family safety teams pilot evaluation: stage one baseline study … · 2016-05-02 · 5.2.7 logic...

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

2

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.

3

Contents Tables 5 Figures 5 Executive Summary 7 1 Introduction 23 2 Context 25

2.1 Background literature 25 2.2 Purpose and objectives of pilot Family Safety Teams 32 2.3 Generic logic model 33

3 Methods 35 3.1 Evaluation Objectives 35 3.2 Evaluation Design 35 3.3 Sample: baseline study 36 3.4 Data Collection 36 3.5 Formative Process 37 3.6 Ethics 38 3.7 Data analysis 38

4 Results: Baseline findings 41 4.1 Police recorded family violence offences 42

4.1.1 National 42 4.1.2 FST sites 42

4.2 POL 400s 43 4.2.1 National 43 4.2.2 FST sites 44

4.3 Applications for Protection Orders – Demographic Profile of Applicants and Respondents 45

4.3.1 National 45 4.3.2 FST Sites 46

4.4 Convictions 47 4.4.1 National 47 4.4.2 FST Sites 48

4.5 Commitments to Domestic Violence Programmes 50 4.5.1 National 50 4.5.2 FST sites 51

4.6 Referrals to agencies 53 4.6.1 Department of Child, Youth and Family Services 53 4.6.2 National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges 55

4.7 Summary of data 56 4.8 Baseline interviews 56

4.8.1 Auckland Stakeholders 57 4.8.2 Wairarapa Stakeholders 69 4.8.3 Hutt Stakeholders 76 4.8.4 Overall Summary of Findings 83

5 Results: Formative phase 85 5.1 Auckland FST 85

5.1.1 Team profile 85

4

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

5

Tables Table 2.1: Factors that can assist successful collaboration 26 Table 2.2: General intervention logic for Family Safety Teams 34 Table 3.1: Evaluation objectives for baseline study 35 Table 3.2: Outline of baseline study 35 Table 3.3: Number of stakeholders interviewed in Auckland 36 Table 3.4: Number of stakeholders interviewed in Wairarapa 36 Table 3.5: Number of stakeholders interviewed in Hutt Valley 37 Table 3.6: Number of victim and perpetrator interviews according to site 37 Table 3.7: Evaluation objectives and data sources: Formative evaluation study 37 Table 3.8: Summary of contact with FSTs during the formative phase 38 Table 4.1: Details Relating to Applications for Protection Orders 1999 to 2005 46 Table 4.2: Outcome of Prosecutions for Assault on a Child – National Totals 48 Table 4.3: Preventing Violence in the Home (Auckland): referrals and links 59 Table 4.4: Preventing Violence in the Home (Auckland): Education Programmes and

Related Activities 60 Table 4.5: Wairarapa Women’s Refuge: Referrals and links 69 Table 5.1: Auckland FST Logic Model for Objective 1: Formal Systems and Structures 91 Table 5.2: Auckland FST Logic Model for Objective 2: Integrated Interventions 92 Table 5.3: Auckland FST Logic Model for Objective 3: National Best Practice 93 Table 5.4: Wairarapa FST Logic Model for Objective 1: Formal Systems and Structures 97 Table 5.5: Wairarapa FST Logic Model for Objective 2: Integrated Interventions 98 Table 5.6: Wairarapa FST Logic Model for Objective 3: National Best Practice 99 Table 5.7: Hutt FST Logic Model for Objective 1: Formal Systems and Structures 103 Table 5.8: Hutt FST Logic Model for Objective 2: Integrated Interventions 104 Table 5.9: Hutt FST Logic Model for Objective 3: National Best Practice 105 Table 6.1: Summary of identified issues 107

Figures Figure 4.1: Police Recorded Family Violence Offence Rates per 10,000 Population

1999–2005 42 Figure 4.2: Police Recorded Family Violence Offence Rates per 10,000 Population

in FST Sites 1999–2005 43 Figure 4.3: Number of POL 400s Completed by Police per 10,000 Population

1999–2005 – National 44 Figure 4.4: Number of POL 400s Completed by the Police per 10,000 Population

in the FST Sites 1999–2005 44 Figure 4.5: Applications for Protection Orders – National Summary 1999–2005 45 Figure 4.6: Total Number of Applications for Protection Orders – FST Sites

1999–2005 47 Figure 4.7: Number of Convictions for Family Violence Related Offences

1999–2005 - National 48 Figure 4.8: Number of convictions for male assaults female, by FST Site 1999–2005 49 Figure 4.9: Number of Convictions for Breach of Protection Order, by FST Site

1999–2005 49 Figure 4.10: Number of Convictions for Assault on a Child, by FST Site 1999–2005 50

6

Figure 4.11: Number of New Commitments to Domestic Violence Programmes and the Total Number of Applications for Protection Orders 1999–2005 51

Figure 4.12: Number of New Commitments for Domestic Violence Programmes for Respondents – FST Sites 52

Figure 4.13: Number of New Commitments for Domestic Violence Programmes for Adult-Protected Persons – FST Sites 52

Figure 4.14: Number of New Commitments for Domestic Violence Programmes for Children – FST Sites 53

Figure 4.15: National Notifications to Child, Youth and Family Services – 2000–2005 54 Figure 4.16: Notifications to Child, Youth and Family Services from All Sources –

FST Sites 1999–2005 54 Figure 4.17: Notifications to Child, Youth and Family Services from the Police –

FST Sites 1999–2005 55 Figure 4.18: Process model for family violence crisis intervention (Police & PVH):

Operations at baseline phase 58

7

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.

Family Safety Teams Pilot Evaluation: Stage One Baseline Study and Formative Evaluation __________________________________________________________________

8

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.

Executive summary __________________________________________________________________

9

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.


10

• 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.

• 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.


11

• 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.


12

• 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.


13

• 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 has 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.

3 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.

4 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.


14

• 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 at-risk 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


15

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


16

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


17

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.


18

• 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


19

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


20

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.


21

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.


22

23

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).


24

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.

25

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.


26

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

Context __________________________________________________________________

27

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.


28

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.

Context __________________________________________________________________

29

‘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


30

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 ‘local 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

Context __________________________________________________________________

31

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.


32

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.

Context __________________________________________________________________

33

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 long-term 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.


34

Table 2.2: General intervention logic for Family Safety Teams Component Description Evaluation Focus

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.

How do the setting up of the teams and development of operations address the primary goals of FSTs?

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.

What progress has been made towards the objectives of the FSTs over the first 10 months of operation?

Resources $15.2 million dollars for 49 new positions over three financial years funded by government.

Seven District Family Violence Coordinator positions:

• 1 National Family Violence Coordinator • Four family safety teams (10 staff each) • 1 National Coordinator (Police).

How were resources allocated over initial setting up period?

Description of the composition of the teams.

Activities Information gathering and assessment.

Monitoring and evaluating practice and systems.

Developing new practice and systemic change.

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.

Report of the main activities of the three teams over the setting up period.

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.

Develop national best practice and promote a consistent application of such practice for agencies working with families experiencing family violence.

Identify feasible short-term outcomes and report on data availability and trends.

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.

Report on feasibility, data availability and trends in long-term indicators.

35

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?

Key stakeholder groups including existing service providers.

Interviews with 21–30 stakeholders (7–10 in each area).

What interventions have victims experienced? To what extent have victims experienced agencies working together to keep them safe?

Victims. Interviews with 30 victims (up to 10 from each centre).

What interventions have perpetrators of family violence experienced? To what extent have perpetrators experienced agencies working together to meet the needs of their children?

Perpetrators. Interviews with 30 perpetrators (up to10 from each area).

Identify feasible indicators to monitor trends in family violence.

Research, Evaluation & Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.

Existing reports.


36

3.3 Sample: baseline study 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 Number of

Interviews FST Staff (2 Police, 4 NGO/PVH workers, 1 CYF staff) 7 Plunket 2 PVH Men’s programme 1 PVH Manager 1 District Court Victim Advisor 1

Table 3.4: Number of stakeholders interviewed in Wairarapa Stakeholders Number of

Interviews FST Staff (2 Refuge staff, 1 CYF staff) 3 Wellington Police/Supervisor 1 Dept of Corrections & Community Probation 2 Stopping Violence Services 1 Women’s Refuge 2 District Court Victim Advisor 1

Methods __________________________________________________________________

37

Table 3.5: Number of stakeholders interviewed in Hutt Valley Stakeholders Number of

Interviews FST Staff (1 Police, 2 Refuge staff) 3 Refuge Managers 2 District Court Victim Advisor 1

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: Number of victim and perpetrator interviews according to site Auckland Hutt Valley Wairarapa

Victims 5 5 5 Perpetrators 3 2 1

3.5 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 Data sources

Clarify the objectives of the FSTs and help translate these into practice.

FST interviews Stakeholder interviews Document review Meeting attendance

Develop a programme logic model or framework. Stakeholder interviews FST interviews Document review

Develop success indicators/outcome measures.

Success case studies from FST members Interviews with victims and perpetrators Ministry documents Literature review

Monitor and gather information on three FSTs. FST interviews Stakeholder interviews

Identify information sharing issues. FST interviews Stakeholder interviews Victim and perpetrator interviews

Feedback information to all FSTs. Progress reports, interim report, final report


38

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

Methods __________________________________________________________________

39

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.


40

41

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 Bartlett E, Is Domestic Violence Increasing or Decreasing? Various Measures of Trends in Domestic Violence, Ministry of Justice. 2005 (unpublished).

7 Morris & Reilly, New Zealand National Survey of Crime Victims 2001.


42

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

Police recorded family violence offence rates per 10,000 population - National

01020304050607080

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Rat

e pe

r 10,

000

popu

latio

n

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 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.

9 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.

10 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 __________________________________________________________________

43

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

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Rat

e p

er 1

0,00

0 p

op

ula

tio

n

Auckland City Central

Wairarapa

Lower Hutt

National

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.


44

Figure 4.3: Number of POL 400s Completed by Police per 10,000 Population 1999–2005 – National

POL 400s per 10,000 Population - National

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Rat

e p

er 1

0,00

0 p

op

ula

tio

n

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

POL 400s per 10,000 Population - FST Sites

020406080

100120140160180200

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Rat

e p

er 1

0,00

0 P

op

ula

tio

n

Auckland CityCentral

Wairarapa

Lower Hutt

Source: New Zealand Police


45

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

Applications for Protection Orders – National Summary

01000200030004000500060007000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Num

ber Total Applications

On Notice

Without Notice

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.


46

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

Total Number of Applications Filed 6520 6015 5820 5568 5092 4662 4545

Applications Filed ‘On Notice’ 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%

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 Barwick, H., Gray., & Macky, R. (2000). Domestic Violence Act 1995: Process Evaluation. Wellington: Ministry of Justice


47

Figure 4.6: Total Number of Applications for Protection Orders – FST Sites 1999–2005

Applications for Protection Orders - FST Sites

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Num

ber

Auckland

Masterton

Lower Hutt

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.


48

Figure 4.7: Number of Convictions for Family Violence Related Offences 1999–2005 - National

Convictions for Family Violence Related Offences

0500

1000150020002500300035004000

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Year

Num

ber

Male AssaultsFemale

Breach ProtectionOrder

Assault on a child

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 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 1 3 2 1 2

Total 566 515 547 548 591 603 606 551 587 662 Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice 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.


49

Figure 4.8: Number of convictions for male assaults female, by FST Site 1999–2005

Convictions for male assaults female - by FST site

0

100

200

300

400

500

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Year

Num

ber Auckland

Masterton

Lower Hutt

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

0

50

100

150

200

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Year

Num

ber Auckland

Masterton

Lower Hutt


50

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

Convictions for assault on a child - by FST site

05

10152025303540

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Year

Num

ber Auckland

Masterton

Lower Hutt

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 adult-protected 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 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.


51

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

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Nu

mb

er

Respondents

Adult protectedPersons

Children

Total NewCommitments

Applications forProtection 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.


52

Figure 4.12: Number of New Commitments for Domestic Violence Programmes for Respondents – FST Sites

Number of new commitments of respondents to Domestic Violence Programmes - FST sites

050

100150200250300350400450

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Num

ber Auckland

Masterton

Lower Hutt

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 of new commitments of adult protected persons to Domestic Violence Programmes - FST

sites

020406080

100120140160

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Nu

mb

er

Auckland

Masterton

Lower Hutt

Source: Family Court Database and Case Management System, Ministry of Justice


53

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

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Nu

mb

er

Auckland

Masterton

Lower Hutt

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.


54

Figure 4.15: National Notifications to Child, Youth and Family Services – 2000–2005

National Notifications to Child, Youth and Family

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Nu

mb

er

All Sources

Police (non-FV)

Police FamilyViolence

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

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Nu

mb

er Auckland City

Masterton

Hutt Valley

Source: Child, Youth and Family Services.

18 Data provided for Masterton and the Hutt Valley in the previous baseline report was incorrect. Amended data has now been provided.


55

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

Notifications to CYF from Police - FST sites

0200400600800

100012001400160018002000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Nu

mb

er Auckland City

Masterton

Hutt Valley

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


56

− 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.)


57

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.


58

Figure 4.18: Process model for family violence crisis intervention (Police & PVH): Operations at baseline phase

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.

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)

Police fax/send through all POL 400s to PVH staff for both arrest and non-arrest

cases

PVH assesses POL 400 and

other information and advocates either phone, visit or send letter, depending on

availability/need

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


59

Table 4.3: Preventing Violence in the Home (Auckland): referrals and links

Referrals to PVH PVH Operations and services Referrals from PVH

Police Health services

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 self-referrals

Men’s Stopping Violence Programme (No excuses)

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.


60

Table 4.4: Preventing Violence in the Home (Auckland): Education Programmes and Related Activities

PVH Education programmes & other activities

Clients

Men's Stopping Violence Programme (No excuses)

Court referrals, probation referrals and self-referrals

Provides a group-based education programme for men who have 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 coordination

This forum helps to set up policies and practices to promote the 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.


61

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 information-sharing 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)


62

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 James Family is a community social services provider, a child and family division of Presbyterian Support Northern.


63

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


64

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 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’.


65

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. When her Protection Order was breached, one participant noted:

…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.

21 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.


66

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 no-one 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.


67

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)


68

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)


69

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

Refuge operations and services Referrals from Refuge

Police

FVIG

Self-referrals

Crisis intervention phone line

DV programmes, counselling, Police, legal, medical, mental health services, budgeting services, Women’s Centre, Work and Income and other services

Police

FVIG

Self-referrals

Women’s DV Programmes

DV programmes, counselling, Police, legal, medical, mental health services, budgeting services, Women’s Centre, Work and Income and other services

Police

FVIG

Children’s DV Programmes

CYFS, counselling services, DV programmes, mental health services

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.


70

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 ‘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.


71

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)


72

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)


73

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)


74

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)


75

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)


76

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)


77

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


78

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 mish-mash 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.


79

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)


80

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


81

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)


82

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


83

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


84

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.

85

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.


86

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.

Results: Formative phase __________________________________________________________________

87

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


88

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


89

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 has 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.


90

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.


91

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 Objectives

Evaluate crisis core services for East Auckland Policing Area. To be extended to both Western & Central Areas.

Improve information sharing between agencies.

Instigating a core agency case management group for family violence.

Activities 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.

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.

Short-term outcomes

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.

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.

Intermediate outcomes

Quantitative assessment of wider service (e.g. Court) response to deficiencies & strengths. Undertake qualitative assessment.

Review/establish MoUs with agencies, re: info-sharing/ 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.


92

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 Objectives

Evaluate local schools’ policies and response to family violence, including reporting/ response, existing programmes, deficiencies.

Improve utilization of refuge accommodation Community agencies are not utilising all refuge facilities available. This includes the Collective refuges (Pacific peoples and Asian Specialist Refuges).

Reduce rates of re-victimisation

Explore possibilities with other agencies to improve access to emergency accommodation After hours (short term) when refuges are full (Funding).

Activities Survey of existing school-based services, policies and practice to respond to abuse. To be undertaken primarily by PVH Child Advocate with assistance from Whanau advocate. All schools, public / private and kindergartens / Kohanga Reo's, in Onehunga site area to be surveyed.

Identify what barriers are contributing to lack of collaboration between some NGOs and Refuge. Police staff of FST initially to determine causes of the problem. Meeting with Collective Refuge staff at Sub Regional Meeting (April)

Assist the FST coordinator in reducing family violence re-victimsation using Police & PVH advocates. Assist in developing best practice model / policy for visits with at risk families. Facilitate training of Community Constable and PVH Victim advocates.

Explore possibilities with Work & Income, CYFS and other agencies on similar agreement established in Wairarapa. To be undertaken by PVH Adult Advocate.

Short-term outcomes

List the schools within the Onehunga FST Site. Establish what is currently in place in relation to family violence disclosure / reporting by that school, what their policy is.

Identify what the issues are (regarding use of refuges). Attempt to resolve the underlying causes of the problem.

Increase the quality of joint visits conducted with a view to producing quality interventions.

If available and viable, establish a similar protocol for Auckland.


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.

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.

*Note these objectives added by Auckland FST.


93

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.


94

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 out-going 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 Refer to Footnote 4.


95

• 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 at-risk 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


96

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


97

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 Objectives

Evaluate Crisis Intervention for the Wairarapa.

Improve information sharing between agencies.

Work with Police, CYFS and Refuge to ensure National Best Practice procedures are followed.

Activities Collecting information, stats on POL 400s going to Refuge, Attend FVIG.

Encourage interagency meetings and support. Build relationships with other service providers.

Look at current practice & systems. Identify and address gaps. Promote new initiatives.

Short-term outcomes

Collect information on existing groups, what others are doing.

Start discussions with key agencies.

Improved information flow between Police, Refuge and CYFS and some NGO agencies. Arranged agency meetings, encouraging collaboration, set up Youth Intervention Group.

CYFS DV training. Monitor case files. Building relationships between services. Strategically planning preventative initiatives.


Present information to Police, Refuge and CYFS. Improved intervention.

Ensure agencies have MoU's together for information sharing. Get agencies to join local Rise Above it Campaign and sign charter.

Provide family violence training to police staff. Make inroads with personal beliefs and practices.


98

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 .

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.

Activities Ensure access and connection to 24/7 wrap- around services. Develop links with Victim Advisor. Develop links with Victim Support Service Coordinator. Develop links with "Rise Above it" campaign co-ordinator. 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.

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.

Lobbying for Family Violence Court in the Wairarapa.

Short-term outcomes

Introductions complete. Liaisons ongoing.

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.

Moving towards having a Family Violence Court in the Wairarapa. Now given possible start date of March 2007.


99

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

DV training on procedures for crises core services.

To have Protection Orders granted at the District Court more effectively.

Activities Instigate training with Police and CYFS frontline staff, supervisors, prosecutions where deficiencies are identified.

Work on this as a project in progress. Monthly meeting with the other half of FST team.

Short-term outcomes

Prepare and deliver training to CYFS social workers.

Increases in arrests for family violence.

Elimination of deficiencies in core services.

Find out what happened in Counties/Manukau where a similar service was implemented.

Compile statistics.


Police frontline training – informal/formal.

To have an improved Protection Order procedure working in court.

5.3 Hutt Valley FST 5.3.1 Team profile 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


100

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


101

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 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, 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


102

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.


103

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 Objectives

Reduce repeat victimisation Compile a list of the ‘Top 20’ family violence repeat victimisation cases, monitor and share information to reduce re-victimisation.

Domestic Violence Awareness campaign (Hutt Valley)

Establish a community ‘Violence-Free Day’ for the Hutt.

Domestic Violence Services stocktake

Activities Work with CYF, Refuge (Kökiri) and Police to obtain information. Engage in relationship building with agencies, promote awareness of FST in community.

Presented to local interagency group for discussion. Further investigation as to scope and funding to be undertaken by separate working group to be established. Liaise with community agencies, research how to establish ‘Violence-Free Day’.

Identify local agencies currently operating in the Hutt that provide services in the Hutt valley in relation to DV.

Short-term outcomes

Progress on top 20 at-risk families project: The team said that they met a road block when it came to obtaining needed information from CYFS. This project has been shelved at this point as a result of the lack of information from CYFS.

The ‘Family Violence-Free Day’ or Awareness Campaign has been shelved for the present time.


104

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 Objectives

Monitor Crisis Intervention. Review of services post-police attendance.

Improve Case Management

(Lower Hutt)

Youth Offending and its relationship to family violence incidents 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.

Reintroduction of interagency case management meeting for high-risk DV cases. Establishing formal MoU between agencies and best practice.

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.

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.

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.


Quicker more detailed response to victims of domestic violence.

Better risk analysis and identification of repeat victims/offenders by NGOs. Enhanced level of information sharing.

Better risk analysis and identification of repeat victims/offenders by NGOs. Enhanced level of information sharing.


105

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 Objectives

High risk offender profiling for police staff

Protection Orders to be implemented more effectively

Activities Establish for Lower Hutt police staff individual offenders and family profiles for initial police response where attending incidents involving repeat/ high risk offenders.

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.

Short-term outcomes

More effective case management of high risk cases.

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).


106

107

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 Associated Issues

Relationships with collaborating agencies

• Contracts with family violence agencies

• Gaps in service provision infrastructure

• Support from national bodies

Staffing • 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


108

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

Discussion and Suggested Ways Forward __________________________________________________________________

109

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.


110

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 high-profile 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.


111

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


112

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 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 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


113

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


114

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.


115

• 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.


116

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 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).

117

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.


118

119

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/litreview.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.


120

121

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


122

123

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?


124

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?

Appendix 1 __________________________________________________________________

125

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?


126

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

127

Appendix 2: Victim Interview Schedule


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


128

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?

129

Appendix 3: Perpetrator Interview Schedule


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


130

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?

131

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 audio-taped. 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 wil l 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.


132

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

Appendix 4 __________________________________________________________________

133





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


134

135

Appendix 5: Recruitment Guide for Clients (Victims and Perpetrators)





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


136

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 ethnic ity 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

137

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.


138

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.

Appendix 6 __________________________________________________________________

139

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.


140

141

Appendix 7: Family Violence Statistics: A Baseline Study for the Family Safety Teams Initiative


142

Contents

1. Introduction 149 1.1 Limitations in Monitoring Trends in Family Violence 150 1.2 Outline of Report 150

2. Police Recorded Family Violence Offences 151 2.1 National 151 2.2 FST Sites 151

3. POL 400s 152 4. Applications for Protection Orders – Demographic Profile of Applicants and

Respondents 155

4.1 National 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 164 7.1 National 164 7.2 FST Sites 165

8. Custodial Length 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 173

10. Referrals to Agencies 173 10.1 Department of Child, Youth and Family 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

Appendix 7 __________________________________________________________________

143

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 183 12.1 Police Recorded Family Violence Offences 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 187 12.6 Sentencing 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 191

13.4 Prosecution Outcomes 192 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 1 197 1 Police Recorded Family Violence Offences 197 2 Applications for Protection Orders 197 3 Convictions 198 4 Sentencing 199 5 Custodial Length 200 6 Commitments to Domestic Violence Programmes 200 7 Referrals to Child, Youth and Family 201


144

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

Appendix 7 __________________________________________________________________

145

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


146

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

Appendix 7 __________________________________________________________________

147

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


148

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

Appendix 7 __________________________________________________________________

149

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


150

• 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 A POL400 is the code given to a Police form completed by staff who attend either incidents or offences involving family violence.

26 Bartlett E, Is Domestic Violence Increasing or Decreasing? Various Measures of Trends in Domestic Violence, Ministry of Justice. 2005 (unpublished)

27 Ministry of Justice. New Zealand National Survey of Crime Victims 2001, 99.

Appendix 7 __________________________________________________________________

151

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

Police recorded family violence offence rates per 10,000 population - National

01020304050607080

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Rat

e p

er 1

0,00

0 p

op

ula

tio

n

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


29 ‘Family violence’ represents the number of recorded offences that involved some degree of family violence as determined by the attending Police Officer.

30 Bartlett E, Is Domestic Violence Increasing or Decreasing? Various Measures of Trends in Domestic Violence, Ministry of Justice. 2005 (unpublished)

31 The population used in these calculations is the estimate National population, which may differ from the sum of all Police Area populations.


152

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

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Rat

e p

er 1

0,00

0 p

op

ula

tio

n

Auckland City Central

Wairarapa

Lower Hutt

National


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 POL400 data for 2004 and 2005 is provisional only.

Appendix 7 __________________________________________________________________

153

Figure 3 Number of POL 400s Completed by Police per 10,000 Population 1999 – 2005 – National

POL 400s per 10,000 Population - National

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Rat

e p

er 1

0,00

0 p

op

ula

tio

n


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

POL 400s per 10,000 Population - FST Sites

020406080

100120140160180200

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Rat

e p

er 1

0,00

0 P

op

ula

tio

n

Auckland CityCentral

Wairarapa

Lower Hutt



154

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

Appendix 7 __________________________________________________________________

155

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 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.

34 Barwick, H., Gray., & Macky, R. (2000). Domestic Violence Act 1995: Process Evaluation. Wellington: Ministry of Justice.


156

Figure 5: Applications for Protection Orders – National Summary 1999 - 2005

Applications for Protection Orders – National Summary

01000200030004000500060007000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Nu

mb

er Total Applications

On Notice

Without Notice

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 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Total Number of Applications Filed 6520 6015 5820 5568 5092 4662 4545

Applications Filed On Notice 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%

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 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 __________________________________________________________________

157

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 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Female 87% 87% 89% 88% 89% 88% Male 8% 8% 8% 9% 8% 8% Unknown 5% 5% 3% 3% 3% 4% Source: Case Management System, Ministry of Justice

Table 6: Sex of Respondents

Sex 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Female 9% 9% 9% 10% 10% 9% Male 86% 87% 88% 87% 86% 87% Unknown 5% 4% 3% 3% 4% 4% Source: Case Management System, Ministry of Justice

Table 7: Ethnicity of Applicants

Ethnicity 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 European 49% 49% 49% 46% 39% 41% Maori 21% 21% 23% 20% 19% 21% Pacific Peoples 6% 6% 5% 5% 5% 4% Asian 3% 3% 3% 4% 3% 4% Other Ethnic Groups 2% 3% 3% 2% 1% 1% Not Stated 20% 18% 17% 23% 32% 30% Source: Case Management System, Ministry of Justice

Table 8: Ethnicity of Respondents

Ethnicity 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 European 44% 44% 44% 41% 34% 37% Maori 22% 23% 23% 21% 20% 21% Pacific Peoples 7% 7% 7% 6% 7% 6% Asian 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Other Ethnic Groups 3% 3% 3% 2% 1% 1% Not Stated 21% 20% 19% 26% 35% 31% 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).


158

Figure 6: Total Number of Applications for Protection Orders – FST Sites 1999 – 2005

Applications for Protection Orders - FST Sites

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Nu

mb

er

Auckland

Masterton

Lower Hutt

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

On Notice Applications for Protection Orders - FST sites

010203040506070

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Nu

mb

er Auckland

Masterton

Lower Hutt

Source: Family Court Database, manual returns and Case Management System, Ministry of Justice.

Appendix 7 __________________________________________________________________

159

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

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Nu

mb

er Auckland

Masterton

Lower Hutt

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 Data for 2005 are provisional 37 The 2004 court data may differ slightly from the figures previously supplied.


160

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 3752 3335 3145 3043 2916 2916 2625 2870 3116 3574 Youth Court proved 25 13 16 23 18 28 23 14 27 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

Total 5926 5212 4983 4858 4839 5087 4932 5237 5787 6357 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


Appendix 7 __________________________________________________________________

161

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



6. Convictions

6.1 National Ministry of Justice data38 show the number of convictions for the three selected offences that relate to family violence (Figure 9) 39.

38 Figures for 2005 are provisional. 39 The 2004 court data may differ slightly from the figures previously supplied.


162

Figure 9: Number of Convictions for Family Violence Related Offences 1999 – 2005 - National

Convictions for Family Violence Related Offences

0500

1000150020002500300035004000

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Year

Nu

mb

er

Male AssaultsFemale

Breach ProtectionOrder

Assault on a child


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.

Appendix 7 __________________________________________________________________

163

Figure 10: Number of Convictions for Male Assaults Female, by FST Site 1999 – 2005

Convictions for male assaults female - by FST site

0

100

200

300

400

500

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Year

Nu

mb

er

Auckland

Masterton

Lower Hutt


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

0

50

100

150

200

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Year

Nu

mb

er

Auckland

Masterton

Lower Hutt



164

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

Convictions for assault on a child - by FST site

05

10152025303540

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Year

Nu

mb

er

Auckland

Masterton

Lower Hutt


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 Figures for 2005 are provisional 41 The 2004 court data may differ slightly from the figures previously supplied.

Appendix 7 __________________________________________________________________

165

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

0

5

10

15

20

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Year

Per

cent

age

Male assaults female

Breach protectionorder

Assault on a child


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.


166

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

0

5

10

15

20

25

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Per

cen

tag

e Auckland

Masterton

Lower Hutt


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

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Per

cen

tag

e Auckland

Masterton

Lower Hutt


Appendix 7 __________________________________________________________________

167

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

0

20

40

60

80

100

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Per

cen

tag

e Auckland

Masterton

Lower Hutt


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 Figures for 2005 are provisional 43 The 2004 court data may differ slightly from the figures previously supplied.


168

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

0

2

4

6

8

10

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Year

Mo

nth

s Male assaults female

Breach protectionorder

Assault on a child


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 Average sentence length cannot be calculated in the years where no custodial sentences were imposed.

Appendix 7 __________________________________________________________________

169

Figure 18: Average Custodial Sentence Length for Male Assaults Female in the FST Sites

Average custodial sentence length imposed for Male Assaults Female - FST sites

0123456789

10

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Mo

nth

s Auckland

Masterton

Lower Hutt

Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice. Breach of Protection Order Figure 1945 shows the average 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

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Mo

nth

s Auckland

Masterton

Lower Hutt


45 Average sentence length cannot be calculated in the years where no custodial sentences were imposed.


170

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 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Auckland 6.0 8.0 - 3.0 6.0 11.0 4.0 - - 15.0 Masterton 12.0 - 6.0 - - - 9.0 12.0 - - Lower Hutt - 9.5 - - - - 8.0 6.0 - 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).

Appendix 7 __________________________________________________________________

171

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

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Nu

mb

er

Respondents

Adult protectedPersons

Children

Total NewCommitments

Applications forProtection 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.


172

Figure 21: Number of New Commitments for Domestic Violence Programmes for Respondents – FST Sites

Number of new commitments of respondents to Domestic Violence Programmes - FST sites

050

100150200250300350400450

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Nu

mb

er Auckland

Masterton

Lower Hutt


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 of new commitments of adult protected persons to Domestic Violence Programmes - FST

sites

020406080

100120140160

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Nu

mb

er

Auckland

Masterton

Lower Hutt


Appendix 7 __________________________________________________________________

173

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

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Nu

mb

er

Auckland

Masterton

Lower Hutt


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.



174

Figure 24: National Notifications to Child, Youth and Family - 2000 – 2005

National Notifications to Child, Youth and Family

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Nu

mb

er

All Sources

Police (non-FV)

Police FamilyViolence

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

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Nu

mb

er Auckland City

Masterton

Hutt Valley



Appendix 7 __________________________________________________________________

175

The total number of notifications to CYF from the Police (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 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

Notifications to CYF from Police - FST sites

0200400600800

100012001400160018002000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Nu

mb

er Auckland City

Masterton

Hutt Valley


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.


176

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.

Appendix 7 __________________________________________________________________

177

Table 14: Recorded Family Violence Offence Rate per 10,000 Population in Auckland City Central Police Area

Police Area 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Auckland City Central 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 2005

Auckland City Central 408 484 593 591 554 Not available


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 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Applications for on notice PO’s 32 37 43 54 65 59 34 Applications for without notice PO’s 484 437 380 384 367 344 315 Percentage of applications filed without notice 94% 92% 90% 88% 85% 85% 90% Total number of applications for PO’s 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.


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.


178

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 11% 8% 11% 11% 10% 12% Male 80% 81% 84% 83% 86% 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%


Appendix 7 __________________________________________________________________

179

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 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Convicted 341 396 318 344 282 279 222 207 207 221 Youth Court proved 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Discharged without conviction 18 41 42 44 31 27 15 24 35 33

Dismissed 41 36 31 24 42 49 35 30 63 113 Discharged 11 8 7 11 2 9 22 6 5 5 Withdrawn 67 92 124 100 117 111 78 123 151 81 Acquitted 1 4 12 7 12 8 10 2 4 3 Other not proved 9 1 4 6 1 4 3 1 6 6 Other male assaults female 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Total 489 578 538 536 487 487 385 393 471 463 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 Figures for 2005 are provisional. 55 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.


180

Table 22: Outcome of Prosecutions for Breach of Protection Orders Including Failing to Attend a Programme in the Auckland District Court

Outcome 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Convicted 46 108 125 175 176 166 118 115 183 121 Youth Court proved 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 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

Total 59 151 205 313 253 278 191 206 308 231 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



Appendix 7 __________________________________________________________________

181

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 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Male assaults female 341 396 318 344 282 279 222 207 207 221 Breach protection order 46 108 125 175 176 166 118 115 183 121 Assault on a child 19 26 21 34 15 31 16 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 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Male assaults female 3% 8% 6% 6% 8% 10% 6% 12% 16% 10% Breach protection order 14% 4% 10% 6% 5% 11% 19% 24% 12% 25% Assault on a child 11% 6% 0% 5% 25% 4% 8% 0% 0% 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 The 2004 court data may differ slightly from the figures previously supplied. 57 Figures for 2005 are provisional. 58 ibid. 59 The 2004 court data may differ slightly from the figures previously supplied.


182

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 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Male assaults female 6.4 6.0 6.9 6.8 8.1 7.9 8.6 7.9 7.6 5.3 Breach protection order 3.3 9.0 3.6 4.8 3.2 2.4 4.4 5.0 3.1 2.8 Assault on a child 6.0 8.0 - 3.0 6.0 11.0 4.0 - - 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.


61 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.

Appendix 7 __________________________________________________________________

183

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

Police 321 247 601 908 1,240 1,470

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

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

All Sources 90% 89% 87% 85% 84% 84% Auckland City Police 82% 90% 76% 75% 76% 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 For the purpose of this report, all sources includes police notifications 63 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.



184

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 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Wairarapa 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 2002 2003 2004 2005 Wairarapa Not available


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

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Applications for on notice PO’s 2 8 13 8 7 3 0 Applications for without notice PO’s 81 85 60 60 69 59 35 Percentage of applications filed without notice 98% 91% 82% 88% 91% 95% 100%

Total number of applications for PO’s 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


66 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

Appendix 7 __________________________________________________________________

185

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


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



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%


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.


186


Appendix 7 __________________________________________________________________

187

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


Total 107 69 91 70 74 69 78 65 76 102 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 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 Figures for 2005 are provisional. 68 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.


188

Table 39: Outcome of Prosecutions for Breach of Protection Orders Including Failing to Attend a Programme in the Masterton District Court

Outcome 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005


Total 7 31 38 71 35 34 35 41 52 70 Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice. 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



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 The 2004 court data may differ slightly from the figures previously supplied. 70 Figures for 2005 are provisional.

Appendix 7 __________________________________________________________________

189

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


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


71 Figures for 2005 are provisional 72 The 2004 court data may differ slightly from the figures previously supplied


190

Table 43: Average Custodial Sentence (months) for Family Violence Related Offences in the Masterton District Court

Offence 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Male assaults female 7.0 4.6 5.0 - 9.0 8.7 6.0 6.5 - 4.0 Breach protection order - 6.0 4.0 2.0 - - - - 10.0 5.0 Assault on a child 12.0 - 6.0 - - - 9.0 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 Applications for Protection Orders 83 93 73 68 76 62 35


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 Wairarapa75 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.



75 Data for the Wairarapa is based on the Masterton SDL. 76 Police notifications to CYF are made in three categories – Police, Police with Safety Assessment, and Police Family


Appendix 7 __________________________________________________________________

191

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

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

All Sources 74% 89% 87% 88% 78% 77% Masterton Police 77% 85% 75% 74% 62% 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 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005



192

Lower Hutt 26 58 73 67 86 86 97


13.2 POL 400s

Table 49: Number of POL 400s Completed by Police in the Lower Hutt Police Area Police Area 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Lower Hutt Not available


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

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Applications for on notice PO’s 18 29 34 27 33 25 23 Applications for without notice PO’s 179 123 134 138 118 112 106 Percentage of applications filed without notice 91% 81% 80% 84% 78% 82% 82% Total number of applications for PO’s 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: Sex of Applicants for Protection Orders in the Lower Hutt District Court 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Female 87% 83% 86% 88% 85% 83%


79 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 __________________________________________________________________

193

Male 5% 8% 8% 10% 8% 9% Not Stated 7% 10% 6% 2% 7% 8%


Table 52: Sex of Respondents to Protection Orders in the Lower Hutt District Court 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005



Table 53: Ethnicity of Applicants for Protection Orders in the Lower Hutt District Court

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

European 55% 57% 46% 50% 30% 43% Maori 15% 22% 25% 25% 24% 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%


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.


194

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


Total 158 89 103 85 105 163 158 173 169 237 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

Outcome 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005


81 Figures for 2005 are provisional.

Appendix 7 __________________________________________________________________

195

Total 25 40 71 99 104 146 87 113 90 110 Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice. 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.


196

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



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


82 Figures for 2005 are provisional. 83 The 2004 court data may differ slightly from the figures previously supplied.

Appendix 7 __________________________________________________________________

197

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


Table 60: Average Custodial Sentence (months) for Family Violence Related Offences in the Lower Hutt District Court

Offence 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Male assaults female 5.4 5.8 6.2 5.4 6.2 6.3 5.7 6.9 7.0 3.3 Breach protection order - 3.0 3.2 3.2 5.0 2.8 5.0 5.0 3.2 2.2 Assault on a child - 9.5 - - - - 8.0 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 ibid. 85 Figures for 2005 are provisional. 86 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.


198

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


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

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

All Sources 88% 87% 76% 71% 77% 67% Hutt Valley Police 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89%



88 Data for the Hutt Valley is based on Lower Hutt SDL and Upper Hutt SDL. 89 Police notifications to CYF are made in three categories – Police, Police with Safety Assessment, and Police Family


Appendix 7 __________________________________________________________________

199

Appendix 1

1 Police Recorded Family Violence Offences

Table 64: Number of Police Recorded Family Violence Offences in New Zealand – National

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

No. of family violence offences 18,675 21,205 23,761 24,212 26,006 26,164 29,756


Table 65: Police Recorded Family Violence Offence Rate per 10,000 Population – National

Police Area 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

No. of family violence offences per 10,000 pop. 49 55 61 61 65 64 73


Table 66: Police Recorded Family Violence Offence Rate per 10,000 Population – FST Sites

Police Area 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Auckland City Central 66 82 110 70 70 65 74 Wairarapa 72 58 75 103 99 101 115 Lower Hutt 26 58 73 67 86 86 97 Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.

Table 67: National Number of POL 400s Completed by Police 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total No. of POL 400s 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


200

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


Appendix 7 __________________________________________________________________

201

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


Table 71: On Notice Applications for Protection Orders – FST Sites District Court 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Auckland DC 32 37 43 54 65 59 34 Masterton DC 2 8 13 8 7 3 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



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 3752 3335 3145 3043 2916 2916 2625 2870 3116 3574 Breach protection order 496 1223 1881 2117 2257 2360 2027 2254 2265 2385 Assault on a child 326 298 294 304 280 294 291 253 312 287 Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.

Table 74: Number of Convictions for Male Assaults Female, by FST Site

District Court 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Auckland DC 341 396 318 344 282 279 222 207 207 221 Masterton DC 56 47 54 42 43 33 38 32 36 55 Lower Hutt DC 94 53 78 52 68 105 88 99 100 117 Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.

Table 75: Number of Convictions for Breach of Protection Order, by FST Site

District Court 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Auckland DC 46 108 125 175 176 166 118 115 183 121


202

Masterton DC 4 14 22 35 17 18 24 19 27 26 Lower Hutt DC 11 27 44 64 63 84 61 63 60 56 Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.

Appendix 7 __________________________________________________________________

203

Table 76: Number of Convictions for Assault on a Child, by FST Site

District Court 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Auckland DC 19 26 21 34 15 31 16 20 17 24 Masterton DC 6 3 9 5 3 4 8 4 2 2 Lower Hutt DC 12 8 9 10 5 9 9 9 7 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 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Male assaults female 12% 13% 14% 13% 14% 15% 12% 12% 16% 15% Breach protection order 13% 11% 13% 11% 11% 14% 12% 13% 15% 17% Assault on a child 15% 12% 13% 7% 16% 14% 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 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Auckland DC 3% 8% 6% 6% 8% 10% 6% 12% 16% 10% Masterton DC 10% 14% 7% 0% 3% 11% 7% 9% 0% 2% Lower Hutt DC 20% 12% 22% 21% 16% 12% 10% 13% 10% 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 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Auckland DC 14% 4% 10% 6% 5% 11% 19% 24% 12% 25% Masterton DC 0% 13% 8% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 13% Lower Hutt DC 0% 7% 28% 18% 11% 11% 14% 6% 9% 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 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Auckland DC 11% 6% 0% 5% 25% 4% 8% 0% 0% 18% Masterton DC 33% 0% 17% 0% 0% 0% 50% 25% 0% 0% Lower Hutt DC 0% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 20% 0% 20% Source: Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit, Ministry of Justice.


204

5 Custodial Length Table 81: Average Custodial Sentence Length (months) for Family Violence Related

Offences, 1996 to 2005 - National Totals Offence type 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Male assaults female 6.8 6.6 6.6 6.7 7.3 6.7 7.3 7.1 6.8 6.3 Breach protection order 2.0 3.4 2.9 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.9 4.0 3.9 3.8 Assault on a child 6.9 5.5 6.9 8.5 7.6 6.0 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 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Auckland DC 6.4 6.0 6.9 6.8 8.1 7.9 8.6 7.9 7.6 5.3 Masterton DC 7.0 4.6 5.0 - 9.0 8.7 6.0 6.5 - 4.0 Lower Hutt DC 5.4 5.8 6.2 5.4 6.2 6.3 5.7 6.9 7.0 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 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Auckland DC 3.3 9.0 3.6 4.8 3.2 2.4 4.4 5.0 3.1 2.8 Masterton DC - 6.0 4.0 2.0 - - - - 10.0 5.0 Lower Hutt DC - 3.0 3.2 3.2 5.0 2.8 5.0 5.0 3.2 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 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Auckland DC 6.0 8.0 - 3.0 6.0 11.0 4.0 - - 15.0 Masterton DC 12.0 - 6.0 - - - 9.0 12.0 - - Lower Hutt DC - 9.5 - - - - 8.0 6.0 - 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

Appendix 7 __________________________________________________________________

205

Applications for Protection Orders 6520 6015 5820 5568 5092 4662 4545



206

Table 86: Number of New Commitments for Respondents to Domestic Violence Programmes – FST Sites

District Court 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005



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



Table 88: Number of New Commitments for Children to Domestic Violence Programmes – FST Sites

District Court 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005



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 Police Family Violence 266 916 1,468 2,787 6,910 13,476


Table 90: Number of Notifications to CYF from All Sources – FST Sites 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Auckland City 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


Appendix 7 __________________________________________________________________

207

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



208

209

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


210

CONTENTS

I. BACKGROUND 205

II. FAMILY SAFETY TEAM STRUCTURE 205

III. LEAD AGENCY ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITES 206

IV. TEAM FUNCTIONS 206

V. EVALUATION CRITERIA 207

VI. OPERATION 207

VII. IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES 207

o Impact of Location of Teams 208 o Existing Networks 208 o Information Sharing 208 o Communication With Communities 209 o Team Dynamics 209 o Work of The Teams 210

VIII. ONGOING ISSUES 210

o Information Sharing Protocols 210 o Govt/Non-Govt Tension 210 o Service Capacity 211 o Competitive Funding Environment 211 o Best Practice 211 o Communication Issues 211

IX. PLANS FOR THE NEXT TWELVE MONTHS 212

APPENDIX 1 213

Appendix 8 __________________________________________________________________

211

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 non-government 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 Counties-Manukau 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.


212

Supervisor1

Supervisor1

PoliceInvestigators

Adult VictimAdvocates

Child Advocates

333

1 CYF staff in 2 FSTs

PoliceInvestigators

Adult VictimAdvocates

Child Advocates

333

1 CYF staff in 2 FSTs1 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:

• 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 __________________________________________________________________

213

• 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


214

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 management 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.

Appendix 8 __________________________________________________________________

215

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 has 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


216

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 co-ordination 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

Appendix 8 __________________________________________________________________

217

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


218

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

Appendix 8 __________________________________________________________________

219

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


220

• 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, involving 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

221

Appendix 9: Report from the Family Safety Team National Steering Committee to the Evaluation Advisory Group


222

Appendix 9 __________________________________________________________________

223


224

Appendix 9 __________________________________________________________________

225


226

Appendix 9 __________________________________________________________________

227

family safety teams pilot evaluation: stage one baseline study … · 2016-05-02 · 5.2.7 logic...

Documents