The Future of Women's Refuges

MARCH 2018 VOLUME 31 – ISSUE 1 ISSN 1032-6170

The Future of Women’s Refuges

Contents Council to Homeless Persons

Editorial | 3

Jenny Smith Kate Colvin

FEATURE: The Future of Women’s Refuges

Chief Executive Officer Manager — Policy and Communications Ian Gough Manager — Consumer Programs Nich Rogers Transition Planning Coordinator Andrew Edgar Capacity Building Officer Lynette Deakes Office Manager Noel Murray Parity Editor Lanie Harris Communications Coordinator Belinda Lack Digital Communications Officer Angela Kyriakopoulos HAS Coordinator Cassandra Bawden Peer Education and Support Program Team Leader Trish Westmore Capacity Building Coordinator Damien Patterson Policy and Advocacy Officer Natasha Castellano Accountant Address 2 Stanley Street Collingwood Melbourne VIC 3066 Phone (03) 8415 6200 Fax (03) 9419 7445 E-mail [email protected] Website www.chp.org.au

Promotion of Conferences, Events and Publications Organisations are invited to have their promotional fliers included in the monthly mailout of Parity. Rates: $90 National distribution, $70 Statewide distribution only.

Write for Parity! Contributions to Parity are welcome. Each issue of Parity has a central focus or theme. However, prospective contributors should not feel restricted by this as Parity seeks to discuss the whole range of issues connected with homelessness and the provision of housing and services to people who are homeless. Where necessary, contributions will be edited. Where possible this will be done in consultation with the contributor.

CHP Website, eNews and Social Media www.chp.org.au/services/parity-magazine/ Contributions can be sent by email to [email protected] in a Microsoft Word or rtf format. If this option is not possible. Contributions can be faxed on (03) 9419 7445 or mailed to CHP. Subscribe to our free eNews to be kept up to date on all the latest news and information from the housing and homelessness sector. Subscribe at: chp.org.au/news-and-events/enewsletters/ Follow us on Twitter: @CHPVic Follow us on Facebook: facebook.com/counciltohomeless/

2018 Parity Publications Schedule NB: Please note that this may be subject to change. Please check out the CHP website: www.chp.org.au for updates. April: Young People,Trauma and Homelessness May: Revisiting Rough Sleeping June: Older People Experiencing Homelessness: What Models of Housing and Support Work Best? July: At the Coalface: Issues in Homelessness Sector Workforce Development August: Issues of Substance: Substance Abuse and Homelessness September: “Marginal Housing: Where to From Here?” joint edition with the AHI October: Mental Health, Housing and Homelessness November: Responding to Homelessness in the ACT December: Housing First

Cover art Woman and Bird, 2012 by Lisa, from Somebody’s Daughter.

The views and opinions expressed in Parity are not necessarily those of CHP.

2

Jenny Smith, Chief Executive Officer, Council to Homeless Persons

Introduction | 5 Alison Macdonald, Policy and Program Manager, DV Vic and Jacqui Theobald, Lecturer in Social Work and Social Policy, La Trobe University Bendigo

Chapter 1: Context The Way Forward in Responding to Domestic and Family Violence | 7 Sue Clifford APM, Chief Executive Officer of Family Safety Victoria and former Commander of the Priority Communities Division at Victoria Police

New National Statistical Report Sheds Light on Family Violence | 9 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare

Profiling Women and Children Experiencing Family Violence in Victoria | 11 who Require a Crisis Supported Response Suellen Murray, RMIT University, Jane Bullen, RMIT University, Juliet Watson, RMIT University and Jacqui Theobald, La Trobe University

Women’s Refuges as Part of Feminism: A View from a Different Angle | 13 Merrindahl Andrew, Program Manager, AWAVA

Turning Off the Tap: Can We Do It? | 15 Sorcha Walshe, Stakeholder Engagement Officer and Dr Alice Clark, Executive Director, Shelter SA

Refuge and Discrimination: | 17 Helping Women’s Refuges to Comply with the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 Gina Squatrito, Senior Adviser, Research and Policy Branch, Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission

Women’s Refuge: A Personal Reflection | 19 Wendy Austin, Wendy Austin Consulting

Celebrating 40 Years with Dignity | 21 Angela Hartwig, Chief Executive Officer, Women’s Council for Domestic and Family Violence Services (WA)

Chapter 2: Meeting Need, Current Issues (A) Infants and Children in Refuge Infants in Refuge: The Ignored Crisis | 23 Paula Westhead, Executive Officer and Emma Hodges, Family and Art Therapist, Emerge: Women and Children’s Support Network

Using an ‘Infant and child led’ Model of Practice | 25 to Facilitate Healing Within the Context of Women’s Refuges Wendy Bunston PhD

(B) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women and Children Meeting the Needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women and Children | 29 Who Experience Family Violence-related Homelessness Janelle Young, Kellyanne Andy, and Joanne Doherty, Elizabeth Morgan House Aboriginal Women’s Service

(C) Refugees, Asylum Seekers and Migrants No Income, No visa, No Way Out: | 31 Improving pathways out of family violence for women on temporary visas Ange O’Brien, Senior Project Officer, Family Safety Victoria

Developing New Models and Services: | 34 Supporting Women and Children Who Currently Do Not Have Residency in Australia Kedy Kristal, Policy Officer, Women’s Council for Domestic and Family Violence Services, Western Australia

(D) Regional and Rural Issues Moving Forward with Effective Hub and Spoke Domestic and Family Violence Services | 36 Elizabeth Rowe, Centacare Catholic Family Services, South Australia

(E) The Role of Law Home Safe: The Role for the Law, Economic Empowerment and Social Housing | 39 in Keeping Women and Children Housed Sally Kenyon and Rachelle Driver, Justice Connect Homeless Law

Chapter 3: Developing New Models of Women’s Refuge Core and Cluster Refuges: Victoria’s Approach and Opportunities | 42 Marita Nyhuis, Principal Project Officer, Family Violence Policy and Programs, Family Safety Victoria

Technology and Safety: The Personal Safety Initiative | 44 Leonie Burnham, Personal Safety Initiative State-wide Coordinator, DV Vic

It’s Nothing You Did or Didn’t Do: | 46 New models of refuge for women and children escaping violence Julie Oberin, Chief Executive Officer, Annie North Inc. Women’s Refuge and Domestic Violence Service

Experiences From a Purpose-Built Cluster Refuge | 49 Georgia Tzelepis, Coordinator of SWISS and Georgia Symmons, Communications Manager, WAYSS

Developing a ‘Wraparound’ Model for Client Services at Safe Futures Foundation | 51 Ellen Matusko, Chief Executive Officer, Safe Futures Foundation

Putting Children at the Core of the Core and Cluster Model | 53 Annette Gillespie, Chief Executive Officer, safe steps Family Violence Centre, with Meghan Hopper and Lucie Burns-Warr

Beryl Women Inc: Understanding the Challenges | 55 Facing Australia’s Longest Running Women’s Refuge Lavanya Kala, Board Director, Beryl Women Inc

Chapter 4: The Future of Women’s Refuges The Future of Women’s Refuges: A Vision for the Future, A Voice From the Future | 57 Tillie Prowse, Chief Executive Officer, Patricia Giles Centre

From Loneliness to Inclusion: The Ongoing Challenge at McAuley | 59 Jocelyn Bignold, Chief Executive Officer, McAuley Community Services for Women and Dr Anita Morris, Board Member, McAuley Community Services for Women

Research in Progress — Encountering Interspecies Homelessness: | 61 Developing an Evidence Base of Social Work with Women at Risk of, or Experiencing Homelessness with a Companion Animal Melissa Laing, PhD candidate RMIT University

Opinions Alison Birchall | 63 Policy Advisor, DV Vic

Jocelyn Bignold | 66 Chief Executive Officer, McAuley Community Services for Women

J

Editorial Jenny Smith, Chief Executive Officer, Council to Homeless Persons

Rapid Rehousing is Working The 227 recommendations of Victoria’s Royal Commission into Family Violence (RCFV) were delivered on the 30 March 2016. The recommendations were warmly welcomed by the community sector, as they clearly identify the work to be done to respond effectively to, and to start to reduce, family violence in our community. The recommendations are stunning in holistic breadth, including attention to: prevention, risk and safety, police and justice, enhanced service responses, workforce development, information sharing, and perpetrators. Very importantly for our sector, the recommendations also focussed on the vital role of housing and support, in both preventing and responding effectively to family violence. I had pinned my hopes on a recommendation of an affordable housing strategy for Victoria, and was disappointed that was not to be. But I was wrong in this assessment. Shortly after the recommendations were announced, the Victorian Government announced a

$152 million family violence housing blitz funding package. The package funded for immediate implementation: new and upgraded crisis accommodation; the redevelopment of women’s refuges to core and cluster models; rapid housing assistance through both the purchase and head-leasing of social housing properties; private rental brokerage; and flexible funding packages. A further $25.5 million announcement in September 2016, provided for new refuges (core and cluster) and extended the system’s capacity for family violence crisis response. In the 2017–18 Victorian budget, $133.2 million was announced for additional long-term housing, more rental assistance, improved crisis accommodation and better support for victims of family violence.

who require a crisis supported response, highlighted elsewhere in this edition of Parity.

The RCFV also recommended the establishment of a Family Violence Housing Assistance Implementation Committee (FVHAIT) to oversee the implementation of its recommendations in relation to housing and support. Minister Foley immediately established this Taskforce, which commenced in May 2016 comprising social and commercial housing experts, family violence specialists from the nongovernment sector and myself as independent Chair.

The Taskforce was also given the task of quantifying the number of additional social housing units required for family violence victims who are unable to gain access to and sustain private rental accommodation. The working group established to lead this work initially engaged Dr Judy Yates of the School of Economics at the University of Sydney, to provide an estimate of the amount of social housing required to maintain social housing at its current 3.5 per cent share of all occupied dwellings in Victoria. Dr Yates found that 1,600 to 1,700 more social housing homes are needed each year over the next 20 years to maintain this level, which is an increase of over 30,000 social housing homes over the next two decades. A summary of the research is available at chp.org.au/yates2017.

The Taskforce was given the role of guiding the implementation of the funding to result in stronger models of housing and support for those affected by family violence; to make sure the investments built on the strengths of existing ‘Safe at Home’ approaches, flexible supports, rental subsidies, and refuge redevelopments. It also guided the research profiling women and children experiencing family violence

To deliver on this responsibility, the Taskforce established two working groups, one focussed on the roll out of the new and additional services, and one focussed on an evaluation of the overall funding package, incorporating some highly detailed evaluations of some elements. While the evaluation is yet to be delivered to the Minister, early indications are that the funding has made a real difference to those affected by family violence, sustaining existing homes through the crisis period and rapidly rehousing those made homeless by family violence. The evaluation will provide valuable information about fine tuning these approaches as they are taken to scale.

The working group has also commissioned work to develop a demand and supply model for social housing and housing related

3

assistance in Victoria. The purpose of the model is to forecast potential need and demand for a range of housing assistance. This includes social housing, and short, medium and long term housing assistance, with crisis housing, rental assistance and support. This modelling is advanced and should be completed in the next few months. The Victorian Government has funded housing and support that shows that prevention of housing loss and rapid rehousing works effectively for many affected by family violence. The work of the Taskforce is anticipated to continue until May 2019. This edition of Parity reflects the ongoing partnership between the Council to Homeless Persons (CHP)

and its sister organisations, DV Vic, AWAVA, WESNET, McAuley Community Services for Women as well as DV NSW and the Women’s Council of WA. This partnership has seen the publication of many editions of Parity over many years, covering the development and evolution of both the prevention and the response to domestic and family violence in Australia.

violence nationally. In particular, it allows a focus on contemporary practice and service developments in relation to Women’s Refuges. The service developments show cased, demonstrate how visionary government leadership and funding can partner with the community sector to produce contemporary services with real and effective outcomes.

The collective wisdom, experience and expertise of these organisations has again come together to examine and discuss the key issues at stake in the response to domestic and family violence and of course homelessness in this edition of Parity.

Our heartfelt thanks go to Sue Clifford and Family Safety Victoria, whose support made this edition of Parity possible. Our thanks also go to our sector sponsorship partners, DV Vic, AWAVA, WESNET, McAuley Community Services for Women, DV NSW and the Women’s Council of WA

This edition allows us to reflect on the significant focus on family

PhD Scholarship in Social Housing:

An ethnographic study of two mixed tenure communities

The Unison Housing Research LaB (UHRL) is a unique education and research collaboration between RMIT University and Unison Housing, Victoria’s largest social housing provider. The LaB is situated in the Centre for Applied Social Research in the School of Global, Urban and Social Studies (GUSS). The LaB was established in 2017 and is funded for five years to undertake an innovative research program informed by the experiences of service users and providers. Applications are invited from suitably qualified applicants for a higher degree by research through Professor Guy Johnson and Dr Juliet Watson at the Unison Housing Research Lab, located in the School of Global, Urban and Social Studies at RMIT University. We are offering a PhD scholarship to undertake a qualitative ethnographic study of two Unison mixed tenure sites in Melbourne. The key aim of the project is to reveal the mechanisms that contribute to successful (or otherwise) mixed tenure communities. A stipend of $30,900 per annum pro rata (full time study) for three years.

Expressions of interest Expressions of interest must be submitted by Friday April 20th 2018 to [email protected]. Expressions of interest should contain the following information: • A one-page summary justifying the applicant’s suitability for the role • An academic CV • Transcript of qualifying degree • A copy of any publications, thesis or other scholarly writing

For further information contact: Dr Juliet Watson, [email protected] 03 9925 3477 Professor Guy Johnson, [email protected] 03 9925 9893

4

A a

FEATURE: The Future of Women’s Refuges

Introduction Alison Macdonald, Policy and Program Manager, DV Vic and Jacqui Theobald, Lecturer in Social Work and Social Policy, La Trobe University Bendigo

This edition of Parity focusses on the future role and function of women’s refuges and their place in broader response to family violence in Australia. Contributors include those working in service delivery, policy development and research across several Australian states. While there are different points of view about the most significant challenges facing women’s refuges and the priorities needing to be tackled, there is however, a shared acknowledgment of the importance of the work undertaken by women’s refuges in supporting women and children experiencing and at risk of family violence. There is as well a firm commitment that refuge will continue to be an essential response to family violence into the future. This is particularly critical given the high rates of homelessness precipitated by family violence. Indeed, as the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare notes in its contribution: ‘one in six women (aged 15 or above) … have experienced physical or sexual violence by a current or former partner … [and] … The number of clients experiencing family and domestic violence who were assisted by Specialist Homelessness Services agencies has increased by 10 per cent (on average) each year, over the past five years’ (pp. 9–10). Before turning to draw out some of the key themes that have emerged in this edition, it is useful to reflect on the origins of women’s refuges, whose aims and goals have shifted over time. Like all social movements, the women’s refuge movement has been influenced by its social, institutional and political context. When refuges began in Australia and internationally in the mid-1970s, feminist ideas emanating from the

women’s movement were central to the way they organised and made sense of intimate partner violence against women. For example, they operated as collectives and were committed to the empowerment of women and transforming institutions of society to create conditions where women could live with autonomy and safety. Their public advocacy and activism is a central reason why in the contemporary context there is a high degree of community awareness about domestic violence and its roots in gender inequality, which is responded to by an increasingly sophisticated service system.1, 2 In most Australian states and territories the family violence service system now consists of a variety of specialist and mainstream services including justice, community and health sectors operating across the spectrum of prevention, early intervention and tertiary responses. The system also consists of a range of peak bodies and state-wide services that continue the policy, law reform, campaigning and advocacy work once the sole domain of the women’s refuge movement. The transition to focusing primarily on service delivery by women’s refuges was in part a consequence of the overwhelming demand they experienced combined with regulation from government, which together made it difficult to sustain the level of public campaigning and community development characteristic of the 1970s and 1980s.3 This edition of Parity largely reflects this shift in focus over subsequent decades. However, the work of women’s refuges remains inherently political, as contributors to this edition reveal. Indeed, it is evident

that feminist ideas concerning gender inequality continue to underpin practice principles and service delivery as well as evidence for how to progress services to include counselling and other therapeutic responses (Rowe pp. 36–38; Bignold and Morris pp. 59–60). A key theme raised in this edition is the importance of improving and expanding therapeutic responses in refuges to incorporate trauma informed principles and processes of working with women, children and infants in refuge (See Bunston pp. 25–28; Gillespie, Hooper and Burns-Warr pp. 53–54; Westhead and Hodges pp. 23–24). In the Victorian context, it is argued that such interventions should be incorporated as part of the new core and cluster model being rolled-out by the Victorian Government following recommendations from the Victorian Royal Commission. Many contributors also highlight the challenges they continue to face with overwhelming demand and under-funding, particularly in regional areas where resources are spread thin over large geographical areas (Rowe pp. 36–38). Even in states like Victoria where concerted efforts are being made by the State Government to tackle demand and increase resources by innovative means such as brokerage funds, (Clifford pp. 7–8) there continues to be gaps and bottlenecks. This means that many women and children are still not receiving the support they need when they need it and many continue to be accommodated in unsafe crisis options like motels. It also means that existing services are forced to focus on crisis services (Rowe pp. 36–38) to the exclusion of the long-term support and wrap around continuity of care that some services strive to

5

provide (Bignold and Morris pp. 59–60). Short-term funding agreements and complex associated reporting requirements are also reported to hamper long-term planning (Bignold p. 66). Another theme evident in this edition is the transition from communal refuges to core and cluster style independent units. This also reflects a changed social and political context where there is growing recognition and impetus to meet the needs and human rights of diverse women and children (Squatrito pp. 17–18), combined with an increasing level of wider community acceptance and support for the work of refuges. While already in operation in some states like South Australia, this transition is now being rolled out across Victoria in response to Recommendation 15 from the Royal Commission. It is hoped this transition will allow for improved access to refuges for women most at risk with complex issues. Importantly though, for women without permanent Australian residency, their lack of access to income and other supports means they continue to be a group at considerable risk (O’Brien pp. 31–33; Kristal pp. 34–35).

Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence’, (Oberin pp. 46–48) as being one that aims to provide a new crisis response for women that is ‘secure’ rather than secret, as well as a response that offers women ‘dignity and hope’ on an individual level as they also strive to achieve social change through community engagement and education (Oberin pp. 46–48). The perennial challenge of enabling women to access safe and affordable housing — both as an alternative to, and a pathway out of, refuge — is a further issue identified. Various contributors note that Safe at Home responses are being implemented successfully, with McAuley services citing data as evidence that it is leading to an increased number of women returning home safely (Bignold and Morris pp. 59–60). However, there continues to be an ongoing need for increased affordable housing in all forms to alleviate blockages in the system and improve access to and exits from women’s refuges and other forms of crisis accommodation and support.

It reminds us that any discussion about the future of women’s refuge is inextricably linked to the broader debate about housing affordability in Australia. As Sorcha Walshe and Alice Clark from Shelter SA note in this edition: If there was an increase in the supply of social housing, crisis accommodation would not be overloaded, women could leave the shelter system and transition into safe, affordable housing, freeing up some of the emergency beds. It makes no sense to sell-off the publicly-owned asset of social housing, when a home is the very basis upon which people can establish and live their lives (Walshe and Clark p. 16). Endnotes 1. Theobald J, Murray S and Smart J 2017, From the Margins to the Mainstream: The Domestic Violence Services Movement in Victoria, Australia, 1974–2016. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne. 2. Murray S 2002, More than Refuge: Changing Responses to Domestic Violence, UWA Press, Perth. 3. Theobald J 2017, op cit. 4. Ibid.

It is important to note that while over the years since their beginnings many refuges have aimed to provide flexible service responses, they have often been hampered by a lack of access to funds and capital.4 For example, Wendy Austin notes that from the 1990s onwards, Brenda House in Victoria sought to diversify their crisis accommodation options in recognition ‘that women had the right … to remain in their local community when leaving violence if they chose’ (p. 19). They also implemented flexible security policies that were ‘attached to the client and their family’s specific needs, not to the property’ (p.20). Notably, these kinds of developments were already characteristic of refuges in some states, for example in New South Wales. Today some refuges continue to lead the way in the development of progressive service delivery. Julie Oberin points to the development of Annie North’s core and cluster refuge, itself ‘hurried along as a result of the

6

Street art, Collingwood.

T t

S f

Chapter 1: Context

The Way Forward in Responding to Domestic and Family Violence Sue Clifford APM, Chief Executive Officer of Family Safety Victoria and former Commander of the Priority Communities Division at Victoria Police needs of women and children so much better; that actually listened to them and put them at the heart of reform. Family Safety Victoria (FSV) was established in July 2017 to drive key family violence reforms as part of the Victorian Government’s $1.9 billion response to the Royal Commission into Family Violence and to support broader reforms to reduce child vulnerability. FSV is delivering landmark reform that will be life-changing, and we are doing this in three main areas — improving access and coordination of support, assessing and managing risk earlier and more effectively, and working to address perpetrator behaviour. Victoria’s Royal Commission into Family Violence gave us an extraordinary insight into the limitations of our service systems and the devastating consequences of family and intimate partner violence. It showed us how complex family violence is, and highlighted the urgent need to join the dots between family violence and other social issues such as mental health and homelessness. For instance, of those people accessing homelessness services in Victoria, a third are escaping family violence. Most importantly, the Royal Commission report also showed us the way forward. It outlined a blueprint to keep women, children and families safer, by making it easier to seek help, bringing specialist services together, placing greater scrutiny on the perpetrator, making better use of universal services and placing a greater emphasis on safety and recovery. Ultimately, the Royal Commission report painted a picture of a system that could serve the

We are striving for an ambitious goal — to create a future where all Victorians are safe and where children grow up in environments that are built on gender equality and respectful relationships. We are working with integrity, agility and respect for all. We hold the principles of diversity and Aboriginal self-determination as non-negotiable foundations that everything else is built upon. And we remain humble in our own expertise, so that the widest possible range of voices can be heard. Alongside our work building new and improved refuges, other key initiatives that FSV is progressing include: establishing 17 Support and Safety Hubs across Victoria, implementing the new family violence information sharing scheme, redeveloping the Family Violence Risk Assessment and Risk Management Framework; and investing in and improving specialist services and

innovative therapeutic programs for those experiencing family violence. In time, we will see linkages to housing and homelessness services strengthened through these reforms, particularly in Support and Safety Hubs where women, children and young people will be able to access a wide range of services, including housing assistance. In Support and Safety Hubs, there will be an emphasis on identifying women and children at risk earlier, allowing frontline workers to intervene before a situation escalates to crisis. Underpinning all of these reforms is a need to equip the workforce with the expertise and resources needed for the future. Building from Strength: 10-year Industry Plan for Family Violence Prevention and Response was released late last year which outlines a plan to support a flexible and dynamic workforce. Family violence is complex. As a result, the decisions we make are often complex too. In order to find solutions, we are constantly brought back to the principles I mentioned earlier — to listen to the experts, those working in the field, and those who have lived similar experiences. This is especially important when considering the particular groups who are at greater risk of family violence — for example, women with a disability and Aboriginal women. In order to address the hidden homelessness of women fleeing family violence, we know that accommodation needs to be integrated with broader services which are individualised, ongoing and open-ended. We strive to give women, children and families choice in what might be one of the most challenging times in their lives. In a housing context, that means being given the freedom to choose where they live and with whom.

7

Already, we are seeing the benefits of greater investment in programs like flexible support packages which are making a real difference to women’s sense of agency by providing immediate and practical support to people who need them. There is no doubt that philosophically the need to focus on the human impact of this work is a priority. But the why we are here can so easily get lost; it may appear potent but this power is diluted within the day-to-day practicalities

of creating change. That’s where the role of an agency like FSV is important. We have to be the guardians of people’s real life, lived experiences and we have to always consider how change can impact people seeking and using services, because we know what these reforms ultimately mean for women and children. So, it has been — and will continue to be — important that the system, including FSV, works in genuine partnership with community

organisations, frontline workers and indeed, victim survivors. Throughout my career at Victoria Police, I was privileged to be a part of enormous cultural change, and over three decades, I have witnessed remarkable change for the better. It’s these experiences, as well as the political and social conviction and unwavering dedication of workers I see every day in Victoria that fills me with hope for what is possible in the future.

Out of the flames is by Melinda, aged 30s. She says: ‘I took away her mouth. She has no voice. It’s not really there, it has disappeared.’ Melinda was seven months pregnant when she came to our refuge.

8

Image provided by McAuley Community Services for Women

A

New National Statistical Report Sheds Light on Family Violence Australian Institute of Health and Welfare

In February 2018, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) released its first comprehensive report on family, domestic and sexual violence in Australia. The report brings together, for the first time, information from more than 20 different major data sources to build a picture of what is known about family, domestic and sexual violence in Australia. It also highlights data gaps and offers suggestions to help fill these gaps. The report, Family, domestic and sexual violence in Australia, 2018, covers family violence (physical violence, sexual violence and

emotional abuse between family members, as well as current or former partners), domestic violence (a subcategory of family violence, involving current or former partners), and sexual violence (a range of nonconsensual sexual behaviours, perpetrated by partners, former partners, acquaintances or strangers). Women are more likely to experience violence from a known person and in their home, while men are more likely to experience violence from strangers and in a public place. One in six women (aged 15 or above) — equating to 1.6 million women — have experienced physical or sexual violence by a current or former

What do we know about family, domestic and sexual violence in Australia in 2018? 1 in 6 women

have experienced physical and/or sexual violence by a current or previous partner since age 15.

1 in 5 women

1 in 16 men

1 in 20 men have experienced sexual violence since age 15.

1 woman per week

is killed by a current or previous partner.

1 man per month

Source: AIHW 2018. Family, domestic and sexual violence in Australia, 2018. www.aihw.gov.au/reports/domestic-violence/family-domestic-sexual-violence-in-australia-2018/

partner, while for men it is one in 16 — or half a million men. Three in four (75 per cent) victims of domestic violence reported the perpetrator as male, while one in four (25 per cent) reported the perpetrator as female. Overall, one in five women (1.7 million) and one in 20 men (428,800) have experienced sexual violence. Most (96 per cent) female victims of sexual violence reported the perpetrator as male, while male victims reported a more even spilt (49 per cent female and 44 per cent male perpetrators). On average, one woman a week and one man a month is killed by a current or former partner. While overall the data show that women are at greater risk, certain groups are particularly vulnerable, such as Indigenous women, young women and pregnant women.

Specialist Homelessness Services (SHS) are an essential support for those experiencing family, domestic and sexual violence The report also shows that family, domestic and sexual violence can have a profound effect on people’s ability to work, health and financial situations and people experiencing family and domestic violence face considerable challenges, including an increased risk of homelessness. Governments across Australia fund a range of services to support people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. These services are delivered by non-government organisations, including agencies that specialise in specific target groups such as victims of family and domestic violence.

9

In 2016–17, 72,000 women, 34,000 children and 9,000 men sought assistance from SHS due to family and domestic violence. Of these 115,000 family and domestic violence clients, nearly half (48 per cent) were living in single-parent households (with a child or children) when first presenting for support. The number of clients experiencing family and domestic violence who were assisted by Specialist Homelessness Services (SHS) agencies has increased by ten per cent (on average) each year, over the past five years. Since 2012–13, there have been increases in the proportion of clients: • from single-parent households (with a child or children) (from 43 per cent in 2012–13 to 48 per cent in 2016–17) • experiencing family and domestic violence who were homeless on presentation (from 35 per cent in 2012–13 to 39 per cent in 2016–17) • ending support with improved housing outcomes, particularly for those in private rental or who are home owners (up five percentage points from 43 per cent in 2012–13 to 48 per cent in 2016–17)

S

S a

Street art, Collingwood.

One in three clients with disability were experiencing family and domestic violence. In 2016–17, SHS agencies assisted about 11,000 clients with severe or profound disability. Of these, 30 per cent (or about 3,300) were experiencing family and domestic violence. Living with disability and experiencing family and domestic violence may not be the only challenge faced by this group of clients:

Family, domestic and sexual violence has serious impacts Domestic violence is the greatest health risk factor for women aged 25–44.

Violence against women and their children cost Australia an estimated $22 billion in 2015–16.

It is a greater health risk than smoking, alcohol or physical inactivity.

$22 billion

Domestic violence can have lasting effects. Children who are abused before age 15 are 3 times as likely to be victims of domestic violence in adulthood.

72,000 34,000 9,000 women children men sought help for homelessness due to family violence in 2016–17.

Source: AIHW 2018. Family, domestic and sexual violence in Australia, 2018. www.aihw.gov.au/reports/domestic-violence/family-domestic-sexual-violence-in-australia-2018/

10

13 per cent of clients with severe or profound disability reported experiencing family and domestic violence as well as mental health issues • Seven per cent of clients with severe or profound disability reported experiencing family and domestic violence, mental health issues and problematic drug and/or alcohol use. •

Housing Outcomes Improve After Support but Homelessness is Still High Just over four in ten (41 per cent) clients experiencing family and domestic violence were homeless when they sought assistance from SHS agencies in 2016–17. By the end of that support, this proportion had fallen by about one-third to 28 per cent.

The Importance of Evidence, Data Gaps and Looking Forward While the report is a significant piece of work for the AIHW — and one with real human impact — there’s still more to be done. Family, domestic and sexual violence is a complex issue, and one that is difficult to tackle without strong evidence to help drive policies and programs. As well as reporting on the available data, the report also identifies data gaps and areas for data improvements. The AIHW is now progressing work to fill important data gaps so that policy makers can better target policies and programs to help prevent and respond to family, domestic and sexual violence in Australia.

Profiling Women and Children Experiencing Family Violence in Victoria who Require a Crisis Supported Response* Suellen Murray, RMIT University, Jane Bullen, RMIT University, Juliet Watson, RMIT University and Jacqui Theobald, La Trobe University

This article provides a brief overview of a research project conducted in 2017 on women and children experiencing family violence requiring crisis accommodation support, namely women’s refuges. The research was commissioned by the Victorian Government in response to recommendations of the Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence, in particular, Recommendation 18: ‘The Victorian Government give priority to removing current blockages in refuge and crisis accommodation and transitional housing, so that victims of family violence can gain stable housing as quickly as possible and with a minimum number of relocations, are not accommodated in motels and other ad hoc accommodation, and spend on average no longer than six weeks in refuge and crisis accommodation’. The research was overseen by the Support Services Working Group who report to the Victorian Government’s Family Violence Housing Assistance Implementation Taskforce. The latter was established following the Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence, and is comprised of senior representatives from the social and community housing sectors and family violence experts. The Taskforce reports through the Minister for Housing, Disability and Ageing to the Cabinet Family Violence Sub-committee. The research was guided by a Project Reference Group convened and chaired by the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and reporting to the Support Services Working Group. Membership of the reference group included staff from DHHS and Department of Premier and Cabinet,

a member of the Victim Survivor Advisory Council (VSAC) and representatives from Domestic Violence Victoria and other housing and specialist family violence services.

children with a disability or mental health issues. It also examined the extent to which women from LGBTIQ communities do, or can, access refuge or crisis accommodation.

Research Approach Research Aims The purpose of the research was to: • understand the profile of Victorian women and children who are, and are not, accessing family violence refuge and emergency accommodation • make recommendations about maximising the accessibility of a refuge response for women and children experiencing family violence who require it by understanding the barriers • provide guidance about how to improve the Victorian refuge experience for women and children and strengthen the support available to assist a successful recovery • identify sustainable housing outcomes for women and children exiting refuge and emergency accommodation and make recommendations about how these pathways can be strengthened to achieve safe and secure housing outcomes through stronger partnerships and referral pathways. • provide advice on gaps in current housing responses for different cohorts of women and children. The research gave consideration to the needs, experiences and challenges that present for different client groups, including household composition, household income, geographic location and the cohorts that drive demand. Cohorts assessed included Aboriginal women and children, young people, those from refugee and migrant backgrounds, older women, single women, and women and

A mixed method approach was used to produce evidence derived from a combination of qualitative and quantitative data. The research team engaged with a range of stakeholders who could shed light on this group of women, as well as women who had accessed refuge. The analysis was also informed by aggregated client and program data sourced from DHHS and Safe Steps. The research included a strong qualitative component. The views of those who work in family violence crisis accommodation and refuges were sought and the majority of services from the sector participated in the research. Also included were women clients, government agencies and peak bodies to gain their perspectives. Interviews and focus groups with 22 women clients and over 100 staff of service providers, government agencies and peak bodies were conducted. We paid particular attention to the needs of Aboriginal women and children, migrant women and children including those without permanent residency, women and children with a disability or mental health issue, and women from LGBTIQ communities. A key consideration in the research was accessing information about women who do not access refuge. Department of Health and Human Services Integrated Reports and Information Systems (IRIS) and Specialist Homelessness Services Collection (SHSC) programs and Safe Steps data informed our analysis of the interviews and focus groups.

11

However, existing gaps in this data had limited usefulness, especially in relation to diverse groups.

Key Findings Women and children experiencing family violence need a range of support and accommodation options that are responsive to individual needs, circumstances, and level of risk, and that are provided in a timely manner in a location that best sustains and supports women’s and children’s safety and economic independence. Interventions should be provided at all stages of women’s experience of family violence, and begin immediately when women seek support. The research revealed that family violence crisis support and accommodation services are vital but many who would benefit do not currently receive them. Participants acknowledged the indispensable services currently provided, but responses can be slow, occur when women are already facing homelessness, and result in women falling through the gaps, particularly if they do not meet high-level risk assessment thresholds for access to crisis accommodation and refuge at the time of first contact. This is largely because there are insufficient services to meet demand, the threshold to receive services is high and there are some restrictive policies and practices in place that inhibit access by some women and children. Consequently, some of the most vulnerable women and children experience barriers to accessing these services. Refuges are critical to women’s safety and access to support. However, more flexible ways of providing refuge are needed that are driven by the needs and wishes of clients. The move to core and cluster models of refuge service provision is improving this situation, and the recent commitment by the Victorian Government to resource all these redevelopments is welcomed. The research found that reconceptualising ‘crisis accommodation’ and ‘high security’ are further ways in which changes could be made to develop a service system that is more inclusive and responds better to diverse communities. The Victorian model of secrecy of address, for example,

12

which requires a woman to leave her local area, can compound the disadvantage she experiences. High security refuge needs to be re-conceptualised and new initiatives developed to increase localised responses and access to crisis accommodation and support, in particular, the provision of more local services would be of benefit. However, it must be noted that these changes are likely to result in a significant increase in demand, and this must be planned for and appropriately acted upon. Although women and children enter crisis accommodation and refuge for reasons of safety they also require a range of other urgent and ongoing supports due to family violence. Specialist family violence workers are called upon to assist women and children to navigate the complicated service network to ensure that they are assisted in a timely and appropriate way. Support needs range from immediate material support through to longer-term access to housing and therapeutic interventions. The research identified some elements of good practice in services and a key issue is the need for personcentred wraparound support for women and children from first contact to longer term whether in crisis accommodation, refuge or other forms of accommodation post-crisis such as private rental or ‘safe at home’. In other words, support needs to be offered at each stage of a woman’s journey, including before, during and after refuge. Importantly, this support should be attached to women — not organisations — with the aim of enabling a holistic response from first contact to longer-term. Trauma informed approaches were also identified as being necessary for working with these client groups. Central to any support provided to women and children is that it is informed by an understanding of the impact of trauma and that the effects of trauma do not necessarily dissipate once the immediate crisis has passed. Women and children require both practical and therapeutic support responses. These will differ

according to their specific needs, however particular attention must be given to women with complex needs such as women who misuse alcohol and other drugs, women with mental health conditions, women with disabilities, Aboriginal women, LGBTIQ women, cuturally and linguistically diverse women, and women without permanent residency. Children and young people also require special attention. Ensuring streamlined access to specialist services is imperative and existing models can be emulated but this level of integration requires resourcing and should be driven at high levels. Flexible Support Packages have been very helpful in supporting women and children but streamlining brokerage processes would allow for speedier access. An underlying cause of blockages in the family violence crisis support and accommodation system is the lack of affordable and sustainable long-term housing that prolongs women and children’s homelessness and leads to greater dislocation. The lack of affordable housing remains a critical structural issue. Material funds in the form of rent subsidies overcome this barrier in the short to medium term but typically, long-term private rental is not sustainable. Governments must take ongoing responsibility for increasing social housing that can be permanent because long-term private rental is not sustainable for those on low incomes and for people with other complex issues and particular needs. Recent investments in social housing by the Victorian State Government are encouraging. And innovative partnerships have produced a range of useful initiatives in relation to access to housing provision and support but resourcing of the work of these collaborative activities is needed. Safe at home programs, and the recent increased resourcing to enhance their effectiveness, are welcomed but they rely on strong and supportive police and legal responses to ensure the safety of women and children. * Copyright © State of Victoria, Australia. Used with permission of the Department of Health and Human Services. Reproduction and other uses comprised in the copyright are prohibited without permission.

W

A

Women’s Refuges as Part of Feminism: A View from a Different Angle Merrindahl Andrew, Program Manager, AWAVA Violence, including sexual violence, has been a core concern of feminism in Australia as elsewhere, and has been a major focus of both non-government and government bodies established over the past 45 years. In this article I focus on refuges as one type of feminist non-government women’s service, and trace some aspects of the changing position of these services within broader policy making and politics.1 While refuges are clearly part of the homelessness services sector, and other contributions to this issue of Parity make that link clear, what is sometimes less clear in policy discussion and development is the simultaneous position that refuges occupy within an evolving set of feminist (or feminist-informed) institutions and, more broadly, an evolving women’s movement. Women’s organisations have been at the forefront of the effort to eliminate violence against women (VAW). They were the first to advocate for public awareness of VAW, introduce refuges and crisis centres, call for perpetrator accountability, challenge negative attitudes that condone and perpetuate VAW, and initiate prevention activities.2 Globally, women’s organisations are recognised as being the single most important factor driving policy development to prevent and respond to violence against women and their children.3 The international and Australian evidence is clear that not just ‘any old service’ will do: ill-equipped services that lack well-trained staff discourage help-seeking, prevent disclosure of abuse and may inadvertently increase the risks for victims/survivors or lead them to return to abusive situations.4

Good service provision is underpinned by a gendered understanding of violence.5 It is focused on women’s and children’s safety, provides gender and cultural safety, works from a client-centred, trauma-based, empowering framework, supports women to navigate the complex systems, recognises children as clients in their own right, and works towards greater gender equality recognising the complexity of intersectionality and that women are best qualified to decide their pathway to recovery from violence and trauma.6 Feminist (or feminist-informed) women’s services working in the area of violence include community-based services such as refuges (shelters), sexual assault services, women’s health centres, women’s legal services and working women’s centres. Significant changes to funding arrangements for these services, particularly women’s refuges and homelessness services, are under way across many countries. In the United States and Canada, as in Australia, the sustainability of feminist services has been severely challenged,7 although recent investments in Canada have the potential to reverse this trend.8 In Australia, there is a complex picture of survival and longevity, contrasted with a tenuous and under-supported position for services and their distinctive contribution.9 Violence against women has been increasingly prominent as an issue in Australia as elsewhere. The National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children (2010–2022) gives a framework for efforts across different governments and sectors 10 although concerns have been raised about resourcing,

monitoring and evaluation, consultation and coordination of efforts under this plan.11 Yet many governments at both the state/territory and national levels have cut funding to women-run services and managed broader community service systems in ways that undermine rather than strengthen the distinctive contribution of feminist services. Notable among these developments has been the New South Wales Government’s Going Home, Staying Home reforms of the homelessness service sector, which led to the closure and amalgamation of many stand-alone women’s refuges — highlighting the tenuous situation of women’s services institutionally stuck in a beleaguered homelessness service system rather than given standing as distinctive services competent to deal with the gendered dynamics of violence and offering a range of supports to women. Efforts by advocacy organisations have so far not been able to achieve that standing, at the national level at least. The Victorian service system has to an extent institutionalised feminist-informed service provision as a standard for responses to violence against women. Elsewhere, reliance on feminist/feminist-derived frameworks for service provision is more tacit, embodied instead at the more local level of organisations’ policies, procedures and practices, and within the sector development work done by statebased peak bodies and networks. The stigmatisation of caring labour, the marginalisation of services dealing with victims/survivors, driven perhaps by a society-wide

13

political clarity and effectiveness over the long term. The enormous energy generated by protests against widespread violence, discrimination and harassment (as in #metoo and the Women’s Marches) can seem far removed from the bureaucratic and financial struggles besetting women’s services. Yet these forms of action are connected, and finding ways to strengthen those connections is key. Endnotes

The Rainbow

Image provided by the artwork program at McAuley Community Services for Women

impulse to look away from suffering, and the sense of inevitability surrounding the underresourcing and over-burdened/responsible role of services would be very familiar to anyone working in the area. Identification with feminism as a long-term project is an important counter-balance to these negative dynamics. As other scholars of social movements have noted, a sense of possibility for change is essential to ‘overcome fatalism’, and the broader changes being achieved by feminism can strengthen workers’ collective sense of self-efficacy.12 It is important not to collapse women’s services into one homogenous group, particularly in terms of their historical evolution. Some evolved directly from non-formal parts of the women’s movement, and were initially part of the ‘autonomous’ movement, as in the classic examples of Elsie Women’s Refuge in Sydney (now run by the St Vincent de Paul Society, a large faith-based organisation). Others were established a little later by feminists with a view to accessing funding that was becoming available as a result of women’s movement mobilisation. Others again were established by people who wished to empower or help women, but who came from a more generalist perspective or a different identity perspective (for example: different cultural groups), or who simply saw

14

women as another demographic for their broader organisation to ‘service’. None of these different legacies necessarily determines ‘how feminist’ a particular service is or was. As some long-term participants such as Ludo McFerran have indicated, effective efforts will need to look beyond particular organisational forms.13 It is important not to get caught in a project of defending one’s patch at the expense of a more outward-looking politics. A key challenge, then is balancing this sense of identifying with and protecting a legacy on one hand, and sustaining on the other hand an expansive conception of what feminism is and can be, one that responds (is responsible) towards a broadening range of people in the present and future. The recent and evolving history of women’s services highlights a long-term dilemma: for feminist change to be effective on a wide scale, it must be resourced and ultimately supported by those in power; yet obtaining resources and support all too often means embedding feminist projects within structures (such as community service provision) that are not necessarily focused on the underlying feminist analysis. Often, too, feminist work within those structures is invisible to potential supporters outside. In this situation it is difficult but vital to maintain energy, commitment,

1. This article draws on a presentation given to the 2016 Australasian Political Studies Association Gender and Political Science workshop, and also on Australian Women Against Violence Alliance (AWAVA) 2016 ‘The role of specialist women’s services in Australia’s response to violence against women and their children’ https://awava.org.au/2016/04/07/research/ role-specialist-womens-services-australiasresponse-violence-women-children 2. AWAVA 2016, ‘The role of specialist women’s services’, p.3. 3. Htun M and Weldon S L 2012, ‘The Civic Origins of Progressive Policy Change: Combating Violence against Women in Global Perspective, 1975–2005’, American Political Science Review, vol. 106, no. 3, pp 548–569. 4. AWAVA 2016, op cit, p.3. 5. Ibid, p.3. 6. Ibid, p.3. 7. Beres, MA, Crow B, and Gotell L 2009 ‘The Perils of Institutionalization in Neoliberal times: Results of a National Survey of Canadian Sexual Assault and Rape Crisis Centres’, Canadian Journal of Sociology, vol. 34, no. 1, pp.135–63; Bumiller K 2008, In an Abusive State: How Neoliberalism Appropriated the Feminist Movement against Sexual Violence, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, pp. xiv, 5. 8. Government of Canada 2018, National Housing Strategy, https://www.placetocallhome.ca/ 9. AWAVA 2016, op cit. 10. Australian Government 2010, National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and Their Children, https://www.dss.gov.au/ women/programs-services/reducingviolence/the-national-plan-to-reduceviolence-against-women-and-their-children2010-2022 11. AWAVA 2017 ‘Submission into the Labor Party’s National Conversation on Gender Equity’, https://awava.org.au/2017/09/15/ submissions/submission-labor-partysnational-conversation-gender-equity pp. 29–37. 12. Brown K P 2016, ‘The prospectus of activism: discerning and delimiting imagined possibility’, Social Movement Studies, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 547–560, p. 547. 13. Ludo McFerran quoted in Horin A 2004, ‘Alarms to help abused stay home’ Sydney Morning Herald, December 2, http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/ Alarms-to-help-abused-stay-home/ 2004/12/01/1101577557125.html

T C

S a

Turning Off the Tap: Can We Do It? Sorcha Walshe, Stakeholder Engagement Officer and Dr Alice Clark, Executive Director, Shelter SA In an ideal world, women’s refuges would not exist; there would be no domestic violence or homelessness, and there would not be a need for service responses to women fleeing their homes due to physical violence. Unfortunately, unless we do things differently, the future of women’s refuges looks far from idyllic. They will continue to be in high demand as the number of people experiencing domestic violence related homelessness across the country rises.1 Shelter SA has done a significant amount of research and community consultation on the topic of domestic violence as it has strong connections to homelessness. Domestic violence victims who are living on low incomes often have no choice but to rely on crisis accommodation. South Australia is lacking policies, legislation and service delivery that prevent domestic violence and homelessness.2

due to violence within the home. With rising numbers of people experiencing homelessness and domestic violence in Australia, service providers are struggling to keep up with the need for shelter, and it is critically important to act now to change this situation. Providing primary service responses to women and children fleeing an abuser is crucial, but are we doing enough to prevent them from reaching that crisis point? The shelter system and crisis management approach are simply a ‘band-aid’ for a much bigger issue that we must address at its cause. If there was an increase in the supply of social housing, crisis accommodation would not be overloaded, women could leave the shelter system and transition into safe, affordable housing, freeing up some of the emergency beds. It makes no sense

to sell-off the publicly-owned asset of social housing, when a home is the very basis upon which people can establish and live their lives. The costs of private rental and high utilities mean that establishing a safe and affordable home after leaving crisis accommodation presents overwhelming financial challenges. The lack of housing affordability, especially for people living on sole incomes, makes it impossible to attain housing in the private rental market. The National Rental Affordability Index, produced by National Shelter, Community Sector Banking and SGS Economics and Planning, demonstrates that for a single person receiving a Newstart Allowance of less than $15,000 a year, there is nothing deemed affordable in the private rental market across Australia.4 The cycle of homelessness is difficult

Our findings in South Australia are just as applicable to the rest of the country: shelters and other crisis management services are overwhelmed by clients who could be helped prior to the escalation of violence if resources were directed at preventative strategies. In 2016–17, there were more than 280,000 Australians who received support from specialist homelessness services, with 261 unmet requests for assistance per day by clients accessing specialist homelessness services countrywide.3 In addition, two out of every five clients were seeking assistance primarily because of domestic and family violence. There was a two per cent increase in clients seeking assistance as a result of domestic or family violence; 114,757 Australians sought Specialist Homelessness Services (SHS) primarily

Rosie/Blue boat is by Dania aged 6. She says: ‘Rosie was a flower. She has a friend called sun and sun lights up the moon.’

Image provided by the artwork program at McAuley Community Services for Women

15

to break, but a growth in social housing could lead to an increased ability for specialist homelessness service providers to move people out of the shelter system into safe and affordable housing, and eventually see a decrease in clients entering and returning to crisis accommodation. After research and consultation with workers from government and non-government service providers, Shelter SA produced a set of recommendations that, if implemented, could slowly work to reduce the pressure on the crisis management of domestic violence. Men are often the perpetrators of domestic violence against women. At the heart of gendered violence is the imbalance of power that exists between the genders. Gender inequality is insidiously learned by even very young children and is, unfortunately, reinforced by society and cultural norms. Facing the ongoing challenge of working with people experiencing domestic violence and homelessness, we must therefore dedicate attention to changing community attitudes and stereotypes around gender and gender-based violence.

Shelter SA would also like to see service providers funded to work with families whom they identify as ‘at risk’ of domestic violence and child protection issues before any physical attack occurs. Anecdotally, people who work in the domestic violence sector lament the fact that they are so overwhelmed by clients at the crisis end of the system, they can no longer work in the early intervention and prevention space as they once did. Families who are living in unaffordable housing or experiencing homelessness and poverty, with children who may not be attending school or who are starting to have contact with the justice system, parents living with drug and alcohol issues or experiencing poor mental health — are all signs and signals that families are headed for a crisis that we should be able to act upon. We need strong messages from men and women, our politicians, community leaders and everyday people, that we will not tolerate violence in any shape

or form, and slowly work towards a more robust service system that concentrates on the prevention of domestic violence. Education is the key that we must use to produce our first generation of young people who are properly equipped with the tools they need to stop the violence. Endnotes 1. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 2017, Specialist homelessness services annual report 2016–17, AIHW, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, pp. 1–106. 2. Shelter SA 2017, Domestic Violence in South Australia: prevention versus crisis management policies, legislation and service delivery, Shelter SA, Adelaide, South Australia, pp. 1–25. 3. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2017, op cit. 4. SGS Economics and Planning, National Shelter, Community Sector Banking 2017, National Rental Affordability Index, SGS Economics and Planning Pty Ltd, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory pp. 1–39. 5. Gleeson C, Kearney S, Leung L and Brislane J 2015, Respectful Relationships: Education in Schools, Our Watch, Melbourne, Victoria, pp. 1–42.

Shelter SA recommends an increase in primary preventative strategies, before the first instance of physical violence, rather than a focus on crisis managing domestic and family violence. We would welcome the implementation of Respectful Relationships in all Australian schools, as has been done in Victoria, to ensure that our youngest children are taught about respect and gender equality, in age appropriate ways.5 For older children, we would also like to see every child taught about respectful communication and conflict resolution without resorting to violence. Another Shelter SA recommendation, based on our research and workshop event, is that more men must be involved within the domestic violence sector to serve as educators for men, role models for the community and workers. Although not primary prevention, service providers must also be funded to work with all male perpetrators, not just a small sub-section of them, as is currently the case.

16

Heaven and hell is by Amal, aged 10. He says the light green is the heaven... the black and purple is the hell.’ His mother came to Australia in 2013 and says: ‘Violence has been part of my family for a long time.’

w

G V

ell.’

Refuge and Discrimination: Helping Women’s Refuges to Comply with the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 Gina Squatrito, Senior Adviser, Research and Policy Branch, Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission Women’s refuges have been pivotal in bringing family violence out of the shadows in Australia. And in 2016, the Royal Commission into Family Violence highlighted the importance of their work. The Commission’s landmark report found that family violence is a systemic issue, with profound impacts across our whole community. And it identified systemic changes that could help women’s refuges reach more families.

The report found that certain demographic groups were at particular risk from family violence, and experienced barriers to accessing services like refuges. And it recommended that service-providers consider how inclusion issues impact their work. Here at the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, we work to uphold the Equal Opportunity Act 2010. This is the law that makes discriminating against certain groups unlawful.

We deal with individual complaints and conduct system-wide reviews on how communities experience discrimination, and how it can be avoided. That’s why, as part of its 227 recommendations, the Royal Commission directed us to develop a guideline for service-providers who work on family violence issues, to help them avoid discrimination when delivering their services. This was part of a broader goal to strengthen family violence services, and to ensure that they are accessible to those who need them most. The groups at risk of discrimination included: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Iislander peoples; older people; people from culturally and linguistically diverse communities; faith communities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex communities; people with a disability; male victims of family violence; people living in rural, regional and remote communities; women in prisons, and women working in the sex industry. The Royal Commission found that within these groups, family violence is often hidden. Many submissions reported a lack of awareness — within communities, among service-providers and in government — about the extent of family violence that people from diverse backgrounds experience. Members of these groups also reported a distinct fear of prejudice in accessing services and accommodation — whether by staff or other service-users. For example, fear of homophobia, transphobia, heterosexism and racism were all key barriers to accessing services.

Image provided by the artwork program at McAuley Community Services for Women

These are the problems that the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission was asked

17

to help address. And in June 2017, we were proud to launch our Guideline: Family violence services and accommodation in accordance with Recommendation 141. In drafting this guideline, we were mindful that no service-providers would set out to intentionally discriminate against the people they are helping. However, we know that the drivers of discrimination can be tricky to navigate. And the complexity of family violence issues, combined with busy workplace environments with high turnover of clients in crisis, means that issues can and do arise. We were also mindful that service providers such as women’s refuges are under enormous pressure. The Commission therefore wanted to develop a resource that would be practical and useful for busy workers. So we set out to develop an approach that would save them time.

particular, on the ‘positive duty’ to proactively eliminate discrimination, which is an important part of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010. It has links to toolkits and resources, and we have provided real case studies to illustrate examples of what this looks like in practice. The accompanying educational resource contains additional fictional case studies to demonstrate how services can work more inclusively. I would like to encourage refuge workers, and all other service providers who work with domestic violence issues, to read the guideline, and to get in touch with us here at the Commission. We would love to hear their thoughts. We think this guideline is an important resource. At its most basic, it helps women’s refuges to understand their

legal duties, and to avoid any legal action. And it helps busy refuge workers to do their job. But more important still is the potential benefit for families in crisis. Eliminating discrimination from service delivery will better enable those experiencing family violence to access the support they need, when they need it. We hope our guideline helps.

W For more information and to access the Guideline: https://www.humanrightscommission. vic.gov.au/guidelines https://www.humanrightscommission. vic.gov.au/home/news-and-events/ commission-news/item/1579guidelines-launched-to-help-familyviolence-service-providers-preventdiscrimination-upon-royalcommission-s-recommendation

And we wanted to develop a resource that went beyond legal compliance. So we ask service-providers to look at their service when they are not in crisis mode, and encourage them to put in place positive measures and safeguards during those periods. We explained how to be proactive in preventing discrimination. Finally, we wanted to ensure that we listened and learned. So we set out to consult as much as possible with those on the front lines of family violence work. The Commission spoke to 55 stakeholder organisations, agencies and departments as well as the Victorian Government LGBTI taskforce working groups on Justice and Family Violence, and the Family Violence Diverse Communities and Intersectional Working Group at the Department of Premier and Cabinet. We are proud of the end result: a free, practical guide for service-providers and members of the public alike. It is now available on our website. And the Commission stands ready to help with implementation in any way we can. The guideline includes information on the laws surrounding discrimination, sets out who is legally responsible for preventing it, and discusses exemptions and exceptions. It goes on to focus on service delivery; in

18

W A

Story of God and I am invisible is by Keisha. She says ‘This is me invisible with a beautiful golden dress.’ Image provided by the artwork program at McAuley Community Services for Women

Women’s Refuge: A Personal Reflection Wendy Austin, Wendy Austin Consulting In writing this piece, I have the privilege of reflecting on my 40 years in the family violence sector from 1978 until today. What did women’s refuges look like then? What do they look like now, and into the future? How will we support those living with an imbalance of power and lack of safety in their relationships, to choose agency over their lives?

I quite literally fell into working in family violence service provision. Towards the end of my recovery from a work injury, I applied for a voluntary role at Doncare, my local community agency, which had just opened one of the early women’s refuges. Doncare was responding to a growing need for safe options for women and children through the 1970s, and my 13 years of health crisis work opened the door. In those days our focus was to walk with a wide diversity of women and children to establish a safer future, and to advocate their right to safety to government. I was part of Doncare Women’s Refuge (later Brenda House Women’s Refuge) until a planned merger in 2012, and later began my current consultancy. Over these years, I have remained active on a state-wide basis.

The Domestic Violence Services Movement in Victoria Australia 1974–2016, a book by Jacqui Theobald and Suellen Murray that was launched at the 2017 DV Vic Annual General Meeting. I highly recommend this account, it has many stories and viewpoints about the refuge model over the years. When refuges began, resources were scant. Doncare Women’s Refuge began with a local council house that was due to be demolished and purely voluntary support. There were four bedrooms and so we took one family to a bedroom as a means of offering maximum support. All the daily living facilities were shared. These beginnings had similar stories across the state.

2. the first step in achieving ongoing personal security is to realise that personal safety is a right, and you (and others) matter simply because you exist.

These were the days when the community broadly denied family violence, police responses were limited, and women had to move long distances to be safe. For this reason, refuges were hidden and isolated in their own communities, an effective island of safety and self-determination. In some ways, the ‘hidden’ refuge model suited the wider community view of family violence (if it was considered at all) — ‘out of sight, this happens to other people’.

Early refuges emerged quite independent of each other, responding to needs recognised through multiple lenses — radical feminist, welfare, political, community based, faith based, and others. Was there a starting refuge model? No, there was simply a need. There was no planned program or funded response, but it was the vastly diverse beginning of the refuge response today. This story is well told in From the Margins to the Mainstream —

This ‘model’ was all we had and it was replicated in various ways across the state. Value was placed on the fact that it was communal and that experiences were openly shared. At the time, being crowded was not seen as an issue as it supported women to realise that they were not alone in their experience of violence. In the early days there were effectively no legal and community resources, so the ability to share stories had its place.

There are two principles that have guided my views and actions on refuge responses for years: 1. one person’s normal is different from anybody else’s and nothing can be assumed; and

19

By 1981 Brenda House, in collaboration and competition with other refuges, had achieved some funding, but it required resubmitting each year. Many years later, as I went cap and evidence in hand to try for long-service leave funding for our long-term workers, I was told by a bureaucrat of the time that refuge funding had been essentially left overs from other sources, as ‘we never thought you’d survive’. So, that initial funding base — a mix of surplus housing, welfare and children’s funding — joined with the cobbled housing we used to form the initial ‘refuge model’. Because our refuges emerged from many viewpoints of the community and were ‘managed’ by diverse and usually voluntary community groups, initial funding was only for service delivery. There was no management component, very limited operational support and no capital or asset allowance. This became the longer term funded model on which other changes have been built. The models for funding and service delivery heavily influenced what services have had the capacity and inclination to do over the years. At Brenda House we used to say we ran the place ‘very well on the smell of an oily rag’, making changes in the best interests of clients that simply had to work for that reason. We were incredibly persuasive with funding submissions outside government, but it was difficult to shift the model. In the 1990s I sat on three government-led Refuge Funding Model Reviews — not one of them ever finished. Each review would be suspended as it became clear the funded model was based on uneven foundations and would require a financial ‘re-stumping’ and development to enable diversity and flexibility. As time went on and the women and kids we supported became ever more complex and diverse, the experience of communal living had reduced benefits and greater flaws. As family violence began to be recognised (albeit inch-by-inch and two steps back), it also became clear that women deserved to remain safely in their communities where possible, rather than being isolated. In the absence of a planned state-

20

wide program and adequate funding, some models became more restrictive; others looked outside the square. Change was incremental and differed across the state. At Brenda House we had the basic communal model, funded to a partial subsidy of support. It became obvious that some women and kids needed support beyond refuge to give them time to achieve the agency over their lives that they had chosen. To this end we advocated for and finally were granted an older Department of Human Services (DHS) house. This worked well to allow clients to share the property, providing mutual support (if appropriate) while living independently, and with worker support. In the 1990s we recognised that women had the right (and now the supported ability) to remain in their local community when leaving violence if they chose to do so. Over time we sought and achieved another two houses that we ran solely for clients originally from our region, the East, and who believed they could be safe with support. One house was shared between two families and one stood alone, allowing for very large families or families with very high complexity. For fifteen years we put plans and applications to DHS to meet growing need by turning the first property about into three units built to disability standards. Lots of advocacy and debates later this was achieved in 2010, housing three families where one or more members lived with a disability, including a carer where necessary. From 2000 the Brenda House collective team provided highly flexible and diverse refuge support across four physical sites with eight independent living spaces, and an outreach response. This was run from an easily accessible offsite office.

physically secure but still looked like a normal house and was kept safe by clients, based on an individual analysis of their safety. Brenda House accepted clients from any location other than the suburb in which that house was located. Together with workers, each client determined if she was safe to meet others locally or if she needed to travel some distance from where she was living. This model offered choice, selfdetermination, the expectation of safety, and shared support from others located at the property. So who were our clients? They were any family seeking support in addressing the imbalance of power and control in their lives and the consequent lack of safety — single women, women with kids of all ages, older boys, working women, families with carers, grandparents, large refugee families, women with disabilities, women with mental health issues or alcohol and other drug dependence, lesbian women, transgender women. We turned no one away if there was a vacancy or available configuration to meet their need, whether that was physical accommodation, family violence outreach support and/or collaborative referrals with support. The value of Brenda House’s model at the point of merger in 2012, was that it was client focused and provided choice and safety measures tailored to each family’s needs and risks. Dispersed across four blocks in a non-clinical manner, Brenda House offered access to professional support onsite and at the office, both independence and mutual gatherings on each site, and accommodated a wide range of needs.

This model evolved based on expressed client need, so why did it work?

Ongoing, I believe the funded model of refuge should be about what best allows the community to take responsibility for family violence in a cultural sense, and what those who live with family violence deserve to support their safety and agency. It must be less about the physical and more about what those living with violence need, at points of greatest vulnerability and into their future.

The main difference was that security was attached to the client and their family’s specific needs, not to the property. Each property was

The model we offer must be diverse, flexible and informed by the voices of those we serve and with whom we walk this path.

C w

A W

Celebrating 40 Years with Dignity Angela Hartwig, Chief Executive Officer, Women’s Council for Domestic and Family Violence Services (WA) In 1977, nine refuges in Western Australia decided to coordinate their efforts and formed the Women’s Refuge Group of WA (now known as the Women’s Council for Domestic and Family Violence Services WA). A peak body providing a voice on behalf of Women’s Refuges and the women and children they serve. Refuges did more than provide crisis accommodation and support, they worked to politicise what was deemed a private matter, the intolerable situation faced by women and children, often at the hands of their violent male partner and/or ex-partner.

Through acknowledging service gaps and ongoing evaluation, refuges have adapted and built on to their service models and created programs to meet the needs of women and children seeking their support; for example, communal to cluster models; a Safe at Home response; Hub Models; children and young people as clients in their own right; caring for pets; responding to alcohol and drug and mental health issues within the refuge; and more recently attention on financial abuse and providing employment opportunities for women onsite within refuges.

Value of a Peak Body and Collective Action As the peak body, the Women’s Council has provided a voice and facilitated collective action on behalf of Women’s Refuges and the women and children they serve. Key milestones have included: • 1970s — a period of consciousnessraising, rallies and protests demanding governments respond to the issue of male violence against women and their children as well as the issue of male violence against women and their children.

Mother love is by Keisha aged 7. She says: ‘This love heart means love for mother love…Mum’s heart is always happy when we are happy.’ Image provided by the artwork program at McAuley Community Services for Women

21

1980s — Provison of government funding for Women’s Refuges • 1990s — A better focus on police and justice responses; addressing gender-bias within the law. • 2000s — Introduction of programs and policies around early •

intervention, better information sharing and interagency collaboration to keep victims safe and hold perpetrators accountable. • 2010s — An across government approach targeting an integrated response to victims and perpetrators of domestic and family violence. • Through our international relations with Canada and the Centre for Response-Based Practice (RBP), the Women’s Council has provided regular training opportunities for the sector with Dr Allan Wade and his colleagues around RBP approaches when working with survivors and perpetrators of domestic and family violence that includes the micro-analysis around the use of language and when describing acts of violence and challenging the notion of a ‘passive victim’ by honouring victim’s resistance to violence. • The Women’s Council hosted the Dignity 2017 International

Street art, Melbourne

22

Conference in Perth, 22–24 May 2017 that was attended by over 280 participants with presenters from Canada (Montreal, Vancover and the Yukon), Aotearoa (New Zealand), Sweden and a number of Australian states. This was indeed a timely opportunity to celebrate 40 years of the Women’s Council and the tireless efforts of feminists and social justice activists in bringing about social change over the last four decades.

Voices of the Past … Visions of the Future. The peak body continues to provide a voice on behalf of Women’s Refuges and Domestic and Family Violence Services and the women and children they serve through: • representation on both national and international networks • policy advice on decision-making boards, and to Ministers and members of parliament • research, consultations, submissions and the provision of tailor-made training • holding regular Refuge Manager’s and Child Support Workers Meetings-a peer support model and to discuss concerns and emerging issues for women and children escaping domestic and family violence • hosting of academics to present contemporary research findings and reports • working collaboratively with other peaks on major campaigns such as the Safe Systems • organising events such as the International Women’s Day High Tea and the Annual Silent Domestic Violence Memorial March • 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence. We pay tribute and celebrate the work of over 60 Women’s Refuges, Safe Houses, Domestic and Family Violence Outreach, Safe at Home, Children’s Counselling and Coordinated Response Services who make up the membership of our Women’s Council’s state-wide network today. The WCDFVS would like to thank the nine Refuges, Lucy Saw Centre, Mary Smith, Orana House, Nardine Wimmin’s Refuge, Ave Maria House, Stirling, Emmaus, Byanda and Warrawee who have the vision and foresight to work collectively to form the WRG.

Chapter 2: Meeting Need, Current Issues (A) Infants and Children in Refuge

Infants in Refuge: The Ignored Crisis Paula Westhead, Executive Officer and Emma Hodges, Family and Art Therapist, Emerge: Women and Children’s Support Network Few would argue against the importance of delivering early intervention programs with infants in refuge as the ideal opportunity to support children at risk of abuse, neglect, and relational trauma arising from family violence (FV). The FV discourse shifted with the 2016 Victorian Government’s Royal Commission into FV shining a spotlight on the needs of children (aged 0 to five years), propelling them into view and out of the shadows of their mothers. The current praxis of Australian FV community organisations conceptualise infants as extensions of mothers; a mother who is likely to be traumatised and struggles to understand her child’s perspectives of FV, is likely to be experienced as a frightening /frightened caregiver. The increasing rates of emotional and behavioural issues in children linked to adverse early life events such as FV, homelessness, and abuse,1 indicate the urgent need to respond to mental health needs of infants (0 to three years) accompanying their mothers into refuge. Despite the Infant Mental Health (IMH) scholarship clearly articulating the impacts of FV on small children and the mother-infant relationship, as well as advocating for infant-led interventions to be introduced into women’s refuges, refuges are not routinely funded to provide early intervention to this cohort. We consider two challenges Emerge faces in responding to distressed mother-infant dyads living in refuge. First, we stress the need for infant-led approaches that enhance outcomes for both. Second, we look at how refuge as a caregiving environment remains an under-explored intervention, with enormous potential

to help children recover from trauma and model emotional availability in a caregiving relationship. This article addresses the topic of ‘Meeting Need’ arguing for an expansion of crisis services to include infant-led and trauma-informed early interventions as part of the new core and cluster model being rolled-out by the Victorian Government in 2018.

Background In the South East of Victoria, Emerge is the only refuge to deliver infant-led therapeutic interventions, underpinned by our philosophy of adopting a whole-of-environment approach. We are a small, but dedicated team of Case Managers and Psychotherapists working together to provide a caring environment and healing relationships. Emerge has received small grants to run an adapted version of the Peek-a-Boo Club™ (PABC) developed by Dr Wendy Bunston in conjunction with the Royal Children’s Hospital.2 Despite irregular funding, we persist encouraged by the consistent outcomes indicating positive changes in a mother’s capacity to mentalise and attune to her baby, ability for reflective functioning; and reduction in trauma symptoms of avoidance, emotional dysregulation, hyper-arousal, and dissociation observed in infants. Challenge 1: Infant-led interventions Community sector practice positions infants/toddlers at the periphery of services meaning potential benefits are entirely contingent on the mother’s level of engagement with services. Under pressure to prove they are acting protectively in times of heightened danger, distress, and uncertainty, woman can be ambivalent about participating in parent efficacy programs. Time is limited to provide effective and

meaningful early intervention with infants/toddlers living in refuge prioritising their mental health needs as a crucial variable in trauma-recovery and interrupting cycles of violence and abuse. Victoria holds strong records of delivering family services initiatives targeting parents identified as ‘vulnerable’ or ‘at-risk’ with the primary emphasis on strengthening parenting efficacy and empowering adult victim-survivors to live free of violence. Our focus is on helping women re-establish their lives with crisis services largely defined as safety, housing, legal, and financial matters; not mental health. Funding IMH services within refuges is not seen as a priority. However, infants who come to refuge are in crisis — developmental, emotional, relational crisis — and are ready to engage in healing relationships given the opportunity.3 Contrary to popular belief, an infant has enormous capacity to engage in and be active in the change process of therapy.4 For a mother, her infant motivates change, offers hope, and leads trauma recovery. Emerge views children are entitled to access therapeutic interventions whilst in refuge to address the impact exposure to violence and abuse has on attachment and development. Approaching our 10-year anniversary of the Children’s Program, Emerge has been offering the traumainformed group program, the PABC since 2013 implementing ten groups with 39 mother-infant dyads and triads leaving FV. The program centralises children’s subjective experiences of FV, promotes secure attachment, and treats the effects that witnessing or exposure to FV has on child development and the motherinfant relationship.

23

Conclusion

Challenge 2: The refuge as intervention: creating an emotionally responsive care-giving environment Research into emotional availability 5 highlights the important role a non-maternal caregiver has in promoting a child’s self-expression, self-determination, and experience of a secure attachment. Equally, the refuge has the unique potential to offer a corrective experience; a milieu promoting emotional availability by creating a caregiving environment. At present, we need to consider how can the system, and its proponents, provide a caregiving environment that is sensitive to family, cultural, and community values raising the question of how well do refuges respond to: ‘the developing capacity of the infant and young child… to experience, express and regulate emotions; form close and secure relationships; and explore the environment and learn’? 6 Infants who arrive in refuge have often experienced traumatic events from in utero to the present time, events that interrupt their development and sense of safety. The presence of a key worker (that is, the Arts Therapist) provides intense support alongside case managers increasing the overall quality of caregiver-child interactions characterised by emotional responsiveness and sensitivity. The Emerge team — Children’s Case Worker, Arts Therapist, Case Manager and Family Therapist work collaboratively in supporting families addressing the different needs arising from crisis. Moving to a 24-hour, seven day-a-week refuge, it is important we retain this caregiving strategy so that the refuge remains an emotionally available environment.

Core and Cluster Model Recommendations Presently, the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has not identified which services will be delivered under the new model. The proposed suggestions aim to remediate the current service environment comprised of silos that are reactive, difficult to navigate, and fail to address the emotional needs of women and infants leaving FV. 1. Specialist practitioners and fullyfunded programs — There is a

24

paucity of specialist practitioners appropriately trained/qualified to deliver therapeutic interventions with an over-reliance on short workshops to upskill staff. The community sector needs to seriously consider building a competent and confident workforce; an investment reducing staff attrition and promoting better outcomes for children. Trauma guidelines for acute interventions with children encourage using medium to long-tailed modalities of group therapy, Expressive Arts Therapies, Family Therapy, and school-based interventions.7 Ideally, coordination across sectors in a trans and multi-disciplinary model of care would include child developmental specialists of IMH clinicians, Occupational Therapists, Speech Pathologists, and Paediatricians. We envision options to respond to attachment and developmental crisis which includes a team of specialist program staff under a clinical lead, and the colocation of early childhood health services coordinated in a complementary way. This will intersect with crisis assessment and case management becoming a responsive care-giving environment at point of entry. 2. Post-crisis services and continuity of support — The working definition of ‘meeting need’ is narrow in focus missing a childoriented lens understanding of a child’s subjective experience of FV. Programs that continue to keep children in view during and after they leave refuge prevent infants falling through the cracks, maximising trauma recovery. Long tailed funding reflecting the actual trajectory of leaving FV and a genuine commitment to improving children’s futures is needed.

Emerge advocates for IMH programs in refuges prioritising the infant’s subjective experience of FV and right to access effective interventions addressing their individual needs. We have been privileged to be part of a DHHS demonstration project ‘TRAK Forward’ with Anglicare delivering the PABC™ as the infant-led intervention reaching a wider demographic of victim-survivors. We recommend the Core and Cluster Model adopt a childfocused approach grounded in IMH principles that increase better outcomes for infants and mothers, and hopefully, deliver meaningful therapeutic interventions that complement, and do not compete with one another. Co-design might be the new zeitgeist; however, moving forward to recovery, without a consumer consultative committee to comment on issues affecting women and children, true partnership cannot be achieved. Endnotes 1. Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, National Centre for Injury Prevention and Control, Division of Violence Prevention 2017, The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study, Atlanta, Georgia, May 2014. Archived from the original on 27 December 2015. 2. Bunston W, Eyre K, Carlsson A and Pringle K 2016, Evaluating relational repair work with infants and mothers impacted by family violence, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, vol.49, no.1, pp. 113–133. 3. Bunston W 2017, Using an ‘infant and child led’ model of practice to facilitate healing within the context of Women’s refuges, McAuley Community Services for Women. Melbourne. 4. Lojkasek M, Cohen N J and Muir E 1994, Where is the infant in infant intervention? A review of the literature on changing troubled mother-infant relationships, Psychotherapy, vol. 31, no.1, pp. 208–220. 5. Biringen Z, Altenhofen S, Aberle J, Baker M, Bennet S, Coker E, Lee C, Moorlag A and Swaim R 2012, Emotional availability, attachment, and intervention in centerbased child-care for infants and toddlers, Developmental Psychology, vol.24, no. 1, pp. 23–34. 6. Osofsky J D and Thomas K 2012, What is infant mental health? Zero to Three, vol.33, no.2. 7. International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies 2005, Treatment guidelines, In Foa F B, Keane T M, Friedman M J and Cohen J A (Eds.), Effective Treatments for PTSD: Practice Guidelines from the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies Second Edition, Guildford Press, New York, pp. 542–545.

o t

W

Using an ‘Infant and child led’ Model of Practice to Facilitate Healing Within the Context of Women’s Refuges* Wendy Bunston PhD** Introduction It is all too often assumed that by osmosis, any healing that occurs for the mother in refuge will automatically transfer to the child. This justifies a powerful assumption that the role of the refuge is to focus support on the women, and those women who are mothers will be able to support their child. This way of thinking and working takes an unacceptable gamble on what the infant will receive with regards to the quality, quantity and capacity of their mother’s care-giving capacities, therefore underestimating the impact of the infants earliest developmental and formative relational experiences. It also fails to consider the lengthy recovery time needed for highly traumatised women. Early childhood relational deprivations are not truly understood to matter, despite the current neurophysiological research clearly demonstrating the opposite. Infants and small children, as the newest members of families are the least stuck, most open to engagement and provide crucial entry points for undertaking complex therapeutic work within ‘at risk’ families. The quickest route to healing for the highlytraumatised mother can often be through the person with whom they have the strongest attachment (albeit positive or negative) and who is the most receptive to engagement within the refuge system. This paper promotes using an ‘infant and child led’ model of practice to facilitate healing within the context of women’s refuges and ‘how to bring the subjectivity of the infant and child alive, and the need to recognise and employ the potential, hope, and healing the new-born brings, as well as the motivation for change’.1

An ‘Infant and Child led’ Model of Practice A practice approach which actively seeks to both involve, and attend to, as well as take the lead from the rapidly developing infant or young child, is what sets this way of practice apart from other child orientated methods. An infant led approach considers the infant, from utero through to the age of three, as an active participant in the change process. An infant led approach endeavours to even the scales and enable the baby’s voice, from the outset, to be as important as any other. The infant and young child is as pivotal to the success of the intervention as any other player. This approach concerns itself with ‘how to bring the subjectivity of the infant and child alive, and the need to recognise and employ the potential, hope, and healing the new-born brings, as well as the motivation for change’.2 The capacity to work from an ‘infant’ or ‘child up’ rather than ‘adult down’ approach encourages a more expansive way of thinking and intervening. The baseline emotional and physical safety of the infant and/or young child operates as the foundation upon which the relational nourishment and responsibility of all family members can be developed.3, 4 Fundamental to this way of working is the belief that ‘infants and children are not objects that we do things to, nor are they passive participants in the therapeutic process whom we work on. Rather, they are willing, able and available unique subjects who are communicating volumes to their external world about how their internal world is faring’.5 Listening to, involving, and engaging with infants and children offers portholes for entry into the early relational worlds of the parents

we work with. Using the here and now of their relationship with their infant or child enables opportunities to powerfully explore ‘what was’ when they (the parent) was little, ‘what is’ now for them as a parent and ‘what could be’ in the life they grow into in relationship with their baby.

Creating an Environment of Refuge The need for refuge is as old as time itself.6 A value base which recognises our shared humanity also recognises that we all need access to refuge at times of threat or distress. Finding refuge is not simply physical but more importantly, a state of mind.7 There is no other time where access to refuge and protection is so critically important than during the formative stages of infancy,8, 9, 10 and in the context of such a powerful life stage as early motherhood. The infant’s developing mind is created within the context of relationships and caregiving experiences. Together the infant and their caregiver creates meaning.11, 12, 13, 14 What the environment of refuge needs to look like in order provide infants, children and their mother with a basic sense of safety is an attentive space which is as responsive to their emotional, psychological needs as well as to their physical needs. This privileges the capacity to ‘be with’ the traumatised infant, child and mother over the compulsion ‘to do’ things for them.15 As refuges become more bureaucratised and the expectations of practical, concrete key performance indicators (KPI) or outcomes are more important than the unique relational opportunities these very early, and fragile moments present in the infant/child

25

and mother’s recovery, the less likely the KPI’s will achieve any lasting success. The high number of women who return to their partners and/or are repeat users of refuge are testament to this.16, 17, 18, 19, 20 The development of whole-ofenvironment approaches to providing protection and healing is not new. Such approaches have been used for decades in therapeutic contexts which are engaged in facilitating healing. These approaches develop procedures which alter the ‘milleu’ or setting of the environmental in such a way as to elevate the ‘patientenvironment process’ and enable relational healing and ‘patterns of interaction’.21, 22 The ‘sanctuary model’ is a more recent iteration, and particularly well known adaption of ‘milieu therapy’.23, 24 However, other adaptations of ‘milieu therapy’ are also reporting good success.25, 26

26

A Model of ‘Infant and Child’ Led Refuge The caregiving environment is, for the infant and child, their first and formative experience of what refuge is, why it is so important and how to find and make use of refuge to replenish and grow.27, 28, 29, 30 Refuge for the adult may or may not enable them to replenish and/or grow. Replicating and recognising satisfactory and/or healthy refuge is learnt in childhood. Accessing refuge through destructive or damaging relationships or substances is more concerned with seeking refuge in what feels familiar rather than what heals. An infant and child led model of refuge builds on the theory of ‘milleu therapy’ but in a manner which recognises the foundational imperatives of what makes baby feel safe and what makes mother (or any woman) feel safe.31, 32

The ‘milleu’ is led by the infant and child. This is not about spoiling the child nor elevating their needs above their mother’s. This approach recognises that the emerging subjectivity and neural development of the infant and child happens in the context of their primary and environmental relationships. The infant/child’s mother is integral to this now, and for the rest of their lives. The mother, herself potentially in recovery from relational trauma, needs relational recovery now to inform her relationship with her child as a template for the rest of their lives together. This model rests on a culture of: • Reflection — supporting the infant/child and mother to de-regulate down from a traumatic non-thinking (and reactive) state through the provision of a calm, attentive, relational entry into refuge.

Respect — demonstrating a gentle capacity for discovering the infant and mother’s sense of self post-trauma, through following their lead and supporting their child/mother attachment. • Relationship — using the power of the infant/mother attachment to enhance and strengthen their bond and facilitate the potential healing of the mother’s own early childhood traumas. • Recovery — using a therapeutic infant/child environmental approach to bring emotional/psychological healing to women, mothers and infants and children as a precursor (and/or in tandem) to attending to the physical and practical elements of providing refuge. •

The model requires: • Reflective supervision — providing refuge staff with regular two hour monthly reflective (group) meetings facilitated by a clinically trained infant and child mental health practitioner (or equivalent), knowledgeable about working with family violence • Re-designing refuge KPI’s — realigning KPI’s (key performance indicators) to be in keeping with relational outcomes that measure a reduction in traumatic responses and increase in relational repair within the infant/child and mother attachment. This happens in the context of allowing staff time to support relationship building opportunities with the infant/child and the infant/child and mother • Resources — this requires putting in adequate staffing levels and resources at the front end of the complex and high-risk entry points (such as refuge) for women, and women (mothers) who with their children seek to leave violent relationships • Recognition — refuge work is complex, demanding, generally underpaid but over-represented with committed, hardworking and dedicated staff. Just as the families and individuals who require refuge are often hidden from the general community, so too are staff who work in refuge. Staff who work in refuge and/or support families within refuge are most often the ‘hidden’ players in family violence work. These staff need recognition, ongoing access

to appropriate professional development, employment structures that support what they do and time to do what they do. Refuges having to exist on ‘hand to mouth’ budgets, as is the experience of many of the families who enter refuge, does not promote opportunities for much other than survival. Staff are the scaffold which effectively holds a refuge together, not the building. They need a voice if they are to enable infants/children and mothers to find their voice.

Building Refuge Women’s refuges were borne out of the women’s movement.33 They have a rich and important history of responding to those in our community who, up until the 1970s were not recognised by society generally, or by government formally as deserving, or even entitled to refuge.34, 35 The provision of refuge was preceded by, and remains a model which is championed by many Christian agencies.36 The complete professionalising of women’s refuges, and privileging of a bureaucratic response to the vulnerable infants, children, mothers and women who enter refuge is not the answer.37, 38, 39, 40 This model is not about stripping away the passions, compassion and values which most refuges operate from. It is about taking the best of what these models offer, respecting the integrity of the values underpinning what was, and building forward with a model of what can be when infants and children are engaged with, and the integrity of what they have to offer the family violence prevention sector, is honoured.

Conclusion Using an ‘infant and child led’ model of practice to facilitate healing within the context of women’s refuges is a revolutionary idea for many. However, the numbers stack up. Children under four make up the highest cohort of children to enter refuge with their mothers.41, 42 Research and science demonstrates conclusively that infants and children exposed to relational trauma such as family violence are the most at risk of significant neurological, psychological and relational harm in future life and least likely to enjoy beneficial physical, educational, relational and social

outcomes.43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57

We are unlikely to see a significant reversal in the incidence of family violence if we continue to fail to ‘see’, ‘think about’ and ‘respond to’ the infant and young child impacted by significant relational trauma. * This is a heavily abridged version of a chapter which will be incorporated in a book due out later this year titled, Supporting Vulnerable Babies and Young Children: How to Work with Complex Challenges Edited by Wendy Bunston and Sarah J. Jones, Jessica Kingsley Publishing/John Murray Press — Hachette, United Kingdom. ** This paper was written to support the work of McAuley Community Services for Women and Emerge — women and children’s support network. However, the intellectual property of this paper remains with the author and should not be re-produced without her expressed permission: [email protected] Dr Bunston’s latest book: Helping Babies and Children Aged 0–6 to Heal After Family Violence: A Practical Guide to Infant- and ChildLed Work, is distributed by Footprint Books. Her award-winning 2016 PhD thesis: How Refuge provides refuge to Infants, is available to download on http://hdl.handle.net/ 1959.9/559171 Endnotes 1. Bunston, W. (2017b). Helping Babies and Children (0–6) to Heal after Family Violence: A practical guide to infant- and child-led practice UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. P. 7 2. Ibid. p. 7. 3. Bunston, W. (2017a). Children Exposed to Family Violence. In C. Haen & S. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of Child and Adolescent Therapy (pp. 404–414). New York: Routledge. 4. Bunston, W. (2017b). op cit. 5. Bunston, W. (2008). Baby lead the way: Mental health groupwork for infants, children and mothers affected by family violence Journal of Family Studies, 14(2–1), p.335. 6. Rabben, L. (2012). Give refuge to the stranger : The past, present, and future of sanctuary. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. Retrieved from http://latrobe.eblib.com.au/ patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=688826 7. Stevenson, A. (Ed.). (2010). New Oxford American Dictionary (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://0-www.oxfordreference.com.alpha2.l atrobe.edu.au/10.1093/acref/ 9780199571123.001.0001/ m_en_gb0696930. 8. Schechter, D. S., & Willheim, E. (2009). The effects of violent experiences on infants and young children. In C. H. Z. Jr (Ed.), Handbook of Infant Mental Health (pp. 197–213). New York: The Guilford Press. 9. Siegel, D. J. (2012). Developing Mind: How relationships and the brain interact to shape who we are (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

27

10. Teicher, M. H. (2002). Scars that won’t heal. Scientific American, 286(3), pp.68–75. 11. Beebe, B., Jaffe, J., & Lachmann, F. (1992). A dyadic systems view of communication. In N. Skolnick & S. Warshaw (Eds.), Relational Perspectives in Psychoanalysis (pp. 61–81). Hillisdae, NJ: Analytic Press. 12. Beebe, B., & Lachmann, F. (1988). The contribution of mother–infant mutual influence to the origins of self- and object representations. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 5(4), 305–337. 13. Beebe, B., & Lachmann, F. M. (1998). Coconstructing inner and relational processes: Self-and mutual regulation in infant research and adult treatment. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 15(4), 480–516. 14. Tronick, E., & Beeghly, M. (2011). Infants’ meaning-making and the development of mental health problems. American Psychologist, 66(2), 107–119. 15. Bunston, W. (2017b). op cit. 16. Gondolf, E. W. (1988). The effect of batterer counseling on shelter outcome. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 3(3), 275–289. 17. Horton, A. L., & Johnson, B. L. (1993). Profile and strategies of women who have ended abuse. Families in Society, 74(8), 481–492. 18. Spinney, A. (2012). Reducing the need for women and children to make repeated use of refuge and other crisis accommodation. Melbourne: S. I. f. S. Research. 19. Spinney, A., & Blandy, S. (2011). Homelessness prevention for women and children who have experienced domestic and family violence: Innovations in policy and practice. Australia: AHURI. 20. Walker, L. (1979). The Battered Woman. New York: Harper & Row. 21. Abroms, G. M. (1969). Defining milieu therapy. Archives of General Psychiatry, 21(5), 553–560. 22. Rioch, D. M., & Stanton, A. H. (1953). Milieu therapy. Psychiatry, 16(1), 65–72. 23. Bloom, S. L. (1994). The Sanctuary Model: Developing generic inpatient programs for the treatment of psychological trauma. In M. Williams & J. JF Sommer (Eds.), Handbook of Post-Traumatic Therapy: A practical guide to intervention, treatment, and research (pp. 277–294). Westport, CN: Greenwood Publishing. 24. Esaki, N., Benamati, J., Yanosy, S., Middleton, J., Hopson, L., Hummer, V., & Bloom, S. (2013). The Sanctuary Model: Theoretical framework. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 94(2), 87–95. 25. Mancil, G. R., Conroy, M. A., & Haydon, T. F. (2009). Effects of a modified milieu therapy intervention on the social communicative behaviors of young children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39(1), 149. 26. Rice, M. E., Harris, G. T., & Cormier, C. A. (1992). An evaluation of a maximum security therapeutic community for psychopaths and other mentally disordered offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 16(4), 399.

28

27. Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Clinical applications of attachment theory. London: Routledge. 28. Rifkin-Graboi, A., Borelli, J. L., & Enlow, M. B. (2009). Neurobiology of stress in infancy. In C. H. Z. Jr (Ed.), Handbook of Infant Mental Health (3rd ed., pp. 59–79). New York: The Guilford Press. 29. Tronick, E. Z. (2007). The Neurobehavioral and Social-Emotional Development of Infants and Children. U.S.A.: W. W. Norton & Company. 30. Winnicott, D. (1960). The theory of the parent-infant relationship. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 41, 585–595. 31. Bunston, W. (2016). How Refuge provides ‘refuge’ to Infants: Exploring how ‘refuge’ is provided to infants entering crisis accommodation with their mothers after fleeing family violence. PhD Thesis, La Trobe University. Melbourne. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1959.9/559171 32. Bunston, W., & Sketchley, R. (2012). Refuge for Babies in Crisis. Melbourne, Australia: RCH-IMHP. Retrieved from https://www.salvationarmy.org.au/Global/ State%20pages/Tasmania/Safe%20from %20the%20start/Refuge_for_Babies_ Manual%20small.pdf 33. Women’s-Liberation-Halfway-HouseCollective. (1976). HERSTORY of the Halfway House 1974–1976. Melbourne: Sybylla Cooperative Press Ltd. 34. Schechter, S. (1982). Women and male violence: The visions and struggles of the battered women’s movement. Cambridge: South End Press. 35. Theobald, J. (2009). Constructing a feminist issue: Domestic violence and the Victorian refuge movement. Parity, 22(10), 12–14. 36. Walsh, A. (1997). The story of Ursula Frayne: a woman of mercy (pp. 64). Victoria, Australia: John Garratt Publishing. 37. Arnold, G., & Ake, J. (2013). Reframing the narrative of the battered women’s movement. Violence Against Women, 19(5), 557–578. doi:10.1177/1077801213490508 38. Ferraro, K. J. (1983). Negotiating trouble in a battered women’s shelter. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 12(3), 287–306. 39. Finley, L. L. (2010). Where’s the peace in this movement? A domestic violence advocate’s reflections on the movement. Contemporary Justice Review, 13(1), 57–69. doi:10.1080/10282580903549219 40. Lehrner, A., & Allen, N. E. (2009). Still a movement after all these years?: current tensions in the domestic violence movement. Violence Against Women, 15(6), 656–677. 41. AIHW. (2012a). A Picture of Australia’s Children 2012 (1742493572). Canberra: AIHW. (Cat. no. PHE 167.). 42. AIHW. (2012b). Specialist Homelessness Services Collection: First results, september quarter 2011. (Cat.no. HOU 262.). AIHW. Canberra. 43. Carpenter, G. L., & Stacks, A. M. (2009). Developmental effects of exposure to intimate partner violence in early childhood: A review of the literature. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(8), 831–839.

44. Graham-Bermann, S., Howell, K., Miller, L., Kwek, J., & Lilly, M. (2010). Traumatic events and maternal education as predictors of verbal ability for preschool children exposed to intimate partner violence (IPV). Journal of Family Violence, 25(4), 383–392. doi:10.1007/s10896-0099299-3 45. Graham, A. M., Fisher, P. A., & Pfeifer, J. H. (2013). What sleeping babies hear: A functional MRI study of interparental conflict and infants’ emotion processing. Psychological Science, 24(5), 782–789. doi:10.1177/0956797612458803 46. Holt, S., Buckley, H., & Whelan, S. (2008). The impact of exposure to domestic violence on children and young people: A review of the literature. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32(8), 797–810. 47. Hossain, M. A., Sumi, N. S., Haque, M. E., & Bari, W. (2014). Consequences of intimate partner violence against women on under-five child mortality in Bangladesh. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(8), 1402–1417. doi:10.1177/0886260513507140 48. Levendosky, A. A., Bogat, G. A., & Martinez-Torteya, C. (2013). PTSD symptoms in young children exposed to intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 19(2), 187–201. 49. Levendosky, A. A., Huth-Bocks, A. C., Semel, M. A., & Shapiro, D. L. (2002). Trauma symptoms in preschool-age children exposed to domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17(2), 150–164. doi:10.1177/0886260502017002003 50. Lieberman, A. F., Chu, A., Van Horn, P., & Harris, W. W. (2011). Trauma in early childhood: Empirical evidence and clinical implications. Development and Psychopathology, 23(2), 397–410. doi:10.1017/S0954579411000137 51. Osofsky, J. D. (1999). The impact of violence on children. The Future of Children, 9(3), 33–49. 52. Schechter, D. S., & Willheim, E. (2009). The effects of violent experiences on infants and young children. In C. H. Z. Jr (Ed.), Handbook of Infant Mental Health (pp. 197–213). New York: The Guilford Press. 53. Schore, A. N. (2016). Affect regulation and the origin of the self: The neurobiology of emotional development. New York: Routledge. 54. Teicher, M. H., Andersen, S. L., Polcari, A., Anderson, C. M., Navalta, C. P., & Kim, D. M. (2003). The neurobiological consequences of early stress and childhood maltreatment. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 27(1–2), 33–44. 55. Van der Kolk, B. (2014). The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, mind, and body in the healing of trauma. England: Penguin. 56. Van der Kolk, B. A. (2005). Developmental trauma disorder. Psychiatric Annals, 35(5), 401–408. 57. Widom, C. S. (1999). Posttraumatic stress disorder in abused and neglected children grown up. American Journal of Psychiatry, 156(8), 1223–1229.

J J

(B) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women and Children

Meeting the Needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women and Children Who Experience Family Violence-related Homelessness Janelle Young, Kellyanne Andy, and Joanne Doherty, Elizabeth Morgan House Aboriginal Women’s Service Refuges are a critical component of the family violence service sector because they provide women and children with a safe place to escape family violence and rebuild their lives in a supportive environment. Refuges work best when, in addition to ensuring immediate safety, they promote individual and familial empowerment through participation in community, and through educational and economic opportunities.1 The impacts of family violence are deeply felt within Aboriginal communities. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women are twice as likely to be victims of domestic violence and 35 times more likely to be hospitalized as a result of domestic violence.2 A review of Aboriginal children in care in Victoria found that of 980 young people, 88 per cent had been exposed to family violence.3 Aboriginal women and children are more likely to experience family violence-related homelessness. One quarter (25 per cent) of clients who presented to a Specialist Homelessness Services (SHS) funded organisation in 2016–17 were Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women who had fled or were wanting to flee from violence.4

The Aboriginal Women’s Refuge Movement While the fight for the establishment of an Aboriginal women’s refuge occurred contemporaneously with a broader Victorian refuge movement, Aboriginal women were clear about the importance of community-based, culturally-safe women’s services distinct from the wider feminist movement.5 The Aboriginal Women’s Refuge Committee (AWRC) was established in 1976 to lobby for government funding to establish an official refuge that would respond to

‘their own needs’.6 According to a 1979 article published in Vashti’s Voice, a feminist newspaper, the AWRC was advocating for a refuge in which: ..other categories of Aboriginal women in need apart from those getting away from male violence will be housed. For example, the shelter will not turn away Aboriginal women leaving Fairlea 7 with no place to go, as the women know well that after Fairlea many are exploited in the hotels of St. Kilda and Fitzroy.8 This early recognition of the links between broader socio-economic disadvantage, homelessness and violence among Aboriginal women speaks to a holistic understanding of the issue held by the AWRC and the Aboriginal community. The views taken by Aboriginal women were at odds with dominant understandings of family violence held at the time, which were centred on violence occurring within the home in the context of marital relationships.9 Despite ideological differences, the Victorian Women’s Refuge Movement did publicly pledge its support for the AWRC and its goal of a refuge designed specifically for Aboriginal women, pointing to the racism faced by Aboriginal women in mainstream refuge accommodations.10 However, racism was not the only reason that Aboriginal women were advocating for their own refuge. In an interview she gave to the Herald paper in 1979, Auntie Joyce Johnson, a founding member of Elizabeth Hoffman House,11 stated that the AWRC was determined to ‘care for their own people’, and needed an accommodation that allowed for longer stays due to the chronic homelessness many Aboriginal

women in Victoria experienced.12 Furthermore, random acts of violence against Aboriginal women were common in public places and institutions and the AWRC did not want to restrict refuge access to women who had experienced domestic violence. Four decades later, we continue to routinely see family violence driven homelessness as one of the major issues facing Aboriginal women and children.

The Future of Women’s Refuges It is unsurprising that homelessness as a result of family violence remains one of the key drivers of demand for access to refuge. Refuges will continue to play a vital role because the availability of safe, long-term housing continues to be a major challenge for women and children. While addressing the underlying social, economic and gender inequalities that drive family violence through prevention is a vital element of policy, improving crisis services and removing barriers to refuge entry and exit remains critical. The service sector is rapidly evolving, particularly in the wake of the Royal Commission into Family Violence and greater community awareness is also leading to an increase in reporting. This places further constraints on services working in this space.13 In 2014, Elizabeth Morgan House (EMH) established its core and cluster style refuge after operating a communal refuge facility for over 25 years. We believe that this model is the way forward because women and children are able to live more independently and still have access to the supports they need. The Refuge is staffed 24 hours a day by support staff, and case managers are available during business hours. The accessibility of support is crucial.

29

“Collage” work by 14 year old girl expressing her love of nature and feelings of peace

Our focus is on what women want and need. Refuges can offer a therapeutic and supportive environment, where women have time to rest and think, while knowing that their children are safe.14 Although refuges may not be the appropriate pathway for all clients, they are especially important for women and children who are found to be at imminent risk of harm. The current alternative finds many women staying in hotels while they await access to refuges or other forms of supported accommodation. The hotels in which women and children are placed are usually far away from their supportive networks, public transport and other resources. Specialist family violence services are funded by catchment area, if women are moved out of our catchment area, our service and many other crucial support services are unable to continue to support them, which results in a break in the continuity of care. While in some cases the crisis stay in hotel accommodation is necessary to ensure safety, the women we work with often describe hotel stays as lonely and isolating. Constantly moving does not provide much needed stability for women and children who have experienced significant trauma. Repeated moves interrupt children’s education which places their development at risk. Accessing health care, including regular check-ups and ensuring compliance with immunisations becomes more challenging.

30

The hotels rooms are not self-contained, and families are required to make do without kitchen facilities. The hotels are often used by other crisis accommodation services which support individuals with complex mental health and substance misuse challenges. In addition, perpetrators who are unable to return home due to safety notices or intervention orders are often accommodated in the same hotels as women fleeing violent homes. Women tell us that they are sometimes intimidated or victimized by other hotel guests, which may result in them believing that returning to the perpetrator is a safer option. Such forms of temporary accommodation are not congruent with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander approaches to practice with women and children who have experienced family violence because there is a lack of direct contact between women and the service. This impedes opportunities to build a relationship of trust between workers and women and children. Key to our approach is the establishment of trust and mutual understanding between families and refuge workers. EMH has developed an intersectional practice model that responds to each woman’s lived reality. We have a wrap-around and holistic model of care where, in addition to safety concerns, we address the social, emotional and economic impacts of family violence.

We work with women who experience multiple, overlapping forms of adversity. To achieve this, EMH has built strong working relationships with other services that ensure quick and culturally appropriate responses. We work in close partnership with schools and childcare providers, community health and legal services, housing providers, and Aboriginal community-controlled organisations to achieve positive outcomes for women. The goal is to work in collaboration with women to create a case plan that has achievable outcomes. We believe that seeing change creates a momentum which allows women and children to move forward in a positive way. Endnotes 1. Victoria State Government 2017, Family Violence Rolling Action Plan 2017–2020, Victoria State Government, Melbourne. 2. Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety 2016, Fast Facts: Indigenous Family Violence, Sydney. 3. Commission for Children and Young People 2016, Always Was, Always Will Be Koori Children: Systemic Inquiry into Services Provided to Aboriginal Children and Young People in Out of Home Care in Victoria, Commission for Children and Young People, Melbourne. 4. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 2018, Specialist Homelessness Services Annual Report 2016–17, AIHW, Melbourne. 5. Theobald J 2015, ‘The Beginnings of the Victorian Refuge Movement: Difference, Equality and Protectionism, 1974–1979’, Feminist Review, vol. 52, no.1, p. 1–26. 6. Vashti’s Voice 1979, ‘Aboriginal Women Fight for a Refuge’, Vashti’s Voice, vol. 25, p. 29. 7. Ibid. 8. Theobald J 2014, ‘Women’s Refuges and the State in Victoria, Australia: A Campaign for Secrecy of Address’, Women’s History Review, vol. 23, no. 1, p. 60–81. 9. Vashti’s Voice 1979, ‘Aboriginal Women Fight for a Refuge’, Vashti’s Voice, vol. 25, p. 29. 10. The Herald 1979, ‘Women Seek Refuge, The Herald, p. 29. 11. Royal Commission into Family Violence 2016, Summary and Recommendations, Victoria Government, Melbourne. 12. Australian’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety 2017, Women’s Specialist Domestic and Family Violence Services: Their Responses and Practices With and For Aboriginal Women: Key Findings and Future Directions, University of New England, Armidale. 13. Royal Commission into Family Violence 2016, op cit. 14. Australian’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety 2017, op cit.

A

(C) Refugees, Asylum Seekers and Migrants

No Income, No visa, No Way Out: Improving pathways out of family violence for women on temporary visas Ange O’Brien, Senior Project Officer, Family Safety Victoria Introduction ‘For far too long, the problem of abusive men using the family visa system to exploit migrant women has gone unnoticed and unaddressed. In 2011, [a government report] documented the use of prospective spouse visas by Australian men to facilitate forced and servile marriages… There have been numerous cases in which men with violent histories have been allowed to sponsor the migration of a woman from overseas… and enacted horrific forms of violence against her, at times culminating in murder.’ — Dr Kaye Quek, Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, Australia1 Among the many women and children in Australia seeking to escape the fear and shame of family violence, there is a growing group that has come to our attention. Currently, victim-survivors who experience significant barriers to accessing family violence refuge and crisis accommodation are women on ‘no income’; most often due to living on a temporary bridging, spousal, student or tourist visa. If a relationship breaks down due to family violence, only the partner visa offers a pathway to permanent residency under special provisions in the Migration Act.2 The 2016 Royal Commission into Family Violence (the Royal Commission) identified that women with no income due to their temporary visa status faced particular vulnerabilities and challenges. A small funding package was allocated in the 2017 Victorian State Budget specifically to improve crisis accommodation support to women and children in this situation. As part of this initiative, Family Safety Victoria has commenced an

explorative project which focuses on women with temporary visa status seeking refuge accommodation, looking at ways to: • address their particular needs • explore existing service barriers and gaps • support the family violence and homelessness sectors to better respond • enhance their pathways both into and out of family violence crisis accommodation.

What Our Research Told Us

Family Safety Victoria has examined the findings and recommendations of the Royal Commission, conducted a preliminary literature review, and consulted with family violence refuge providers. Our consultation included requests for some additional narrative around the service delivery data, which was telling us only part of the story. This article presents some of the early findings from these conversations, summarises what we learned and asks: ‘where to from here?’

In a study 4 of 300 case files from inTouch Multicultural Centre Against Family Violence in 2015–16 involving clients whose migration status was temporary when they first came into contact with inTouch, 52 per cent of women had dependants, with the majority of children under the age of four years. Of these, almost a quarter (23 per cent) had Victorian Child Protection involved in their case.

Relevant Recommendations from the Royal Commission The Commission heard that, though eligible under Victorian Government guidelines, women with no income face significant barriers in both accessing and exiting refuge and crisis accommodation. In response to these findings the Royal Commission recommended to ‘Review the contractual arrangements for crisis supported accommodation to remove barriers for particular groups, such as women with no income’ (Rec 16). In addition, Recommendations 18 and 19 sought to address current blockages in refuge, crisis and transitional accommodation for victims of family violence to minimise relocations and gain stable housing more quickly.3

Various inquiries have found that a lack of knowledge by women without Australian permanent residency about the Family Violence Provisions under the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) and fear of deportation are powerful disincentives for them to seek help and leave violent partners. Threats of deportation by the perpetrator are common and may come also from members of the partner’s extended family.

Research literature shows that critical challenges for this client cohort include: • temporary migration status providing greater opportunity for coercion and control by perpetrators • multiple barriers to navigating the Australian system and accessing family violence services 5 • ineligibility for most government funded income benefits and services 6 • complexity of need, intensive support and high costs associated with providing assistance for ‘complex legal, immigration and protection matters’ 7 • intersections between family violence committed against non-residents of Australia and potential trafficking and slavery circumstances, including forced marriage, domestic servitude, forced labour, human and sexual trafficking and ‘other slavery-like situations’ 8

31

most refuge providers currently limit the number of places or exclude women altogether who receive no income • an increasing proportion of requests for refuge/crisis accommodation responses for these women and children, with longer stays leading to fewer vacancies for new referrals • extremely limited exit pathways to medium and longer term housing unless/until permanent residency has been granted • despite Victorian Government guidelines allowing housing service providers the discretion to apply for full or partial rental subsidies for clients without income or with significantly reduced income it is not yet common practice. •

What the Recent Data Told Us Income status Data quality on the income status of women seeking entry to family violence refuge and crisis accommodation is poor. • ‘safe steps’ 2017 service data revealed that 43.6 per cent of their clients received no income.9 • Victorian Specialist Homelessness Services Collection (SHSC) data between July 2015 and April 2017 indicated that 44.2 per cent of family violence clients had no income, with limited capacity in reporting fields to indicate reasons for this.10 How many women? • Adjusted for population spread, national data suggests that, of the more than 9,000 women per year in Australia on temporary visas experiencing family violence, around 2,400 reside in Victoria.11 • Australian Institute of Health and Welfare data from 2016–2017 indicates that inTouch provided

1,157 support periods. Of these, 30 per cent were recorded as having no income at the start of their support period, and 18 per cent had no income when their support period was closed. • inTouch estimates that they would support approximately 100 women a year on bridging visas, and 70 women on other types of visas.12 It is not known what proportion of these women access refuge accommodation. • The registered migration agent at inTouch supported around 430 women without permanent residency in both 2016 and 2017. Of these, 50 per cent of women on temporary visas were ineligible to apply for permanent residency via federal family violence provisions.13 Women on Temporary Visas Seeking Refuge ‘safe steps’ have reported that: • 20 per cent of women who contact safe steps needing refuge fall into this category. • Of the 22.9 per cent of clients who wanted refuge and for whom a refuge bed could not be found, 70.9 per cent of these had no income due to not being permanent residents.14 • over 80 per cent of the women and children accommodated in safe steps’ crisis accommodation have not been able to enter a refuge because they lack permanent residency and these people remain in crisis accommodation twice as long as other residents.15 Family Violence Flexible Support Packages Preliminary data from the Family Violence Flexible Support Package (FSP) evaluation shows that the uptake of FSPs for women without permanent residency has been relatively low.

Around 30 FSPs were allocated to women with no permanent residency in 2016–17, 20 of whom were in refuge or other crisis accommodation. Half the applications came from inTouch. The most common uses for this funding were: • temporary, crisis accommodation fees • private rental accommodation fees • document translation fees (into English) for evidence needed for her permanent residency application 16 • psychologists and social work reports required for her permanent residency application 17 • medical examination fees required for her permanent residency application 18 • private migration agent fees for her visa application. Unmet Need: The Impact on Non-resident Victim-Survivors • Women with no income or permanent residency have unique, significant and additional support needs. • Quality of interpreters was an issue mentioned by every service provider consulted. • There are a lack of migration agents and specialist legal services to assist women with visa applications under the federal family violence provisions. • Engagement with specialist culturally and linguistically diverse and migrant services like inTouch, the Refugee and Immigration Legal Centre (RILC), AMES Australia and Red Cross is not consistent across Victoria. • Specialist financial counsellors are needed with specific understanding/training around financial abuse and vulnerability for this cohort of women. Several refuges spoke of the long waits for

Clients assisted by inTouch Direct Service Team: July–December 2016 Bridging visa (57%) Working visa (9%) Student visa (20%) Refused application for Permanent Residency (1%) New Zealand residents (6%) Visa over-stayer (1%) Unknown visa status (6%)

32

this essential service — ‘you just can’t get in to see them any more’. • Funding initiatives like the FSPs are time-limited and run out quickly. These women need timely access to funds to stay safely housed with everything they need. Picking up the Tab: Costs Borne by Refuge Providers • Material aid requirements for these women are high, with all refuges reporting that they rely on donations, grants, philanthropic funding and other local resources to boost supplies. • The cost of medical assessments and blood tests, pre-natal and post-natal care, pharmaceutical supplies, full fare taxis and even translation of documents is significant. • Many services spoke of the lack of ‘cash’ options for this cohort of women. Most material aid and financial support, including FSPs, are provided in the form of vouchers or payments against invoice. This removes the woman’s freedom to enjoy the things she wants or needs in refuge outside these parameters and which can make a huge difference to her trauma recovery and wellbeing, for example, meals out with her children, culturally appropriate food, treats, outings, pampering experiences, etc. • By far the largest cost to refuge providers is staffing: providing the intensive case management support required to assist the family. Several refuge providers reported that even with legal and migration support in place, their workers are required to ‘do a lot of the casework and running around’, sourcing and coordinating reports, documents, and other evidence required for a visa application.

Where To From Here? There are still many unknowns. The numbers of such women presenting and asking for help is increasing. Refuge providers, in particular, want to continue to accommodate and support these women despite their temporary migration status and uncertain futures. In addition, a number of reforms will interface with how we work together to meet the needs of CALD women with no income seeking refuge after

family violence. These include the transitional housing and case management activity reviews, the National Housing and Homelessness Strategy, and current investment towards various capital projects, immigration support programs and the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

deliver key reforms to keep all victim-survivors safe.

Obviously, there are federal legislative and policy implications regarding income benefits, migration and sponsorship provisions. Opportunities for Family Safety Victoria and the broader Victorian Government to influence reform require further examination, such as expanding eligibility for Centrelink benefits including crisis payments, and Medicare. The comprehensive Segrave 19 report contains a number of specific recommendations for consideration by the Council of Australian Governments, including the broadening of family violence provisions in migration regulations to include students and work permit holders on temporary or restricted visas, expanding service provision which prioritises housing and safety for women and children on temporary visas, criminalising men who abuse the sponsorship program, particularly targeting recidivist offenders, and launching a federal campaign to raise awareness of family violence laws and support available for victim-survivors.

2. Segrave M 2017, Temporary migration and family violence: An analysis of victimisation, vulnerability and support. Melbourne: School of Social Sciences, Monash University, p.1.

Through the process of gathering this critical data about the needs of women in refuge on temporary visas with no income, many ideas are gaining traction. At a state government level, the Support Services Working Group, a subgroup of the Ministerial Family Violence Housing Assistance Implementation Taskforce, is planning a project specifically around women in refuge on temporary visas with no income. The Rethinking Refuges Roundtable hosted by Domestic Violence Victoria remains a vital knowledge base and sounding board to formulate better crisis responses to women with no income. Challenges with engaging language interpreters and translation of documents need more attention. Effective, local models of collaborative practice deserve more recognition — and resources. This will be the focus for the Victorian Government as we continue to

Endnotes 1. SBS 2016, ‘Dangerous love: Death and violence on Australian visas’, Retrieved from: http://www.sbs.com.au/topics/life/ feature/dangerous-love-death-andviolence-australian-visas

3. State of Victoria 2016, Royal Commission into Family Violence: Report and recommendations, Vol II, Parliamentary Paper No 132 (2014–16). 4. Segrave M 2017, op cit, p.2. 5. These include English language difficulties, challenges with interpreter services, a lack of Australian systems knowledge and understanding, social isolation, a lack of social and family support, the inability to return to their community due to shame, stigma or threats from extended family members, and the risk of breaching temporary visa conditions when entering a refuge such as cessation of work or study which carries the risk of deportation. 6. Including Centrelink income benefits, a Health Care Card which subsidises most essential medicines and provides half price travel on public transport, Medicare which provides free or subsidised health care, enrolment in government schools and childcare, counselling, legal aid, ESL classes and other education, financial counselling, and most forms of material aid. 7. Vaughan C, Davis E, Murdolo A, Chen J, Murray L, Block K and Warr D 2016, Promoting community-led responses to violence against immigrant and refugee women in metropolitan and regional Australia, The ASPIRE Project: Final report, Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety.et al, Sydney, p.4. 8. Segrave M 2017, op cit, p.2. 9. Murray S, Bullen J, Watson J and Theobald J 2017, Profiling women and children experiencing family violence who require a crisis supported response, RMIT University, 21 July 2017. 10. Murray S et al 2017, op cit, p.42. 11. Segrave M 2017, op cit, p.2. 12. inTouch Multicultural Centre Against Family Violence 2017, Written response to interview questions from Family Safety Victoria, September 18, 2017. 13. inTouch Multicultural Centre Against Family Violence 2017, ibid. 14. Murray S et al, 2017, op cit, p.59 15. State of Victoria 2016, op cit, Chapter 9, A Safe Home, p.52. 16. Required by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection under family violence provisions. 17. Ibid. 18. Ibid. 19. Segrave M 2017, op cit.

33

Developing New Models and Services: Supporting Women and Children Who Currently Do Not Have Residency in Australia Kedy Kristal, Policy Officer, Women’s Council for Domestic and Family Violence Services, Western Australia

Refuges across Australia have been struggling to respond to the ongoing demand for accommodation and income support for a complex and diverse group of women and children who currently do not have permanent residency in Australia. These women and children are not entitled to Centrelink, Medicare and in some cases access to schooling and have no exit options from the Refuge into social or public housing. Women with no income are usually women who have come to Australia to marry an Australian citizen or whose partners have a Sub-class 457 Visa, international students, tourists and those on bridging visas. Women from New Zealand who arrived after 2001 and are not employed, can also be classified as women with no income. Women escaping family

violence in Papua New Guinea and who flee to Thursday Island, are also part of this complex group. The research on the rates of domestic and family violence in the culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) community show that these women and children often face a range of factors that additionally impact on the experience of violence and abuse, increasing the trauma and isolation of their plight. Compounding this is the stress of the migration experience generally, the uncertainty and misinformation she may be experiencing about her visa status, along with her dependency on the perpetrator to financially support her and any children. Other factors can include her limited capacity to read and speak English and pressure from community and family to remain married.

Additional Barriers to Leaving an Abusive Partner The challenges women face when leaving an abusive partner are well established along with the recognition that the period leading up to and following separation can be the most dangerous for women and children who have experienced domestic and family violence. Women without access to an income face a difficult and more challenging decision when seeking safety — her vulnerability and lack of support are often used by perpetrators to coerce her into remaining in the relationship. Often the perpetrator uses her lack of residency to threaten her with deportation; together with denying her information about her visa progress, and a refusal to sign papers that the Department of Immigration and Border Protection requires to process her application. Other tactics include threats that he will gain residency of any children of the relationship because of his permanent residency. This cohort of women have all experienced domestic and family violence that has forced them to leave their partner and home. Some of the women may be able to claim Family Tax Benefit from the government for a child who is classified as ‘born in Australia’ and some may be entitled to Special Benefits while on a Bridging Visa. Neither of these benefits is enough for a family to live independently in the community.

Image provided by the artwork program at McAuley Community Services for Women

34

Some of these women may be on visas that allow them to access the domestic violence provisions within the Migration Act, that if accessed successfully, would grant them permanent residency. Estimates of the numbers of women successfully accessing permanent residency due

to their relationship breaking down because of domestic and family violence are very low. While there is annual average approval of 36,450 temporary partner visa applications from women, in 2015–16 there were only 529 family violence applications made, of which only 403 were successful.1 Statistically, based on an estimate that one in four women experience family violence, of the 36,450 applications, approximately 9,112 of these women have experienced domestic and family violence.

Refuges Across Australia Refuges across Australia have always been faced with demand for accommodation that far outstrips their current capacity. Data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) shows 106,000 people experiencing domestic and family violence sought assistance from homelessness agencies across Australia in 2015–16; 38 per cent of all people requesting assistance from specialist homelessness agencies. Nationally, the number of clients who had experienced domestic and family violence and sought assistance from specialist homelessness agencies has increased on average seven per cent each year since 2011–12.2 Homeless services across Australia turn away 275 requests for accommodation each day. Around 64 per cent of all requests are from females.3 Refuges are reporting anecdotally an ever-increasing demand for accommodation from women without income, but very limited data is available on the number of single women and families accommodated or turned away. The Multicultural Centre for Women’s Health reported that almost half of the immigrant and refugee women accommodated in Victorian refuges 2009–2010 were women without permanent residency.4 Data collected by the Women’s Council for Domestic and Family Violence Service (WA), the peak body in Western Australia, between January to December 2016, found that 144 women and 154 children without income or permanent residency were

accommodated in women’s refuges in Western Australia.5 Refuges receive no specific funding from the Federal or the Western Australian State Government to help support women and children who often have nothing but the clothes on their back when they enter the Refuge. All refuges are required under their funding contracts to accommodate women and children regardless of their capacity to contribute to the cost of accommodation. This client group is dependent on the refuge providing food, clothing, paying for medical and dental treatment, school costs, transport, and a multitude of other daily necessities. In reality, this means refuges are having to make difficult decisions to restrict the number of no income families they can accommodate at any one time. Many of these women and children require long stays in refuges, up to 12 to 24 months, while waiting for a decision by the Department of Immigration on their applications for residency. Refuges were established to provide crisis short-term accommodation and there are significant challenges to both the refuge service model and staff when families are accommodated for extended periods. The women and children can experience high levels of psychological and emotional distress when living for extended periods well below the poverty line and in ongoing uncertainty about their future. There has been advocacy by state and national bodies for action to address this issue, including a recommendation by the Australian Law Reform Commission in 2011 that the Council of Australian Governments change the migration legislation to ensure that all people escaping family violence are eligible for crisis payments regardless of their visa status.6 The current recommendations under the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2012–2022 in the third action plan (2016–2019) include: 3.8 Ensure migration rules and eligibility requirements for support services do not disempower

victims of violence or discourage them from leaving violence relationships. 3.8(a) develop appropriate visa arrangements for temporary residents who are experiencing violence.7 Refuge staff across Australia are faced with ever-increasing numbers of women and children in desperate need of safety and long-term support that is simply beyond the capacity and funding levels of most refuges. The Women’s Council for Domestic and Family Violence Services in Western Australia has initiated limited weekly funding assistance to this group of women and children in refuges with the support of a small grant from the Department of Communities and funding from a local charity Standing Shoulder to Shoulder. The weekly payments are provided directly to the women and allow them control over their money and the independence to make choices for themselves and their children. Endnotes 1. Segrave M 2017, Temporary migration and Family Violence: an analysis of victimisation, vulnerability and support, School of Social Sciences. Monash University, Melbourne, September, 2017 2. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2018: http://webarchive.nla.gov.au/gov/2017081 6055455/http://www.aihw.gov.au/homeless ness/specialist-homelessness-services2015-16 data accessed 15th February 2018. 3. Ibid. 4. Australian Women Against Violence Alliance 2017, Submission into the Public Consultation on Visa Simplification: Transforming Australia’s Visa System. 5. Women’s Council for Domestic and Family Violence Services (WA) July to December report 2017, Perth WA 6. Australian Law Reform Commission 2011, Report Family Violence and Commonwealth Laws — Improving Legal Frameworks No: 117 Summary November 2011. https://www.alrc.gov.au/familyviolence-and-commonwealth-lawsimproving-legal 7. The Third Action Plan of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2016, https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/ documents/10 2016/third action plan.pdf: Department of Social Services (2016) Fact Sheet: How the Third Action Plan Supports Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Women and their Children.

35

(D) Regional and Rural Issues

Moving Forward with Effective Hub and Spoke Domestic and Family Violence Services Elizabeth Rowe, Centacare Catholic Family Services, South Australia Introduction It’s 2023. Anna, a mother-of-three, is living on a beef cattle farm between Bordertown and Naracoorte, in South Australia. The nearest town and police station is 30 minutes away. The farm and assets are held in a complicated Family Trust. Anna is financially dependent on her partner, Ben, who isolates her from friends. Ben threatens Anna with poverty should she ever leave him. She knows he has a gun buried in the bull paddock. Anna worries nobody will believe her if she speaks up, so she tries to cope alone. When this becomes too much and she fears for her life, Anna confides in her mother-in-law, Penny, who lives in an old cottage on the farm. Penny recognises Anna and her grandchildren are at imminent risk.

Community education has given her an understanding of the dynamics of domestic violence and perpetrator tactics. Penny knows Ben’s behaviour is wrong and a breach of fundamental human rights. As a bystander, she understands she can play a pivotal role in connecting Anna, the kids, and Ben, to specialist supports. Anna feels validated; she does not need to repeatedly justify her story; help is finally at hand. Penny engages local legal and specialist domestic violence services to support Anna. A risk assessment, advocacy, counselling and safety planning is enacted. The trauma-informed response is fast and seamless. Anna and the children are assigned a case manager and are supported to

flee safely to secure emergency accommodation. Police arrive at the farm. Ben’s choices dictated Anna’s decision-making, and put her and the children in danger. Ben is engaged in a men’s behaviour program which works holistically with women’s services to change men’s beliefs about violence, and strengthen their role as fathers. Word spreads in town; strangers laud Anna’s courage to take the steps she has over many years to protect her sons and daughter. Plans are put in place to allow them to stay in the community and live safely, free of fear. They will receive support, long-term post-crisis. They are safe. The response Anna receives illustrates how regional `hub and spoke’ domestic and family violence services can be effective in reaching across large distances and meeting a range of needs if attention is given to staffing, resources and service integration, and there is strong community understanding of the role men play in perpetrating violence. When a survivor calls out the violence, she is believed, and fast-tracked to appropriate services. Attention turns to the perpetrator and his pattern of behaviour, thus removing responsibility for the violence from the woman. With four specialist domestic violence services in regional South Australia (SA), Centacare is the state’s largest provider of best-practice support for at-risk women and children outside metropolitan Adelaide.

Image provided by Centacare Catholic Family Services

36

Image provided by Centacare Catholic Family Services

Our services in Limestone Coast, Berri, Whyalla and Murray Mallee and Adelaide Hills, have become platforms on which to build collective community awareness and action, and empower women’s disclosure, planning and help-seeking decisions. However, our focus has largely narrowed to crisis and immediate risk mitigation, while limiting other important responses due to lack of investment, time and opportunity. Service attendance data shows this impedes the ability of women living in isolation to identify as being at risk of domestic violence (DV) — the main reason women and children leave their homes in Australia 1 — and shapes their coping and decision-making because it can limit their options.2 In country SA, services are really backed into a corner; we are operating in regional centres but we are not seeing the full risk profile of the women who are out in less populated areas because we’re not there, in person, working on the ground. — Susie Smith, Manager, Limestone Coast Domestic Violence Service (LCDVS)) Specialist services need greater scope to develop ‘spokes’ and extend reach and efficacy in sparse populations through preventative strategies — including men’s behaviour and perpetrator pattern-based training,3

children’s supports, outreach work and long-term counselling. Based in Mount Gambier, the LCDVS has 3.6FTE case managers to cover 21,000 square kilometres and a population of 65,000. In 2016–17, the service saw 299 clients (182 females and 117 children) up from the previous year. The bulk of referrals come from South Australia’s Police’s Family Violence Investigation Section. It’s like moving pieces around a chess board. We can only work with women for the time it takes to mitigate the risk, which makes her vulnerable to returning to the violence and returning to us in crisis down the track. — Susie Smith In 2017, 68 per cent of clients who received LCDVS support lived in Mount Gambier (about one quarter of the Limestone Coast’s total population). This points to an inconsistent response for victims who are at greatest risk but the furthest from help. 62 per cent of the region’s whole population lives outside Mt Gambier yet only 32 per cent of clients come from these townships, therefore indicating a significant under-representation of women from outlying areas being identified. We know these women are at greater risk of harm and even death. — Susie Smith

Nearly 500km away in Berri, it is a similar story. Centacare’s Riverland Domestic Violence Service (RDVS) supported 255 clients (43 males, 212 females and 104 children) in 2016/17. Two FTE case managers service 32,642 square kilometres. Since January 2017, RDVS has received 396 referrals. Of those, 80 per cent (316) came from the region’s most populated towns — Renmark, Berri, Loxton, Waikerie and Barmera. Just 80 referrals came from townships with populations less than 1,000 people. The Murray Mallee and Adelaide Hills Domestic Violence Service supported 280 clients (238 females, 42 males and 66 children) in 2016/17, with two FTE case managers working across 28,000 square kilometres and a population of 16,708. Centacare’s Whyalla Regional Domestic Violence Service (WRDVS) is a DCSI accredited Specialist Homelessness Service and preferred support provider for a range of programs to assist women and children who have experienced domestic or Aboriginal family violence. In 2016/17, the service supported 171 people. The gaps between resources and demand are burgeoning. Women who live outside the bigger regional centres are only receiving phone services. These women are less likely to form a trusting

37

working relationship with their worker, and therefore more vulnerable to return to the violence as their options appear narrower. — Samantha McKay, Manager, RDVS All four regional services report under-resourcing prevents specialist understandings that inform crisis work from being translated into long-term support to enable survivors to understand power and control, and recover from the trauma associated with domestic and family violence.4 As soon as risk is mitigated, we close the file. We don’t have the resources to provide any further support; we just move on to the next woman and crisis. — Kara Piltz, Executive Manager, Domestic Violence and Homelessness Service Research shows the impact and trauma of domestic violence can last a lifetime and that women and children who experience intimate partner violence may experience significant, long-term physical and mental health problems.5 In this context, long-term counselling plays a crucial role in breaking cycles of violence, by empowering women to make informed decisions, shed feelings of shame, and begin to plan their recovery. Women who have experienced domestic and family violence require long-term specialist, trauma-informed counselling, based on feminist principles. Generalist counselling is simply not good enough. — Susie Smith

Drawing on years of experience, best-practice service provision and knowledge of local environments and contexts, hubs can multiply safe pathways for at-risk women and children by eroding their experience of social isolation through the engagement of civilians around domestic violence. You don’t need to be an expert in domestic violence or someone who works in a specialist service. You could be the local librarian or publican. If adequately funded and accessible in towns, services can educate people about signs to watch out for, and how to reach out to women safely. One conversation can be a pathway to safety. — Kara Piltz

go some way to putting perpetrators in the picture right from the start. We would like to have a more holistic approach to families. If we were liaising with a men’s worker, we would have a more thorough understanding of what is really going on in that family, and therefore how to tailor supports to her needs. — Samantha McKay These community conversations need to start now. Everyone has a role to play within local networks to respond to domestic and family violence, and support specialist hub and spoke services to infiltrate across regional Australia in support of our most vulnerable. Endnotes

Mindful that violence is often only one of multiple layers of complexities facing women in abusive relationships, greater community connectivity is also needed, driven by education and training for all social service and health professionals. Health professionals, specifically GP’s, often have extensive contact with victims for injuries and mental health issues, however referral to domestic violence services rarely occurs. Some victims have reported experiencing ‘blaming’ from other services and agencies. — John Rademaker, Manager, WRDVS In future, integrating men’s behaviour programs with women’s services will

1. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/ homelessness-services/specialisthomelessness-services-2016-17/contents/ client-groups-of-interest/clients-who-haveexperienced-domestic-and-family-violence. 2. Wendt S, Chung D, Elder A, Hendrick A and Hartwig A 2017, Seeking help for domestic and family violence: Exploring regional, rural and remote women’s coping experiences: Final report (ANROWS Horizons, 06/2017), Sydney, p.17. 3. http://endingviolence.com/wpcontent/uploads/2013/01/st_model_and_cr oss_system_collaboration.pdf 4. Wendt S, Chung D, Elder A, Hendrick A and Hartwig A 2017, op cit, p.29. 5. Loxton D, Dolja-Gore X, Anderson A E, Townsend N 2017, Intimate partner violence adversely impacts health over 16 years and across generations: A longitudinal cohort study. PLoS ONE 12(6): e0178138. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0178138.

Piltz laments children’s services are often among the first to be compromised when specialist services are continually forced to work at the crisis end: Many children have spent all their lives caring for their mother and keeping her safe. They don’t engage with schooling or their peers. We need the resources to be able to engage with those kids, normalise their childhood and connect them to education.

38

Image provided by Centacare Catholic Family Services

S

(E) The Role of Law

Home Safe: The Role for the Law, Economic Empowerment and Social Housing in Keeping Women and Children Housed Sally Kenyon and Rachelle Driver, Justice Connect Homeless Law Supporting Survivors of Family Violence to Stay in their Homes Victoria’s Royal Commission into Family Violence (RCFV) acknowledged the need for a cultural, legal and practical shift away from the assumption that victims of family violence should flee their homes.1 This article describes the legal mechanism intended to support victims who choose to stay in their homes; how that mechanism works in practice; its shortcomings; and what is needed to bolster Victoria’s effectiveness at reducing the upheaval too often faced by victims of family violence.

Creating a New Tenancy Agreement When a Perpetrator is Excluded The legal mechanism intended to support victims to stay at home is section 233A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (Vic) (Residential Tenancies Act). It provides that where a tenant is excluded from the premises pursuant to a final intervention order (IVO), the protected person under that IVO can apply to VCAT for an order terminating the existing tenancy agreement and requiring the landlord to enter a new tenancy agreement with the protected person. Victims can make an application under section 233A if they are a co-tenant or if they are living at the premises but are not party to the lease.2 Introduced as part of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) (Family Violence Protection Act), section 233A was intended to empower victims of violence to remain in their home if they wished to, and reduce the risk of homelessness, poverty and social dislocation that often follows an incident of family violence.3

Unfortunately, despite its intention, in practice section 233A of the Residential Tenancies Act is grossly underutilised. The RCFV Report noted that in 2013–14, this provision was used just 22 times (with only 13 applications proceeding to a final hearing and determination). In the same period the Magistrates’ Court made 24,947 final IVOs.4 Through our work, Justice Connect sees the impact this provision can have for victims of family violence at immediate risk of homelessness, as well as some of the barriers to access and the shortcomings of this mechanism.

A Combination of Legal Representation, Social Work Support and Economic Empowerment Justice Connect’s Women’s Homelessness Prevention Project (WHPP) is a holistic, integrated model of providing legal services that prevents homelessness through addressing both legal and non-legal issues. It keeps women and children in housing through a combination of legal representation and social work support. In the project’s first two years, 83 per cent of finalised matters were successfully resolved resulting in women maintaining safe and secure housing or resolving a tenancy legal issue that was a barrier to accessing safe housing.5 This included 48 women who were assisted to avoid eviction from their existing housing. Robyn’s case provides an example of how section 233A works in practice, its limitations, and how legal and non-legal supports can work together to keep victim survivors in their homes.

Robyn is a single mother with a two and a half year old daughter in her care. Robyn and her husband had been living in their private rental property for three years. When Robyn was connected with Justice Connect, her husband had recently been excluded from the property due to family violence. Robyn’s husband was controlling and would not allow her to be on the lease or have any involvement in their finances. The family was solely reliant on the husband’s income. When the IVO was issued, the husband cancelled all credit cards and blocked Robyn from accessing the family’s bank accounts. When Robyn first met with the Justice Connect lawyers and social worker she had just applied for Centrelink Single Parenting Payments. Robyn hadn’t worked since arriving in Australia in 2011 because her husband did not want her to. She was now hoping to secure employment but didn’t know where to begin. Robyn was provided with legal advice to help her understand her rights and options in relation to her tenancy, including under section 233A of the Residential Tenancies Act. Through negotiation and advocacy, Robyn was able to have her ex-husband’s name taken off the lease and was able to enter into a new tenancy agreement in her name. This was important to her because she wanted to stay in the local area, close to her daughter’s childcare. The lawyers also advocated for the landlord to change the locks on the property so Robyn would be safer there. Brokerage was used to pay for the change of the locks; to replace Robyn’s broken washing machine; and

39

terminated for other reasons — for example, rent arrears. • There can be issues with serving an IVO after it has been made, with some orders remaining unserved for significant periods of time, which can delay finalisation of an IVO. • Police do not always apply for exclusion conditions in IVO applications where they would be warranted. • Many victims of family violence will not seek an IVO.7 This can happen for a range of reasons, including fear of further escalation of the violence, lack of police enforcement, a belief that the order will not change the perpetrator’s behaviour, the inconvenience and time investment that can be involved in obtaining an IVO, or other competing personal priorities following an incident of family violence (that is, children’s needs). • Many Magistrates and court officers working in the family violence jurisdiction are not aware of section 233A of the Residential Tenancies Act and the requirement of a final order with an exclusion clause, and as a result, may not provide appropriate information or guidance about this provision to protected persons who might benefit from an application under section 233A.

Street art, Collingwood.

to cover Robyn’s rent for one month to give her time to start receiving Centrelink payments and find work. The WHPP social worker arranged payment for a security camera so Robyn felt safer in her property. Justice Connect then connected Robyn with Fitted for Work to help her re-enter the workforce, a financial counsellor to assist her to manage her bills and a material aid service to help make ends meet. In these circumstances, and with this combination of legal and non-legal services, Robyn and her daughter have been able to remain safely in their property.

40

At the time of closing Robyn’s files she had secured permanent part-time employment as an accountant and was working to rebuild her life, wellbeing and independence.

Addressing the Limitations of the Tenancy Creation Provisions As discussed in a joint submission by Justice Connect and safe steps Family Violence Response Centre as part of the review of Victoria’s Residential Tenancies Act,6 the requirement for a final IVO to invoke section 233A of the Residential Tenancies Act creates difficulties for women experiencing family violence, particularly because: • A final IVO can take considerable time to obtain, by which time the tenancy may have been

In our two year report on the WHPP, Keeping Women and Children Housed: Two years, ten client stories and ten calls for change, Justice Connect Homeless Law recommended that the Residential Tenancies Act should be amended to provide that VCAT members may make an order for a new tenancy where they are satisfied the tenancy is affected by family violence, without the need for a final IVO. The ongoing review of Victoria’s tenancy legislation presents a significant opportunity for this provision to be reformed to help it work — as it was intended to — as a mechanism to help women stay in their homes when they want to and when it is safe to do so.8 In the current environment where recent figures from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare show that the number of Victorian women seeking homelessness help has

jumped 23 per cent since 2012–13,9 and is rising twice as fast as men, it is imperative that these reforms go ahead.

homelessness prevention in the short-term to help women work toward steadier, safer and healthier futures in the long-term.

However, these changes are not a panacea to the risk of homelessness presented for women who have experienced family violence.

Even the most collaborative service, however, will not cure the ongoing risks to safety and the impacts of a ruthlessly unaffordable and insecure rental market on women who have experienced family violence.

A recent study by the University of Melbourne and Federation University Australia of 124 women who had experienced family violence found that around 20 per cent planned to stay in their homes.10 The survey found these women experienced higher rates of IVO breaches than women who left their homes. Diemer, Humphreys and Crinall concluded that ‘supporting women to “stay at home” with the perpetrator removed may be a pathway to safety for only a minority of women particularly if support from police and courts is not proactive and reliable’.11

A suite of measures is needed to make it more likely that it is safe and financially possible for women to say in their homes when they want to. This includes reforms to the Residential Tenancies Act to make this mechanism operate as it should; greater awareness of women’s rights and options amongst frontline workers, courts and VCAT; access to rental subsidies; improved security; and maximising safety through police, court and policy responses to family violence.

In addition, recent figures showed that less than 1 per cent of rental properties in and around metropolitan Melbourne were affordable for single parents on low incomes and Victoria’s legal framework for protecting tenants is weak.12

It also cannot be forgotten that the private rental market remains precarious for low income families and the need to invest in social housing is inescapable.

This highlights the need for a holistic approach to supporting victim survivors to stay at home, as a strictly legal response isn’t sufficient. The RCFV recognised this in recommending that victims are supported, through rental subsidies, security measures and police and court responses, to stay in their homes when they choose to and when it is safe to.13

If you or someone you are working with is homeless or at risk of homelessness and needs legal help in Victoria, call 1800 606 313 or visit www.justiceconnect.org.au/gethelp

Moving Closer to Keeping Women Housed

Endnotes

In 2018 Justice Connect Homeless Law will extend its holistic advocacy for women and children at risk of homelessness through a new partnership with Launch Housing, Fitted for Work, Good Shepherd ANZ, Herbert Smith Freehills and local councils. Together, we aim to spot the risk of homelessness early, prevent the crisis and hardship of homelessness, and build the skills, confidence and resilience of women to prevent that risk recurring. The project aims to go beyond highly effective

* Sally Kenyon is a lawyer and Rachelle Driver is a social worker with Justice Connect Homeless Law.

The Women’s Homelessness Prevention Project has benefitted significantly from funding from the Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation, Gandel Philanthropy, the Victorian Government, the City of Melbourne and the Melbourne Women’s Fund. Phase 2 of this work is generously funded by the Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation and the Shine On Foundation.

1

Royal Commission into Family Violence, Final Report and Recommendations 2016, (RCFV Report) 22 (recommendation 116).

2. See also Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (Vic) s 233C, which provides that where VCAT makes an order for creation of a new tenancy agreement on an application under s 233A, the Tribunal can determine the liability between parties to the terminated tenancy, including for arrears that have accrued. However, s 233C will only apply if an order under s 233A has been made, and it is therefore not available to a victim of family violence who has not obtained a final IVO with an exclusion condition. 3. Second Reading Speech for the introduction of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) Hansard 2649.

4. Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Submission to the Royal Commission into Family Violence (2015) 3. VCAT reported that only 13 section 233A applications were heard in the 2013–2014 period. In an attempt to increase awareness and utilisation of section 233A, in May 2017, citing Justice Connect’s submission to the RCFV, the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria introduced a new Practice Note, which provides that, when hearing an application for a family violence intervention order, magistrates should inquire whether the applicant and the respondent are in shared rental accommodation and if they are, that the applicant should be told about their right to apply to VCAT under section 233A. VCAT has also developed a specific resource on IVOs and tenancy by VCAT (available at: https://www.vcat.vic.gov.au/ resources/renting-and-intervention-orderschanging-your-tenancy-agreement). 5. See Justice Connect, Keeping Women and Children Housed: Two years, ten client stories and ten calls for change (2015) (available at: https://www.justiceconnect.org.au/ourprograms/homeless-law/law-and-policyreform/preventing-evictions-andsustaining-tenancies/preventing-womenshomelessness-ten-calls-for-change). 6. Justice Connect Homeless Law and safe steps Family Violence Response Centre, Joint submission: Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords & Tenants (May 2016) 39 (Homeless Law and safe steps Joint Submission). 7. See, for example, Diemer K, Humphreys C and Crinall K 2017, ‘Safe at Home? Housing decisions for women leaving family violence’, Australian Journal of Social Issues, vol.52, no.1, pp.32–47, which identified that of 124 women participating in the study (women accessing family violence support services in Victoria), 69 per cent had a current protective order; and, of those, 77 per cent had an exclusion condition. The Victorian Benchmark Data Project in 2009 identified that only 39 per cent of family violence service clients reported an active protective order. 8. See Department of Justice and Regulation, Recommendation 116 — In Progress (available at: https://www.vic.gov.au/ familyviolence/recommendations/recomme ndation-details.html?recommendation_ id=141). 9. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Australia’s welfare 2017: in brief (available at: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/ australias-welfare/australias-welfare-2017in-brief/contents/housing-andhomelessness). 10. Ibid. 11. Ibid, p. 32. 12. Anglicare Australia, Anglicare Australia Rental Affordability Snapshot (2017) 91 (available at: http://www.anglicare.asn.au/ research-reports/the-rental-affordabilitysnapshot) (based on a snapshot dated 3–4 April 2017). 13. RCFV Report, above n i, 22. See also Justice Connect Homeless Law, Family Violence and Homelessness — The Royal Commission’s Findings (video available at: https://youtu.be/LbhLiXMeyCU).

41

Chapter 3: Developing New Models of Women’s Refuge

Core and Cluster Refuges: Victoria’s Approach and Opportunities Marita Nyhuis, Principal Project Officer, Family Violence Policy and Programs, Family Safety Victoria Background When Victoria’s Royal Commission into Family Violence (the Royal Commission) delivered its final report in March 2016, it dedicated an entire chapter to exploring the issues of safe housing and homelessness experienced by women and children impacted by family violence. This included discussions about the need to improve crisis accommodation options for women and children, particularly to: • expand Stay At Home options • address issues of very high demand for suitable safe crisis accommodation, including refuges • provide more community-based crisis accommodation options • increase post-crisis housing options, and • move to a ‘core and cluster’ refuge model to increase and improve capacity, amenity and physical access. The Royal Commission made specific recommendations to phase out older style communal refuges and move to a ‘core and cluster’ style of refuge accommodation for women and children escaping family violence across the state. The Royal Commission found that core and cluster style refuges offer specific advantages of being more readily able to accommodate and support multiple households with diverse needs, including women with mental health or drug and alcohol issues, transgender women, families with older boys, people with disabilities and those from diverse cultural backgrounds. The Royal Commission found communal settings were not always conducive to managing household dynamics and for some women, returning to their homes and unsafe situations was

42

sometimes preferable to the challenges of managing communal/shared living arrangements with their children. This article will describe the core and cluster refuge model being developed in Victoria. How is the Victorian Government responding to the Royal Commission into Family Violence refuge recommendations? The establishment of the core and cluster facilities sit within the broader context of the Victorian Government’s response to the Royal Commission’s report, as part of its overall $1.9 billion investment to respond to addressing family violence. Victorian Government funding has been committed through the 2016 and 2017 State Budgets to ensure all 17 of our existing communal refuges will be redeveloped to the new core and cluster model. In addition, it will fund two new Aboriginal specific facilities. The Royal Commission noted similar facilities operating in South Australia and recent Victorian examples designed for Aboriginal households, describing the benefits of core and cluster refuge accommodation design in its report: A core and cluster is a set of individual units on a piece of land, together with office space or workers’ space and communal activities areas for residents. The site allows for independent living while also providing comprehensive support services for women and children. The model offers families privacy while allowing them to connect and be supported as they wish. Families effectively have their own home.1

Recommendations 15, 146 and 177 all specifically relate to the core and cluster design. Recommendation 15 The Victorian Government support service providers in phasing out the communal refuge model [by 31 December 2020] and replacing it with accommodation that promotes safety, is accessible to people with disabilities, provides private units and enables connections with the community, work and school (core and cluster model). To facilitate the transition, the Victorian Government should provide a capital fund to assist service providers with business case development, design options and implementation (including construction of redesigned accommodation) and fund interim arrangements to avoid loss in service delivery during refurbishment or redevelopment. Recommendation 146 The Victorian Government give priority to providing adequate funding to Aboriginal community controlled organisations for [part d]: crisis accommodation and support options for Aboriginal women and children based on core and cluster-style and best-practice models with access to longer term housing. Recommendation 177 The Victorian Government, in phasing out communal refuges, ensure that replacement accommodation contains disability-accessible units (universal design), where carers can be accommodated as needed and adaptions for children with disabilities are made [within five years].

Based on a business case developed in consultation with the refuge sector, the following high level principles guide the core and cluster design: • Women and children have a right to safety • Responses are informed by a gendered evidence base • Good design enhances person-centred responses for women and children • Refuge responses are part of a continuum of care • Core and cluster facilities have appropriate links to the broader service system and with consideration to Support and Safety Hubs • Inclusive access policies comply with human rights obligations to meet the needs of diverse groups At the completion of this project, the Victorian Government will have almost doubled family violence refuge capacity across the State.

Key Features of Core and Cluster Facilities The core and cluster facilities will be spaces where the design and safety features optimise women and children’s safety. One of the goals of the new core and cluster refuge model is to try to offer women safe refuge accommodation close to their usual place of residence. The new facilities will also be located in areas where demand for family violence responses is high. This will ensure women and children can, where possible, receive the support they need within their communities. They can retain connection to familiar places and routines that are important for their emotional, health, educational and financial wellbeing. They can remain linked in with work, schools, medical specialists and friends and family. This does not mean that some women and children won’t still need to relocate away from their community, for safety reasons. Those at very high risk will still be able to find safety through referral to secure accommodation, a safe distance away from their usual environment, and ongoing safety planning. The need for this remains a critical part of the service system.

through considered design and security features. This will include appropriate surveillance and security equipment, secure fencing and screening to protect privacy for women and children, as well as for staff. Each facility will provide up to eight independent units, offering flexible design with capacity to change the number of bedrooms so that the range of household sizes can be accommodated. This ensures refuge services can accommodate larger families and single women, who are often difficult to place in the communal refuges due to high demand and limited design. These facilities will also offer greater accessibility for those with disabilities, with at least one unit at each of the 19 sites constructed to a Platinum Standard of Liveable Design. The core facility comprises a secure and child-friendly intake and reception area, office space for refuge staff, staff sleepover quarters to allow for 24 hour onsite support, further enhancing safety for women and children. Women and children will be able to access a range of in-house services, as well as onsite visiting services. These may include family violence counselling, financial counselling, legal assistance, remote witness capability and child-related services including maternal and child health. Landscaped outdoor areas will provide ageappropriate play spaces for children. All new facilities will be developed collaboratively with local refuge provider input through local project user groups. Similarly, the two new Aboriginal core and cluster facilities will be developed in consultation with local Aboriginal communities to ensure cultural and support needs are met.

The Links to Move Through and Reduce Blockages The new core and cluster facilities will meet the short-term supported accommodation and safety needs for those experiencing family violence crises. They are an important part of the continuum of response and rely on good linkages to other parts of the system.

safely out of the refuge setting. To this end, the Victorian Government has provided significant investment through the Housing Blitz and its new housing strategy, Homes for Victorians (2017), to increase pathways out of refuge. The expansion of the private rental assistance program and an increase in social housing properties through rapid rehousing, head leasing and the construction of more long-term housing are all ways in which the Victorian Government is assisting more people to access longer term housing once their need for crisis support and accommodation has been met. This investment in housing responses is backed up with considerable investment in Family Violence Flexible Support Packages that address the broad range of supports people need. Not all victim-survivors require social housing options to achieve independence and safety; many are able to return to their original homes once their family violence risk is addressed. In addition, the Personal Safety Initiative seeks to ensure women can return safely home, with appropriate risk management and safety measures in place such as personal alarms, security locks and doors and surveillance technology. These resources will be matched to case management to ensure safe, sustainable, housing as those women and children transition from crisis supported accommodation into longterm housing within the community. Family Safety Victoria and the Department of Health and Human Services will work with individual refuge services and other local service providers to reflect local needs particularly in thinking about the service integration to achieve the best possible outcomes for clients of the core and cluster facilities. With careful service integration, we can ensure we build on the broader investment across the whole system to link people in refuge to all the help they need, including as they move to longer-term safe housing. Endnote

The core and cluster facilities will seek to balance a welcoming, home-like environment with enhanced safety

People need access to longer-term housing and ongoing counselling and case management in order to move

1. Royal Commission into Family Violence 2016, Victorian Government, Melbourne, Vol II, Chapter 9, p.57.

43

Technology and Safety: The Personal Safety Initiative Leonie Burnham, Personal Safety Initiative State-wide Coordinator, DV Vic

Technology is a part of all our lives but not always as a welcome intrusion. For those living with family violence, Emails, Facebook and mobile phones can often to be utilised by perpetrators as weapons of abuse and control, while tracking devices allow the abuser to know the movements of women and their children from remote locations. The Royal Commission into Family Violence recognised the significant impact advancements in technologies has had in the facilitation of family violence. However, it also recognised the potential technology has for increasing the security and safety of victim-survivors. Traditional models of support have included crisis response for women and their children to seek alternative accommodation such as a refuge. Enabling women to have the choice to remain in their home safely rather than seeking accommodation in a refuge has been a key component of reforms for family violence service system over a number of years if not decades. Recent reforms have highlighted the victim-survivor’s right to be safe at home and identified the need to provide support through technology as part of a security response, in addition to acknowledging the role it plays in facilitating the abuse. Safe at home programs are underpinned by a woman’s right for her and her children to live free from violence of all forms and that this right should be protected and upheld by government. By providing a choice to remain at home safely, women are less disadvantaged financially than by relocating to alternative accommodation. Costs for relocating after escaping violence can add extra financial burden. Safe

44

at home programs support women’s connection to their community and increases opportunities for them and their children to remain socially connected. This substantially reduces the risk of homelessness they may otherwise face. Where the perpetrator of the violence is allowed to remain in the home, he often continues to exert his power, using his stability in housing to influence decisions such as Family Courts rulings, while undermining her safety. Victim-survivors can apply for an intervention order to legally exclude the perpetrator from the home. However, perpetrator behaviour does not necessarily change. To hold the perpetrator accountable for his behaviour and improve the justice response, safe at home and other programs have tried to introduce technology to assist in evidence gathering. Technology has shown potential to assist with prosecutions of breaches of Intervention Orders and other criminal charges. Programs that support women’s safety in her home to date have included family violence support through outreach, providing mobile phones and accessing security devices and alarm systems. However, there have been many challenges. Family violence agencies offering case management and support may not have access to the finances, or the expertise necessary to support best choices for cost effective and appropriate technology to support their safety in their home. There is little evidence to support that these measures have eventuated in deterring the perpetrator’s behaviour to stalk or harass or an increase in criminal proceedings against the perpetrator

although anecdotally there is often an increase in her sense of safety. The Personal Safety Initiative (PSI) is a new safe at home program that forms a key part of Victoria Government’s response to and focus on family violence. PSI is an initiative supported by Family Safety Victoria (FSV) that aims to assist victim-survivors of family violence to remain safe in their homes and has emerged in the context of the broader reforms.

PSI responses form part of the current Flexible Support Packages (FSPs). FSPs provide individualised brokerage funding to assist victim-survivors who are being supported to leave/or have already left a family violence situation. They deliver a personalised and holistic response to victims/survivors experiencing family violence by assisting them to access support, move out of crisis, stabilise and improve their safety, well-being and independence into recovery by paying for specific services/items identified in their case management plan. Key aims of the PSI are to: • Enhance victim survivor’s feelings of safety and support those at high risk of family violence to remain safe in their own homes and communities. • Build on the experiences and learnings from other safe at home programs to identify suitable technologies to assist in keeping

victim survivors safe (such as personal safety technology, including CCTV, emergency duress alarms and home modification responses). • Trial the use of technology as a way of gathering evidence to hold perpetrators to account. • Ensure a more consistent approach to the use of PSI technologies and strengthen relationships with local police and security technology providers. Technical equipment will meet minimum standards for specifications and performance and will allow the family violence sector to build technical knowledge • Provide a consistent state-wide approach through a network of specialised local PSI coordinators supported by a state-wide steering group and coordinator. PSI responses will be funded through the current FSP system and

will require victim-survivors to receive case managed support provided by case management by specialised family violence agencies. Security responses will be consistent and accessible in all regions. The program will allow an opportunity to measure the effectiveness of security devices and provide an opportunity to build technical knowledge. PSI program will provide training to the security sector to build their awareness of the many challenges faced by women and their children and introduce a system to benchmark the quality of all security providers involved in the PSI response. PSI is in many ways ground breaking as a safe at home program and an opportunity to strengthen an integrated response to keeping women and their children safe from violence and support their right to remain in their home with safety and stability.

Street art, Brisbane.

45

It’s Nothing You Did or Didn’t Do: New models of refuge for women and children escaping violence Julie Oberin, Chief Executive Officer, Annie North Inc. Women’s Refuge and Domestic Violence Service April 2017 saw the opening of Annie North’s new ‘core and cluster’ ‘secure women’s refuge facility’ in the regional city of Bendigo, Victoria. It is one of the new ‘models’ of women’s refuge revolving around a ‘core’ building housing staff and client support spaces, and a ‘cluster’ of fully self-contained units on the same site. A recommendation from the Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence will see four more of these ‘core and clusters’ built this year, and others in the pipeline. Having operated a ‘traditional’ high security women’s refuge in Bendigo since 1989, this new model brings many changes, challenges and opportunities for Annie North Inc. Having being involved in the design, we have already learned lessons about changes we would make if we were to do it again. However, the new facility offers immensely improved facilities and opportunities for the women and children we support. We wanted it to be a place of ‘dignity and hope’ with our local community supporting it and investing in it. We also wanted it to be a place to engage with our community on the broader issues of gender and social inequality, facts about violence against women, violence supporting attitudes and beliefs, and the attitudinal change needed to prevent systemic gender-based violence against women. We believe we have achieved that and look forward to the valuable feedback from the women and children who utilise the facilities, usually under traumatic and tragic circumstances, along with feedback from our various stakeholders. The traditional model of women’s refuges in Victoria arose in the 1970s and were typically known as a

46

‘congregate’ model. Usually, each woman and her children shared a bedroom with each other, but shared lounge, kitchen, laundry and bathroom facilities with the other families staying at the refuge. It was common for three, four or five families to share a large house. These ‘high security’ women’s refuges were often given women’s names, for example, Annie North, Sheila West, Joan’s Place, and Caroline Lodge. Their ‘high security’ relied on a certain model of operation. They usually ‘hid’ as a relatively normal house in a street. The government offered ‘address holder protocols’ to minimise the amount of people who needed to know the physical address. Refuge providers went to great lengths to masquerade the refuge identity. This may have included setting up new Incorporated Associations to manage the property not linked to the organisation managing the service delivery. It may have also included ensuring the utilities were in individual workers names not linked to the refuge provider service. These refuges relied on women and children shifting ‘out of area’ to access safety. Essentially the perpetrator was not supposed to know their location. This was so that the family had freedom of movement for the children to enrol in a new school while they were in refuge and so the mother could move freely around the area accessing the services and just getting on with her life. These models still exist and are an important response for women who need to move out of their local area for safety reasons. However, over

the years, new models have been emerging that have been hurried along as a result of the Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence. For Annie North, our high security women’s refuge ‘Annie’s Place’ did not take local women. It took women from other parts of Victoria to Bendigo where the woman could feel anonymous and safe. Sometimes women from interstate who were at very high risk also came. This model does provide both a sense of and actual safety for women to move around in her new community, and for children to go to school, and this is important particularly when the perpetrator has not been held to account. On the other hand, our new ‘core and cluster’ model is designed for local women. It is ‘secure’ rather than ‘high security’. Some women, due to very high risk from a perpetrator will not be safe in it. A perpetrator who is determined to get in and harm his former partner may be able to do so before police arrived. It is not a prison. Those women and children of very high risk will still need to hide out of their community until he is brought to account, or decides to stop harming his family. This facility has been built instead in a way to act as a disincentive to come near or enter it unless invited. It has high fences and CCTV cameras on all the perimeters recording material that can be used as evidence in courts. If a woman has an Intervention Order and he breaches the fences of the facility, or even comes close to the facility, the system will capture evidence to prove in Court that a breach of a court order occurred.

We have also promoted the new facility and model since it was granted funding in the local print, radio and TV media, and throughout the time it was built. Extensive engagement with local and regional individuals, community clubs and groups that have tirelessly fund-raised to enhance the new facility has been a deliberate strategy aimed at engendering a sense of personal investment and interest by those people and groups in protecting the facility and supporting the women and children who need to use it. ‘The more eyes on a place, the safer it will be’. Clubs such as Rotary and Zonta have committed to volunteer time to support the women and the facility with activities such as working bees, minor maintenance, managing donated goods, supervised play with children while the mother is having counselling or needs a break, helping women put together résumés and so on. A light at the end of the tunnel is by Lindy, aged in her 30s. ‘When I was in an abusive relationship I

Whilst moving away from your local community can be safer, it also brings with it a sense of isolation and even punishment: that you have been the one sent away. It usually means that even with phones and internet you feel disconnected from family, friends, community and ‘home’. Inevitably, it also means you have to start again with all of the professionals and services you may have had as part of your life in your old community. Professionals such as a new GP, a new counsellor, a new lawyer, new police officers, new teachers and school for your children, new hairdresser and so on. Accessing our new facility means that women and children can keep their professional supports and services because the facility was designed to bring the services to the women and children until the perpetrator is held to account, and until she can move safely home or elsewhere back into her community. It means that even though she is in refuge, she is still in her community. When we were designing this model, we had the valuable input from women who had been in our high security refuge or had used our counselling or court support programs. Amongst many

always felt trapped in darkness and couldn’t see light at the end of the tunnel.’ Image provided by the artwork program at McAuley Community Services for Women

conversations, we asked them: ‘what could have been better when you had to go to refuge’ or ‘if you had to use a refuge what would be some of the things which would help you’. We have tried to incorporate as much of the feedback and suggestions as possible into this new facility. They wanted it to be safe and they didn’t want to leave and go somewhere else away from their community. They wanted support workers and other women and children around but they wanted their own personal space and privacy. Our new facility is 24 hour and will have staff on site 24/7. There are six fully selfcontained two bedroomed units across three duplexes that are flexibly designed so that depending on which internal passage door is locked, they can be two, three or four bedroom units. This will accommodate the varying size and configurations of families that come to us. It will house single women as well as women with lots of children, from sisters to mothers and children and grandmother. Each unit has a private back yard and a fully enclosed infant yard.

The women with a lived experience of violence told us they wanted to feel happy and safe. They wanted their children to laugh and they did not want to feel ashamed. They also told us that they did not want to just sit in a refuge and only think about what had happened and what was coming up next. They talked about how the years of abuse, belittling, gas-lighting and put-downs had eroded their sense of self, interrupted their work or education and damaged their confidence. They said they would like to become stronger in refuge and start to learn new skills that would help them increase their confidence and their likelihood of becoming socially and economically independent. So, we built a beautiful playground area in the middle of the refuge facility with something for a variety of ages. We installed a double electric BBQ for the women to share. We chose fruit trees to espalier and plants with nectar and flowers to attract butterflies and birds. The majestic ironbark trees nod and whisper gently above the fence lines. We have planned a sensory garden for meditation, retreat, reflection and solitude. Plants and a water feature

47

were chosen to see, hear, smell, taste and touch. Once the plants have grown it will be a sensory healing place for post-trauma. Inside the support building, the staff offices are located with many multi-purpose spaces. We listened to the women when they said they were too scared to go to court. So we built a sound proofed counselling room with video conferencing facilities so that women can give evidence in court without leaving the facility. We listened to the women when they said they wanted to write a résumé and learn a new skill. So we built in a small computer lab. We will bring in people to help women develop résumés and other skills or they can access on-line learning. The children will be able to

have remedial teaching if needed due to falling behind their schooling due to the violence and abuse and shifting home and schools. We are working on bringing in a satellite classroom and teacher so that children can have school inside the refuge until it is safe for them to go back to their own school. The computer lab also has gaming equipment for teenagers. The women we asked said they would like to share cooking sometimes and learn new ways to cook. We built a double teaching kitchen with two of everything. We also plan to bring in the Stephanie Alexander cooking program where children learn numeracy, literacy and geography through the growing, cooking and

eating of herbs and vegetables. We engaged a gardener experienced in working with disenfranchised youth who will work with the children and young people ‘through the garden’. We have a case management team and a therapeutic support team. We will provide one-on-one counselling and group work on-site along with other modalities of therapeutic work. We have a one-way observation window into the counselling room for training and support purposes. Women told us that if they had to give evidence in court or if they had to make a statement to police, it would be nice if they knew someone was right outside watching that they were OK. They told us that if professionals were working with their children they would like to discretely observe. They also thought the children would be more comfortable sometimes knowing mum was just through the glass. With women’s permission, we can also use it for training staff who can observe interviews, support and counselling sessions. It will have speakers and wireless headphones with microphones so that with women’s permission, a supervisor can coach a new worker through an ear set when she gets stuck or challenged in a counselling or support session. Child protection will be able to observe children’s interactions without being in the room. Multi-disciplinary teams of students on placement will be able to observe experienced staff. All residential units and the support building are disability accessible. One unit is fully accessible with low benches. The BBQ is disability accessible allowing a wheelchair to pull up under the bench rather than being fully enclosed. These are just some of the features. We are sourcing art that reflects diverse cultures and feelings to help women and children feel welcome. The facility was designed to emanate a sense of peace, dignity and hope for the future. We wanted the facility to ‘speak’ to women that ‘it is not anything you did or didn’t do which caused you to be here, the sole responsibility lies with the perpetrator and while the system deals with him, the community is right behind you’, and we think that it does.

48

G a

Experiences From a Purpose-Built Cluster Refuge Georgia Tzelepis, Coordinator of SWISS and Georgia Symmons, Communications Manager, WAYSS This year the Southern Women’s Integrated Support Services (SWISS) at WAYSS celebrates its seventh year of operation. The vision underpinning the development of SWISS was to provide women and their children with a safe place to stay, while offering them a holistic suite of services and support after experiencing family violence. Opened in 2011 as a purpose built medium to high security cluster model refuge, SWISS is located in the southern region of Melbourne, and contains eight units and an office complex. Safe secure accommodation can be provided for eight women and up to 20 children at a time, in two three-bedroom units, five two bedroom units and a one-bedroom unit; all units have a self-contained backyard. It was designed as a state of the art cluster model, as a collaboration between WAYSS and the Department of Health and Human Services.

The lived experience of victim survivors continues to shape our practices as a cluster refuge.

The Cluster Model Works We have seen first-hand the benefits of providing co-located supported unit accommodation for women and their children who have experienced family violence. SWISS can be a sanctuary; a place to feel safe and supported, so the victim survivor can plan her next steps and reconnect with her children. It can also be a place where friendships begin for both the women and children as they begin to create a support network and develop confidence and hope. Sara, 14 years old, along with her mum and grandma came to stay at SWISS after experiencing prolonged family violence perpetrated by an uncle. During their time at SWISS, Sara went from being reserved, quiet and anxious to dancing and singing at

the Christmas concert. The family have left SWISS and are in WAYSS transitional housing. ‘You really listened. We were about to give up, now I think we might be OK’, expressed Sara’s mum.

Design The premises provide a dedicated meeting area for clients and visitors in the administration block, with the layout and design ensuring the visitors have no knowledge of the residential units that are at the rear of the property. This design assists in the levels of security and privacy that are provided to the clients in residence. Each of the units has disability access on the ground floor, with physically accessible pathways, wider doorways for wheelchairs, a physically accessible bathrooms and the main bedroom is located on the ground floor. To assist with the diversity of many of the clients, there is provision within the units to accommodate the whole families sleeping in one room on the ground floor as per their cultural practices. Enhanced security features allow for the location not to be undisclosed as in traditional refuge sites. A high level of security and surveillance are provided, with a focus on not being overly intrusive. Neighbours, who are informed that SWISS is a refuge, assist with keeping a watch out for suspicious behaviour in the street.

24/7 Case Management and Support is Optimal

Street art, Collingwood.

SWISS case management and support are provided using a trauma informed perspective with elements of strengths based, client centred

49

and solution focused theories. Operating a 24/7 model allows for support to be provided as needed by women and their children, and is not restricted to business hours. This allows for women to maintain their employment and children’s schooling, if it is safe to do so. The SWISS Philosophy of Care is derived from the Code of Practice for Specialist Family Violence Workers and encapsulates 12 value based principles as shown below.

PlayStation. They are thinking tonight is just the same as many others for them — screaming, slapping, shouting, and sounds of smashing; mum crying and bleeding. They don’t understand what is happening or why they have been transported to this place. She has told you that her head is throbbing and you see that that her split lip is bleeding.

A reflection of the victim survivor and family violence specialist demonstrates our approach.

Reflection of the Victim Survivor All I want to do is lie down and curl up into a foetal position — I am exhausted. No time for that. I feel lost and alone. How can I help the kids? I can’t even look after myself. I feel exhausted. Maybe it will be better to just go home? He is usually OK for a couple of days until he starts drinking again. I just don’t think I can do this.

Reflection of a WAYSS Family Violence Specialist How might she feel to be suddenly transported to SWISS after a violent incident requiring police intervention witnessed by her four children? Her children are tired, upset, frightened and one is very angry and acting aggressively. They want to go home. They want their dad, the cat and the

What happens at SWISS You and your children arrive at SWISS and are escorted to a cosy waiting room with toys and a TV. The children are provided with something to eat and drink and you enjoy a welcome cup of coffee. The worker is warm, welcoming and listens. You have a chat while the children eat and play; two fall asleep. You are given

SWISS can also house family pets in each of the unit’s backyards, as pets are often a reason why a woman will not leave a violent home.

Rights Advocacy

Safety

Justice

Children

SWISS Philosophy of Care

Power

Empowerment

Accountability

Diversity

Responsibility Collaborative Practice

50

Access & Equity

some groceries for the next morning and are taken to your unit where freshly made beds with brightly coloured quilts are waiting for you. The worker has made arrangements for your cat to be collected in the morning.

Animal Assisted Empathy and Therapy (AAET) SWISS offers a weekly AAET group that was developed to address the needs of children who experienced family violence and often failed to engage with mainstream therapeutic or child specific support services. The group focuses on building empathy and compassion as well as modelling gentle and nurturing behaviour. The group also addresses that a parent-child relationship can be deeply affected when a mother must cope with the physical and mental health aspects of being abused by the other parent.1 Caty is three, she came to SWISS with her mum and six-year-old brother, and displayed extreme trauma. She would never sit still, often needing to do laps around the room and checking outside scanning for danger. Each week she became more relaxed in the group, until one session she fell asleep. She also started handling the guinea pigs for longer periods of time and had them eating out of her hand. Also in the group we were able to model positive parenting, praising and being gentle. Caty’s mum, who had experienced intergenerational violence, was able to use these approaches with her children. In 2016/17, 37 women and their children were provided accommodation and support at SWISS. The team at SWISS is constantly reviewing and improving their practice and services. Each woman’s experience and the changing mix of the residents ensures flexibility and adaption of responses to the individual’s needs and the group dynamics of the residents. Endnote 1. Wolfe D A, Jaffe P, Wilson S K and Zak L 1985, Children of battered women: the relation of child behaviour to family violence and maternal stress, Journal of Consultant Clinical Psychology, vol.53, no.5, pp. 657–65.

Developing a ‘Wraparound’ Model for Client Services at Safe Futures Foundation Ellen Matusko, Chief Executive Officer, Safe Futures Foundation Safe Futures has its roots in the activist movement of the 1970s when Maroondah Halfway House, Robinson House, Woorarra and Brenda House were established to meet the crisis accommodation and support needs of women and children escaping family violence. Reflecting on this journey, we see the gradual evolution of the professionalisation of service delivery, and the move to a core and cluster refuge model in the late 2000s. At Safe Futures, an intensive case management program was implemented in 2008 followed by our ‘Safe In the Community’ Program and Children’s Program in 2010, and then the Personal Safety Initiative in 2015. We have moved from babysitters looking after children in refuge to therapeutic interventions and programs that recognize that children make up the highest percentage of clients and the impact of trauma on their brains and life journey. We have moved from moving women and children to secure refuges to advances in technology allowing some to remain in their own home and community.

Women and children from diverse cultural backgrounds also have difficulty residing in a service with shared facilities and may require separate cooking areas or utensils. Children who experience family violence often have difficulty settling as they can be hypersensitive to noise and other stimuli. Having their own space means we can better help them settle, engage and respond to intervention, and our wraparound model enables us to do this in a more conducive private space ‘Wraparound’ is a method of engaging with individuals with complex needs that was first coined in the 1980’s, and there is now emerging evidence to support its efficacy. It is an intensive and holistic method of engagement that supports individuals living in their homes and communities. Wraparound

can and has been defined in different ways, but at Safe Futures it is predominantly an intensive, individualised care planning and case management process. Wraparound plans are holistic and aim to develop the problem-solving skills, coping skills, and self-efficacy of family violence clients. Safe Futures Wraparound philosophy of care begins from the principle of ‘voice and choice,’ which stipulates that the perspectives of the family — including the child or youth — must be given primary importance during all phases and activities of service delivery. At Safe Futures the Wraparound services and supports provided are individualised, family driven, culturally competent, and community based. Finally, the Wraparound

Safe Futures recognises the huge role it can play in supporting women and children to be safe and wherever possible to remain in or return to their own home. At whatever point women and children enter our service; our aim is to wrap services around them that will enable them to choose the path they take out of family violence. Our core and cluster model allows Safe Futures to meet the needs of women and children who have complex issues often impacted further by disability, mental health issues, their cultural backgrounds or age of their children.

51

Community Connect & ECARS

Crisis Phase & Activities Individualised high risk • Housing • Empowering change • Safety planning • Material aid • Routine establishment • Risk assessment

Prevention vention Recovery covery Crisis sis Response

Housing and support provided su

TRANSITION TR Housing and support su provided

•E Early Intervention • Preventative • Restorative

Fa mi ly dri ve r,

cu ltu ral ly

Prevention vention covery Recovery Crisis sis Response

Community Connect & Safe in the • Housing • Empowering chan change Community

Transition Phase & Activities

• Safety planning • Collaborative case plans • Material aid • School transition

COMMUNITY CO

Aims: ms:

Comm Community Phase & Ac Activities • Em Empower change • Sup Supporting Maintaining in community • Ma • Saf Safety planning • Risk Ris assessment

Housing

Financial

Legal

Health

Community

Public Private Transitional Housing Connect

Centrelink Employment Material aid Counselling

Advice Support

Dental AOD Mental Health Behavioural Counselling Disability Child Protection

Schools Donors Volunteers Education CALD LGBTI

Police Safety L17

• Counselling • Court support • Legal • Childre Children/ Child p protection/ Childre Children’s team

ly mi r fa n tio al o ora vidu llab di Co he in t nd s a s of hip ed ers ne rtn he pa ct t ity fle un s re mm lan Co d/p se ba

Prevention vention covery Recovery sis Response Crisis

CRISIS

s gth en Str

Aims: ms:

C co ase mp Co ete ord nt, ina ind tor ivi s/F du alis acilit ed ato cas rs ep lan nin ga nd ma na ge me nt

Aims:

COMMUNITY PARTN ERSHIPS Diagram 1. Safe Futures ‘Wraparound’ model highlights the pillars of support provided by our community partners and our focus on prevention and recovery in all phases of our service delivery. process is ‘strengths based,’ including activities that purposefully help the child and family to recognise, utilise, and build talents, assets, and positive capacities. The Safe Futures implementation of a wraparound model is dependent on our community partnerships, collaborative action, access to needed supports and services, human resource and development support, and accountability. We strive to provide a Wraparound response to our clients across all phases of family violence (see Figure 1.) and collaboratively develop individualised care plans (as required). Across Wraparound programs, people in a variety of different roles — both professional and non-professional — play important roles in carrying out the Wraparound process with families and their children. Most typically, implementing a Wraparound model requires a cadre of individuals who are trained and supported to effectively lead the process. These individuals are most commonly

52

Wraparound facilitators (or care coordinators), family support partners, and youth support partners. This year we have used the ‘Wraparound’ model (see diagram 1) to identify the gaps in our services and prioritise the building of the partnerships and sponsorships required to wrap the services around our clients as required. We are focused particularly on enhancing or establishing services in refuge that give women and children immediate access to information that may change their family violence pathway. This includes a: • lawyer for information around Intervention orders, child protection, child support, family violence and assessing the possibility of removing the perpetrator from the family home • financial counsellors • specialist children support workers. Wherever possible Safe Futures focus is to derail the road to homelessness

and provide individualized but holistic services. Our relationships with our clients, and community partners is paramount to achieving this in as many cases as possible. In addition to this the significance of ‘safe at home’ programs and the use of technology has started to disrupt how we respond to family violence. We need to embrace the disruption. A ‘Wraparound’ response and our core and cluster refuge model enables us to create a safety hub around women and children that strives to decrease the number of women and children in refuge taking the homelessness path. The professionalisation of the family violence workforce has developed over time. This has brought with it access to services and programs for women and children that formally acknowledge the devastating long term impact of family violence and the need to respond in partnership with others to empower the women who trust us to help them go from violence to recovery.

A w

Putting Children at the Core of the Core and Cluster Model Annette Gillespie, Chief Executive Officer, safe steps Family Violence Centre, with Meghan Hopper and Lucie Burns-Warr For more than 40 years, safe steps Family Violence Response Centre has played an important role in the provision of crisis accommodation for women and their children, including through our current safe house. Our role as the state-wide 24-hour referral point for women and children who have experienced family violence and require access to emergency, crisis or refuge accommodation in Victoria, has evolved over time and been strongly informed by our own history as part of the refuge movement. We have seen the provision of refuge and crisis accommodation in Victoria grow and change dramatically, and in this regard, Victoria’s Royal Commission into Family Violence has heralded another new era and an unrivalled investment in the safety of women and their children. In 2018, safe steps will become one of the first services to open a new refuge under the ‘core and cluster’ model, which is expanding in our State by recommendation of the Royal Commission. For us, this represents a critical moment in the history of women’s refuge accommodation in Victoria, and is an opportunity to continue to improve and innovate in the way we deliver life-changing services to women, children and young people. In this article we reflect specifically on the ways we hope the Core and Cluster approach can act as a catalyst to transform the way we provide a therapeutic response to children and young people in refuge, treating them as clients in their own right and promoting their agency as we work with them to achieve our three-part Prevent – Respond – Recover framework. The Royal Commission recognised that the needs and views of children and young people have too often

been absent from discussions around the delivery of family violence services: ‘Children and young people are often described as the ‘silent victims’ of family violence because family violence services have historically focused on the safety and wellbeing of women… They are rarely treated as victims in their own right.’ 1 This is not new; children’s voices are frequently missing from policy-making in Australia. In preparing the Children’s Rights Report 2015, the National Children’s Commissioner Ms Megan Mitchell found that ‘there (was) no coherent public policy approach to children affected by family and domestic violence. This results in uncoordinated and poorly directed responses to children who experience family violence.’ 2 She recommended that the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) prioritise the development of a child-focused policy framework for responses to family and domestic violence. The COAG Advisory Panel on Reducing Violence Against Women and their Children in their final report to COAG supported this, and amongst their recommendations suggested that Governments ‘ensure the views and experiences of children and young people are taken into account in the scoping, design and evaluation of services and programs, where appropriate’.3 Historically, other States and Territories have implemented funded therapeutic responses for children and young people with arguably more success than Victoria. Prior to the recent recommissioning of family violence and homelessness services New South Wales, for example, had for over 30 years

included children and young people within the data in their own right, with funding being allocated to refuges expressly to employ specialist children’s workers. While Victorian refuge staff are highly motivated to do the important work of supporting children and young people in refuge, the Royal Commission noted that approaches can often be ad hoc in nature due to resourcing coming via funding not intended specifically for that purpose: ‘Some examples of effective interventions are noted; however, it is clear these initiatives, welcome though they are, are reliant on the efforts of services already at capacity and are not supported in any systemic way. A much more comprehensive approach to supporting children and young people is needed in order to make the family violence system truly responsive to their needs.’ The refuge and crisis accommodation providers themselves identified in various submissions to the Royal Commission, their desire to be provided with additional resources in order to continuously improve their responses to children and young people. Recommendation 21 of the Victorian Royal Commission Report identifies and goes some way toward addressing this gap, requiring that: The Victorian Government ensure that all refuge and crisis accommodation services catering to families have adequate resources to meet the particular needs of the children they are accommodating, including access

53

to expert advice and secondary consultations in supporting children. Work is currently underway to implement Recommendation 21; it is hoped that the government will grant refuge and crisis accommodation providers the additional funding and resources they need to establish and embed substantial changes that better protect the safety and wellbeing of children and young people. Likewise, the response to this recommendation must be embedded across all of the work being done to improve refuge and crisis accommodation, stemming from the Royal Commission. This includes the development of the core and cluster sites. Some of the central issues for children in refuge and crisis accommodation include: the effects of exposure to trauma, feelings of insecurity at being in a new and unfamiliar environment, loss of personal belongings, pets and a sense of place, uncertainty about the future, disruption of schooling, disconnection from friends, and dealing with a range of emotions, such as guilt, shame, anger, fear or anxiety.4, 5, 6 It is important for children to be given opportunities to tell their stories through imaginative play, artwork, stories and re-enactment of their experiences. This might be facilitated by holding play based therapy sessions with children and their mothers (depending on the child’s age) to create a fun and safe environment for families to connect. Using resources such as picture cards as prompts can help children to open up about how they are feeling and what they have experienced. Although not all children will require intensive therapy, these services should be made available to those who need them soon after entering accommodation. Minimising disruption to children and young people’s education while they are in refuge or crisis accommodation can be achieved by allowing tutors to attend regularly, rather than expecting children to attend a new school. This saves a child having to make new friends, and means they can learn at their own pace. Another

54

simple way to encourage learning and increase mother-child bonding in the refuge setting is to encourage mothers to read to their children for 15 minutes a day. The adoption of the Core and Cluster model presents an opportunity to build on these approaches with a purpose-built physical space that supports shared learning and living opportunities whilst also giving mothers and children the personal space that they need to nurture their own relationships. In practice, this might look like: • using communal space to facilitate structured learning opportunities (such as bringing in tutors) and facilitated group play • building stronger partnerships with specialist children’s organisations and maternal and child health services to increase access to anti-natal and post-natal care and parenting support • group programs for women and children offered in partnership with external providers that will help to support the development of ongoing social and life skills. In evidence provided to the Royal Commission, Chief Executive Officer of Women’s Safety Services South Australia, Maria Hagias also noted that in South Australia where core and cluster has already been adopted, ‘because there is no communal living in a cluster refuge, there is much less likelihood of a women being refused access’. In Victoria, the development of more specialised accommodation with less exclusions means that over the long-term, we can hope to arrive at a future where children are less likely to need to stay in unsuitable emergency accommodation like motels. In the 2016–17 financial year, safe steps accommodated, on average, 25 children per night in motels; we continue to see the length of stay increase. Whilst staying temporarily in a motel is often the only option available to ensure the immediate safety of a woman and her children, it does not offer the therapeutic supports needed during a period of high stress and trauma. All of us in the sector are highly motivated to see the core and cluster approach improve these outcomes.

As noted by the Royal Commission, the interests of children and young people should be a primary focus, rather than a secondary consideration after the needs of the parents have been accommodated. Prioritising the support and care for children exposed to violence within the family setting is also a crucial step in breaking the cycle of violence in our community: educating young people about building healthy interpersonal relationships helps to prevent them from becoming victims and perpetrators of violence themselves in the future. Those of us building the first round of core and cluster refuge facilities in Victoria must seize upon the opportunity to integrate an innovative therapeutic response that caters to the needs of women, but also their children who have experienced violence in their own unique way. In turn, the state can support us to do this by funding ongoing roles and facilities built specifically around the needs of children. Endnotes 1. State of Victoria, Royal Commission into Family Violence: Report and recommendations 2014–16, Vol II, Parl Paper No 132. 2. Australian Human Rights Commission 2015 ‘Effects of family and domestic violence on children and young people’, https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/ childrens-rights/projects/effects-family-anddomestic-violence-children-and-youngpeople 3. Commonwealth of Australia, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 2016 COAG Advisory Panel on Reducing Violence against Women and their Children — Final Report 4. Victorian Statewide Children’s Resource Program 2013 Through a child’s eyes: Children’s Experience of Family Violence and Homelessness, http://statewidechildrenresourceprogram. weebly.com/ 5. The Royal Children’s Hospital Integrated Mental Health Program 2012 Refuge for babies in crisis: How crisis accommodation services can assist infants and their mothers affected by family violence, http://www.dvrcv.org.au/sites/thelookout. sites.go1.com.au/files/Refuge per cent20 for per cent20Babies per cent20 Manual per cent20FinalWEB.pdf 6. Bunston W and Heynatz A 2006, Addressing Family Violence Programs: Groupwork Interventions for Infants, Children and their Parents, http://www.dvrcv.org.au/sites/thelookout. sites.go1.com.au/files/AFVP per cent20 Book_0.pdf

t

Beryl Women Inc: Understanding the Challenges Facing Australia’s Longest Running Women’s Refuge Lavanya Kala, Board Director, Beryl Women Inc Domestic violence (DV) must be recognised as the single greatest threat faced by women in Australia. Violence against women is a fundamental violation of human rights, and one that Australia has an obligation to prevent under international law. Despite this reality, current funding arrangements do not consider the complexities of domestic violence, and the central role of women’s refuges in providing transitional support, case management and crisis accommodation. The experiences of Beryl Women Inc. (Beryl) provide an important case study when considering the future of women’s refuges. Beryl is now Australia’s longest running women’s domestic violence refuge, and one of only two specialist domestic violence accommodation services in the Australian Capital Territory region. Since 1975, Beryl has provided safe, specialist, and high-quality support for women and children escaping domestic violence.

of the policy continuum to achieve this objective.

service, and working within a trauma-informed framework.

Frontline services such as Beryl are funded (in part) under the National Affordable Housing Agreement (NAHA), with the funding matched by the State and Territory Governments. The 2017–18 Federal Budget saw the announcement of the new National Housing and Homelessness Agreement (NHHA), which now combines the National Affordable Housing Specific Purpose Payment (NAHSPP) and the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness (NPAH).2, 3

These complex needs are reflected in the data collected by Beryl for the 2016–17 financial year, which show a significant proportion of clients that engage with the service are on an income support payment and require additional support to access a range of services such as Centrelink, justice, employment and permanent housing.4

While funding is set to continue for the 2018–19 period, it is currently allocated under the homelessness agenda and does not consider the complexity of domestic and family violence. This funding also fails to acknowledge the intersectionality of issues of justice, health, immigration, and social services, or the higher costs of operating a specialist support

Beryl emphasises the endemic nature of domestic violence in Australia, especially men’s violence against women, and intimate partner violence. In Australia, intimate partner violence contributes to more deaths, disabilities and illness in women aged 15 to 44 than any other preventable risk factor.1 For over 43 years, Beryl has been working towards the elimination of domestic violence, providing specialist domestic violence support, advocacy, case management and safe housing for women and children. The organisation practices from a feminist framework and aims to empower women and children to live a life free from violence and abuse, fulfilling a range of functions across all aspects

In February 2017, United Nations Special Rapporteur Dubravka Simonovic stated in her End of Mission Statement on violence against women, that while she welcomed the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010–2022, and the Third Action Plan (2016–2019), that ‘The National Plan insufficiently addresses the need for adequate crisis services, shelters or refuges for women and to provide them with opportunities for empowerment.’ 5 Investment across the policy continuum is essential to addressing domestic and family violence. This includes a sustained investment in prevention, early intervention, crisis intervention, support services, housing, justice and other measures. Recent data suggests that 106,000 people experiencing domestic and family violence sought assistance from specialist homelessness services agencies across Australia, representing 38 per cent of all people requesting assistance from specialist homelessness agencies. Furthermore, the majority of specialist homelessness service clients experiencing domestic violence were women and children at 92 per cent.6

Street art, Melbourne.

In the ACT, the homelessness system is experiencing increasing demand for

55

accommodation for women and children escaping domestic violence, exceeding the availability of accommodation. It is evident that the demand is so high that many women and children are sleeping in their cars, as they do not have access to safe accommodation. Beryl Women Inc. works within a trauma-informed framework. The services provided in the refuge aim at improving the health and wellbeing outcomes of clients, as well as developing client capacity in a range of areas. This includes responses to the immediate crisis faced by clients and empowering women to increase their skills and confidence to ensure their own safety well into the future. The service places emphasis on building the capacity of women, which can be both a form of healing, and a preventative health measure. By supporting women to learn to recognise the cycle of violence, they are able to better protect themselves against violent offenders in the future. Beryl provides a service that fosters diversity and that is based in principles of social justice. The services’ specialist focus also places emphasis on the large proportion of culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women who come through the service and who may face other challenges or disadvantage. This could be due to language barriers, social exclusion, poverty, trans-generational trauma, poverty, social issues of dislocation, forced marriage, or immigration issues. In 2016, 26 per cent of our clients identified as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and 38 per cent were from a CALD background. In the past year, 8.8 per cent identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and 41.7 per cent identified as CALD.7 The increasing proportion of women and children from these diverse groups require a whole of government and community approach, to better ensure we meet the needs of women and children escaping domestic violence. The incidences of domestic and family violence in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities is higher than in most non-Indigenous communities.

56

We are aware that three out of five Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women are either victims of domestic violence or have experienced it in the past. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population in the ACT is highly overrepresented in the number of people accessing specialist homelessness services for a variety of reasons, including domestic violence.8 Providing culturally appropriate services is vital to ensure positive outcomes and requires the resources and specialised knowledge to do this effectively. However, current funding does not recognise this additional complexity. Homelessness funding also does not account for the costs of interpreting services for women with little or no English, or limited or no income, due to their immigration status. Beryl has accommodated a number of clients that require the services of the National Translating and Interpreting Service, however with a lack of dedicated funding and resources, the costs incurred with providing ongoing interpreting services reduces the capacity to provide support to other clients. At Beryl, staff work closely with vulnerable families due to the supported accommodation nature of the service. Staff are able to provide intensive case management, counselling and support for women and children, and are better placed than other non-accommodation support services to offer ongoing support and guidance. However, the current funding structure does not account for many of the additional supports and services provided by the service, with Beryl having to apply for small, short-term or one-off grants to cover the costs of operating these vital services. Like other specialist domestic violence services, Beryl is facing a tenuous period. In 2013–14 financial year, Beryl received a 32 per cent funding cut over a three-year period. With outputs increasing slightly, this has placed additional pressure on the service, resulting in significant staffing cuts, relocation of services, and an increased case-load in order to continue providing a service to women and children escaping domestic or

family violence within a best-practice and trauma informed framework. Despite adapting the service delivery model, the organisation will face significant risk of forced closure if ongoing funding cuts were to occur. Beryl notes the majority of funding cuts over the last several years have been toward services that specialise in responding to the needs of children, young people and adults living with the impacts of trauma. These services are often women’s services offering a model of care that allows specialist support and housing options, which can be the determining factor in improving outcomes for women and children. Despite the demonstrated ability for specialist services like Beryl to deliver effective services across the policy continuum, current funding arrangements do not sufficiently support this work. With the crosscutting nature of domestic violence, all evidence points toward dedicated, long-term funding for domestic and family violence frontline services that deal with the complex issues that extend across Government portfolios. If Australia is to end the scourge of domestic violence in our communities, we must invest in the critical services provided by our women’s refuges. Endnotes 1. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2018, Family, domestic and sexual violence in Australia, 2018, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Canberra. 2. Commonwealth of Australia 2017, Budget Paper No. 2: Budget Measures 2017–18. http://budget.gov.au/201718/content/bp2/html/ 3. National Foundation for Australian Women 2017, Gender Lens on the Budget, 2017–18, http://www.nfaw.org/wp-content/ uploads/2016/05/FINAL-Gender-Lens-v32017.pdf 4. Beryl Women Inc. 2017, Service demographics, Annual Report 2016–17, p.31 5. United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence against women (2017), End of mission statement by Dubravka Simonovic 2017, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence against women, its causes and consequences, Visit to Australia, 27 February 2017, p.4 6. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2017, Specialist homelessness services 2015–16, ABS, Canberra. 7. Beryl Women Inc. 2017, Report from the chairperson, Annual Report 2016–17, p.4 8. There is limited data available on the incidences of domestic violence for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women at the ACT level.

T A A

T

Chapter 4: The Future of Women’s Refuges

The Future of Women’s Refuges: A Vision for the Future, A Voice From the Future Tillie Prowse, Chief Executive Officer, Patricia Giles Centre Imagine a future where the passive acceptance of family and domestic violence (FDV) has been replaced by conscious activism. Where legislation, social and economic policy, and societal responsibility triangulate for the sole purpose of achieving gender parity; thereby ending FDV. This future exists, and it is from this future I write today. Our future world is not perfect. There remain small pockets of FDV. However, the frequency and severity of incidents has been greatly reduced. We have achieved this by challenging long held paradigms of what women and children experiencing FDV needed to feel safe, and by shifting our philosophical thinking in two key areas; Firstly, a recognition by politicians, legislators and policy writers that gender inequality is both the core of the problem and the heart of the solution.1 By focusing our energies on addressing the key drivers of FDV (condoning violence against women, men’s control of decision-making, rigid gender roles and stereotypes, and, male peer relations that emphasise aggression and disrespect towards women) we were able to significantly reduce rates of FDV. A key focus was the reversal of several historically inherited, illinformed public policies that failed to consider impacts on women. Notable among them was a decision in 2017 to increase the wait time for migrants claiming welfare assistance from two to three years. The extended wait time applied to Paid Parental Leave, the Carers’ Allowance and Family Tax Benefit, all of which significantly impacted and disadvantaged women experiencing FDV especially now that

are borders are more open and inclusive. Our success in this area has the result of strong leadership and a move towards true bipartisan agreement for reform. Secondly, there has been a philosophical shift that moved away from seeing victims as the passive recipients of services, to one that sees them as informed, self-determined, and empowered consumers. This has led us to implement consumer-driven approaches that increase choice around when and how services are received. It has included the choice to stay in their own home, to access independent accommodation within or external to their community, or to move into specialist therapeutic communities. In our future, women’s safety is assured through enshrined polices and enforced laws; holding perpetrators accountable through a range of integrated options including custody, electronic tagging, therapeutic programs, and alternative accommodation options for perpetrators and couples wishing to remain together. In this future, the cookie cutter mould that saw women’s experience of FDV homogenised and their service needs undifferentiated, has been replaced by an individualised customer-centric model, a model that empowers women through recognising them as self-determined decision makers. I will not pretend our journey to this point has been easy. For a time, we were distracted by the so called ‘Nordic paradox’ 2 that suggested an anomaly in countries scoring highly on the World Economic Forum’s Gender Gap Index who also experienced higher rates of violence against women than the European Union average. On review, what we learnt was that progress toward

equality in the socio-economic sphere in these countries had not worked to redress the power imbalances between genders at a micro-level;3 put simply, women in Nordic countries were still undertaking more unpaid domestic work than men even when their paid work hours were the same. This bought us back to the simple truth that preventing violence against women must do more than just normalise equality in public life. Preventing violence must also challenge the condoning of violence against women, promote women’s independence and decision-making in all spheres of life, challenge gender stereotypes and roles, and strengthen respectful relationships between men and women, boys and girls.4 In this future world we have done much to enable gender parity. We learnt from a plethora of research and recommendations that first emerged in early 1990. Common themes included a recognition that: (a) refuges/shelters met the needs of only a small number of women and children; (b) access to economic independence increased women’s choices and options (c) that a model that resulted in the dislocation of women and children in preference to the perpetrator remaining in the home was unjust. Informed by the recommendations of these studies, we created an FDV model that recognised the triangulation between refuges/shelter, economic independence, and perpetrator interventions. We started by challenging long held orthodoxies,

57

including the beliefs that all women want to remain separated from their partners; that women and children need to leave their home to feel safe; and, that all women are disempowered by their experience and need protection.5 Our model moved away from a sole focus on crisis, to one of primary and secondary prevention/early intervention.6 We started by drastically reducing the number of refuges/shelters in favour of permanent alternative housing options while concurrently investing heavily in the extension of Safe at Home; a program that supports women and children to remain in their home. Our focus was on keeping/or returning women and children to the community as quickly as possible thereby maintaining their support networks, access to employment, and long-term stability. Advances in the Internet of Things technology has made it easier than ever to set up ‘smart homes’ in which women can control door locks, lights and camera’s and telephones remotely, thereby increasing their safety in the home. Evidence collected from these devises is now submittable in court cases. In the small instances where refuges/shelters were needed, we utilised them for women and children at highest risk, where a 24 hour, 365 days a year secure cluster model of housing is available. We also provided short-term housing (maximum of two weeks) for those women needing to leave the home pending the serving of a protection order and perpetrators removal of personal belongs. We took the courageous step to move away from transitional housing 7 models that served only to keep women and children in a state of limbo and uncertainty. Our decision was informed by the work of the Australian Alliance to End Homelessness (AAEH) whose mantra ‘homelessness is resolved through adequate and affordable housing’ resonated. We entered into public-private partnerships to greatly increase our housing stock and introduced a modified version of the ‘starter home’ initiative first seen in

58

the United Kingdom in 2017 that allowed first-time buyers between 23 and 40 years old to purchase property 20 per cent below market value. Our extension of the Safe at Home program was informed by Martin and Levine 8 study of the Safe@Home program in New Zealand. It found that on average victims’ fear of harm scores before the intervention were 6.23 (where 7 = extremely fearful and 0 = unconcerned), compared with an average score of 2.70 after the intervention. Before the intervention nearly all victims reported high anxiety, stress, and other symptoms of distress caused by domestic violence. After the intervention, victims reported reduced anxiety and improved sleeping, confidence, stability and concentration. Victims also reported improvements in their children’s wellbeing, including reduced fear, and improved sleeping, behaviour, and performance at school. All these options have been designed to keep women and children safe from perpetrators and importantly hold (predominately) men account for their actions. To this end, we have provided emergency accommodation services in which men are relocated immediately following a police response. In this model it is not the woman and children removed from the home but the man. Additionally, voluntary and court mandated therapeutic options are available. These include perpetrator programs, couples counselling (for those women wishing to stay in the relationship but for the behaviour to end), and specialist programs addressing those factors outside of the gender drivers (for example, alcohol and other drug issues). Our therapeutic framework draws heavily on learnings from the social ecological model that assists understanding of the multifaceted and interactive effects of personal and environmental that determine behaviours. If we do not consider the impact of social ecology on behaviour, we will only ever solve half the problem. Overlaying our work is a responsive justice framework that supports women’s quick access to courts and

addresses perpetrator accountability through an integrated model of sentencing utilising electronic monitoring (that is, linked to smart home devises) with programmatic interventions and accommodation placements. Across these three themes (refuges/shelters; access to economic independence; perpetrator accountability) we have established mobile response teams comprising health, legal, welfare, and training/educational professionals able to support women, children, and perpetrators irrespective of their location. Access to the latest technologies first used under the telehealth model mean services can be provided remotely. Our journey has not been without its challenges. It has taken courage and foresight from those that came before us, and those that stand beside us today, to build a model of choice and empowerment that is truly customer informed. No longer are family and domestic violence services hidden out of sight in the same way FDV is in the home. Our new multidimensional approach opens the door on FDV and holds the wider community accountable for finding the solution. Endnotes 1. Our Watch, Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS) and VicHealth 2015, Change the story: A shared framework for the primary prevention of violence against women and their children in Australia, Our Watch, Melbourne, Australia p.8 2. Grace E and Merlo J, 2016 ‘Intimate partner violence against women and the Nordic Paradox’, Social Science and Medicine, volume 157, pp, 27–30. 3. Campo M 2017, Gender equality, violence against women, and the ‘Nordic paradox’, Australian Institute of Family Studies: https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/2017/03/22/gender -equality-violence-against-women-andnordic-paradox 4. Our Watch 2015, op cit. 5. Chung D et al 2000, Home Safe Home: The link between domestic and family violence and women’s homelessness, Social Policy Research Group University of South Australia, p.2. 6. Our Watch 2015, op cit, p. 15. 7. Metraux S and Culhane D 2008, Rearranging the Deck Chairs or Reallocating the Lifeboats: Homelessness Assistance and its Alternatives p. 8. 8. Martin J and Levine M 2010, Safe@Home Evaluation, Ministry of Social Development, Wellington NZ.

T

J

From Loneliness to Inclusion: The Ongoing Challenge at McAuley Jocelyn Bignold, Chief Executive Officer, McAuley Community Services for Women and Dr Anita Morris, Board Member, McAuley Community Services for Women

Recently the United Kingdom Government surprised many by appointing a Minister for Loneliness. Some laughed, others were cynical, and many were simply bemused. There was bewilderment and some degree of denial that the issue could have grown to such a proportion and scepticism that the concept of ‘loneliness’ was something a government could, or should, tackle. But as an insightful article by Australian Senators Louise Pratt and Andrew Leigh 1 pointed out, creating this unconventional portfolio makes sense. Inequality is rising; the strength of community is waning, and loneliness is a problem we must tackle together. Their article struck a chord with me. It resonated with McAuley Community Services for Women’s approach in working with women who have experienced family violence. We have long recognised that for women who have known this physical and emotional trauma to recover, their loneliness and isolation must also be addressed. New social connections and relationships need to be forged; old ones must be rebuilt. Of all the pernicious effects of family violence, loneliness is one of the most under-acknowledged and damaging. There is loneliness coming from a sense that no-one will understand ‘why you’re putting up with it’; in feeling unable to share your story without judgment, incredulity or blame. There is a corrosive sense of being apart from other apparently successful and harmonious ‘picture perfect’ families; of being judged if you have been unable to protect your children from harm. And deliberate manufacturing of loneliness is a frequent strategy of perpetrators, who consciously use isolation from

friends, families and neighbours to increase their power and control; it is a form of violence in itself. In 2016–17, 186 women and 204 children needed McAuley’s safe house and refuges, leaving behind homes, friends and families; schools and classmates; pets, toys, clothing and possessions. These are experiences that in themselves, bring about an acute sense of aloneness, disconnection and disruption. A woman coming into our family violence crisis service (the first 24/7 service to operate in Victoria) needs practical, immediate support, often as basic as the need for clothing and nappies for her children. Health, financial and legal issues need urgent attention too. But we know for her longer-term recovery, she needs more than a temporary safe haven: she needs a continuum of individualised and open-ended, wrap-around support and connection to community.

The children who come into our safe house also need comfort, routine and familiarity. They might arrive, confused and bewildered, in the middle of the night — a time when most children are tucked up in bed, secure and safe. In contrast, the children coming to McAuley have experienced and witnessed trauma, and need the reassurance of being close to their mum. Settling back into the daily ebb and flow of eating, playing and sleeping are important steps in providing a calmer, more predictable environment.

This is one of our unique points of difference. Because there are well-known inter-connections between violence and trauma, mental illness, and homelessness, we build early intervention and prevention into everything we do. We aim to equip a woman with life skills, employment, housing and ongoing social networks, providing a safety net long beyond her direct engagement with our service.

Knowing that their own pain and trauma is different to their mothers, we begin providing direct support to children as victims in their own right. Their experiences are given space, acknowledged and addressed. We have a playroom with a specialist children’s worker, and through art activities, play and conversation, the child’s feelings about what has happened in their family can be explored. Sharing them with other children, as they play alongside each other, also helps them realise they are not alone. It may be that one can identify with the experience of another, asking: ‘Did your dad do that to your mum? Mine did too.’ The children’s worker can offer quiet reassurance to help them realise these dreadful experiences are not their fault: important steps in breaking the too frequent pattern of family violence recurring across generations.

In her first contact with us, this may seem far away; indeed, part of a woman’s healing may be the simple offering of a cup of tea and chance to talk, to be listened to and believed. It may be an enormously significant step for her, just to have the chance to sleep or shower for the first time in a long while, without fear for herself or her children.

Frequently, the child’s bond with his or her mother has been deliberately targeted and undermined by the perpetrator, a particularly damaging form of family violence. As Professor Cathy Humphreys points out it includes: ‘coercing children to insult their mothers, undermining the woman’s mothering through criticism and actions…ensuring that women are

59

‘punished’ for spending time with children particularly if it takes attention away from the man’s needs’.2 Humphreys also cites research showing that in more than two-third of cases, mothers and children do not speak about the family violence.3 For this reason, we also focus on strengthening the mother-child bond, rebuilding a mother’s selfesteem and confidence in her parenting, and encouraging mother and child to communicate about those experiences both may be afraid to broach. Women and children generally stay an average of seven nights in our safe house before moving onto refuges, transitional housing, or — less frequently — home, but that is not the end of their connection with us. Recently, additional funding for outreach case management and flexible support packages has meant we can support more women for longer. Most importantly, they can access our McAuley House, purpose-built accommodation for women who are homeless. This was designed as a community hub, not simply a shelter, and is available to all women who have used our services. A woman can continue to regain health, skills, social connection and economic independence through McAuley House. She might drop in to a Monday morning legal clinic, offered by WEstjustice Community Legal Centre, and get advice on the tangle of legal problems that often trail along in the wake of family violence. She might take part in our welcoming, informal Wednesday community lunches. She may connect with our Skills4Life program, learning to shop on a tight budget and the basics of healthy cooking, or take part in yoga sessions or wellbeing sessions provided by volunteers. She may join our employment support program, McAuley Works, getting personalised assistance and one-onone coaching to join the workforce. In its first year, this program has already achieved exciting outcomes in helping women, 88 per cent of whom have experienced family violence. Getting a

60

flourishing, in her own words more patient and present with them. The chances are much better that Amber’s children will be able to avoid a cycle of poverty and disadvantage. Another core element of our approach which continues the theme of connectedness and inclusion is the development of a comprehensive ‘safe at home’ system. In the past, the onus has been on women experiencing violence, not perpetrators, to leave behind their homes and communities.

Street art, Melbourne.

job for these women can be life-changing. Recently we saw this at first hand when McAuley Works supported a young mother, ‘Amber’, who had left school in year eight. At 24 she had already experienced a life she described as ‘chaotic’ — marked by a violent relationship, struggles with addiction, and a battle to manage as a single mum to two children, including one with special needs. Her delight and pride now that she has secured a job go well beyond her new financial independence; she glows as she describes now feeling she is a ‘role model’ to her children, talks about the friendships she has formed as she and her workmates joke around, and is thrilled to know that her work ethic and attitude are so valued by her employer that she is the first one called for extra shifts. Amber’s story exemplifies what we mean when we use concepts like ‘holistic, inclusive and integrated’ to describe our approach. Amber has been able to remove herself from a situation of family violence; now she has new social connections, an enhanced sense of self and identity, and a new story to counter one of her as a ‘victim’ of family violence. She is building strengths which will help her to withstand further challenges that her life may very well throw up; her children are seeing a mother who is

This is at a time when networks and friendships are even more crucial, not to mention the consequences for children of disrupted education and the upheaval of constantly changing schools. While there are real barriers facing women’s rights to return safely home, given the high numbers of perpetrators who breach intervention orders, the number of women using our services who have returned home safely has increased from just three to nine per cent in the last 12 months, mainly due to Victorian Government investment into additional case management and flexible support packages. Achieving higher rates will depend on a raft of change including the ability of the policing and legal system to hold perpetrators to account swiftly and consistently. But perhaps more importantly it requires a cultural shift within the community to stop hiding women and children away for their own safety, and for community conversations that ask the question: ‘Why doesn’t he leave?’ rather than ‘How come she stays?’ Endnotes 1. http://www.smh.com.au/comment/ loneliness-is-a-problem-we-can-only-tackletogether-20180202-h0ss1j.html 2. http://www.rcfv.com.au/MediaLibraries/ RCFamilyViolence/Statements/WIT-0006001-0001_1.pdf 3. Humphreys C 2007, ‘Talking to my mum’: strengthening relationships between mothers and children in the aftermath of family violence’ Social Work Now, September 2007, pp. 9–11.

E E E

Research in Progress Encountering Interspecies Homelessness: Developing an Evidence Base of Social Work with Women at Risk of, or Experiencing Homelessness with a Companion Animal Melissa Laing, PhD candidate RMIT University Most people I cross paths with become animated when recounting a story about a beloved pet, or companion animal. Similarly, frontline workers in the housing/homelessness and domestic and family violence spaces have at least one anecdotal account of supporting a woman with an animal companion that they helped against the odds, or of a companion animal who was sadly left behind in a violent home when there were no other options. In this article, I provide a background and description of how I aim to cultivate an evidence base from these kinds of stories in my PhD research. Many of us are fortunate to experience an ‘interspecies’ relationship with a companion animal, comparable in depth and meaning to those we share with other humans.1 Human-Animal Bond is a theory that describes the mutual emotional and physical benefits of the relationship between a human and a non-human.2 Central to Human-Animal Bond theory is a framing of companion animals as family and community members, rendering them worthy of consideration by service providers, such as social workers and others in ‘human services’.3 The bond is especially strong in vulnerable groups — such as homeless interspecies families — compared to the general population;4 however, the resilience that this bond cultivates, brings increased vulnerability if the bond is broken through crises such as those leading to homelessness.5 Being a companion animal owner, or guardian has also been found to increase the chance of becoming homeless, due to a lack of companion animal-inclusive accommodation options.

In acknowledgment of this important bond, Parity published a special issue in May 2011 on homelessness and companion animals. Contributors included animal shelters, interdisciplinary integrated support networks, veterinarians and other not-for-profit organisations showcasing their programs to support people at risk of, or experiencing homelessness with a companion animal. Contributors called for research that: ‘examines the relationship between people experiencing homelessness and their pets… that can…address the limitations of systems and evolve into practical solutions that will… affect change for people and animals disadvantaged by homelessness’;6 ‘[provides a voice for] accommodation service providers themselves who frequently deal with these issues but cannot transparently do so for fear of loss of funding among other concerns’;7 and ‘[addresses] the need for the development of a nationwide strategy allowing the simultaneous relocation of a woman, her children and their pet(s) from a violent home.8 Almost nine years after the Parity special issue, not much appears to have changed, with service providers still articulating a need for research in this area. Internationally, very little empirical research has been undertaken into those working to end interspecies homelessness, and this is especially the case in Australia.

Studies that do exist emphasise the need for homelessness and housing service providers (including those in domestic and family violence) to incorporate awareness of the importance of the bond into their practice, given the added trauma that the disruption of separation causes in the lives of this vulnerable group. Anecdotally, and as detailed in the Parity special issue, frontline practitioners are incorporating awareness of the importance of the bond into their work with women and their companion animals, despite the difficulty in doing so.9 However, ways that this is happening are hidden due to the complexity and nature of the work. My PhD research has the potential to validate these practices by making them visible. My study is focused on service provision with women at risk of, or experiencing homelessness with companion animals, and how this group is being cared for in the current policy environment. As a social worker, my research is most interested in social work theory and practice in this area, and in the second stage of my study will involve interviews with interested social workers. However, I will also be collecting survey responses from other disciplines in the first stage of my data collection. Aims that guide my research include: • to investigate the nature of companion animal-inclusive social work practice with women experiencing, or at risk of homelessness with a companion animal • to explore ways that social workers acknowledge the importance of the Human-Animal Bond in the lives of service users

61

•

to produce knowledge with the potential to inform review of current policy and practice guidelines around companion animal-inclusive social work practice.

At the time of writing this article, survey responses have started to flow in rapidly, indicating that service providers have an interest in being able to help this population, in sharing how they are helping, or in discussing the challenges they face in trying to help. I look forward to collecting their stories and adding their voices to an important, yet somewhat wanting evidence base. Melissa Laing is a social work researcher and PhD candidate at RMIT University. For more information about her study, she can be contacted at [email protected].

Endnotes 1. DeMello M 2012, Animals and Society, Columbia University Press, New York; Kim C and Newton E, 2014, My Dog is My Home: Increasing Awareness of InterSpecies Homelessness in Theory and Practice, in Ryan T (Ed.), Animals in Social Work: Why and How They Matter, pp. 48–63. 2. Morley C and Fook M 2005, The Importance of Pet Loss and Some Implications for Services, Mortality vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 127–143; Nimer J and Lundahl B 2007, Animal-Assisted Therapy: A MetaAnalysis, Anthrozoös: A Multidisciplinary Journal of the Interactions of People and Animals, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 225–238. 3. Clancy E 2014, Animals as Community Stakeholders: Inclusion of Pets in Social Policy and Practice (Occasional Essay), Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, vol. 95, no. 4, pp 285–289; Risley-Curtiss C, 2010, Social Work Practitioners and the Human — Companion Animal Bond: A National Study, Social Work, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 38–46.

4. Cronley C, Strand E, Patterson D and Gwaltney S 2009, Homeless People Who are Animal Caretakers: A Comparative Study, Psychological Reports, vol. 105, no. 2, pp. 481–499. 5. Labrecque J and Walsh C 2011, Homeless Women’s Voices on Incorporating Companion Animals into Shelter Services, Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of The Interactions of People and Animals, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 79–95. 6. Searby R 2011, Pets and Companion Animals: Why This is an Important Issue, Parity, vol. 24 no. 4, p 6. 7. Ibid. 8. Sandy L 2011, Family Violence: What About Pets, Parity, vol. 24, no. 4, p. 24. 9. Taylor N, Fraser H, Signal T and Prentiss K 2016, Social Work, Animal-Assisted Therapies and Ethical Considerations: A Programme Example from Central Queensland, Australia, The British Journal of Social Work, vol. 46, no. 1.

Homelessness in Australia: An Introduction Homelessness in Australia: An Introduction provides thought-provoking, up-todate information about the characteristics of the homeless population and contemporary policy debates. Leading researchers and advocates from across Australia have come together to contribute their expertise and experience to produce a foundational resource that will set the benchmark for the future analysis of homelessness. Editors, Chris Chamberlain, Guy Johnson and Catherine Robinson are all recognised experts in the field. Homelessness in Australia: An Introduction is published by New South Press in association with the Victorian Council to Homeless Persons, one of Australia’s leading peak homelessness advocacy bodies. Homelessness in Australia: An Introduction contains 14 chapters. Part 1 includes: an essay on homelessness policy from the start of the nineteenth century to recent times; a chapter measuring mobility in and out of the homeless population and a piece on the causes of homelessness. Part 2 is about contemporary policy issues and discussions. It has chapters on: the debate about definition and counting; gender and homelessness; young Order Form people; older people; Indigenous I would like to buy a copy or copies of homelessness; domestic and family ‘Homelessness in Australia: An Introduction’ violence; people with complex needs $55.00 per copy for CHP members and the justice system; trauma as both plus $10.00 postage (up to 2 a cause and consequence of copies*) Member number: _ _ _ _ homelessness; and people who are $65.00 per copy for non-members long-term or ‘chronically’ homeless. Part 3 includes a piece on the ‘failure of the housing system’ and a chapter on ‘reforming the service system’. People will find the essays in Homelessness in Australia both illuminating and challenging. This important new book will be required reading for all people committed to ending homelessness in Australia.

62

plus $10.00 postage (up to 2 copies*)

Number of copies: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total: $ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (including postage)

* For orders of more than two copies, please contact CHP — email: [email protected] Send completed form and payment to: Council to Homeless Persons 2 Stanley Street Collingwood Victoria 3066 T (03) 8415 6200 F (03) 9419 7445 Email: [email protected]

Payment Options ❏ Enclosed is a cheque/money order. ❏ Please charge my credit card. ❏ VISA ❏ Mastercard ❏ Bankcard

(PLEASE PRINT)

Card number:

_ _ _ _ |_ _ _ _ |_ _ _ _ |_ _ _ _ Name on card:

.........................................................

Expiry date: _ _ /_ _ Signature:

❏

................................................................

Please invoice me.

Please send order to: Name:

......................................................................

Address:

..................................................................

..................................................................................

Tel:

...........................................................................

Fax:

..........................................................................

Email:

.......................................................................

A

Opinion 1

Alison Birchall Policy Advisor, DV Vic

What Role for the Peak Body in the Future of Women’s Refuge? The family violence sector in Victoria is undergoing unprecedented reform as a result of the Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence (Royal Commission) and the subsequent commitment from the Victorian Government to implement all 227 of the Royal Commission’s recommendations. Despite a lot of reform activity in relation to refuge, the reform efforts to date are yet to have significant impact on the refuge sector. Additionally, refuge participation in reform implementation has been inadequate. This begs the question, as the statewide peak body for specialist family violence services in Victoria — including refuge services — what is the role for Domestic Violence Victoria (DVVic) in the future of women’s refuge?

DV Vic and Women’s Refuges The history of DV Vic and the domestic violence refuge movement in Victoria are inextricably linked. Since the 1970s, the women’s refuge

movement has led the way in bringing attention to women and children’s experiences of family violence. In the earliest iteration of the peak body, refuges united to form Victorian Women’s Refuges and Associated Domestic Violence Services (VWRADVS) to secure a united and cooperative alliance between domestic violence services in response to the threat of economic rationalism in the 1990s.1 VWRADVS was endorsed by government who saw it as an opportunity to increase the accountability of the women’s refuge sector. By 2004, this organisation became Domestic Violence Victoria — a peak body for all specialist domestic violence services across the state.2

community sector in the areas of lobbying government, community education and information sharing between member groups and interested parties’.9 This is the role DV Vic takes up in the current family violence reform environment in Victoria.

Then and now, the peak body provided a means through which a common philosophy and collective action could be identified and maintained throughout the women’s refuge and domestic violence movement. It also provided a forum where the achievements of the sector could be promoted, with the shared goal of meeting the needs of women and children experiencing domestic violence.3

DV Vic policy and programs team are involved in numerous taskforces, reference groups and advisory committees directly or indirectly related to the family violence reforms, across portfolios that include systems design, health, justice, accommodation and housing, child protection, adolescent family violence, responses to men using violence, social responsibility, technology solutions and industry planning.

DV Vic in the Current Family Violence Reform Environment A peak body is commonly described as an ‘autonomous,’ 4 ‘non-government organisation whose membership consists of smaller organisations of allied interests’.5 Peak bodies are recognised by their membership, their sectors, other peaks, other sectors, and government ‘as a representative of the whole of their sector’ 6 and as ‘the key stakeholder organising, advocating for, and acting on behalf of, their sector’ 7 and the sector constituents.8 As a result, a peak body ‘offers a strong voice for the specific

It is said that peaks provide ‘a one-stop shop for government and the sector to share information and experience’.10 This is true in the current family violence reform environment in Victoria. In the midst of rapidly evolving complex and overlapping reform activities, DV Vic is a key conduit between government and the specialist family violence sector.

The Practice Development Unit comprises a continuously growing number of state-wide coordinator positions linked to the implementation of the reforms, including the state-wide coordinators for Risk Assessment and Management Panels, the Personal Safety Initiative, and various capacity building programs. Since the implementation of the Royal Commission recommendations gained momentum, DV Vic has participated in and/or facilitated numerous, frequent and ongoing

63

formal and informal advocacy, consultation and submission processes with government and non-government partners related to the reforms and other emerging issues. Several of these activities directly relate to the refuge sector, and there are abundant more reforms that indirectly relate to refuge but will have assorted implications for refuge service delivery.

DV Vic’s Role in Transformation of Refuge Service Delivery Supporting members to ‘become stronger, more responsive and effective service delivery organisations’ is considered a core function of a peak body.11 Further, as a trade-off for formal funding and support from government, the peak body is seen by government as a means to increase family violence services’ accountability through advancing ‘debate about practice’ and ‘a diversity of approaches’.12 This has been endorsed by the membership and DV Vic has established a Practice Development Unit to support the specialist sector. However, this can also be a tension for DV Vic as a representational organisation which does not have a formal accreditation nor quality assurance function, yet shares a commitment with its members to quality service delivery to the women and children experiencing family violence. For example, implementation of the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission (VEOHRC) guidelines for specialist family violence services has implications for refuge accessibility and inclusion practices. The guideline, issued under section 148 of Victoria’s Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (the Act), outlines the legal obligations refuges have to not discriminate against women seeking family violence services and accommodation, and addresses the ways in which the Royal Commission identified some refuges can discriminate against some groups of women and children experiencing family violence.13 While traditionally seen as champions of anti-discrimination policy and practice, the full extent of refuges’ obligations under the Act pose challenges to deeply embedded values and approaches to high

64

A journey is by an Indigenous woman, ‘Jessica’ aged in her 30s. ‘My picture tells a journey. It is the road leading back to my home. Also, different feelings about family violence are named.’ Image provided by the artwork program at McAuley Community Services for Women

security refuge models of practice. Other policies and practices implemented by some refuges have been found to be directly exclusionary of women with disabilities, women with mental health and/or alcohol and drug issues, women who are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, women who are members of culturally and linguistically diverse communities, and LGBTI women. Further indirect discrimination also occurs, for example where there are blanket policies against having pets in refuge.14 What is the role of the peak in assisting refuges to implement the VEOHRC guidelines? How should DVVic traverse the diversity of the refuge sector to support them to transform practice to meet the anti-discrimination obligations, while remaining representational of the different views of its members? The Queensland Council of Social services (QCOSS) concluded that peak bodies are ‘ideally situated to facilitate capacity building’ amongst members and that effective capacity building by them requires ‘an enduring relationship of trust, effective communication and some sense of common purpose.’ 15 Refuge Roundtable provides one space where this work and relationship can be advanced. Refuge Roundtable was originally established as a short-term coming together of

refuge providers for the purpose of collective participation in the implementation of the Royal Commission recommendations. Since this time, it has evolved into a useful space for ongoing information sharing, consultation and discussion between the refuge sector, DV Vic, government, and other family violence stakeholders in relation to the family violence reforms and other sector developments. However, Refuge Roundtable has much greater potential for engaging with refuge providers as a unique cohort of specialist family violence service providers, and as a space for networking and alliance building, capacity development, and collaborative advocacy and lobbying. Recognising this, DV Vic is working with refuge providers to re-imagine Refuge Roundtable beyond an information sharing mechanism, with the vision of it becoming a mutually owned, inclusive and diverse space supported by community development principles, that provides opportunities for a refuge community/ies of practice to emerge, and which promotes ‘a culture of evaluation and practice’ throughout the refuge sector.16

DV Vic’s Responsibility to Refuge within its Relationship to Government Peak bodies have an important role in mediating between government and their members.17 Having a strong

relationship with government is ‘directly relevant’ 18 to the role peaks play as representatives of organisations impacted by government policy making and as contributors to policy development. In this way, peaks perform important roles that benefit the state.19 However, developing ‘too close a relationship’ with the state is also problematic for a peak.20 The emphasis on peak bodies ‘partnering’ with government in the current family violence reform environment prompts DV Vic staff to continuously reflect on this. Like peak bodies everywhere, DV Vic must constantly contend with tensions that arise between the benefits of government recognition and legitimising authority, reliance on government funding, and cooperation with government; while maintaining organisational autonomy and/or resisting ‘deradicalising’,21 and sustaining legitimacy independent of government.22 The conclusion being that the starting point for this relationship ‘must be a real understanding that [peak bodies] are autonomous organisations that arise from genuine community demand and need’.23 So while a mechanism such as Refuge Roundtable can be utilised by government as a space to engage with the family violence refuge sector, DV Vic’s responsibility to refuge members is to retain it as an autonomous space for DV Vic and its members to identify and address their own policy needs and priorities, and thereby setting their own agenda. DV Vic’s role with government in relation to refuge is also to remind government of their own accountability for creating and sustaining many of the limitations within the current refuge service delivery system, such as historical and ongoing insufficient funding,24 and to invite them to take responsibility for how this plays out in the refuge context today. This was reflected in the findings and recommendations of the Royal Commission.25 DV Vic’s best tool in this relationship is to continuously bring an intersectional feminist analysis to advocacy with government that links the issues affecting individual refuges and the refuge sector as a whole to the political context. For example, recent advocacy with government on reforms related to adequate

resourcing of refuges to better support children and young people experiencing family violence required the peak to be vigilant in representing refuge members using a structural analysis of the conditions that have shaped current practices with children and young people in refuge, and what strategies would be best to organisational practice going forward.

Conclusion As the state-wide peak body for specialist family violence services, DV Vic can and does make an important contribution to the implementation of a reform process that is inclusive of the women’s refuge sector. The close relationship between DV Vic and its members places the peak in ‘a unique position’ to represent the needs and priorities of the refuge sector,26 while also provides opportunities to collaboratively enhance practice throughout the sector. At the same time, DV Vic’s ‘two-way street’ relationship 27 with government presents a ‘a unique and costeffective opportunity for governments to access robust and innovative advice from a single point of contact, representing the allied interests’ of the refuge sector.28 DV Vic’s challenge is to protect its independence from government while facilitating opportunities for government to fulfil their rights and responsibilities to the women’s refuge sector, while also supporting the refuge sector to deliver the highest standard possible service to women and children experiencing family violence.29 Endnotes 1. Theobald J and Murray S 2017, From the Margins to the Mainstream: The Domestic Violence Services Movement in Victoria Australia, 1974–2016, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne. 2. Ibid. 3. Ibid. 4. Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS) 2000, ‘Peaks under threat’, Impact, Nov 2000, p.8.

South Australian Council of Social Services (SACOSS), p.i, retrieved 28 February 2018 https://www.sacoss.org.au/sites/default/ files/public/documents/Reports/110614_ Unique_Peaks_Def_Value_ per cent26_ Contribution_Paper.pdf 7. Fieldworx 2012, Community Services Queensland: A Community Services Industry Body, Fieldworx, retrieved 28 February 2018, p.5 http://communitydoor.org.au/sites/default/ files/CSIB_Full_Report_Final 20Dec_2012.pdf 8. Melville R 1999, The State and Community Sector Peak Bodies: Theoretical and Policy Challenges, Third Sector Review, vol.5, no.2, pp.25–41. 9. Melville R 2003, op cit, p. ix. 10. Ibid. 11. Queensland Council of Social Services (QCOSS) 2012, The Role of Community Sector Peak Bodies: Information Paper, QCOSS, retrieved 28 February 2018, p.3 https://www.qcoss.org.au/sites/default/ files/Role_of_Peaks_Info_Paper_2012_ FINAL.pdf. 12. A. Fraser, personal communication, April 22 2009 in Theobald J and Murray S 2017, op cit, p.126 13. Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, 2017, Guideline: Family violence and accommodation > Complying with the Equal Opportunity Act 2010, State of Victoria, Melbourne. 14. Ibid. 15. QCOSS 2012, p.3. 16. Ogle and Bowling 2011, p.15. 17. Melville R, Pratt A and Taylor A 1998, The Future of Community Sector Peak: Bodies in Policy-Making and Advocacy: A Comparative Study of Australian, British and American Peak Bodies Within a Neo-Liberal and Market Framework, CACOM Working Paper No.43, UTS, Lindfield. 18. Ibid, p.27. 19. Melville R 1999, op cit. 20. Ibid. 21. Sawer M and Jupp J 1996, The Two-Way Street: Government Shaping of Community-Based Advocacy, Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 55, no.4, pp. 82–99. 22. McFerran L 1990, Interpretation of a Frontline State: Australian Women’s Refuges and the State, in Watson S (ed) Playing the State: Australian Feminist Interventions, Allen and Unwin, Sydney, pp.191–206; MeIville R 1993, Turbulent Environments: Women’s Refuges, Collectivity and the State, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of New South Wales, Sydney.

5. Melville R 2003, Changing Roles of Community-Sector Peak Bodies in a Neo-Liberal Policy Environment in Australia — An ARC Funded Study (2000–2002): Final Report, Institute of Social Change and Critical Inquiry, Faculty of Arts, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, p. ix.

23. ACOSS 2000, op cit, p.8.

6. Ogle G and Bowling K 2011, Unique Peaks: The Definition, Role and Contribution of Peak Organisations in the South Australian Health and Community Services Sector,

27. Sawer M and Jupp J 1996, op cit, p.82

24. Theobald J and Murray S, 2017, op cit. 25. Royal Commission into Family Violence 2016, Summary and Recommendations, Victorian Government, Melbourne. 26. QCOSS, 2012, p.1. 28. Ibid. 29. Ibid.

65

Opinion 2

Jocelyn Bignold Chief Executive Officer, McAuley Community Services for Women Four years ago 11-year-old Luke Batty was murdered by his father. His mother Rosie, who did so much to transform our community conversations about family violence, recently announced that she will stand aside from public advocacy. In announcing her decision, she said: ‘It is unrelenting and overwhelming what still needs to change’. ‘There is only so much one person is able to do — governments need to do so much more.’ Heightened community awareness about family violence, a trail-blazing Royal Commission, steps taken by

the Victorian Government to implement its far-reaching recommendations — there has been genuine progress and new optimism that family violence can be eradicated. Yet Rosie is, sadly, correct in saying that much more needs to be done. Other complex societal and community factors cause, and flow on from, family violence — it cannot be tackled in isolation. We must be vigilant in ensuring that service gaps and funding decisions in relation to these other issues do not counteract the progress we are making in addressing family violence.

Golden star is by Keisha, aged 7. She said: ‘It has a golden star on the heart. Love is orange.’ Keisha was staying at our refuge with her mother and sister.

66

Image provided by the artwork program at McAuley Community Services for Women

en

The inadequacy of homelessness responses is one example. Fear of homelessness traps many women in violent relationships, yet while Royal Commission recommendations to deal with family violence are being rolled out, homelessness trends in Victoria are moving in a different direction. In 2016–17, one in 56 Victorians received homelessness assistance, much higher than the national rate (one in 84), and in 44 per cent of cases, family violence was the reason; again, depressingly, the proportion in Victoria was much higher than other states. Nationally, for the first time, women needing help outnumbered men, and 13 per cent of requests for homelessness support in Victoria last year involved children aged under ten. Family violence, we know, has devastating effects on children’s health, well-being and learning capacity; combining this with early experiences of couch-surfing, school disruption and homelessness will compound the risk that family violence becomes entrenched and generational.1 Mental health is another area where short-sighted funding decisions are sharply at odds with efforts to address family violence. In Victoria, vital community mental health services are

rapidly disappearing since we became the only state to transfer our entire funding allocation to the Commonwealth. This was based on mistaken assumptions that the National Disability Insurance Scheme would fill the void, yet less than ten per cent of those with the most severe and enduring mental health conditions will be eligible. Meanwhile, for the overwhelming majority, community-based services are being withdrawn.

is the lack of ongoing, predictable and sustainable funding. Over the past ten years, our 24/7 crisis service, the only one of its kind in Victoria, has been solely dependent on fundraising. We have had to pin our hopes on the efforts of our special events committee to bring in the necessary dollars, so that when a woman and her children are escaping family violence at 3am, they can arrive at a welcoming safe haven instead of an impersonal hotel room.

The disappearance of community mental health services will have profound effects on people affected by family violence. We know women who have experienced trauma and family violence are at risk of developing mental health disorders; 70 per cent of women using our crisis and refuge services last year reported mental health concerns. Without community support, mental health disorders will not be treated early and effectively, and it makes it much more likely conditions will escalate in severity and impact. The implications for perpetrators are equally disturbing; support with underlying mental health issues can play a role in stabilising their propensity to violent behaviour and linking them to other services.

Though we are delighted that in 2018 we will, at last, receive Victorian Government funding to continue and expand this service, again our funding agreement is only for 12 months, making it difficult to plan and ensure continuity of service. Overall, the funding model needs simplification. We currently report outcomes under 12 different funding streams, each with their own targets. This fragmentation is not only cumbersome and time consuming but can frustrate our ability to organise support that is personalised and flexible for each woman, a holistic approach of which we are justifiably proud.

A final area in which our efforts to address family violence are hampered

Endnote 1. All homelessness data: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Specialist Homelessness Services annual report 2016–17 (released 14 December 2017)

67