1. PATRICIA PROJECT Family and Domestic Violence And Child Protection
Damian Green, Sarah Anderson and Donna Chung

2. Presentation Overview
Project Background
WA Case study
Findings to consider in WA
Metrocentric policy vs reality of FDV work
Future considerations

3. Background
Project funded by Australian National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS)
Multi-state study
Melbourne University
Curtin University
University of Sydney
Griffith University
Research focus on perennial Issue:
Large number of child protection referrals inc FDV
Identifying differential responses so that CP responses are targeted

4. Background The majority of CP referrals Large number of CP referrals
FDV
Mental ill health
Alcohol and drug misuse
Large number of CP referrals
Generated by policy and procedures of government
E.g. police referrals, mandated reporting
General concerns of public and others

5. Study Methodology Case study site in each of the states
WA study was based outside the metropolitan area
Two components
Statewide administrative data analysis of CP records
Local area examination of how things operated through examining policies and procedures and workers’ experiences

6. WA Approach: FDV Response Team
FDV Response Teams
Partnership between the then DCPFS, WA Police, and FDV NGOs
Aim: To improve the safety of child and adult victims of family and domestic violence through a collaborative approach that focuses on timely and early intervention following a police call out to an episode of family and domestic violence.

7. WA Approach: FDV Response Team
WA Police ‘Domestic Violence Incident Reports’ (DVIRs) is the trigger for triage
Police check DVIR prior to triage.
Responses to victims of family violence included risk assessment, safety planning, advocacy and referral to other support services.
Identify and respond to high risk cases

8. WA FV Kimberley Plan
Involving DCPFS, WA Police; then Department of Corrective Services (DCS);
Family and Domestic Violence Coordinated Response Service (FDV-CRS) (NGOs); and
Kimberley Family Violence Service (KFVS)
men’s family violence workers (based in Broome, Derby, Kununurra, and Halls Creek), and
women’s family violence workers (based in Broome and Fitzroy Crossing).

9. Key findings and considerations
In contrast to the other sites (metropolitan) – the issue of volume means something different as it largely linked to:
Worker numbers and range of agencies
Agency locations
Agency geographic boundaries
In some cases the majority of workers may be from a different cultural background to the population they serve

10. Key findings: foundations of collaborative practice
Quality of Collaborative Relationships
Information sharing
Robustness of the organisation of system elements
CP, Police, Justice, Women’s Services
Strong relationships and partnerships are fundamental to the overall success of the Family Safety Teams
Heavily reliant on colleagues from the different agencies in remote areas
Working together and sharing information
To some degree – this makes personal working relationships more critical than metro

11. “...you know, we all head to the pub together on a Friday afternoons, and you know, there is a lot of stuff that goes on that’s outside of our hours, and outside of your normal, typical stuff, but it’s all for the benefit of the communities” (Participant 3)
“… because there are so few other services, those services that are here do work really well together, because that's all we've got, you have to work well together, and when there are challenges, we usually are able to navigate those. It's not always easy” (Participant 10)

12. “…I think the more remote you get the more the communication needs to be intense because there's not the services and all the other infrastructure there; it's just a few services, a few people, and a lot of communication. I know we've talked to [agency] about those team meetings, you know, you've got to make sure that everybody's knowing what parts of the team are doing what, and I know it's something that [agency worker] and [agency worker] are very mindful of” (Participant 18)

13. But outside of the tight circle of collaborators still some resistance
“We do get a bit of suspicion when we ring the hospital and ask, "I'm chasing this case. How is she? What's happening?" they go, "Oh, who are you again?" So that all requires relationship building and networking with the stakeholders in order for them to have an understanding of what we're doing and where we're coming from, however, because of the massive workload, we haven't been able to do that. So we do bits and pieces here and there”

14. A continuing work in progress: collaborative and partnership practice
Continually evolving and responding to the environment never static or finished business
Top down imperative and bottom up way of organising
Example:
Information Sharing for working together and enhancing safety and managing risk Vs
Individual workers seeking pieces of information about a person – “You have information about Joe Blow and I need to know….”

15. Navigating Info Sharing
“…deciphering through all the information and bringing clarity to what it is that we are doing, because obviously with the different agencies involved, and the different levels of information and everyone's, wanting information, like now, and we need to know this, and it's, okay, just trying to bring it all together peacefully in a way we're looking at ... working with the processes that have been established, or are being piloted, and you know, hopefully looking at addressing gaps rather than repeating what someone else is already doing”

16. Navigating knowledge and purpose
“I think there's been a bit of an issue...where as soon as a child is identified they immediately believe it's a child protection issue and it's hard to … it's been a bit difficult to try and get an understanding that our role is to safety plan and include children in that safety plan, and it doesn't mean there are necessarily child protection issues”

17. When policy directions works in your direction
“…I suppose like, through the Kimberley Family Violence Plan we have an opportunity I think, so in terms of a positive thing I think that the fact that we have the kind of plan that we have, that does talk about our cultural bosses, that does talk about cultural responses and so on. So that’s a positive thing, because for the first time that I’ve seen anywhere, we have an opportunity to … or it’s part of a formal plan and we have an opportunity to actually, if I can say it this way, elevate and make explicit what it is that we’re talking about when we talk about cultural responses and what it that we’re talking about when we talk about, you know, community readiness”

18. Conclusion: Future Programming
Metrocentric lens:
the definition of the problem
Constant working across cultural spaces
between agencies
between workers’ cultures and community’s cultures
Top down metrocentrism
Can be less relevant as ‘the problem’ and the community assets differ

19. Conclusion: Future Programming
Place based co-produced interventions and responses
Still address the key goals of safety and managing risk
The goals can remain largely intact BUT
the statement of the problem can differ
the means require local co-production
Take account of local conditions and complexities
Working with assets about excellent community knowledge
Balance tension that you cannot have metro programming ‘copy and pasted’