Dr Kate O’Halloran presents a summary of issues arising out of submissions to the Royal Commission into Family Violence (excerpt of full article).

The recently held Royal Commission into Family Violence provided a much-needed opportunity to address gaps within the sector.

One clear issue that emerged was that, at present, family violence is treated within a binarygender model of male perpetrator and female victim, often in the context of a heterosexual relationship. As pointed out in the submission by the Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby (VGLRL), such an approach is insufficient and ‘inappropriate in addressing domestic violence in LGBTI relationships’.

It is understandable why such a framework exists. As noted in the joint submission to the Royal Commission by Safe Steps and No To Violence (NTV): Women are at least 6 times more likely than men to be the victim of physical assault by a current or former partner, 24 times more likely than men to become homeless due to experiencing intimate partner violence; and a woman’s experience of intimate partner violence is associated with substantially more fear and severity than men’s.

Accordingly, and in practice, most mainstream services adopt a feminist approach that insists that family violence is rooted in patriarchal and systemic gendered inequality. Often, however, this defaults to an exclusive focus on heterosexual intimate partner violence that, according to the VGLRL submission, results in ‘LGBTI groups being rendered invisible’. Crucially, this means that ‘some people in abusive relationships will not recognise it as such and therefore may not seek help’.

The barriers towards appropriately addressing family violence in an LGBTIQ context are numerous. They begin with limited statistical data on the prevalence of such violence. Data collected by mainstream services at national and state level on intimate partner violence ‘omits sexuality indicators, making it very difficult for researchers and policy makers to consider evidence for, and design programs in response to, issues affecting GLBT populations’ (ACON 2011).

What data has specifically been collected on the LGBTIQ community, however, suggests that rates of intimate partner violence are either equal to, or higher than, those of family violence between non-LGBTIQ people (ACON 2009).

 

This is an excerpt from the full article that was published in the spring/summer 2015 edition of DVRCV Advocate.

Dr Kate O’Halloran is a trainer at DVRCV.  

DVRCV’s submission to the Royal Commission included a comprehensive list of recommendations covering prevention, early intervention and response.

One specific area of focus was about the need to ‘embed a universal risk assessment and risk management framework’ in Victoria using the Family Violence Risk Assessment and Risk Management Framework (CRAF) as the foundation.

Released in 2007, CRAF is now the central tool for assessing and responding to family violence risk across different sectors and settings in Victoria. It serves as one of the most significant pieces of collaborative work to reduce family violence harm in the state.  CRAF was also critical to the development of an integrated family violence system in Victoria.

The Framework adopts a ‘structured professional judgement’ approach that combines three elements to determine the level of risk:

• the victim’s own assessment of their level of risk
• evidence-based risk indicators
• the practitioner’s professional judgement.

In 2008 DVRCV, together with Swinburne University and No To Violence, was contracted to develop and deliver CRAF training programs and materials. Since that time, DVRCV has delivered, or co-delivered, CRAF training to over 6,500 Victorian service providers. In doing so, DVRCV trainers and others have identified gaps in the Framework, challenges around its use, and issues connected to the training and roll-out of CRAF. Our submission detailed those gaps and challenges, and called for a comprehensive review of CRAF.

 

This is an excerpt from the full article that was published in the spring/summer 2015 edition of DVRCV Advocate.

Libby Eltringham is the Policy and Legal Worker at DVRCV. 

Aboriginal women are 34 times more likely to be hospitalised from family violence [1] and almost 11 times more likely to be killed as a result of violent assault.[2] Aboriginal women have been identified as the most legally disadvantaged group in Australia.[3]

Tragically, family violence against Victorian Aboriginal people appears to be escalating. Across Victoria, police reports of family violence against Aboriginal people (predominantly women and children) have tripled in less than a decade.[4]

This is despite evidence that the majority of family violence incidents go unreported and the reality that Aboriginal women are markedly less likely to disclose family violence due to a multitude of complex barriers.[5]

Family violence is complex and the issues our clients face are complex. Our clients live with intergenerational trauma, removal of children, discrimination, poverty, mental health issues, family violence-driven housing instability and homelessness, disability, lower levels of literacy and numeracy, as well as a range of other cultural, legal and non-legal issues.

There are multiple complex and diverse factors contributing to the high levels and severity of family violence in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. It must be clearly understood that the causes do not derive from Aboriginal culture. Family violence is not part of Aboriginal culture. However, the disadvantage, dispossession and attempted destruction of Aboriginal cultures since colonisation have meant that family violence has proliferated in Aboriginal communities.

This does not, however, mean that family violence affecting Aboriginal victims/survivors, predominantly women and children, is exclusively the domain of Aboriginal communities—or that all perpetrators of violence against Aboriginal women are Aboriginal men. There is insufficient data on the Aboriginality of perpetrators and FVPLS Victoria routinely sees Aboriginal clients, mostly women, who experience family violence at the hands of men from a range of different backgrounds and cultures, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. The only certainty in the existing data is that Aboriginal women are at disproportionately higher risk of family violence.

 

This is an excerpt from the full article that was published in the spring/summer 2015 edition of DVRCV Advocate.

Endnotes

1. The Australian Productivity Commission (2014) Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage—Key Indicators 2014, 4.93 table 4A.11.22

2. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2006) Family Violence Among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, Cat. no. IHW 17, p.71

3. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) (2003) Submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee, Parliament of Australia, Inquiry into Legal Aid and Access to Justice, 13 November 2003, p.4

4. Victorian Auditor-General (2014) Victorian Auditor-General’s Report: Accessibility of Mainstream Services for Aboriginal Victorians, p.57

5. Matthew Willis (2011) ‘Non-disclosure of violence in Australian Indigenous communities’, Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice, No. 405

The findings from Luke’s inquest, handed down by State Coroner Judge Ian Gray on 28 September 2015, have highlighted the critical need to improve the way that family violence risk, and the risk of filicide in the context of family violence, is assessed and managed across the service system.

Despite a long and documented history of violence and abuse by Greg Anderson towards Rosie, as well as her contact with multiple services, Judge Gray noted the systems failure to engage with Greg Anderson. The responsibility to protect Luke was largely borne by Rosie. Luke’s death is a tragic example of what can happen in a system where risk of domestic homicide and family violence harm is not assessed and managed consistently and rigorously across sectors. There is no question: the system needs to change.

The Coroner made a number of recommendations about Victoria’s Family Violence Risk Assessment and Risk Management Framework (otherwise known as the Common Risk Assessment Framework or CRAF) including that it be reviewed and validated to ensure that Victoria has the best tool available to assess and manage family violence risk, including risk to children.

CRAF provides a common or standardised approach to risk assessment and can be applied across all organisations in Victoria that respond to, or encounter people experiencing, family violence. CRAF is widely available, and intended to be used across a large range of professional and service types, including police and the community sector.

However, Luke’s inquest highlighted that even first responders in critical sectors, like Victoria Police and Child Protection, were not always being trained in CRAF and not using it consistently. The Coroner recommended that all agencies in the family violence system be mandated to use an updated CRAF, and adequate training be provided. Operational support for agencies to embed CRAF within their responses was also recommended. Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria applauds these recommendations.

Effective use of CRAF requires effective information sharing. The Coroner noted that in this case there was no 360 degree information sharing; no uniform approach to risk assessment and no coordinated approach to risk management and safety planning. Had this been in place the assessment of the seriousness of risk faced by Rosie and Luke may have led to different outcomes.

Since 2008, over 6,500 professionals from a wide range of services have completed CRAF training. Judge Gray made recommendations on the need for further widespread training on recognising, understanding and responding to family violence. Understanding risk is a critical part of this.

More widespread and consistent use of CRAF will mean that, in future, the types of risk factors exhibited by someone like Greg Anderson could be flagged across the system, information shared and strategies put in place to manage the risks. It would mean that all services would apply common standards and practices to ensure the focus of any intervention and support remained on the safety of those experiencing violence. Using the same approach also minimises the risk of misunderstandings and important information being lost. It is a crucial step in preventing further deaths of women and children.

Last week, the federal government pledged $14 million for family violence workforce development. Now is the time to invest in making sure effective risk assessment practices are embedded across all sectors that respond to family violence.

Related media

ABC Radio – PM, 28 September 2015

7.30 Report – 28 September 2015 (story starts at 24.21 minute mark)

‘Stop domestic violence for all time’, The Age, 28 September 2015

‘Let’s talk about men’s deadly sense of entitlement’, The Age, 28 September 2015

‘Rights of children must trump violent parents: Rosie Batty’, The Age, 28 September 2015

Rosie Batty: coroner is right about child protection and police systems, The Guardian, 28 September 2015

Rosie Batty media conference 28 September 2015