east kimberley family violence hub and outreach …

EAST KIMBERLEY FAMILY VIOLENCE HUB

Evaluation Summary Report

December 2012

AND OUTREACH SERVICE

1

CONTENTS

Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 2

Evaluation Methodology .................................................................................................. 3

Report Structure ............................................................................................................... 3

The East Kimberley ........................................................................................................... 4

Activities of the East Kimberley Family Violence Hub and Outreach Service ................... 7

Outcomes ....................................................................................................................... 14

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 18

Appendix 1. .................................................................................................................... 19

2

INTRODUCTION

In 2008 the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) funded the Department for Communities to develop a comprehensive model of intervention to combat family violence1 in the East Kimberley communities of Kununurra, Warmun, Wyndham, Kalumburu and Oombulgurri. Extensive research and planning was undertaken over a 12 month period including community consultation, community mapping, consideration of relevant data and literature. The service model, known as the East Kimberley Family Violence Hub and Outreach Service (the Hub), included the following program components:

service provision ‐ the Hub staffing included a manager, men’s outreach worker, women’s outreach worker and two community educators;

brokerage and capacity building;

infrastructure development; and

community education. FACHSIA provided $6.8 million over three years to the Department for Child Protection to implement the Hub. The Hub commenced operation in mid‐2010 and served the communities of Kununurra, Warmun, Wyndham and Kalumburu until June 20122. The aim of the Hub was for Aboriginal3 families and children living in and around the East Kimberley communities of Kalumburu, Warmun, Wyndham and Kununurra to experience a level of safety from family violence, commensurate with other families and children in Western Australia. To achieve this aim, the specific objectives of the Hub were to:

1. increase safety for all members of the community recognising that women and children are predominately the victims of abuse;

2. improve accountability and responsibility for those who use violence in families; 3. develop an understanding on the part of communities that family violence is not

acceptable; and 4. support consistent and coordinated responses from all parties involved in responding to

family violence.

Peter Smith, Thirdforce Consultancy Services, conducted a detailed action research evaluation of

the Hub. This document provides a summary of the evaluation findings.

1 The term family violence is used throughout this report to capture a broader expression encompassing domestic violence and the abuse of children and other family members. 2 Oombulgurri formally closed in 2011. Residents of Oombulgurri relocated to locations of their choice. 3 Aboriginal people refers to Aboriginal Peoples and Torres Strait Islanders

3

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

Approach Commencing in 2010, an action research method was employed to evaluate the Hub. Action research refers to a process of continual problem solving and improvement where the progressive findings of the research/evaluation are used to inform future planning and directions of the service. Six monthly reports were provided by the evaluator to the Department for Child Protection.

Key Research Questions The key research questions for the evaluation were to determine:

1. the extent to which there was a reduction in family violence and improved outcomes for victims and responses to perpetrators over the life of the service; and

2. the extent to which the project developed the capacity of individual communities to have an impact on family violence.

The evaluation also aimed to identify factors that supported or hindered implementation of the Hub and the impact of the Hub’s implementation on East Kimberley communities e.g., any unforeseen benefits or consequences for the communities.

Sources of Data and Information Information and data was gathered at six monthly intervals from a variety of sources including:

data about family violence from WA Police, Department of Health, Department for Child Protection and Department of the Attorney General (referred to as the minimum data set);

surveys of the Hub staff;

surveys and interviews with service providers from government and non‐government agencies; and

interviews with people from the target Aboriginal communities. Appendix 1 provides four tables that match the key objectives of the model with program strategies, measurable performance indicators and the sources of data that were used to assess progress/achievement of the objectives.

REPORT STRUCTURE

The evaluation results are presented in the following order: 1. Population and baseline family violence data for each of the East Kimberley communities

involved in the Hub. 2. An overview of the Hub activities and data related to specific activity achievements. 3. Discussion about the success of the Hub in achieving the aim and objectives, including

factors that contributed to success and factors that created barriers for implementation. 4. Conclusion.

THE EAST

In 2009 theAustralia. T Figure 1 prthe Hub. Aoutlined on It is importrelated to Kimberley Kimberley Aboriginal

sub

me

hou

edu

pre

suic

pov The complis a criticacontribute

Figure 1. T

T KIMBER

e populatioThe percent

rovides a mA brief profn pages 5 a

tant to notefamily viocommunitiin particulapeople. Th

bstance use

ental health

using and o

ucation;

emature dea

cide; and

verty and di

lexity of issal context f to an escal

he East Kim

LEY

on of the Eatage of Abo

map of the Efile of eachnd 6.

e, that, althlence, theries. Researcar, perform is includes m

and misuse

;

vercrowdin

ath;

isadvantage

ues for mafor the Hublation of fam

mberley regi

st Kimberleoriginal peop

East Kimbeh of these c

hough the foe are a nuch demonsworse on ameasures re

e;

ng;

e.

ny Aboriginb implemenmily violenc

ion and com

ey made upple living in

rley identifcommunitie

ocus of thismber of hetrates that all measureelated to:

nal communntation andce and creat

mmunities t

p 0.35% of t the region

ying the coes including

evaluationealth and wAboriginal

es of health

nities, partid this evalute barriers t

argeted by

he overall pwas 40%.

ommunities g baseline f

and the dawelfare issucommunitand wellbe

cularly thosuation, as mto safety an

the Hub.

population

that were family viole

ata presentues impactities in WA, eing compa

se in remotmany of thnd accounta

Kalumb

Wyndha

Kununu Warmun

4

of Western

involved innce data is

ed below isng on Eastand in thered to non‐

te locationsese factorsability.

uru

am

rra

n

4

n

n s

s t e ‐

s s

5

East Kimberley – Population and Family Violence Indicators 2009

Table 1. Population and Family Violence Indicators Kununurra Data Source

Indicator Raw data

ABS (2006) Population figures 3748 residents of whom 969 were Aboriginal

WA Police Family violence incidents WA Police attended 353 incidents of family violence, 111 involved families with children

WA Police Police Orders 98 police orders were issued

WA Police Domestic homicide 2

Courts Violence restraining order (VRO) applications

156 applications

Courts VRO & police order breaches 59 breaches

Health Hospitalisations 62 admissions related to family violence (44 of these were women)

Child Protection

Notifications for family violence

Not available for 2009

Table 2. Population and Family Violence Indicators Wyndham Data Source

Indicator Raw data

ABS (2006) Population figures 770 residents of whom 309 were Aboriginal.


WA Police Police orders 111 police orders were issued



106 applications


Health Hospitalisations 5 admissions related to family violence (3 of these were women)

Child Protection

Notifications for FDV Not available for 2009

Table 3. Population and Family Violence Indicators Kalumburu Data Source

Indicator Raw data

ABS (2008) Population figures Aboriginal community with an estimated 550 residents





48 applications


Health Hospitalisations 3 admissions related to family violence

Child Protection



6

Table 4. Population and Family Violence Indicators Warmun Data Source

Indicator Raw data

ABS (2006) Population figures 250 residents of whom 194 were Aboriginal. The Warmun community is known to fluctuate to up to 400 residents




Courts Violence Restraining Order (VRO) applications

1 application


Health Hospitalisations 9 admissions related to family violence

Child Protection



7

ACTIVITIES OF THE EAST KIMBERLEY FAMILY VIOLENCE HUB AND OUTREACH SERVICE

Developing Critical Infrastructure

The Hub included funds for infrastructure in the communities of Kununurra, Wyndham, Warmun, Oombulgurri and Kalumburu. Infrastructure projects were determined through the initial community consultation conducted in 2008 and during community safety planning through the life of the Hub. The focus of the infrastructure works was to create a Safe House in each community and safe spaces for men and women to participate in community based activities and/or service provision. Table 5 below outlines the infrastructure projects and their status at June 2012. Table 5. Infrastructure Projects and their Status at June 2012

Location Project Status Kununurra Administrative

premises for the Hub COMPLETED 2010.

Oombulgurri Upgrades to the Oombulgurri safe house

COMPLETED 2010. Upgrades included electrical re‐wiring, installation of air‐conditioning, new furniture and household goods, new security measures, painting and landscaping. NB: when Oombulgurri closed, resources were transferred to Wyndham Refuge.

Oombulgurri Development of a men’s space

NOT UNDERTAKEN: This project did not commence due to closure of Oombulgurri community.

Wyndham Refurbishment of Wyndham women’s refuge

IN PROGRESS: Department of Housing are undertaking a maintenance/repair audit and will consider the funds required for the upgrade.

Wyndham Support to establish a men’s space

COMPLETED 2011: Ngnowar Aerwah established a Men’s Shed/Men’s Space at the Ngnowar Aerwah Community Centre.

Kalumburu Development of a safe house in Kalumburu

IN PROGRESS: Substantial work was undertaken to establish Kalumburu Safe House between April 2010 and June 2012. A block of land was identified and an architect worked in consultation with Kalumburu Council and the community to design a suitable facility. Multiple tender processes were undertaken to identify a suitable builder. The expected completion date is December 2012.

Kununurra Refurbishment of the women’s refuge

COMPELTED 2011: Upgrades included internal and external painting, kitchen upgrade, tiling, new locks, remodeling of the office space and provision of storage units.

Kununurra Infrastructure/capital works at the women’s lore grounds

COMPLETED 2011: Upgrades included provision of water, power, additional buildings and storage.

Kununurra Establishment of a men’s space

COMPLETED 2011: Upgrades included modifications to the compound and an existing building to provide office space. Equipment and resources provided for the office and men’s space.

Warmun Upgrade Warmun safe house

NOT UNDERTAKEN: In 2011 Warmun flooded. A task force has been established to rebuild the community. The task force has been provided with details about the women’s space, men’s space and community facility. These will be considered during planning and re‐building.

Warmun Development of a men’s space

NOT UNDERTAKEN: As above.

8

Men’s and Women’s Worker ‐ Hub

The Hub Men’s and Women’s workers were responsible for providing direct services to victims and perpetrators of family violence. Depending on the client and their circumstances this included risk assessment and the provision of information, referral, safety planning, risk management and case management. The Men’s and Women’s workers were also responsible for collaborating with other agencies and supporting coordinated responses where more than one agency was involved with a client/family. Table 6 below outlines the type of work undertaken by the Men’s and Women’s Workers between July 2010 and December 2011. Table 6. Activities of the Men’s and Women’s Workers between July 2010 and December 2011 Activities of the Men’s and Women’s Workers

Number

Assessment, planning and intervention activities provided to individuals and communities 68

People who were provided information / support / referral who were victims and/or perpetrators of family violence

89

Case management support for high risk victims 28

Non‐mandated behaviour change programs facilitated 6

Community safety plans and protocols developed 6

Training events provided to community FV workers, and strong men’s and women’s groups 39

Total of visits to the community (# days or part thereof spent at the community) 99

Surveys and interviews with Hub stakeholders demonstrated very high levels of satisfaction with their work and roles. For example, 74% of stakeholders surveyed said that they were satisfied or very satisfied with the work of the Hub staff. Similarly, interviews with stakeholders also reflected high levels of satisfaction with their work, role and impact on the target communities –

“Those services and workers, work hard to achieve the mandates that they have“. “I am very satisfied that the personnel involved have their 'hearts' in their work and want to see positive outcomes for the 'whole' family“. “Hub workers are cooperative, friendly and helpful to organisations/clients/victims and family members”.

9

Community Education

Through the employment of two community educators, the Hub undertook significant and sustained work within the communities to:

raise awareness about family violence;

change violence supportive attitudes and stereotypes; and

provide individuals with the knowledge, skills and resource to stay safe and not use violence in intimate and family relationships.

The range of events and activities conducted by community educators between July 2010 and December 2011 included:

33 awareness raising events/strategies such as media advertising, community marches against violence and information sessions.

The development of 17 products or resources for the communities including men’s behaviour change booklets, information packs, banners and promotional t‐shirts.

57 community education workshops ranging from presentations at school assemblies to information sessions at community barbeques and information/education for strong men’s and women’s groups.

In addition to the work of community educators, the Hub sought to increase the capacity of the East Kimberley human services workforce to educate and inform clients, children and young people about family violence. This was supported by a number of training programs including Family Violence, Love Bites and Protective Behaviours (see Training for Service Providers on page 10). The impact of community education activities on community members’ awareness about family violence was assessed through structured interviews at the beginning of the Hub implementation and then again at the conclusion of the Hub. The results demonstrate a significant positive impact on community awareness, including increases from:

78% to 90% of community members who thought family violence was a ‘big issue’.

23% to 40% of community members who felt they could speak out if family violence was occurring at home.

12% to 52% of community members who felt services were providing communities what they wanted in relation to family violence.

23‐67% of community members felt family violence was becoming less acceptable. It is important to note that the full effect of education, particularly those programs and activities that targeted children and young people, is impossible to assess. Measurement of ‘prevention’ e.g., trying to measure behaviours that have not or are not occurring is complex and fraught with factors that compromise the reliability of data and outcomes. Therefore, although it is possible to measure and demonstrate shifts in knowledge and attitudes it is not possible to quantify the impact on behaviour. This is particularly the case when the full effects may not be known or demonstrated until the children and young people who were the targets of the preventive education, begin to form intimate relationships of their own.

10

Training for Service Providers

In addition to educating the community, the Hub invested in training and education for service providers in Kununurra, Wyndham, Warmun and Kalumburu to increase their knowledge about family violence and their capacity to educate, inform and respond to clients at risk or experiencing family violence. Table 7 provides a summary of the formal education/training programs provided for East Kimberley service providers. Table 7. Training Programs for Service Providers

Date Location Training Program Number4

2010 Kununurra Responding to Family Violence 12

Nov, 2010 Kununurra Protective Behaviours Level One 29

Feb ‐ June, 2011

(Kal/Wa/Wyn) Protective Behaviours Level One 48

Feb, 2011 Kununurra Men’s Behaviour Change Program (conducted by Cross Borders) 7

March 2011 Kununurra Family Violence Skill Set 10

March, 2011 Kununurra Love Bites 30

June, 2011 Kununurra Protective Behaviours Level Two/Three 7

June, 2011 Kununurra Protective Behaviours Level One 7

June, 2011 Wyndham Love Bites 9

June, 2011 Kununurra Love Bites 9

June, 2011 Kununurra Protective Behaviours Parent Workshop 12

2011 Kununurra Managing High Risk Cases of Family Violence 30

2012 Kununurra Common Risk Assessment and Risk Management Framework 45

To determine participants’ satisfaction with the training programs and their use of the knowledge and resources they acquired, the evaluator surveyed and interviewed 40 training participants between two to seven months following their completion of a training program. Results of the survey demonstrated that 92% of respondents found the training they attended worthwhile. The specific training outcomes for participants included:

87.5% had a greater understanding of family violence;

90% reported increased capacity to respond to family violence;

77.5% were able to take what they learned and embed it in their practice; and

67.5% said that the training would help them to support Aboriginal communities to understand and respond to family violence.

Common themes arising from participant interviews were:

Reflection on ‘a ha’ moments as participants gained greater levels of insight into the complex dynamic of family violence.

Greater understanding and reflection on the role and responsibility of service providers and the service system to intervene in family violence cases to protect women and children, including the importance of educating children about safe and healthy relationships.

4 The participant data in Table 7 relates to the number of people who completed evaluation forms and does not reflect the total number of participants.

11

Coordinated Responses to Family Violence

Between July 2010 and September 2012 the Hub provided funding to Starick Services to establish a Family and Domestic Violence Case Management and Coordination Service (CMCS) for the East Kimberley. The role of the CMCS was to bring agencies together to participate in case management of high risk family violence and to record and report identified barriers to victim safety and perpetrator accountability. The CMCS is a mechanism for supporting agencies to take collective responsibility for high risk cases. The role of the Coordinator is ‘executive support’ to organise meetings, manage communications and bring service providers to the table for multi‐agency case management. NB: for many service providers, participation in CMCS is dependent on the issues arising in the cases (e.g., participation on a needs basis). The CMCS is underpinned by a Governance and Operations Manual that details the case management and reporting procedures and a Memorandum of Understanding to support information sharing between government and non‐government services that respond to family violence. To support implementation of the CMCS, the Hub arranged for a two day training program, Managing High Risk Cases of Family Violence, to be delivered to service providers from a wide range of agencies. Between June 2010 and December 2011 the East Kimberley CMCS managed 229 cases. The main referrers to the service were WA Police, Department of Corrective Services and the Department for Child Protection. The views of service providers participating in the CMCS were mixed in regards to the program’s success/efficacy. Responses were often polarised (e.g., equal amounts of respondents who were satisfied with the service compared to those who were not). It is possible that the evaluation outcomes related to the CMCS were impacted by participants understanding (or lack thereof) about the service, its purpose and processes, as well as the ‘effectiveness’ of the employed Coordinator. In addition to the CMCS, another key strategy to support multi‐agency coordination and collaboration was the local implementation of the Family and Domestic Violence Common Risk Assessment and Risk Management Framework (the CRARMF). The CRARMF sets minimum standards for the identification of family and domestic violence and the assessment, management and monitoring of risk. CRARMF is relevant for all service providers, government and non‐government, mainstream and specialist. CRARMF training was provided to service providers in the East Kimberley in February 2012. The response was very positive with 45 people attending the two day training program. Many of the people in attendance commented that the large turn‐out of service providers from a wide range of agencies was a testament to the work of the Hub in encouraging and supporting the importance of coordinated responses between agencies. Implementation of the CRARMF is ongoing through continued training, alignment of the CRARMF with funding agreements and the provision of support to embed the framework in agencies policies and procedures.

12

Men’s Behaviour Change Program

In February 2011, the Hub worked in partnership with the Cross Borders Program to introduce a Men’s Behaviour Change Program (MBCP) to the East Kimberley. The program aimed to reduce the incidence of physical and psychological harm in Aboriginal communities by delivering culturally and linguistically appropriate programs to perpetrators of family violence. The program involved discussions about the varying components of family violence, the impact of violence on individuals as well as families and communities, taking responsibility for family violence, the strength and longevity of Indigenous culture, cycles of violence, cycles of change and planning for a future without violence5. At April 2012, the MBCP had been run on seven occasions, three times in Kununurra, twice in Wyndham and once each in Kalumburu and Warmun. Overall, 69 men started the program and 32 completed. Some men participated voluntarily while others were mandated by the courts. The completion rate for the MBCP in East Kimberley (46%) was higher than completion rates recorded for Aboriginal participants in community family and domestic violence programs across the state in 2011‐12 (29.8%). It is also higher than completion rates for the Indigenous Family Violence programs for 2011‐12 (excluding Geraldton), which had a completion rate of 30%6. Outcomes of the MBCP were measured in terms of participant satisfaction, recidivism (participants’ use of violence after the program) and service provider’s views. Feedback from the men who participated in the MBCP was overwhelmingly positive including substantial support and enthusiasm for more programs in more locations. Men commented that it provided a forum to discuss family violence that had not previously been available, that they had greater understanding of family violence and learned options for managing their use of violence. Participants from the first three MBCP (February – August 2011) were monitored in regards to recidivism. At December 2011, 14 men who had completed the program had not reoffended. 5 of the 19 men that had completed the program were charged with family violence related offences. This is comparable to the outcomes of MBCP more broadly and reinforces that behavior change is a long term process that must involve an accountable and coordinated systems response e.g., police, courts, program provider and victim services.

Service providers also gave positive feedback about the MBCP, including examples where men who had been involved in the program had chosen alternatives to family or community violence. Learning’s from the MBCP for the program providers included:

Recognition that it is important to provide parallel support to victims. Good practice in any MBCP includes partner contact and support delivered by the program provider or a women’s service working in partnership.

Ongoing training and support for facilitators.

Opportunities for follow‐up with participants including for men to participate in the MBCP on multiple occasions.

Identification of measures/indicators to assist with evaluation. Better management of the differential referral process for mandated and voluntary clients,

including consideration of exclusion criteria for very complex and high risk men.

5 Cross Borders Programs: Indigenous Family Violence Programs Report. December, 2010 6 Comparative data for completion rates of men’s behaviour change programs obtained from Department of Corrective Services (2012)

13

Funded Services The Hub funded and supported local organisations in Kununurra, Kalumburu, Warmun and Wyndham to increase their capacity to respond to family violence by adding resources and specialist interventions to complement existing service delivery. In total, 22 programs were funded including prevention, early intervention and tertiary responses:

Funded prevention programs included: o National Association for Child Abuse and Neglect for provision of Love Bites training; o Protective Behaviours Association for the provision of Protective Behaviors training; o sponsorship of East Kimberley Junior Sports; o sponsorship of the East Kimberley Australian Football League project; o sponsorship of the Barramundi Concert; o sponsorship of the Indigenous Hip Hop Concert; o provision of musical equipment for Kalumburu community; o Gelganyem reconnection program; and o Save the Children and Warringarri Strong Culture – Strong Families project

Funded early intervention programs included: o Anglicare Kinway Kununurra Women’s Fishing Group; o Greyspace Mediation providing mediation for community violence and family feuding; o Wunan Werlemen program mentor; and o Gawooleng Yawoodeng project worker.

Funded tertiary intervention programs included: o Anglicare Kinway specialist children’s family and domestic violence counselor; o Cross Borders Men’s Behaviour Change Program; o Gawooleng Yawoodeng women’s family violence outreach worker; o Ngnowar Aerwah men’s family violence outreach worker; o Ngnowar Aerwah women’s family violence outreach worker; o Ngnowar Aerwah community family violence worker; o Save the Children Family Violence Skill Set training; o Starick Services Case Management and Coordination Service; and o Gija Health to provide psychological counseling for Warmun community

Overall, 69% of surveyed stakeholders said that they were satisfied or very satisfied with the funded programs. Between programs, satisfaction levels ranged from 43% to 78%. The increase the in capacity of services in Kununurra, Warmun, Wyndham and Kalumburu had a significant impact on the communities and their experiences of safety, their understanding about family violence including that people using violence are responsible and can choose to change and that there are options/services to help people stop using violence or to escape violence. Service providers commented that, although wholesale change had not occurred (e.g., family violence was not eliminated), significant ‘smaller’ changes were obvious among many people in many locations. This translated to an increased feeling of hope among service providers and community members.

14

OUTCOMES

The evaluation sought to investigate the following two research questions: 1. the extent to which there was a reduction in family violence and improved outcomes for

victims and responses to perpetrators over the life of the service; and 2. the extent to which the project developed the capacity of individual communities to have

an impact on family violence. In addition, the evaluation sought to identify the factors that contributed to success of the Hub or created barriers to implementation. Note: the data and information outlined below demonstrates the immediate impacts and effects of the Hub. However what is currently unknown is the medium and long term outcomes. For example, it is too soon to determine/measure the impact of the Hub’s primary prevention work with children and young people and whether increased understanding and awareness about family violence will continue to reduce tolerance to violence within the communities. The evaluation findings therefore should be interpreted with an understanding that the full magnitude of the Hub’s impact on family violence in the East Kimberley is yet to be fully realised.

Did the Hub contribute to a reduction in family violence, improved outcomes for victims and better responses to perpetrators?

The Hub had a substantial impact on the quality of responses to family violence in the communities of Kalumburu, Kununurra, Warmun and Wyndham including:

The development or refurbishment of community buildings to provide safe spaces for victims and their children and premises/spaces for men.

Increasing mainstream and specialist service providers knowledge about family violence and their preparedness and capacity to respond.

Increasing the resources available within communities to provide safety focused responses for victims and timely intervention for perpetrators.

Each of these areas of work had a direct and positive impact on the responses to and outcomes for victims and perpetrators of family violence. Evidence of this impact can be drawn from interview findings with service users who provided overwhelming positive support for the services they were provided. In addition, improved outcomes for victims and better responses to perpetrators can be inferred from the substantial changes in community understanding and attitudes between 2009‐2011 including increases from:

30% to 66% of community members who perceive the community to be a safe place in relation to family violence.

23% to 40% of community members who felt they could speak out if family violence was occurring at home.

12% to 52% of community members who felt services were providing communities what they wanted in relation to family violence.

23% to 67% of community members felt family violence was becoming less acceptable. Service providers also commented that there were clear secondary impacts on the wellbeing of women and children, notably more women going to work and more children going to school.

15

Between 2009 and 2011 the number of incidents attended by WA Police in Kununurra increased by 27% (from 353 to 451 incidents). In Wyndham there was an increase of 11% (from 245 to 273) and in Kalumburu and Warmun the number of reported incidents decreased by 30% and 50% respectively7. Interpreting data related to reporting of family violence must be considered within a broader context of education and intervention. An increase in reported incidents can be interpreted to mean:

an increase in the rate of victims reporting to the police;

an increase in the rate of community members contacting the police when they have concerns about family violence;

an increase in the rate of family violence; or

a change in the way police prioritise or record incidents. A decrease in reported incidents can likewise indicate either a decrease in the rate of family violence or a decrease in the number of people reporting family violence to the police. Feedback from service providers and consideration of court data would suggest that the increase in reported incidents in Kununurra and Wyndham is related to more people seeking help and reporting (rather than more people experiencing family violence). For example, service providers reported that there was greater uptake of services by victims and perpetrators over the life of the Hub and increased rates of sustained service access/participation. In addition, police and courts data showed more victims consenting to 72 hour police orders and participating in criminal investigations and proceedings for breaches of violence restraining orders and police orders. Overall, the results of the evaluation demonstrate improved outcomes for victims and better responses to perpetrators. However the translation of these services into a reduction in family violence was not able to be determined by the evaluation.

Did the Hub help develop the capacity of individual communities to have an impact on family violence?

The Hub undertook a number of activities to support communities to manage/have an impact on family violence, including:

promoting understanding/awareness about family violence;

supporting community members to take collective responsibility for protecting women and children by not condoning or tolerating violence;

building infrastructure to keep people safe and to provide a place for services;

supporting collaborative responses between agencies to maximise the impact and effectiveness of intervention; and

teaching children and young people about staying safe, healthy relationships and dispelling myths or attitudes that normalise violence.

The extent to which these strategies succeeded in supporting communities to take action in relation to family violence is unknown.

7 In Warmun, the reduction in reported family violence incidents is likely related to the flooding and evacuation of the community.

16

However, what can be drawn upon or noted is that community members reported feeling safer and service providers were able to comment on many instances of changed behaviour in communities e.g., individuals choosing not to use violence or community members intervening to protect women and children when there were signs of escalating tension. It can be deduced from these examples that the combination of enhancing service capacity to respond to family violence along with increasing the knowledge and understanding of community members had a cumulative positive impact e.g., each strategy in isolation is not as powerful as the combined impact of the two together.

Successes and Challenges

A number of factors contributed to the success of the Hub in increasing the safety of victims the accountability of perpetrators and the awareness/understanding in the community about family violence. These included:

The multi‐pronged approach – services and programs included prevention, early intervention and tertiary responses. This provided opportunities for all community members to be engaged and capacity of the service system to identify and respond to family violence as it was reported or uncovered.

Supporting collaboration between agencies – service providers reported that their responses to family violence were significantly enhanced by the improved communication between services and agencies, greater levels of information sharing, easier identification and agreement between agencies of high risk and sharing of responsibility about risk and victim safety.

Inter‐agency training – supported professional networking, shared or common understandings about family violence and a sense of common goals and shared responsibilities between agencies.

Building the capacity of existing services – training for service providers, refurbishment of facilities and additional resources to respond to family violence was critical. This meant that services that communities were already familiar and engaged with had increased time, knowledge and capacity to address a range of issues related to family violence.

Direct provision of services to men and perpetrators – the service delivery for men and perpetrators was a critical component of the Hub. It allowed for ongoing engagement and education specifically for men about family violence as well as targeted intervention for perpetrators in individual or group formats. Providing services to men is not only important for the safety of women and children but also for delivering a message to communities that it is the perpetrators that are responsible for their use of violence and that they are able to change.

Some of the challenges that affected implementation of the Hub were:

The geography of the East Kimberley and the remoteness of the locations in relation to each other and Perth. For example, the infrastructure projects were impacted by distance, natural disaster (flood) and access.

Outreach model – community members from Kalumburu, and to a lesser degree from Warmun, commented that they would prefer services and workers with a constant presence in the community rather than an outreach approach. Communities commented that this would support engagement and the overall uptake/acceptance of the services provided.

17

Short‐term funding and intervention – women and children experiencing family violence can only be safe and feel safe if the perpetrator has stopped using violence or their violent behaviour has been managed/contained through a criminal or civil justice response. In either case, changing behaviour or effectively managing risk can be a long term process. Short term funding therefore undermines the potential success and benefits of programs/intervention. In the case of the Hub, significant progress was made in relation to community understanding and attitudes about family violence and community members were proactively seeking and engaging in services. How long this will last in absence of the Hub is unknown.

Staff turnover – service providers in the East Kimberley experience high rates of staff turnover. This means that ongoing training and workforce development is critical in order to sustain capacity within the workforce to respond to family violence.

18

CONCLUSION

The activities of the Hub had a positive influence on the communities of Kununurra, Wyndham, Kalumburu and Warmun. All components were important and contributed to improved safety and outcomes for victims, increased accountability and better responses to perpetrators, inter‐agency coordination and increased community understanding and awareness about family violence. The role and activities of the Hub were meaningful and impactful in a number of ways and for a number of reasons, most notably because the communities were informed, engaged and supported to safely stand against and reject violence. It also needs to be recognised however, that the full effect of the Hub’s prevention/education work is likely to be unrealised at this early stage of implementation. The considerable success of the Hub in a relatively short period of time demonstrates that with continued cooperation between agencies and investment in services and communities, there is potential for women and children to live safely within their communities without fear of violence and abuse from intimate partners and family members.

19

APPENDIX 1.

Tables 8‐11 below match the key objectives of the model with program strategies, measurable performance indicators and the sources of data that were used to assess progress/achievement of the objective. Table 8. Objective one and related strategies, performance indicators and data sources

Objective One: Increased safety for all members of the community recognising that women and children are predominately the victims of abuse

Strategies Key Performance Indicators Data Source

Programs to increase safety Police/health/DCP records of family violence

Minimum data set

Develop infrastructure to support responses to family violence

Development of safe houses Community satisfaction with infrastructure developed Program staff satisfaction with infrastructure developed

Contextual data analysis Community members questions Program staff questionnaire

Develop the capacity of communities to address family violence

Community satisfaction with programs implemented Program staff satisfaction with programs implemented

Community members questions Program staff questionnaire

Table 9. Objective two and related strategies, performance indicators and data sources

Objective Two: Improved accountability and responsibility for those who use violence in families


Services contribute at individual, community and systemic level to improve accountability/responsibility

Number of individuals that attend counselling

Minimum data set

Number/type of services offered to communities

Minimum data set

Number of VROs /Orders issued Number of agencies participating in CMCS

Minimum data set Minimum data set

20

Table 10. Objective three and related strategies, performance indicators and data sources

Objective Three: Understanding on the part of communities that family violence is not acceptable


Professional and specialist services delivered that enables individuals to accept violence is not acceptable

Increase in the level of acknowledgment that violence is not acceptable

Professional and specialist service evaluations

Community education initiatives to raise awareness

Community satisfaction with initiatives

Minimum data set Community members questions

Provide professional and specialist services directly to people in communities

Community satisfaction with initiatives

Stakeholder questionnaire Program staff questionnaire Community members questions Program staff questionnaire

Table 11. Objective four and related strategies, performance indicators and data sources

Objective Four: Consistent and coordinated responses from all parties involved in responding to family violence


Systems work together effectively

Stakeholder satisfaction with enhanced collaboration around family violence in the East Kimberley Program staff satisfaction with enhanced collaboration around family violence in the East Kimberley Community satisfaction with multi‐agency response

Stakeholder Questionnaire Program staff questionnaire Community members questions

Develop the capacity of relevant agencies that are located in or visit communities to address family violence

Stakeholder satisfaction with their enhanced capacity as a consequence of program What offered/what taken up

Minimum data set Stakeholder Questionnaire

Coordinate services around high risk cases of family violence and identify barriers to agencies working collaboratively to address safety and accountability

Coordination occurring around high risk cases Satisfaction among program staff/stakeholders/community with coordinated service

Minimum data set Community members questions Stakeholder questionnaire Program staff questionnaire

east kimberley family violence hub and outreach …

Documents