Invisible Practices: Interventions with fathers who use violenceanrowsnationalconference.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/... · 2019-07-11 · INVISIBLE PRACTICES: Interventions with

Invisible Practices: Interventions with fathers who use violence

Dr Susan Heward-Belle - University of Sydney Laura Stolzenhein – NSW Department of Family & Community Services

#ANROWSconf2018

Acknowledgement

#ANROWSconf2018

INVISIBLE PRACTICES:Interventions with fathers who

use violence

Funded by ANROWS & state based research partners Academic Research Teams: Professors Cathy Humphreys & Marie Connolly & Dr Lucy Healy (University of Melbourne), Professor Donna Chung, Damian Green & Mark O’Hare (Curtin University), Professor Patrick O’Leary, Dr MenkaTsantefski, Amy Young, Tracy Wilde (Griffith University), Associate Professor Lesley Laing, Dr Sue Heward-Belle, Cherie Toivonen (University of Sydney)Research Advisory Groups & Research Partners in NSW, Victoria, WA & Queensland – Child Protection, Police, Family & Domestic Violence Services, Probation and Parole

#ANROWSconf2018

If the content in this presentation raises any issues for you, these services can help:

BackgroundOver the past 3 decades there has been a growing body of research that indicates that domestic violence has adeleterious impact on children’s and young people’s health and development (Holt et al, 2008).

The perpetrator’s pattern of coercive control often extends to their treatment of children who are often abused inorder to exert power and control over both women and children (Radford & Hester, 2006).

Men who use violence and control have a deleterious impact on children’s and young people’s health anddevelopment (Bancroft & Silverman, 2012).

Childhood exposure to domestic violence has been framed as a child protection issue in most colonial child welfaresettings (Strega, 2009).

This practice has not necessarily resulted in appropriate, proportionate and timely responses to children’s needs andhas overloaded already vulnerable systems (Humphreys, 2007).

In colonial child welfare settings, the victim of violence is often held responsible for the violence, while theperpetrator is disappeared from the analysis. (Strega, 2009)

#ANROWSconf2018

Background: Messages from the experts

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFNSyjen5Io&list=PLnMHsemvH68GNPHM2cNRREZBa3jttiS7P&index=12&t=0s

#ANROWSconf2018

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFNSyjen5Io&list=PLnMHsemvH68GNPHM2cNRREZBa3jttiS7P&index=12&t=0s

What happens next?

#ANROWSconf2018

Messages from experts

“They don’t really understand what it’s like and they (CPS & Police)treat women who are in domestic violence situations like they arestupid, uneducated and dumb basically.”

“Although I am grateful for the help that I did receive, I feel that whathappened to me didn’t matter very much and I felt blamed.”

“They (CPS) didn’t even ask him anything about it (the domesticviolence).”

“The child protection system is a punitive system thatperpetuates power and abuse back on women.”

“This woman has a baby that she’s too scared to sayanything about because child protection will use thatto remove her child .”

“I see it as my job to protect women and childrenfrom the child protection system.”

(PATRICIA PROJECT – NSW)

Where we’ve been …

What we look at with mothers …

Parenting skills

Mental health

Substance usage

Relationship choices

Meeting children’s basic needs

Kin network

Employment choices

Child care choices

What we look at with fathers …

Employment

Criminal history

Substance usage

© 2013 Mandel & Associates

Where we want to go …

What we look at with mothers …

Parenting skills

Substance abuse

Mental health


Meeting child’s basic needs

Kin network

Employment choices

Child care choices

What we look at with fathers …

Parenting skills

Substance abuse

Mental health


Meeting child’s basic needs

Kin network

Employment choices

Child care choices

Supporting/respecting child’s mother


Destructive Incapacity Blindness Pre-competence Competence ProficientEngages in policies & practices that increaseharm to adult and child survivors.

Sees adult survivors as major cause/impediment to RoH concerns.

Coercive.

Little or no engagement with perpetrator.

Lacks capacity to really help adult and child survivors.

Less negative view of adult survivors.

Some understanding of barriers but no real partnering.

Articulation but no engagement.

EDV treated like other matters, victim blaming, no structures to intervene with perpetrator.

No specific policies keeping children & NOP safe & together.

Initial steps to partner but no formal P&P changes.

Initial efforts but no specific services.

Higher awareness Drive to improve driven by outsiders.

Connection between DV & children still not fully spelled out.

Danger of tokenism.

Not in child welfare’s DNA.

Core part, not an add on. Internalized commitment to DV best practice in child welfare.

Relevance & connection to other issues spelled out.

Coercive control is assessment lens.

Perpetrator patterned, Survivor Strength

DV best practiceconsistent, pervasive.Built into performance, leadership role.

Shared focused commitment to keeping NOP and children safe and together.

Partnering with survivorand children.

Intervention with perpetrator


Systems are not sufficiently domestic violence informed

Why engage men, especially fathers who use violence and control?

• Despite over 40 years of new responses to domestic violence there is little evidence that this has produced a sustained reduction in its extent.

• Many women and children survivors say they want men’s violence to stop and they want men who use violence and control to get help.

• Many domestic violence perpetrators repeat their violence in future relationships (Hester & Westmarland, 2005).

• The preferred route in much, but not all, of the global north, has been holding perpetrators to account through the criminal justice system although there is minimal evidence that arrest and/or prosecution changes men’s practice (Hester & Westmarland, 2005).

• Most men who use violence and control don’t access MBCPs … so what does that mean for us as professionals who work with women and children?

Invisible Practices: Interventions with fathers who use violence

• PATRICIA (PAThways project (including working with Safe and Together)• Fathering Challenges project• Royal Commission into Family Violence

Recommendation 25: That DHHS together with Victoria Police develop and strengthen its current practice guidelines to facilitate further engagement with perpetrators of family violence [within 12 months] with the aim of:

• Exhausting all efforts to interview the alleged perpetrator of the violence• Protecting the safety of child protection practitioners…• Developing ‘feedback loops’ with Victoria Police and other relevant agencies… in order to obtain and share

information about family violence perpetrators and so assist with risk assessment and risk management.

• ANROWS’ call

#ANROWSconf2018

• What are CP, DFV and FS workers actually doing?

• What is looking like good practice?

• Key output: development of practice guidelines about how practitioners work

with fathers who use violence

• What does the literature tell us?

Aims of Invisible Practices project

INV

(INVISIBLE PRACTICES: Interventions with fathers who use violence)

1. What do practitioners require from their (or other) organisations to support them in working with fathers who use violence?

2. What evidence is there that the capacity building of the workshops, supported by coaching and supervision from the US-based Safe and Together Institute provides increased experience of safety and support for practitioners?

Our research questions

Research Questions

INV


COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE

• Child protection, DFV specialist services and family services in NSW (2 locations – South West Sydney & Central Coast)• Child protection, DFV specialist services, and police in QLD• Child protection and family services in Victoria• Child protection in WA• Indigenous practitioners working in Indigenous communities• With consultants from the Safe and Together Institute and…• Academic research team

Who’s involved in the Communities of Practice (

INV


Practitioners’ role in project

Step 2: Commit to membership of a Community of Practice

Step 3: Be a champion ofthe model (recruit a group of

‘influencees’ within the organisation)

Step 4: Participate in project monitoring activities (T1 & T2

questionnaires andfocus group)

Step 5: Participate in the national workshop, 9 Feb 2018

Step 6: Development of practitioner guidance resource

Step 1:Complete two days’ S&T training (with prior reading)

INV


• COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE – KEY THEMES

• General engagement skills with male caregivers/fathers• Partnering with women• Building relationships with children• Balancing the focus of interventions (fathers, mothers, children) in the context of collaborative (multi-

agency) working

• Worker safety

Themes of

Organisational issues and the sustainability of building capacity through influencing work became important themes through the

workshops

INV


Safe & Together Principles™

Keeping children safe and together with non-offending parent

Partnerning with non-offending parent as default position

Intervening with perpetrator to reduce risk and harm to child


The domestic violence perpetrator and his behavior* are the

foundational source of the risk and safety

concerns for children.* not the adult survivor

or her behavior

When Domestic Violence is the Concern……

Domestic violence perpetration is a parenting choice.

(whether the children witness it or not)

What evidence is there that the capacity building of the workshops, supported by coaching and supervision from the US-based Safe and Together Institute, provides increased experience of safety and support for practitioners?

Capacity building refers to practitioners’

• Ability to influence / enhance their nominated colleagues’ skills and sense of safety when working with fathers who use DFV; and

• Ability to develop their organisation’s (or programs’) capacity in working with fathers who use DFV.

Returning to the research question

INV


Name of presentation

Preliminary Findings

#ANROWSconf2018

THEME 1: WORKING COLLABORATIVELY

• “A positive part of this process has been to get to know the workers & using the knowledge of the wider group.” “It is so encouraging to have FACS here …” (Senior Manager NGO)

• I feel like there is an empathy, sitting altogether, the roles we all play and the challenges we face; we are grappling with a huge piece of work [in terms of working with men who use violence]. (Senior Manager DVS)

• “We have seen big changes in workers in a short time … we are talking about gender bias … if enough of us start talking about it we can shift it … we are breaking down the walls.” (CPW)

• “I’ve seen a big shift in CPS work and thinking. I have been in meetings where they have always left or they sit reserved or don’t liaise with other services. They don’t say anything. Silence is power.” (Social Worker, Women’s Health)

• “We are on the same page – she knows we are in her (a woman survivor’s) corner. We advocated together to get the AVO in partnership with a Shelter. We are bringing it to the table – she can see that I’m not trying to sabotage her.” (CPW)

THEME 2: PARTNERING WITH WOMEN

• “I think this way of looking at the work has made them think about and change their practice. They have an ethical responsibility to support the woman.”

• A social worker in women’s health described how she was using the PPM tool therapeutically in her individual and group work to help women survivors to talk and map the myriad tactics deployed by their current and former partners. She indicated that this was being favourably received. Moreover, she indicated that she was documenting the full pattern of abuse and control that women and children were subjected to. (Women’s Health Social Worker)

26

NSW – PARTNERING WITH WOMEN (2)

A striking example of the impact of the project was provided by a child protection worker who described how applying the Safe and Together principles and practices (particularly the PPM & the survivor mapping tool) had resulted her changing her recommendation to the court from restoration to the father to restoration to the mother. The worker indicated that she changed her recommendation because she now looked more carefully at the perpetrator’s coercive and controlling behaviours (including worker grooming tactics) and was able to understand the mother’s and the child’s situation better as a result. The worker described how “originally we suggested restoration to the dad, we are doing the work now – we are seeing the subtle and controlling behaviours. The cycle has started again with the mum. We are now liaising with the refuge where the mum is staying. He is using restoration as power over the mum … now we are interpreting the signs … we have the radar.”

27

NSW – PARTNERING WITH WOMEN (3)

A manager of a non-government refuge provided another striking example of the impact of the model on a woman’s life when she described how she had ‘reframed the thinking’ of refuge workers who were going to ‘evict’ a woman from the refuge because ‘she had violated’ a rule and ‘allowed’ her partner to enter into the front yard of the refuge. The worker was able to discuss the woman’s behaviours through the lens of coercive control with her staff and this resulted in a favourable outcome that enhanced rather than decreased the woman’s and her children’s safety. The manager described how “we have now changed that practice – we used to always blame her. We are changing that. No more. We stop now and look at the protective factors around keeping the children safe. We are now looking at the perpetrator – this is a huge system change in our organisation.”

28

THEME 3: ENGAGING FATHERS

• First Caring Dads program on the Central Coast – Joint initiative University of Sydney & CatholicCare

• “This approach is so refreshing … they are getting the workers to say we are here to talk about your (abusive men’s) behaviours … this has changed the working relationships … they don’t depend on mothers to report back on him (abusive partners) anymore and work towards a pathway when men want to be better dads.” This change in practice was confirmed by a child protection manager who indicated that she perceived that FACS workers were more prepared to work with men: “They are questioning about whether dad will be there or not when they visit – they are developing strategies to engage the dad when we meet him at the house. They have it ready – it is about your violence – it takes the pressure off the mum. They are ready to arrange safety around his behaviour.”

• Another child protection manager felt that this was a good shift away from previous approaches such as the “you are a piece of shit response” or the “headmaster response” –rather this approach focused on looking at the impact on the child and making behavioural changes to become a better father.

29

Engaging fathers 2

• “We always in men’s work think about how does his behaviour affect his partner and we lump the kids outcomes as part of hers…For me, the fact that [his behaviour] is a ‘parenting choice’ has been the big thing for me. It really changes the questions I ask and the paths I follow when I’m asking guys about things in group and individually…Because it’s had such an influence on me, it’s also the kind of thing I take to my staff when debriefing and when they’ve come to me with a questions, particularly from the women’s contact workers…and we talk about it in terms of his parenting choices …. [Victoria Men’s Behaviour Change practitioner]

30

Challenges and learnings

• Sustaining change

• Training is not enough

• Top-down and bottom up?

• Choosing ‘influencees’ (organisational change processes)

• Practice-led knowledge building

Balancing can be risky business

The project as a balancing act

INV


• Pivot to the perpetrator as the source of safety and risk

• Explore, assess and document…

• Assess father’s parenting in the same way as mother’s

• Share the information with the ‘right’ services• criminal justice• civil justice• child protection systems and/or • non-mandated community services

• Use of the S&T mapping tools

What does ‘working with fathers who use violence’ involve

INV


While we turn to the perpetrator there are a few things to think about ...

• Potential for collusion

• Risks losing the focus on women’s and children’s needs

• Ensuring that the right lens is applied when working alongside Indigenous people (ieIntergenerational Trauma and Violence Informed Response)

• Ensure that responses are culturally appropriate for migrant and refugee families

References

Heward-Belle, S. (2016). The Diverse Fathering Practices of Men Who Perpetrate Domestic Violence, Australian Social Work, 69:3, 323-337, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2015.1057748Holt, S., Buckley, HY., & Whelan, S. (2008). The impact of exposure to domestic violence on children and young people: A review of the literature. Child Abuse and Neglect, 32(8), 797-810. Macvean, M., Humphreys, C., Healey, L., Mildon, R., Albers, B. & Connolly, M. (2017). The PATRICIA Project: Summary of the scoping review on interagency working between child protection, specialist domestic and family violence services, and family law. Sydney: ANROWS.Radford, L. & Hester, M. (2006). Mothering through domestic violence. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Strega, S. (2009). The Case of the Missing Perpetrator: A Cross-National Investigation of Child Welfare Policy, Practice and Discourse in Cases Where Men Beat Mothers.” Saarbruken: Vdm Verlag.)

#ANROWSconf2018

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2015.1057748

Australian Social Work Special Edition

Publications from the PATRICIA Project

• Susan Heward-Belle, Lesley Laing, Cathy Humphreys & Cherie Toivonen (2018) Intervening with Children Living with Domestic Violence: Is the System Safe?,Australian Social Work, 71:2, 135-147, DOI: 10.1080/0312407X.2017.1422772

• Michelle L. Macvean, Cathy Humphreys & Lucy Healey (2018) Facilitating the Collaborative Interface between Child Protection and Specialist Domestic Violence Services: A Scoping Review, Australian Social Work, 71:2, 148-161, DOI: 10.1080/0312407X.2017.1415365

• Cathy Humphreys, Lucy Healey, Debbie Kirkwood & Deb Nicholson (2018) Children Living with Domestic Violence: A Differential Response through Multi-agency Collaboration, Australian Social Work, 71:2, 162-174, DOI: 10.1080/0312407X.2017.1415366

• Patrick O’Leary, Amy Young, Tracy Wilde & Menka Tsantefski (2018) Interagency Working in Child Protection and Domestic Violence, Australian Social Work, 71:2, 175-188, DOI: 10.1080/0312407X.2017.1422773

• Menka Tsantefski, Tracy Wilde, Amy Young & Patrick O’Leary (2018) Inclusivity in Interagency Responses to Domestic Violence and Child Protection,Australian Social Work, 71:2, 202-214, DOI: 10.1080/0312407X.2017.1422775

• Lesley Laing, Susan Heward-Belle & Cherie Toivonen (2018) Practitioner Perspectives on Collaboration across Domestic Violence, Child Protection, and Family Law: Who's Minding the Gap?, Australian Social Work, 71:2, 215-227, DOI: 10.1080/0312407X.2017.1422528

• Lucy Healey, Marie Connolly & Cathy Humphreys (2018) A Collaborative Practice Framework for Child Protection and Specialist Domestic and Family Violence Services: Bridging the Research and Practice Divide, Australian Social Work, 71:2, 228-237, DOI: 10.1080/0312407X.2017.1409777

#ANROWSconf2018

https://doi-org.ezproxy1.library.usyd.edu.au/10.1080/0312407X.2017.1422772https://doi-org.ezproxy1.library.usyd.edu.au/10.1080/0312407X.2017.1415365https://doi-org.ezproxy1.library.usyd.edu.au/10.1080/0312407X.2017.1415366https://doi-org.ezproxy1.library.usyd.edu.au/10.1080/0312407X.2017.1422773https://doi-org.ezproxy1.library.usyd.edu.au/10.1080/0312407X.2017.1422775https://doi-org.ezproxy1.library.usyd.edu.au/10.1080/0312407X.2017.1422528https://doi-org.ezproxy1.library.usyd.edu.au/10.1080/0312407X.2017.1409777

Invisible Practices: Interventions with fathers who use violenceAcknowledgement INVISIBLE PRACTICES:�Interventions with fathers who �use violenceIf the content in this presentation raises any issues for you, these services can help:BackgroundBackground: Messages from the experts��Slide Number 7Messages from expertsSlide Number 9Where we’ve been … Where we want to go …Slide Number 12Why engage men, especially fathers who use violence and control?Invisible Practices: �Interventions with fathers who use violenceSlide Number 15Slide Number 16Slide Number 17Practitioners’ role in projectSlide Number 19Safe & Together Principles™ Slide Number 21Slide Number 22Slide Number 23Preliminary Findings THEME 1: WORKING COLLABORATIVELY THEME 2: PARTNERING WITH WOMEN NSW – PARTNERING WITH WOMEN (2)NSW – PARTNERING WITH WOMEN (3)THEME 3: ENGAGING FATHERSEngaging fathers 2Slide Number 31Slide Number 32While we turn to the perpetrator there are a few things to think about ... References Australian Social Work �Special Edition �Publications from the PATRICIA Project

Documents

Invisible Practices: Interventions with fathers who use violenceanrowsnationalconference.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/... · 2019-07-11 · INVISIBLE PRACTICES: Interventions with