1.5.1 Samara McPhedran
•Download as PPS, PDF•
0 likes•143 views
1.5.1 AWHN Conference 6 2010 Harbour 1: Towards Typology: A Roadmap for Australian Practice and Policy in Intimate Partner Violence Prevention
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (12)
Similar to 1.5.1 Samara McPhedran
Similar to 1.5.1 Samara McPhedran (20)
More from Australian Women's Health Network 6th Conference 2010
More from Australian Women's Health Network 6th Conference 2010 (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
1.5.1 Samara McPhedran
- 1. Towards Typology: A RoadmapTowards Typology: A Roadmap for Australian Practice and Policyfor Australian Practice and Policy in Intimate Partner Violencein Intimate Partner Violence PreventionPrevention Samara McPhedran, PhD., Jeanine Baker, PhD., & Pooja Singh, BASamara McPhedran, PhD., Jeanine Baker, PhD., & Pooja Singh, BA (Hons).(Hons). International Coalition forInternational Coalition for Women in Shooting and Hunting (WiSH)Women in Shooting and Hunting (WiSH) www.ic-wish.orgwww.ic-wish.org
- 2. BackgroundBackground • Growing awareness of impacts of partnerGrowing awareness of impacts of partner violenceviolence • Associated factors (e.g., pregnancy)Associated factors (e.g., pregnancy) • Groups of women at disproportionate riskGroups of women at disproportionate risk of violenceof violence • Advances in evidenceAdvances in evidence • Gradual improvements in policy andGradual improvements in policy and practicepractice
- 3. BackgroundBackground • Challenges: resources, adequate legalChallenges: resources, adequate legal responses, integrated services/supportsresponses, integrated services/supports • Knowledge gaps can impede progressKnowledge gaps can impede progress • Pathways from non-lethal to lethalPathways from non-lethal to lethal violence not well studiedviolence not well studied • Men more likely to be homicide victimsMen more likely to be homicide victims (about 60-70% of total) but Australian(about 60-70% of total) but Australian women more likely to be killed by currentwomen more likely to be killed by current or former intimate partneror former intimate partner
- 4. Homicides by genderHomicides by gender Source: ABS 38100621602008 3486661652007 3391671862006 38101621682005 3794631612004 3294682012003 38117621912002 29118611852001 40119601822000 35120652211999 37106631771998 36117642041997 3297682091996 3193692061995 %N%NYear FemaleMale 38100621602008 3486661652007 3391671862006 38101621682005 3794631612004 3294682012003 38117621912002 29118611852001 40119601822000 35120652211999 37106631771998 36117642041997 3297682091996 3193692061995 %N%NYear FemaleMale
- 5. Lethal violence – rate by yearLethal violence – rate by year Source: ABS, NHMP 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Rate/100000pop. Male Total Female Total Female Domestic
- 6. Current focusCurrent focus • Shift in thinking – “preventable deaths”Shift in thinking – “preventable deaths” with “predictive elements”with “predictive elements” • Stalking, past violence, sublethalStalking, past violence, sublethal strangulation, breaches of restrainingstrangulation, breaches of restraining ordersorders • Majority of Australian research focused onMajority of Australian research focused on victims (non-lethal and lethal violence)victims (non-lethal and lethal violence) • Case studies, Coroner’s reports, mediaCase studies, Coroner’s reports, media
- 7. Gaps in Australian knowledgeGaps in Australian knowledge • Relatively little Australian research aboutRelatively little Australian research about perpetratorsperpetrators • Debate over efficacy of therapiesDebate over efficacy of therapies • Uncertainty about the capacity ofUncertainty about the capacity of programmes to respond to differentprogrammes to respond to different offendersoffenders • Prevention of offending requires betterPrevention of offending requires better knowledge of offendersknowledge of offenders
- 8. International contextInternational context • Intimate partner violence (non-lethal andIntimate partner violence (non-lethal and lethal) perpetrators studiedlethal) perpetrators studied • Empirical framework to augment homicideEmpirical framework to augment homicide reviews, meta-analyses, synthesisreviews, meta-analyses, synthesis • Partner violence perpetrators very diversePartner violence perpetrators very diverse • Different “clusters” of behaviourDifferent “clusters” of behaviour
- 9. Behaviour clustersBehaviour clusters • Family Only (FO)Family Only (FO) – Low frequency/less severe violence within the family onlyLow frequency/less severe violence within the family only – Little/no violence outside the familyLittle/no violence outside the family – Little/no other criminal behaviourLittle/no other criminal behaviour – Unlikely to find lethal violence in this clusterUnlikely to find lethal violence in this cluster • Generally Violent Antisocial (GVA)Generally Violent Antisocial (GVA) – High frequency/severity violence within the familyHigh frequency/severity violence within the family – Violence outside the familyViolence outside the family – Substance abuseSubstance abuse – Moderate-high incidence of generalised criminal behavioursModerate-high incidence of generalised criminal behaviours – Likely to find lethal violence in this clusterLikely to find lethal violence in this cluster • Dysphoric/Borderline (DB)Dysphoric/Borderline (DB) – Moderate-high/high frequency/severity violence within the familyModerate-high/high frequency/severity violence within the family – Possible violence outside the familyPossible violence outside the family – Substance abuseSubstance abuse – Likely to find lethal violence in this clusterLikely to find lethal violence in this cluster
- 10. ImplicationsImplications • Different likelihood ofDifferent likelihood of rehabilitation/recidivism for differentrehabilitation/recidivism for different offender types?offender types? • Different responses for different offenderDifferent responses for different offender typestypes • Integrated responses across multipleIntegrated responses across multiple agenciesagencies • Improving ways to respond to non-lethalImproving ways to respond to non-lethal violenceviolence
- 11. Implications for risk assessmentImplications for risk assessment • Australian approach to risk assessmentAustralian approach to risk assessment based largely on US models and databased largely on US models and data • Assumption that US risk factors canAssumption that US risk factors can “predict” lethal violence in Australia“predict” lethal violence in Australia • Australian lethal violence data do notAustralian lethal violence data do not mirror US datamirror US data • Current lack of empirical validation of riskCurrent lack of empirical validation of risk assessment in Australian contextassessment in Australian context
- 12. Data limitationsData limitations • Data access – limited public availabilityData access – limited public availability • No cohesive framework for gathering dataNo cohesive framework for gathering data • Difficult to examine trendsDifficult to examine trends • Relationship information not always clearRelationship information not always clear • Incident level – cannot detect repeatIncident level – cannot detect repeat offendingoffending • Linking information a major challengeLinking information a major challenge
- 13. Future directionsFuture directions • Data sharing, data linking, data availabilityData sharing, data linking, data availability • Studies of non-lethal and lethal violenceStudies of non-lethal and lethal violence perpetratorsperpetrators • Data driven approach/modification of riskData driven approach/modification of risk assessment tools as requiredassessment tools as required • Impacts of risk assessment on partnerImpacts of risk assessment on partner homicide incidencehomicide incidence • Domestic and other homicide – perpetratorDomestic and other homicide – perpetrator similarities?similarities?
Editor's Notes
- Awareness about violence against women and the impacts of intimate partner violence has advanced considerably in recent years. We’ve accumulated substantial information about factors commonly associated with partner violence. We also know about groups of women who are at a disproportionate risk of violence – for example, women who are socioeconomically disadvantaged, women with disability, Indigenous women, and so forth. Quality research into the short and long term effects of violence on victims’ physical and mental health has increased substantially. This has in turn provided objective support for claims that prevention needs to be taken more seriously. Stemming from this, there have been a number of achievements in policy and practice.
- There’s still a long way to go. There are the well known challenges of securing resources and ongoing support for women’s programs, developing effective responses to violence within the family law system, and, importantly, implementing joined up services and supports for abused women. But the evidence base in these areas is growing, which strengthens the case for taking action and highlights points where interventions are most needed. Unfortunately, there remain shortcomings in Australian knowledge about partner violence. This can impede the development of tailored policy and effective prevention practices. It’s this issue I’ll focus on today, with particular reference to the prevention of intimate partner homicides. Understanding pathways from non-lethal to lethal violence is a significant challenge for partner violence prevention, and there are some crucial knowledge gaps.
- While it is difficult to quantify levels of non-lethal violence, we do have information about the incidence of lethal violence. To give you an indicator of overall numbers, female homicide victims represent 30 to 40% of the total homicide victims each year. The total number of female homicides has remained relatively stable since 1995, although with a slight elevation between 1997 and 2002. Of course, not all of these are intimate partner homicides. It’s estimated that around 60 to 70% of female homicides are domestically motivated, which equates to about one quarter of all homicides.
- Showing this another way, here’s a comparison of male and female homicide rates overall, and where possible, female domestic homicide rates. Domestic homicide rates correlate quite strongly with overall male homicide rates, which I’ll return to later.
- So how do we get the numbers to fall? There’s a growing view that intimate partner homicides are very much “preventable deaths”, with common predictive elements. These are thought to include behaviours such as stalking, past violence, sublethal strangulation, and breaches of restraining or apprehended violence orders. However, much of the Australian information about intimate partner homicide comes from case studies, Coroner’s reports, and sometimes even media reports about the victims of violence. This provides valuable information, but it’s only one part of the equation.
- We don’t have a great deal of Australian research into partner violence perpetrators, which limits our ability to effectively address violence. What works, what doesn’t work, under what circumstances, and, crucially, for whom remains a topic of ongoing debate. And it is in this area that our theoretical and empirical knowledge remains sparse.
- Internationally, there has been a shift towards gathering information about both victims and perpetrators of partner violence. Much of this – but not all – comes from the US. Perpetrators of non-lethal and lethal violence are regularly used as a data source. This augments systematic domestic homicide reviews, meta-analyses, and synthesis of literature. This multifaceted approach enables detection of the types of offender behaviours that ‘cluster’ together. By focusing on behavioural indicators, this approach manages to avoid much of the subjectivity associated with psychological indicators. The findings suggest that far from being an homogenous group, partner violence perpetrators exhibit qualitatively distinct behavioural clusters, some of which overlap with other criminality indices.
- The terminology varies from study to study, but the findings are similar. Summarised here, the results suggest a Family Only cluster, where low-level violence occurs only within the family; and where there is little or no other criminal behaviour. A Generally Violent Antisocial cluster, where often severe violence occurs outside the family as well as within; alongside a variety of other criminal behaviours, and often some form of substance abuse. And a Dysphoric/Borderline cluster, where violence within the family may extend beyond the family, where there is a high incidence of substance abuse, and where behaviours such as stalking after relationship breakdown are common. The last two behavioural clusters are where severe violence is generally found, and lethal violence offenders are most likely to fall within the last two groups.
- A typology approach provides a framework, which, it is reasonable to suggest, may enhance our ability to predict lethal violence. It differs from the concept of partner violence as a single continuum with lethal violence at the extreme end, and offers a more nuanced view of the relationship between non-lethal and lethal violence. There’s a difference between saying “separation may lead to violence escalation” and being able to say “among persons with a history of severe partner violence in multiple relationships, as well as violence to others, who have problems with substance abuse and who are known to police for other reasons, separation may increase the risk of sub-lethal asphyxiation progressing to a homicide.” An offender typology framework can have important implications for policy around intimate partner violence. Some types of offender may respond well to relatively simple forms of intervention – for example, a therapy oriented process – and lower level legal responses. In contrast, other offenders are likely to display a cluster of behaviours that are all highly resistant to interventions and persist over time. Putting it another way - a restraining order and anger management classes aren’t going to work. Drawing out differences between different types of offender can pave the way for a series of tailored responses. This could also strengthen arguments for an integrated and intensive set of interventions across multiple sectors and agencies, including strong measures within the criminal justice system, when dealing with certain types of offenders.
- The typology framework has implications for how we respond to victims of non-lethal violence. It forms an implicit basis for the use of risk assessment tools. These are increasingly part of the police response to partner violence, and ask questions like “has this person ever stalked you?” and “has this person used violence against others?” Unfortunately, Australian risk assessment has by and large adopted tools from the US. US tools are based on systematic evaluation and scrutiny of violence data, and draw strongly on a typology framework, whereas we have assumed that what applies in the US also applies here. However, Australian lethal violence data simply do not match US data. From this it follows that risk assessment tools derived from US data may require finetuning if they are to be effectively applied here. While it is likely that there will be similarities, this requires careful research, especially regarding cultural and situational differences. Developing an Australian knowledge base about offenders and offender typologies should be part of this process, just as it has been in the US and elsewhere.
- Unfortunately, while there are many relevant data holdings, these are often difficult to access, or not publicly available. There is also a lack of consistent collection, classification, and recording practices. This means the data held about non-lethal partner violence are not wholly comparable across jurisdictions over time. In some cases, this extends to a limited time series of gendered data at the national level. For example, until the 1990s, the Australian Bureau of Statistics provided very little data on assault by gender. This limits our ability to examine long-term trends. The relationship between offender and victim isn’t always specified – an incident may be recorded as family violence, which is not necessarily partner violence. To compound this difficulty, reports are often given at the ‘incident’ level, making it difficult to discern repeat victimisation or repeat offending. Linking a particular individual to different incidents or other interactions with the legal system is often impossible for researchers, due not only to data collection practices but also to privacy legislation and the lack of de-identified versions of sensitive data. These issues make it difficult to look at whether the characteristics that we think may predict lethal violence do indeed cluster together, and how they relate to other factors that we may not readily associate with partner violence.
- If we are to move forward in our understanding of non-lethal and lethal violence against women, and develop evidence-based policy and practice, we need a more consistent approach to data collection and dissemination, with an improved commitment to data sharing and making data publicly available. Ideally, this would include better data linking practices. We should take up opportunities to study Australian partner violence perpetrators and let those data enhance our understanding of the dynamics of partner violence and offender typologies. We need to monitor intimate partner homicide and quantify whether risk assessment techniques have any impact, and most importantly we need to modify our tools, techniques, and responses, based on the results of those studies. It is not clear which of the range of factors that may be associated with lethal violence are ‘gendered’, and which are more ‘general’. While the nature of relationship between victim and perpetrator and behaviours such as stalking represent strongly ‘gendered’ factors, other, more ‘general’ factors such as socioeconomic disadvantage or substance abuse may also contribute to the occurrence of lethal violence. There may be a particular typology associated with both intimate partner and other homicide. This could explain why female domestic homicide rates appear to correlate strongly with male homicide rates, as I showed at the start of this talk. Another challenge for the future is to establish whether this is correct, and, if so, to develop interventions that contain both gender-specific and more holistic social components. Establishing reliable Australian data about offenders and offender behaviour typologies is going to be an important step in that process.