co-occurrence of ipv and - university of new brunswick · feeling that my professional expertise...
TRANSCRIPT
Co-occurrence of IPV and CM: what do we know?
• Co-‐occurrence of IPV and CM is frequently encountered, particularly in clinical populations (Goddard & Bedi, 2010; Holt et al., 2010; Trocmé et al., 2010)
• It leads to: • serious consequences for children’s safety and
development (Camacho et al., 2012; McDonald et al., 2009);
• affects conditions in which parental roles are exercised (Bourassa et al., 2008);
• creates considerable challenges for collaboration between the practionners involved (Douglas &Walsh, 2010; Hester, 2011; Lessard et al., 2010; Malik et al., 2008; Potito et al., 2009; Wentd, 2010).
Previous research (Banks, Dutch & Wang, 2008; Wendt, 2010; Potito, Day, Carson & O’Leary, 2009) indicated that the difficulties of collaboration between different organizations concerned are mainly related to: 1) having not the same understanding of the problem and
possible solutions 2) power struggles and 3) lack of time
BUT: resources agreed about the importance of ensuring the safety of children (Lessard et al., 2010)
Objective / Methodology
• To evaluate an model of collaboration between different practitioners working in IPV and CM fields:
• child protection • services for victims of IPV • services for partner with violent behavior
• Mixt methodology (qualitative and quantitative)
• Priority = safety of children and victims of IPV
Aspects evaluated by questionnaire to practitioners: improvement in their knowledge about the problems; differences and consensus between the practitioners during the meeting;
overall appreciation of the collaboration meeting appreciation of the clinical discussion facilitators and obstacles appreciation of the choice of people for the meeting; other collaboration experiences in their field.
Open questions with short-‐answers (qualitative data) Likert-‐scale and multiple choice questions (quantitative data)
29 families (115 practioners)
Ref PIJ List of children expo- sed to IPV in CPS:
Total list: 590 Protocole not applicable : 577 References : 9 Sample : 2
References by practioners:
References: 45 Sample : 27
Thematic content analysis method (Mayer & Deslauriers, 2000) with support of N’Vivo software – 99,27% inter-‐judge agreement in the codification
Descriptive analysis with quantitative data
Results: practitioners’ satisfaction Very satisfied
Satisfied Not very satisfied
Unsatisfied
Relevance of the discussions for my professional practice. 59.3 % 39.83 % 0.8 % -- Freedom of expression (I’m comfortable expressing my ideas). 83.3 % 13.3 % 3.3 % -- Feeling that my professional expertise and skills are acknowledged. 74.2 % 23.3 % 2.5 % -- Other people’s professional expertise and skills seem to be acknowledged (no impression that some people are more expert than others).
81.7 % 18.3 % -- --
Openness of the group to hearing and respecting divergent ideas, opinions, and comments.
85.7 % 12.6 % 1.7 % --
My own contribution to the discussion. 68.7 % 31.3 % -- -- Facilitator’s work in allowing everyone to express themselves sufficiently. 80.9 % 18.3 % 0.8 % --
Support for the workers’ practice Help to get a better understanding of families and greater collaboration between organizations
On réalise qu’on n’a pas le choix de collaborer. Chacun a son approche,
mais comment arriver à avoir un point de vue commun, moins en silo? [On doit] développer de belles relations entendre l’opinion de chacun et être plus sensible au vécu de l’autre.
We realize that we don't have the choice but/not to collaborate.
Everyone has their approach, but how do you reach a common viewpoint that's not in a silo? [We have to] develop good relationships ear everyone's opinion, and be more
sensitive to other people's experiences.
Practitioner working with women/intervenante auprès des femmes
0,0%
10,0%
20,0%
30,0%
40,0%
50,0%
60,0%
Beaucoup
Moyennement
Un peu
Pas du tout
« Given everyone's expertise and their involvement in the child's situation, we were able to better identify/ determine the child's situation and make better, decisions for the child » « Grâce à l’expertise et à l’implication de chacun, nous étions en mesure de mieux cerner la situation et les besoins des enfants et de prendre des décisions plus appropriées et centrées sur la sécurité des victimes».
Discussion • Possible links between the knowledge of the
other organizations and the decrease in disagreements?
• Factors explaining the practioners’s satisfaction:
• a neutral facilitator • attitudes of the practitioners • each field of expertise represented
• More than one participation: a limit of the study or a concrete positive impact of the project?
Limitations • Sample size • Geographic particularity • Some practitioners participated more than one time
• The research-‐action done before this evaluation (Lessard, 2011) which aim to understand the controversies and points of agreement, and to develop an innovative model of collaboration may have influenced the results
Guide complet présentant la stratégie
Guide d’implantation pour une pratique concertée en violence conjugale et maltraitance Marie-‐Ève Drouin, Anne-‐Sophie Germain, Pamela Alvares-‐Lizotte , Yennelys Alcedo, Rhéa Delisle, Marie-‐France
Godin, Julie Ménard, Valérie Meunier, Mélanie St-‐Laurent, Maryline Trottier, Geneviève Lessard, Pierre Turcotte
En ligne: www.criviff.qc.ca Commande par téléphone :
Marie-‐Hélène Labrecque, CRI-‐VIFF Québec Téléphone : (418) 656-‐3286 Courriel : [email protected]
Questions?
Comments?
