Post-separation violence: safe at home challenges? Professor Cathy Humphreys (with Dr Kristin Diemer) The University of Melbourne 10 th February, 2015 Masterclass Asia Pacific Violence and Gender Conference
Lifting the security wall
Overview Defining safe @ home approaches? Safe@Home survey results The implications for children s safety and the role of the service system
International Perspectives *Austrian policy and legislation led the way in Europe (Protection Against Domestic Violence Act, 1996). *Legislation introduced in Germany (the go order ) and Switzerland. Less assertive legislation in Poland, Sweden. * English legislation slow due to changes bought by conservative govt.
National Perspective * The Road Home: A national approach to reducing homelessness (2008) provides support for strategies to keep victims, mainly women, safer in their own homes * Time for Action: The National Council s Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against women and their children, 2009-2021 provides support for an integrated service system to remove the perpetrator and secure women and children s safety if they choose to return to, or remain at home
Safe@Home: Program or Approach Programs are tight and defined; a ringfenced group of clients and workers An approach is a set of principles that may operate for all women and children experiencing D/FV.
Principles underpinning safe at home strategies An issue of justice and human rights victims of violence and abuse (mostly women and children) should not be ousted from their homes often into situations of homelessness. Sanctions for violence should be applied to perpetrators of violence rather than their victims.
Principles of Safe@Home approaches Human rights framework Definitions of home are flexible Inclusive approaches which includes housing options for perpetrators Exclusion orders and sanction for breaches Flexible use of brokerage funds Integrated legal, housing and support services
Safe@Home principles cont. Specialist case worker and co-ordinator to bring the service system around the woman (an advocate) Common risk assessment and risk management an Integrated system Legislative and finance to support security of tenure Strong community message (a man s home is not his castle)
Thinking about children and YP Potentially more stability and security for children in Safe@Home approaches Evidence is anecdotal a) small Scottish sample b) Bsafe c) continued impact of fear
Where are children in Safe@Home strategies?
The SAFER project: the Voices of women Findings based on questionnaires completed with women obtaining support for FV from an agency between November 2009 March 2011 Results based on experiences with the Victorian family violence system during implementation of system reform an approach not a program Responses 40% return rate (N=138): * Women with children (80%): 128 children among 112 women * Not born in Australia (32%) Self-reporting a form of disability (55%, n=76 21% physical) Children with a disability (33%, n=47 based on mothers reports)
Questions guiding the research 1) How effective are civil intervention orders in supporting safety for both women and children? 2) Are there differences in the experiences of the women who are able to stay in their home and those who chose to relocate?
What and where is home?
Sample divided by current accommodation Table 2: Place of residence at time of completing the questionnaire Place of residence n % Living in my original home again 32 26 % In a new place of my own, different from the home I shared with my abusive partner 28 23 % Temporary (refuge, w/friends, transitional, caravan) 64 52 % Sub-Total 124 90% Living with partner 13 9% Same-sex couple 1 1% Total 138 100 %
Relocation For some women, staying at home was never going to be an option: I am dealing with an extremely irrational person, none of these things would have assisted my safety. (living in refuge) Nothing would have helped and I didn't want to stay in the house. (living elsewhere) I would not want to stay because his family also live in the area. (living elsewhere) Property was ex-partner s mother s house so could not safely remain there. (living in refuge)
Many different roots to safety
Supports offered Women trying to stay at home (n=32) Women in refuge or transitional housing (n=28) Women living elsewhere or with family & friends (n=64) Changed locks 55% 6% 21% Assistance to gain intervention order (police, FV agency, legal) 55% 78% 63% Police removed partner from the home 45% 22% 21% General legal advice 45% 33% 46% Provided with refuge accommodation or transitional housing 23% 100% 38% Lawyer acting on my behalf at court 23% 17% 33% Financial assistance for Bond 0% 0% 29% I wasn t offered any safety assistance 18% 6% 25% Total (may equal >100% due to multiple responses) 100% 100% 100%
Other supports which could have assisted Information & reassurance Practical For someone to come around and check to see if I and my children were OK. More supportive. (trying to live at home) I wouldn't have tried to suicide 3 times this year if I had a case worker to help me through this. (living elsewhere) Transitional housing would have been helpful since I was under severe stress to find a house of my own. 9 out of 10 rental applications were rejected. I spent many sleepless nights thinking about accommodation. (living elsewhere) Legal support: I couldn't get legal aid due to my share in the home, and my ex-husband's lawyer blocked me from using women's legal service. (trying to live at home)
The use of intervention orders Table 3: Protective orders and women s living situation Living in original home New place of my own, different from shared home Temporary (refuge, w/friends, caravan) Total n % n % n % n % Yes: Intervention order with exclusion condition Yes: Intervention order but no exclusion condition 22 71% 14 50% 28 46% 64 53% 3 10% 4 14% 12 20% 19 16% No intervention order 6 19% 10 36% 21 34% 37 31% * Excluding four non-respondents / don t know. Total 31 100% 28 100% 61 100% 120* 100%
Impact of the Intervention order Assessment of Impact / Helpfulness of intervention order Foundations for safety?
Breaches of intervention orders Yes (breached intervention order) Living in original home New place of my own, different from shared home Temporary (refuge, w/friends, caravan) Total 21 96% 12 71% 25 66% 58 75% No (never breached intervention order) 1 5% 5 29% 13 (9.4) 24% 19 25% Total 22 100% 17 100% 38 100% 77** 100%
Sitting duck! Women and children safe@home or sitting ducks?
Has the intervention order affected abuse? Living in original home New place of my own, different from shared home Temporary (refuge, w/friends, caravan) Total n % n % n % n % The abuse is worse 0 0% 1 6% 5 16% 6 8% The abuse has reduced but not stopped, or has changed 20 80% 8 47% 19 59% 47 64% The abuse has stopped 5 20% 8 47% 8 25% 21 28% Total 25 100% 17 100% 32 100% 74* 100%
Intervention orders more effective with relocation
Overall assessment of intervention orders Taking out an intervention order (and the combined supports provided alongside) generally increases a sense of safety Most women (74%) would apply for an order again; 19% were unsure; 7% would not apply again
Summary points Intervention orders are viewed by women as important ; more valued if breaches would be followed-up by police and held up in court. Intervention order must be accompanied by other safety supports as breaches are common and difficult to prove evidence collection is critical. Women are safer if accountability for breaches had a stronger impact on their (ex) partners. Fines and signed undertakings are having little impact Only some men respond to Intervention Orders those with something to lose
Summary cont Very little indication that stronger penalties for breaches (other than fines or undertakings) are being imposed. Positive reports from women that when Police do follow-up on a breach (eg phoning or visiting abuser) it does have a positive impact in reducing the severity and frequency of breaching.
Returning to children and safe@home
Children named on protection orders In Victoria an exponential rise in children named on Protection Orders 09-10 20,000 children named on Protection Orders and rate is rising rapidly. Represents a 341% increase in an 11 year period In theory in Victoria IO conditions can over-ride Family Court Orders for 21 days
Community attitudes are relevant Australians Attitudes to Violence Against Women findings from 2013 53% of those surveyed believed women made false allegations of DV to gain an advantage in custody disputes (46% of women and 59% of men). 51% in 2009
Role for CP Greater system s integration is needed to make Safe@Home effective Strengthening the role of CP? Evidence gathering for the family court processes? Leverage with DV perpetrators?
Safe@Home strategies?