New Zealand

Hidden Violence Comes to Light

July 21, 2007
By Chris Barton 

A month's selection of crime stories makes grim reading - women and children are regularly brutally killed by people they know. Frequent stories such as those detailed left lead to some harsh statistics: one woman is killed by her partner or ex-partner every five weeks; about 10 children are killed every year in domestic violence. By most accounts they are just the tip of the iceberg known as domestic or family violence.

The Taskforce for Action on Violence Within Families - which brings together government agencies and other organisations - gives a succinct assessment: "New Zealand's rates of child abuse and neglect, levels of domestic violence, deaths of children and women, and the rate of elder abuse, are shameful."

Shocking. But that's not all. Many surveys paint an even darker picture. A third of women in Auckland have suffered physical or sexual abuse from their partner in their lifetime. In the Waikato it's worse - 39 per cent. For Maori women it's worse again - up to 78 per cent.

Then there's the alarming trend that three key measures - from Police, Child Youth and Family and Women's Refuge - are all increasing.

The number of "domestic incidents" and recorded offences flagged by the police as family violence has grown substantially. Incidents rose by 140 per cent from about 11,300 in 1994-95 to 27,165 in 2004-05. Offences rose 87 per cent, from about 14,600 to 27,343. Last year, incidents increased to 37,112. Domestic violence offences now account for 37 per cent of all offences in the violence category.

Child, Youth and Family (CYF) reports on the number of notifications of abuse and neglect also show increases - from 27,507 in 2001-02 to 66,210 in 2005-06. For this fiscal year it received 75,326 care and protection notifications, of which 46,776 required further action and resulted in 5049 children placed in care.

The number of women and children using Women's Refuge services is on the rise, too, reaching 28,845 (16,738 women and 12,107 children) last year, up from 17,212 women and 9904 children in 2005. It's a demand that has grown by more than 10,000 users (65 per cent) over a five-year period. Terrible. And pointing to a seemingly inescapable conclusion - family violence is out of control. But talk to the researchers and those in the field and you'll find the rampant growth conclusion is completely wrong.

Police numbers for family violence are going up because they're now reporting incidents as domestic violence in a way they never did before. Plus a change to the Police IT system in June 1995 means files can quickly be re-classified as family violence through a simple check box. In the past a whole new file had to be created.

Police are also now working much more closely with CYF and organisations like Women's Refuge which explains, in part, why both organisations are getting many more referrals. CYF also began more detailed data collection in 2000 thanks to a new IT system, and began a family intervention programme through Work and Income 2004. The numbers also double-count multiple notifications from different sources for the same child.

Add to this increased public awareness - through media campaigns and community initiatives - and you arrive at a different conclusion. Family violence isn't increasing. What is happening is that the hidden part of the iceberg is coming to the surface.

If that sounds too simplistic an explanation, it's because it probably is. "People under-report [domestic violence] because of the stigma and other issues of talking about it, or the personal level of comfort about it," says family violence researcher Janet Fanslow. "The police have gone to a lot of effort over the past decade to try and get their systems to be more responsive to victims. Their policies and practices have been a major factor in the increase and they should be applauded for that."

But while higher numbers in official figures are seen as a positive sign, a large uncounted number are never seen within formal systems - and probably never will be. That's not to say people who experience violence don't tell anyone. Fanslow, who was involved in a major World Health Organisation survey of 2855 New Zealand women, says the research showed the women did talk about the violence, but mostly to family or friends. "That's an indication that it's not necessarily the secret and private problem that people like to say it is."

Turning to informal sources for help is reflected, to some extent, in Women's Refuge figures, with 21 per cent arriving there under self-referral rather than through the police (41 per cent). Chief executive Heather Henare notes also that the number using safe houses is declining and that the increase in services is mainly in community-based programmes.

There's also a change in the age of women using Refuge. Five years ago most referrals came from the 36-45 and 45-69 age groups. Today the bulk are from 17-25 (29 per cent) and 26-35 (31 per cent) bands. "Women coming in earlier is a good sign. We're talking about three to four years' damage as opposed to 10 to 15 years' damage. They're getting out earlier. The kids are getting out earlier. It makes a huge difference to a woman's recovery from a violent relationship." But if police are now more responsive to family violence, have more empathy and understanding of it, and are better at recording domestic violence events, what do the crime statistics show?

Over the past five years, all violence offences recorded by the police rose by 6 per cent. The number of family violence cases within the category rose by 21 per cent. What's not clear is whether that's because of better recording, or perhaps because more offences are being brought to police attention by victims.

But there are a couple of indicators. Looking at all violence offences associated with dwellings shows a marked increase in the number of threats and intimidation offences - up from 3171 in 1997 to 5499 last year.

Police believe that trend indicates a shifting of the threshold of that particular offence - a reduced tolerance for threats and intimidation in the home. Which may explain why violent offending is increasing, although police are quick to point out that threats and intimidation are generally at the lower end of the violence scale.

If violence is on the increase, it's not rampant growth. "Male assaults female" offences - a reasonable indicator of underlying trends - have grown by just 4 per cent over the past five years. The proportion of all male-assaults-female offences which are flagged as family violence is high - rising from 68 per cent in 1994-05 to 83 per cent in 2004-05.

Although there was a flat trend in male-assaults-female offences, prosecutions and convictions increased sharply after 2002. That indicates the police laid charges more often, possibly because of a greater focus on family violence and deployment of specialised family violence staff.

Going against the upward trend are protection orders which have been steadily declining - from 4322 in 1998 to 2472 this financial year - a fall that can be interpreted in several ways. It may mean that some victims feel that the police are taking stronger action, making it unnecessary to apply for an order. Others suggest a lack of confidence in the effectiveness of protection orders, especially in the light of some recent murders where women were killed when protection orders were in place.

Meanwhile on the frontline, Preventing Violence in the Home executive director Jane Drumm sees no sign of violence being on the wane. "It's exponentially growing. To me it's like a contagious disease." She agrees there has always been a high incidence of domestic violence that's been kept underground. "Now it's coming out a lot more, but as a problem it's also growing as well."

Drumm cites the number of referrals and the extreme nature of the some of the violence. "I think the impact of P has been quite profound. With P people go insane. They may have been a violent person, but with P they go bizarrely violent." The organisation, which runs a seven-day crisis helpline, used a South Wales Police questionnaire to assess which of the 350 referrals received in Auckland central in May were at high risk. By that, Drumm means "people who could be murdered tomorrow". Alarmingly, she found 58 candidates.

But while such chronic levels of violence can't be tolerated, how does such abhorrent behaviour fit with those at the lower end of the violence scale? A report for the Ministry of Social Development, titled The scale and nature of family violence in New Zealand: A review and evaluation of knowledge, outlines the problem of where to draw the line: "The term 'family violence' encompasses a broad spectrum of behaviours ranging from inadvertent, isolated or not very harmful acts through to deliberate, ongoing and severe violence."

THE REPORT, prepared by Victoria University's Crime and Justice Research Centre, and soon to be published, goes on to say that, in practice, researchers usually avoid drawing the line at all. "This can mean that many types of low-level conflict are classified as violence and that isolated acts of violence or verbal conflict that do not necessarily constitute family violence are usually counted as such."

One of the report's authors, Pat Mayhew, says because there's no agreed way of measuring what is domestic violence, studies produce hugely different results, and that on many of the violence scales used she is both a victim of domestic violence and a perpetrator. "I'm an offender, because I once threw a frying pan of fried eggs at my husband in great agitation and rage. That's fairly high up the scale - I could have seriously injured him."

Surveys normally count such isolated incidents, says Mayhew. "What isn't normally done is to define victims as people who are persistently victimised in an unreasonable way over a long amount of time."

Other definition problems - such as what constitutes psychological abuse and whether the abuse is being done by a partner, sibling, carer, or other relative - also make comparative measurements of domestic violence difficult.

Then there is the contentious issue of how much violence is suffered by men at the hands of women. New Zealand's national victimisation survey and administrative data indicates that women are more likely than men to be physically assaulted by intimate partners, and to be victimised more frequently. But there are also surveys that show women and men are equally likely to be perpetrators and victims of violence in intimate relationships. It's a trend that shows up in last year's New Zealand Crime and Safety Survey. In relation to confrontational crime - assaults and threats to someone or to their personal property - committed by partners, 6 per cent of men and 7 per cent of women reported one or more partner offences. There was, however, a bigger difference in incidence rates (number of incidents in 100) - 18 per cent for men and 26 per cent for women - which indicates that when women are victimised by their partners it happens rather more often to them than to the men.

Women's Refuge's Henare gives a swift response to such statistics. "The question is about fear. Does she fear her husband? A woman is beaten by man for years, then one day she picks up an iron and says: 'If you touch me one more time, I'm going to put this into your skull'. She is taking a stand the only way she knows how. Does he fear her? I suspect not."

Henare is adamant that the primary deliverer of violence against women are men. She says persistent psychological abuse shouldn't be underestimated either. "Some women say they would rather have a beating, because at least they can get up in the morning and bruises eventually go away. But when you're constantly put down, constantly called names and constantly undermined, it destroys your soul and it's really hard to get that soul back."

But if problems with measuring domestic violence abound, it isn't stopping a growing number of organisations from trying. Plunket started family violence screening in 2004.

FRESH data is also emerging from organisations like Age Concern and Neglect Prevention about elder abuse. There are calls, too, for better recording by the national coroner's office of relationship information of perpetrator to victim.

In 2004 the New Zealand Health Information Service began coding assaults that resulted in admission to hospital. At this stage the data is far from reliable, with 60 per cent of the cases still being recorded as "unspecified person" and double-counting of re-admissions and transfers. Potentially, however, the information could be very useful in finding out who is doing the abusing.

In 2005 for example, 567 victims admitted to hospital were assaulted by spouse or partner, 95 by a parent, 254 by another family member, six by a carer and 248 by an acquaintance or friend. About 660 were assaulted by people unknown to the victim.

The huge amount of research, with more on the way, leads Mayhew and others to call enough. The Ministry of Social Development report disagrees that there is inadequate research and large gaps in what we know about domestic violence. "Many might also think that we could fill these gaps with more effort, and that there are hidden 'methodological bullets' to do this."

The report contends that, on the whole, the knowledge base is very good. It questions whether a reliable estimate of the "true" extent of family violence is ever achievable.

"We know the contours of the problem, so why get so het up that we don't know precise amounts?" says Mayhew. She is concerned that a kind of "moral panic" about domestic violence is clouding the issue of what is a relatively common problem. "We live in very close proximity with difficult people. Most violence is interpersonal in the sense that you know people."

The Ministry of Social Development report points out that family violence is inextricably tied to other factors, including repeat victimisation, socio-economic circumstances and the trans-generational cycle of violence.

It concludes that researching for definitive answers may be less productive than putting in place remedial solutions based on what is already known.

Contacts for domestic violence:

Women's Refuge at www.womensrefuge.org.nz, local refuges listed in the White Pages

Preventing Violence in the Home - 0508 DVHELP (0508 384 357)

Domestic violence warning signs

Answer Yes/No/Don't Know/Significant Concern

1. Does partner /ex-partner have a criminal record for violence or drugs?
If 'yes', is the record related to domestic abuse?

2. Has the latest incident resulted in injuries?
If 'yes', does this cause significant concern?

3. Has the incident involved weapons?
If 'yes', does this cause significant concern?

4. Has your partner/ex-partner ever threatened to kill anybody?
If 'yes', does this cause significant concern?

5. Has the partner/ex-partner expressed/ behaved in a jealous way or displayed controlling behaviour or obsessive tendencies?
If 'yes', does this cause significant concern?

6. Has there been/going to be a relationship separation between you and your partner/ex-partner?

7. Is the abuse becoming worse and/or happening more often?

8. Are you very frightened?

9. Is your partner/ex-partner experiencing/recently experienced financial problems?

10. Does your partner/ex-partner have/had problems with: alcohol; mental health; drugs?

11. Are you pregnant?

12. Is there conflict with partner/ex-partner over child contact?

13. Has partner/ex-partner attempted to strangle/choke you or past partner?

14. Have you or your partner/ex-partner ever threatened/attempted to commit suicide?

15. Has your partner/ex-partner said or done things of a sexual nature that makes you feel bad or that physically hurt you?

16. Are you afraid of further injury or violence?

17. Are you afraid that your partner/ex-partner will kill you?

18. Are you afraid that your partner/ex-partner will harm her/his children?

19. Do you suspect that you are being stalked?

20. Do you feel isolated from family/friends?

Very high risk = 10 ticks in the yes box; or 4 significant concerns; or if there are three police callouts in 12 months.

High risk = 6 to 9 ticks in the yes box; or three significant concerns; or two police callouts in 12 months.

Medium risk = Up to 6 ticks in the yes box; or 1 or 2 significant concerns.

The questions are taken from a risk assessment checklist used by the South Wales Police and the Womens' Safety Unit in Cardiff.