breach of protection order resulting in a custodial sentence varied
over the decade from 0 percent in 1996 to 28 percent in 1998. The average sentence lengths
ranged from 2.2 months in 2005 to 5.0 months in 2000, 2002, and 2003.
Table 59: Percentage of Convictions Resulting in a Custodial Sentence for Family
Violence Related Offences in the Lower Hutt District Court
Offence
Male assaults female
Breach protection order
Assault on a child
1996
20%
0%
0%
1997 1998 1999 2000
12% 22% 21% 16%
7% 28% 18% 11%
33% 0%
0%
0%
2001 2002
12% 10%
11% 14%
0% 50%
2003 2004 2005
13% 10% 8%
6%
9% 17%
20% 0% 20%
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
Table 60: Average Custodial Sentence (months) for Family Violence Related Offences
in the Lower Hutt District Court
Offence
Male assaults female
Breach protection order
Assault on a child
1996
5.4
-
1997 1998 1999 2000
5.8
6.2
5.4
6.2
3.0
3.2
3.2
5.0
9.5
-
2001 2002
6.3
5.7
2.8
5.0
8.0
2003 2004 2005
6.9
7.0
3.3
5.0
3.2
2.2
6.0
3.0
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
13.7
Commitments to Domestic Violence Programmes
Table 61 shows the number of new commitments for respondents, adult protected persons,
and children to domestic violence programmes in the Upper Hutt District Court between 1999
and 200586. The number of new commitments for respondents fluctuated, ranging from 208 in
1999 to 94 in 2004. New commitments for adult protected persons peaked in 2002 with 96
new commitments. The number of commitments to children’s programmes has remained
steady, averaging at 23 per year. During this time, the number of applications for protection
orders decreased from 197 to 129.
84
85
86
ibid.
Figures for 2005 are provisional.
The data provided differs slightly from the data provided in the previous baseline report for the same period. This
is a consequence of a lag in data entry and is unavoidable.
197
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Table 61: Number of New Commitments for Domestic Violence Programmes for
Respondents, Adult Protected Persons and Children and Applications for
Protection Orders in the Lower Hutt District Court
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Respondents
208
145
155
155
104
94
120
Adult Protected Persons
39
48
64
96
53
57
29
Children
28
19
20
25
18
25
24
Applications for Protection Orders
197
152
168
165
151
137
129
Source: Family Court Database, manual returns and Case Management System, Ministry of Justice
13.8
Referrals to Child, Youth and Family
Table 62 shows data from the Department of Child, Youth and Family relating to the total
number of notifications to CYF 87 in the Hutt Valley88 from all sources89 and specifically from
the Police during the period 2000 to 2005.
Notifications from all sources increased 223 percent over the period, increasing from 908 in
2000 to 2,936 in 2005. Notifications from the Police showed a much larger increase from 208
in 2000 to 1,857 in 2005.
Table 62: Total Number of Notifications to CYF from All Sources and Police 2000 –
2005 – Hutt Valley
Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
All Sources
908
953
1,073
1,627
2,243
2,936
Police
208
236
245
674
1,140
1,857
Source: Child, Youth and Family
Table 63 shows that in the Hutt Valley the percentage of Police notifications requiring further
action is 22 percent higher than the percentage of all notifications that require further action.
Table 63: Percentages of Notifications from All Sources and Police Only, Requiring
Further Action – Hutt Valley
Hutt Valley
All Sources
Police
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
88%
89%
87%
89%
76%
89%
71%
89%
77%
89%
67%
89%
Source: Child, Youth and Family
87
88
89
Data provided for Masterton and the Hutt Valley in the previous baseline report was incorrect. Amended data has
now been provided.
Data for the Hutt Valley is based on Lower Hutt SDL and Upper Hutt SDL.
Police notifications to CYF are made in three categories – Police, Police with Safety Assessment, and Police Family
Violence. For the purpose of this report data has been combined from all these categories to account for regional
variation and recording practices of family violence notifications. The vast majority of Police notifications to CYF
are in relation to family violence.
198
Appendix 7
__________________________________________________________________
Appendix 1
1
Police Recorded Family Violence Offences
Table 64: Number of Police Recorded Family Violence Offences in New Zealand –
National
No. of family
violence offences
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
18,675
21,205
23,761
24,212
26,006
26,164
29,756
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
Table 65: Police Recorded Family Violence Offence Rate per 10,000 Population –
National
Police Area
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
49
55
61
61
65
64
73
No. of family violence
offences per 10,000 pop.
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
Table 66: Police Recorded Family Violence Offence Rate per 10,000 Population – FST
Sites
Police Area
Auckland City Central
Wairarapa
Lower Hutt
1999
66
72
26
2000
82
58
58
2001
110
75
73
2002
70
103
67
2003
70
99
86
2004
65
101
86
2005
74
115
97
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
Table 67: National Number of POL 400s Completed by Police
Total No. of POL 400s
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
98
108
115
121
126
118
138
Table 68: Number of POL 400s Completed by Police in the FST Sites
Police Area
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Auckland City Central
134
150
179
162
128
134
141
Wairarapa
117
112
109
129
133
130
147
Lower Hutt
95
116
131
130
150
136
154
2
Applications for Protection Orders
Table 69: Applications for Protection Orders – National Summary
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
199
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Total Applications
6520
6015
5820
5568
5092
4662
4545
On Notice
661
638
720
766
698
611
511
Without Notice
5859
5377
5100
4802
4394
4051
4034
Source: Family Court Database and Case Management System, Ministry of Justice
200
Appendix 7
__________________________________________________________________
Table 70: Number of Applications for Protection Orders – FST Sites
District Court
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Auckland DC
516
474
423
438
432
403
349
Masterton DC
83
93
73
68
76
62
35
Lower Hutt DC
197
152
168
165
151
137
129
Source: Family Court Database and Case Management System, Ministry of Justice
Table 71: On Notice Applications for Protection Orders – FST Sites
District Court
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Auckland DC
Masterton DC
32
2
37
8
43
13
54
8
65
7
59
3
34
0
Lower Hutt DC
18
29
34
27
33
25
23
Source: Family Court Database and Case Management System, Ministry of Justice
Table 72: Without Notice Applications for Protection Orders – FST Sites
District Court
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Auckland DC
484
437
380
384
367
344
315
Masterton DC
81
85
60
60
69
59
35
Lower Hutt DC
179
123
134
138
118
112
106
Source: Family Court Database and Case Management System, Ministry of Justice
3
Convictions
Table 73: National Number of Convictions for Family Violence Related Offences
Offence Type
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Male assaults female
Breach protection order
Assault on a child
3752
496
326
3335
1223
298
3145
1881
294
3043
2117
304
2916
2257
280
2916
2360
294
2625
2027
291
2870
2254
253
3116
2265
312
3574
2385
287
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
Table 74: Number of Convictions for Male Assaults Female, by FST Site
District Court
Auckland DC
Masterton DC
Lower Hutt DC
1996
341
56
94
1997
396
47
53
1998
318
54
78
1999
344
42
52
2000
282
43
68
2001
279
33
105
2002
222
38
88
2003
207
32
99
2004
207
36
100
2005
221
55
117
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
Table 75: Number of Convictions for Breach of Protection Order, by FST Site
District Court
Auckland DC
1996
46
1997
108
1998
125
1999
175
2000
176
2001
166
2002
118
2003
115
2004
183
2005
121
201
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Masterton DC
Lower Hutt DC
4
11
14
27
22
44
35
64
17
63
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
202
18
84
24
61
19
63
27
60
26
56
Appendix 7
__________________________________________________________________
Table 76: Number of Convictions for Assault on a Child, by FST Site
District Court
Auckland DC
Masterton DC
Lower Hutt DC
1996
19
6
12
1997
26
3
8
1998
21
9
9
1999
34
5
10
2000
15
3
5
2001
31
4
9
2002
16
8
9
2003
20
4
9
2004
17
2
7
2005
24
2
8
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
4
Sentencing
Table 77: Percentage of Convictions Resulting in a Custodial Sentence for Family
Violence Related Offences, 1996 to 2005 - National Totals
Offence type
Male assaults female
Breach protection order
Assault on a child
1996
12%
13%
15%
1997
13%
11%
12%
1998
14%
13%
13%
1999
13%
11%
7%
2000 2001
14% 15%
11% 14%
16% 14%
2002 2003 2004 2005
12% 12% 16% 15%
12% 13% 15% 17%
18% 9% 19% 11%
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
Table 78: Percentage of Convictions for Male Assaults Female Resulting in a
Custodial Sentence in the FST Sites
District Court
Auckland DC
Masterton DC
Lower Hutt DC
1996
3%
10%
20%
1997
8%
14%
12%
1998
6%
7%
22%
1999
6%
0%
21%
2000
8%
3%
16%
2001
10%
11%
12%
2002
6%
7%
10%
2003
12%
9%
13%
2004
16%
0%
10%
2005
10%
2%
8%
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
Table 79: Percentage of Convictions for Breach of Protection Order Resulting in a
Custodial Sentence in the FST Sites
District Court
Auckland DC
Masterton DC
Lower Hutt DC
1996
14%
0%
0%
1997
4%
13%
7%
1998
10%
8%
28%
1999
6%
4%
18%
2000
5%
0%
11%
2001
11%
0%
11%
2002
19%
0%
14%
2003
24%
0%
6%
2004
12%
7%
9%
2005
25%
13%
17%
Source: Research , Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
Table 80: Percentage of Convictions for Assault on a Child Resulting in a Custodial
Sentence in the FST Sites
District Court
Auckland DC
Masterton DC
Lower Hutt DC
1996
11%
33%
0%
1997
6%
0%
33%
1998
0%
17%
0%
1999
5%
0%
0%
2000
25%
0%
0%
2001
4%
0%
0%
2002
8%
50%
50%
2003
0%
25%
20%
2004
0%
0%
0%
2005
18%
0%
20%
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
203
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
5
Custodial Length
Table 81: Average Custodial Sentence Length (months) for Family Violence Related
Offences, 1996 to 2005 - National Totals
Offence type
Male assaults female
Breach protection order
Assault on a child
1996
6.8
2.0
6.9
1997
6.6
3.4
5.5
1998
6.6
2.9
6.9
1999
6.7
3.3
8.5
2000 2001
7.3
6.7
3.3
3.4
7.6
6.0
2002 2003 2004 2005
7.3
7.1
6.8
6.3
3.9
4.0
3.9
3.8
8.4
9.5
8.3
6.4
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
Table 82: Average Custodial Sentence Length (months) for Male Assaults Female in
the FST Sites
District Court
Auckland DC
Masterton DC
Lower Hutt DC
1996
6.4
7.0
5.4
1997
6.0
4.6
5.8
1998
6.9
5.0
6.2
1999
6.8
5.4
2000
8.1
9.0
6.2
2001
7.9
8.7
6.3
2002
8.6
6.0
5.7
2003
7.9
6.5
6.9
2004
7.6
7.0
2005
5.3
4.0
3.3
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
Table 83: Average Custodial Sentence Length (months) for Breach of Protection Order
in the FST Sites
District Court
Auckland DC
Masterton DC
Lower Hutt DC
1996
3.3
-
1997
9.0
6.0
3.0
1998
3.6
4.0
3.2
1999
4.8
2.0
3.2
2000
3.2
5.0
2001
2.4
2.8
2002
4.4
5.0
2003
5.0
5.0
2004
3.1
10.0
3.2
2005
2.8
5.0
2.2
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
Table 84: Average Custodial Sentence Length (months) for Assault on a Child in the
FST Sites
District Court
Auckland DC
Masterton DC
Lower Hutt DC
1996
6.0
12.0
-
1997
8.0
9.5
1998
6.0
-
1999
3.0
-
2000
6.0
-
2001
11.0
-
2002
4.0
9.0
8.0
2003
12.0
6.0
2004
-
2005
15.0
3.0
Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.
6
Commitments to Domestic Violence Programmes
Table 85: Number of New Commitments for Domestic Violence Programmes National
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Respondents
4066
3637
3603
3528
3281
3390
3348
Adult Protected Persons
1417
1333
1322
1387
1236
1212
1163
Children
729
732
775
891
909
1001
893
Total
6212
5702
5700
5806
5426
5603
5404
204
Appendix 7
__________________________________________________________________
Applications for Protection Orders
6520
6015
5820
5568
5092
4662
4545
Source: Family Court Database and Case Management System, Ministry of Justice
205
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Table 86: Number of New Commitments for Respondents to Domestic Violence
Programmes – FST Sites
District Court
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Auckland DC
391
242
230
309
165
227
207
Masterton DC
0
44
50
38
58
50
44
208
145
155
155
104
94
120
Lower Hutt DC
Source: Family Court Database and Case Management System, Ministry of Justice
Table 87: Number of New Commitments for Adult Protected Persons to Domestic
Violence Programmes – FST Sites
District Court
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Auckland DC
140
111
86
138
51
62
48
Masterton DC
0
6
14
15
25
28
13
Lower Hutt DC
39
48
64
96
53
57
29
Source: Family Court Database and Case Management System, Ministry of Justice
Table 88: Number of New Commitments for Children to Domestic Violence
Programmes – FST Sites
District Court
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Auckland DC
75
69
64
97
51
48
57
Masterton DC
0
1
3
3
5
7
11
Lower Hutt DC
28
19
20
25
18
25
24
Source: Family Court Database and Case Management System, Ministry of Justice
7
Referrals to Child, Youth and Family
Table 89: Total Number of Notifications to CYF 2000 – 2005 - National Totals
Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
All Sources
30,700
28,014
31,782
39,011
49,588
58,648
Police (non- family violence)
5,640
4,373
5,538
6,572
7,990
7,795
266
916
1,468
2,787
6,910
13,476
Police Family Violence
Source: Child, Youth and Family
Table 90: Number of Notifications to CYF from All Sources – FST Sites
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
1,549
1,542
2,060
2,479
3,028
3,565
Masterton
426
440
423
533
869
904
Hutt Valley
908
953
1,073
1,627
2,243
2,936
Auckland City
Source: Child, Youth and Family
206
Appendix 7
__________________________________________________________________
Table 91: Number of Notifications to CYF from the Police – FST Sites
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Auckland City
321
247
601
908
1,240
1,470
Masterton
74
68
73
149
349
286
Hutt Valley
208
236
245
674
1,140
1,857
Source: Child, Youth and Family
207
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
208
Appendix 8: Family Safety Team Pilot Project –
Twelve Month Update Report
August 2006
FAMILY SAFETY TEAM PILOT PROJECT - TWELVE MONTH
UPDATE REPORT
AUGUST 2006
Report Prepared By
Donna Scott
National Family Safety Team Coordinator
Operations Group
Office of Commissioner
August 2006
209
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
CONTENTS
I. BACKGROUND
II. FAMILY SAFETY TEAM STRUCTURE
205
III. LEAD AGENCY ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITES
206
IV. TEAM FUNCTIONS
206
V. EVALUATION CRITERIA
VI. OPERATION
VII. IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES
o
o
o
o
o
o
Impact of Location of Teams
Existing Networks
Information Sharing
Communication With Communities
Team Dynamics
Work of The Teams
VIII. ONGOING ISSUES
o
o
o
o
o
o
IX.
210
205
Information Sharing Protocols
Govt/Non-Govt Tension
Service Capacity
Competitive Funding Environment
Best Practice
Communication Issues
207
207
207
208
208
208
209
209
210
210
210
210
211
211
211
211
PLANS FOR THE NEXT TWELVE MONTHS
212
APPENDIX 1
213
Appendix 8
__________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND
1. The Family Safety Team pilot was announced as part of Budget 2004 and provides for
$15.2 million of new funding for the Ministry of Justice, Police and Child, Youth and
Family over three financial years. It is a joint initiative led by Ministry of Justice, Police
and Child, Youth and Family, in collaboration with representatives from relevant nongovernment agencies. The project is overseen by a National Steering Committee (NSC)
made up of representatives from these agencies and representatives from the
community sector.
2. The family safety team initiative addresses concerns raised by family violence service
providers and practitioners about the fragmented and narrow nature of the current
response to family violence across government and non-government sectors. These
concerns have also been highlighted in the reports into the death of James Whakaruru
and the Commissioner for Children’s report into the deaths of Saliel Aplin and Olympia
Jetson and Coral-Ellen Burrows.
3. Family safety teams are designed to enhance the structures that are already in place to
respond to family violence. Family safety teams will recognise that family violence
occurs in a context and that the full context needs to be addressed to deal with such
families effectively.
FAMILY SAFETY TEAM STRUCTURE
4. The family safety team pilot provides for the establishment of 4 multi-disciplinary teams
in 6 national locations, each consisting of a Police supervisor, 3 Police investigators, 3
adult advocates and 3 child advocates. The victim and child advocate positions are
recruited and employed by the non-government sector. Police has entered into
contracts with various family violence service providers to recruit, employ and support
these positions.
5. The teams currently operational are located in Auckland, Hamilton, Hutt Valley,
Wairarapa and Christchurch. A ten member team will become operational in CountiesManukau in the next financial year. Auckland and Hamilton share a split team as do
Hutt Valley and Wairarapa. Christchurch and Counties-Manukau have full ten member
teams. CYF have funded a CYF worker to be attached to the Counties team as well as
a CYF worker with the Hamilton team. The Police in Hamilton have funded an extra
Police supervisor's position, given that the Auckland/Hamilton split would be too
difficult to oversee by one person.
211
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
1
Supervisor
3
Police
Investigators
3
Adult Victim
Advocates
3
Child
Advocates
1 CYF staff in 2 FSTs
LEAD AGENCY ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
6. Police have overall responsibility for project managing the family safety team initiative
and for deploying all staff (apart from two CYF funded child advocate positions). MOJ
manage advice to the Minister of Justice (who is the lead Minister for the initiative).
Advice to the Minister of Justice is copied to the Ministers of Police and Child Youth
and Family and from 1 July, the Minister of Social Development. The Ministry of
Justice is also funded to conduct an independent evaluation of the initiative, which has
been contracted to a team from the University of Auckland.
7. CYF are responsible for deploying two staff members in two of the evaluated sites and
for managing training for family safety teams. MOJ, CYF and Police are part of the
NSC, along with representatives from the community sector. The NSC oversees the
implementation of the pilot and ensures that the ongoing work of the teams is
monitored and supported by a representative body, as well as informed by the findings
of the Evaluation Team. The NSC also has oversight of the District Management
teams which manage operational issues in each site.
TEAM FUNCTIONS
8. Depending on the interagency networks that may or may not already exist in each
community, family safety teams will undertake the following functions, as decided by
the National Steering Committee:
212
•
information gathering and assessment (i.e. of existing case management networks,
referral processes and service capability)
•
monitoring and evaluating practice and systems (i.e. tracking cases to monitor and
evaluate how practices, systems and interventions are operating, either separately
or together, and to determine how they can be better integrated to respond to
families experiencing violence)
Appendix 8
__________________________________________________________________
•
developing new practice and systems change (i.e. where agencies may not be
responding appropriately, recommending and/or implementing systems change);
•
proactive intervention (i.e. some management and monitoring of a proportion of
family violence cases, particularly focussing on highest risk and repeat cases of
family violence);
•
advocacy (i.e. advocating for 24/7 wrap around services for victims across all
sectors, ensuring the voices of victims of violence are integral to all systems and
services, and identifying and, where possible, facilitating solutions to gaps in
services and support).
EVALUATION CRITERIA
9. The expected outcomes that the initiative will be evaluated against are:
•
Providing formal systems and structures to support more effective interagency
co-ordination, communication and collaboration to respond to family violence;
•
Providing comprehensive and integrated interventions (whether services or
support) for families experiencing violence;
•
Developing national best practice and promoting a consistent application of such
practice for agencies working with families experiencing family violence.
Only the Auckland portion of the Auckland/Hamilton split team and the Hutt Valley/
Wairarapa teams are being formally evaluated.
OPERATION
10. The project is operating according to its projected time lines with 3 Family Safety teams
currently operational in 5 national sites.
11. The Christchurch team underwent their national induction training at the Royal New
Zealand Police College during the week of the 10th to the 14th of October 2005.
12. One other ten member team is currently being implemented in Counties Manukau.
IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES
13. The main issues to note have been recorded under the following headings:
•
•
•
•
•
Impact of Location
Existing Networks
Information Sharing
Communication with communities
Team dynamics
213
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
IMPACT OF LOCATION OF TEAMS
14. The most significant impact relating to team location affects the Auckland and Hutt
Valley teams, both of which are 'split teams' in that they consist of only 6 members.
15. The location of these teams in geographically large and high volume urban areas has
meant that they have needed to spend considerably more time engaging with the Family
Violence service providers, establishing what services are available and to whom, and
assessing the degree of community collaboration over a large area.
16. The large areas and the reduced number of team members has also meant that these
teams have had to limit the scope of their operational focus and have been less able to
accomodate the needs and expectations of the wider communities within which they are
situated.
EXISTING NETWORKS
17. The Family Safety Teams were designed to work alongside and complement existing
family violence response networks, not to replace them.
18. It also needs to be noted that there exist different perceptions around "inter-agency
networks" and "inter-agency case management groups". The purpose of family safety
teams was to work alongside inter-agency case management groups which actively share
information, assess risk and need and provide referrals for families dealing with family
violence.
19. In the cases of Auckland, Lower Hutt and Christchurch, it has been identified that there
were no existing collaborative case management networks operating and these teams
have spent a considerable amount of time establishing this model in these sites. This is
still work in progress as it takes time and commitment to build the relationships
required to implement this model and make it work effectively and consistently. An
example of this can be seen in Hamilton where the FST has been able to effectively
work alongside the case ma nagement group within Hamilton Abuse Intervention
Project (HAIP). It needs to be recognised that the establishment of this group to this
point took over 15 years, further evidence that time, as a critical success factor, needs to
be factored into any such project requiring diverse groups to work together.
INFORMATION SHARING AND CASE MANAGEMENT
20. It should be further noted that case management, in the FST context, relates to
information sharing of family violence cases between all the key response agencies,
namely Police, Child, Youth and Family, victim advocacy agencies and any other key
agencies directly involved in safety for victims or accountability for offenders.
214
Appendix 8
__________________________________________________________________
21. In almost every site it is recognised that a full time Police Family Violence Coordinator,
Probation, Women's Refuge, and any other local victim advocacy agencies are key
participants in the information sharing process to ensure that a complete risk and needs
assessment of each case is achieved.
22. In order to implement adequate case management as described above it is essential that
there be clearly defined information sharing protocols and guidelines for all agencies
involved in the case management process. This piece of work is still in progress.
COMMUNICATION WITH COMMUNITIES
23. All communities where FSTs were to be located were consulted and advised of the role
and functions of the teams and how they were intended to work.
24. Nevertheless, there has been an element of confusion and some disaffection once the
teams became operational. This ha s predominantly been in areas where there were no
active case management groups and where communities expressed the expectation that
the teams would fulfil this function. The initial community expectation that the teams
would have a predominantly "hands on" role has been understandable but has
conflicted with the established framework for their role as well as the realities faced by
those "split" teams in high volume sites where there have been no collaborative case
management networks to work alongside. The resulting disaffection has resulted in the
teams facing a considerable amount of negativity and lack of support within their
communities.
25. In the first instance, the teams have been assessing, monitoring and identifying gaps in
the systems and practices of their own agencies. As can be expected, this has met with
some resistance and this issue continues to be carefully managed.
TEAM DYNAMICS
26. As can be expected, there has been some staff turnover and some recruitment
problems, particularly affecting the Auckland team.
27. Bringing together individual practitioners from such different organisational cultures as
Police, Child Youth and Family, Women's Refuge and other victim advocacy agencies
has had particular challenges in each site but has also had very positive outcomes and
will continue to be built upon.
28. It has also been important to focus the team members, who come from 'hands on' case
work backgrounds, on analysis of systems and practice which is crucial to fulfilling their
role. This understanding has taken some time and continues to be work in progress.
29. Another challenge relates to communicating the concept that, while the FSTs are Police
led, they are in fact "multi-disciplinary teams" not Police teams, and they are required to
apply their different perspectives to the range of systems, practices and interventions
215
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
they are monitoring and analysing. This has provided unique insights into the
organisational cultures from which the team members come and it will be important for
the team members to retain their separate perspectives.
WORK OF THE TEAMS
30. It was understood at the outset of this project that there were limited formal coordination activities involving statutory agencies in place to manage family violence,
however, there were informal co-ordination networks in some regions.
31. There is also widespread agreement among family violence experts that lasting
improvements in family violence prevention are unlikely to be achieved without formal
systems to support more effective inter-agency co-ordination and collaboration.
32. Over the past twelve months the teams have been engaged in establishing themselves
within their communities, working alongside and, in some cases establishing, the
necessary links for collaborative information sharing and case management of family
violence cases. In all sites, the teams have focussed initially on the gathering of family
violence information from the Police attendance at domestic incidents and as a
consequence have become involved in systems analysis and training in the areas of
information collection, recording and collation from Police Family Violence Reports.
(Pol 400s)
33. Advocate team members are working alongside Police in assessing and monitoring
referral processes and interventions and evaluating how these meet the immediate and
longer term physical, emotional and social needs of family violence victims in relation to
some of the most serious cases arising in each site. This case monitoring work will
provide valuable insights into the long term needs of victims and the availability and
capability of local service providers.
(A detailed list of team activities can be found in Appendix I - attached to this report)
ONGOING ISSUES
34. Information Sharing Protocols - there are draft guidelines in place which guide the
FSTs in what FV related information they can share within the FST context. There
needs to be a comprehensive, practice-based set of protocols and guidelines that guides
the whole sector, along the lines of the Home Office Development and Practice Report
which was provided to MSD in January.
35. Govt/ Non-Govt tension - there exists a level of frustration among the NGO groups
at the level of funding extended by Government to high level projects which don't
necessarily address the practice and service issues with which NGO service providers
are concerned. The FST project, while immersed in this environment, is in the unique
position of being able to monitor and to some degree influence this by means of the
national role played by the National Steering Committee in providing advice to
216
Appendix 8
__________________________________________________________________
Ministers as well as their own departments and organisations. The FST project is a
unique opportunity to demonstrate genuine collaboration and to establish formal
processes to define and maintain it.
36. Service capacity - the FST project, as expected, has raised the awareness of FV in their
communities resulting in increased reporting of FV in every area and consequent
increased demand for services. There needs to be a means by which this information is
accurately captured, recorded and analysed in each site so that measurable data can be
translated into meaningful action and policy. It is also essential that there be an
established process by which family violence cases are monitored .There does not
appear to be any agency taking responsibility for this, particularly where there is a large
volume of low to medium risk cases that have the potential to escalate to high risk.
While the FST may be able to identify systemic solutions to some individual cases, the
issue of agency responsibility for monitoring outcomes of referrals still needs to be
addressed.
37. Competitive Funding Environment - following on from the points raised above, the
teams have encountered a degree of frustration resulting from the competitive funding
environment within which many non-government service agencies are working. In
attempting to identify service gaps, the teams have reported that duplication of services,
lack of integration and coordination of service provision and what is commonly called
"patch protection" are dynamics which impact negatively on families requiring support
and intervention. It has been reported that many service agencies are under-resourced
for the services they provide and that attempts to address this take them away from
crucial service provision in their communities. Consequently, many services are
provided in an ad hoc manner in a highly pressured environment. Further, many
services are provided by volunteer staff and the level of "burnout" is high in such
circumstances. Nevertheless, the teams have encountered, and continue to foster, a
high degree of commitment to collaboration in most areas. The barriers to
collaboration have been reported in much recent research and are evident in all FST
sites.
38. Best Practice - One of the outcomes expected from Family Safety Teams is a clearer
understanding of "what works" in relation to family violence intervention and, where it
is not working, to determine whether these gaps can be "filled" by local interventions or
whether they have a national relevance. The challenge is to create an environment
within which the teams can adequately monitor interventions, systems and practices,
identify the practice lessons and translate these into systemic solutions.
39. Communication Issues - due to the speed with which the project was implemented,
and influenced by the high turnover of National Steering Committee representatives
during the formative stages of the project, there has been some conflict of ideas and
confusion around the role and functions of the teams.
Some communities have expected that the teams will just do hands on case work while
others have accepted that their role will be more involved in monitoring and evaluating
systems, practices and interventions. These issues have been addressed individually and
collectively within organisations and by way of a contract review to establish greater
clarity around job descriptions and responsibilities, but there still exists a degree of
tension and lack of clarity around this issue. Within this tension lies the risk that the
217
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
partnering agencies may exert their own organisational expectations on team members
in a manner which conflicts with the project goals and impacts negatively on the team.
This is another issue which requires careful monitoring and management.
PLANS FOR THE NEXT TWELVE MONTHS
40. The National Steering Committee meet monthly to review the work of the teams,
address implementation issues and to identify ways in which the localised issues,
problems and systemic gaps can be managed and resolved from a national perspective
for the purpose of guiding national "best practice".
41. In order to achieve this, the teams need support and direction in the following areas:
• Collecting and collating accurate and credible local data around the reported
service provision gaps identified earlier in this report
• Information gathering and research from existing collaborative case
management networks in order to identify and create formal protocols and
processes to successfully establish this model in Auckland city, Lower Hutt,
Christchurch and Counties-Manukau.
• Communication channels between and within the various Government and non
Government initiatives operating in their sites and nationally.
• Management of team dynamics
• Linkage of FST work with Maori and Pacific family violence response networks
• Linkage of FST work with national and local youth strategies and interventions
• The interface between adult victim advocacy, child victim advocacy and the
criminal justice system
• Ongoing training in the dynamics of family violence, learning from local and
international research, and systems analysis
218
Appendix 8
__________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX I
AUCKLAND
The Auckland team are currently involved in the following key activities:
• Analysis of core services responding to family violence in East and West
Auckland
• Establishing a "case management" model to share information, monitor and
refer family violence cases between the key service agencies
• Evaluation of local schools' policies and responses to FV including reporting,
programmes and identifying gaps and deficiencies
• Identifying gaps in core services available to victims in the Auckland area
• Developing training programmes for Police and other key stakeholders targeted
at offender accountability and increasing safety and support for victims and
children.
• Working with Auckland city Police on review of repeat victimisation response
HAMILTON
• Conducting a review of strangulation reports by collating Police reports over the
last 12 months
• Establishing a feedback reporting format between the FST and CYF to identify
repeat FV incidents
• Formalising MOUs between community agencies and Government agencies
regarding joint protocols to deal with emergency services and referral responses
from the case management meetings
• Developing liaison between current operating youth and cultural programmes
• Developing collaborative presentations on the FST process
• Establishing links and formal MOUs with local ethnic groups and programme
providers
• Contributing to the Hamilton Youth and Family Services project, looking at
how families' needs can be met in a more holistic way
• Establishing monitoring processes for families referred through the case
management process
• Contributing to establishing and coordinating a local service for women to
obtain protection orders
• Working with Hamilton courts to establish a court advocate position to support
victims and monitor court decisions and processes.
LOWER HUTT
• Evaluating crisis intervention services in the Hutt Valley
• Identifying gaps in information flow to and between agencies working with FV
victims
• Establishing a case management model in Lower Hutt involving the key
response agencies and establishing formal MOUs to achieve this
• Contributing to the Hutt Valley Domestic Violence Awareness Campaign
219
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
• Identifying, by way of a stock take, the social service agencies currently
providing FV services in Hutt Valley
• Establishing high risk and repeat offender profiles for Lower Hutt Police
• Researching impact and access issues relating to protection orders across the
Hutt Valley and Wairarapa areas
• Establishing protocols with youth offending agencies and programme providers
in relation to high risk and repeat families
WAIRARAPA
• Establishing formal referral processes between case management group and FST
• Contributing to Police best practice in FV recording and reporting
• Establishing formal MOU with the Wairarapa case management group and
contributing to joint protocols
• Establishing formal links with PIC Project Implementation Committee and
Police Iwi Liaison
• Contributing to the Critical Risk Assessment and Intervention Team
• Building links and relationships with local ethnic service and programme
providers
• Monitoring court processes
• Liaison with courts to establish gaps in services and process issues for FV
victims
• Developing links with all social services agencies to whom families are referred
by the case management group
• Active case work on a number of high risk and repeat FV cases
• Developing protocols and policies with local schools
CHRISTCHURCH
• Assessing current practice and service capacity of Women's Refuge in
responding to Pol 400s
• Assessing the current training needs of CYF staff relating to FV and FST work
• Identifying gaps in service provision to children and youth
• Assessing the consistency and capacity issues relating to Police response to
Section 66 requests
• Contributing to the cultural component of current risk assessment tools
• Identifying best practice models of working within the FST environment
• Establishing a case management model to share information, refer and monitor
FV cases, inv olving all the key FV response agencies
• Networking and relationship building with all service and programme providers
• Service mapping of FV services and programmes currently operating in the
Christchurch area
• Identifying and training local Police in best practice re responding to FV cases
• Case work with a number of high risk cases to gather information and identify
systemic gaps and practice issues
220
Appendix 9:
Report from the Family Safety
Team National Steering
Committee to the Evaluation
Advisory Group
221
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
222
Appendix 9
__________________________________________________________________
223
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
224
Appendix 9
__________________________________________________________________
225
Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
226
Appendix 9
__________________________________________________________________
227