Statistics of Domestic Violence in Australia
Domestic violence is a kind of aggressive or violent behaviour found within the home that involves violent abuse of a partner or spouse (Stets, 2012). White Ribbon Australia is a campaign that works to end violence against girls and female. According to this campaign, domestic violence refers to the act of intimidation between people who share an intimate relationship with each other (Whiteribbon.org.au, 2018). A perpetrator tries to dominate and control another person by using domestic violence. Domestic violence is considered as a violation of individual rights. It causes physical harm, psychological harm and fear among individuals. Domestic violence in Australia mainly includes sexual assaults, physical assaults, psychological abuse, and verbal financial and emotional abuse of individuals.
On statistics created by the Australian Institute of Criminology and the Australian Bureau of Statistics, one in every three women has experienced physical violence at home since they were 15 years old (Abs.gov.au, 2018). Women with children are the most common victim of domestic abuse. On an average, every two minutes a woman somewhere in Australia is becoming a victim of domestic assault and abuse. Women are more likely to be hospitalized in Australia as a victim of domestic violence and are more prone to report fear of life from their domestic partners.
The health, administration and social welfare costs of violence against women and children are projected to increase at an alarming rate if steps are not taken to prevent such issues
Domestic violence against women is categorised into three major types- physical, emotional and financial.
Physical violence comprises times when physical force is used against a person by another person (Desmarais et al., 2012). Signs of physical abuse include shaking, slapping, pushing, kicking, choking, using weapons as a means to threaten, driving dangerously, destroying property, abuse of children and pets, locking individuals away from friends and family, physical restraint, sleep and food deprivation. Abusive domestic relationships often have a cycle where there are periods of calmness followed by sudden outbursts of tension and violence (Eriksson & Mazerolle, 2015).
Emotional violence on a woman does not leave any physical scars but affects the mental well being of individuals (Stets, 2012). Anxiousness, depression and suicidal tendencies develop within women suffering from emotional abuse from their partners. Most physical abusers resort to emotional abuse to be in control over their victims.
Financial abuse on a woman occurs in a variety of methods, mostly when their living collaborates gradually takes control of the woman’s finances (Stets, 2012). Several signs of financial abuse are taking complete control over a woman’s finances, bank accounts chequebooks etc, faking identity of the woman in order to gain credit in her name, taking away the woman’s weekly allowance or giving her too little allowance.
Types of Domestic violence
Structured-clinical judgement is a method of risk assessment through which risk formulations are discussed (Monahan, 2012). This is considered as a most commonly used method in violence risk assessment. The key focus of this assessment tool it to predict future violence. This is a highly reliable and accurate tool. This tool analyses specific cases to identify male violent offenders. Clinicians are called to use their intuition and experience while performing violence risk assessments. While making judgements about violence, clinicians prefer to assess the emotional state of offenders. Emotional traits such as anger, lack of empathy along with behavioural and physiological traits such as flared nostrils, clenching of hands and jaws, flushed face are considered as the indicators of violence. Such indicators cannot be detected through other risk assessment tool.
Structured-clinical judgement can be referred to as guided clinical approach and structured professional judgement. In this approach, assessors have to follow certain guidelines, which include specific risk factors. Such risk factors are both dynamic and static. These are determined based on general and theoretical empirical support. The guidelines also include several recommendations for communication opinions, information gathering and violence prevention strategies (Smith & Humphreys, 2018). However, this violence risk assessment tool does not include combining or weighting of risk factors. It is dependent on evaluators of final decisions.
The goal of structured-clinical judgment is the prevention of domestic violence. The information collected through this particular approach can be used for risk management and treatment planning. Risk factors chosen for this approach are based on empirical evidence. The particular approach is transparent and consistent as compared to the unstructured clinical approach. It allows for a visible, systematic and logical link between intervention and risk factors. However, there are some limitations to this approach (Monahan, 2012). Additional research is required to test the reliability and accuracy of this approach. Some items of this risk assessment tool are not suitable predictors of partner violence.
In order to assess risks factors regarding the victims of domestic violence the tool of unstructured clinical decision-making process can be used. In the studies that have been conducted regarding unstructured clinical decisions, it has been observed that accuracy of the mentioned tool is more than the structured clinical judgement. The process of unstructured clinical judgement does not follow any set pattern. It can be altered according to the nature of the victims who have been subjected to various kinds of domestic violence (De Bortoli et al., 2017). The approach of clinical decision-making is the most commonly used risk assessment method. The professional collects using this approach, information and a risk assessment is rendered according to the professionals’ subjective judgement. The professional does not follow guidelines and the judgments are based on the individuals’ expertise and experience (Vatnar, Friestad & Bjørkly, 2017).
Structured-clinical judgment for Risk Assessment
One of the advantages of this particular approach is the professional is allowed to consider the specific circumstances and behavior of the offender. In addition to this, the development of violence prevention strategies is also developed (Kropp, 2018). The approach allows flexibility to the professionals. However, there are some disadvantages of using this approach. Some psychologists have argued to the fact that the approach of unstructured clinical decision does not have accountability, validity, transparency, and replicability. This approach highly depends on the personal discretion of the psychologists (Trotter, 2015). Other psychologists have said that the approach suffers from a low rate of inter-rater reliability and is less in accuracy when compared to the structured tool. This particular method heavily depends upon the assessor’s opinion. Here, the psychologist may not consider the important information that needs to be considered in the situation to assess the risk. The different findings done on this approach have out given any kind of other results. Therefore, it can be said that this approach has the most potential among the other two reading risk assessment (Manning, 2018).
Several paper-based tools including surveys and questionnaires play a role in determining the factors responsible for domestic violence. Interviewing victims and people involved in domestic violence help in assessing the risks responsible for domestic violence (Yang, Wong & Coid, 2010). Conducting interviews personally or publicly regarding their abusive histories could allow authorities to understand the factors affecting the victims and it would also allow victims to identify certain issues that may prove beneficial for other victims and identifying potential perpetrators. Paper based methods of risk assessment also include sharing questionnaires in magazines and with the authorities responsible for handling domestic violence cases. Involving children in reporting certain activities they see at home would also improve the chances of identifying risks for domestic violence victims through word of mouth or awareness among peers and localities (Messing & Thaller, 2013). The advantage to these procedures is that an increase in awareness within society would intimidate the perpetrator from carrying out harmful acts in public places. There could also be complaints from the neighbourhood and locality, which would reduce the risk for the victim (Elbogen et al., 2010). The disadvantage of this would be the perpetrator might devise methods to control the statements of the victim, which would let the victim be able to provide accurate responses on the questionnaires. At times the situation of the victim so happens, that they do not recognize the threats of the perpetrator and every risk factor is subtle for the victim to recognize them (Hannah-Moffat, 2013).
Unstructured clinical decision-making for Risk Assessment
The three methods of risk assessment have been mentioned in the project. The three methods are the structured clinical judgement, unstructured clinical decision-making and paper-based tools. All the tools have been clearly mentioned and defined. In addition to this, disadvantages and advantages of the respective tools of risk assessment have been highlighted (SHAH, Yasuhara & HEILBRUN, 2011). The study that has been done in the previous section, highlights points of differences regarding the different tools. From the analysis done on the three methods of risk assessment regarding the victims of domestic violence, there are huge differences between the structured and the unstructured pattern. The unstructured pattern is more flexible than the structured tool. In the unstructured clinical decision-making tool, the assessor has the freedom to choose any method to identify the risk associated with the victim. However, in the structured clinical judgement tool, this kind of flexibility is not permitted. The Psychologists have to follow set patterns and frameworks in order assessment the risks associated with the victims of domestic violence. The next point of difference between the unstructured and the structured tool is, the structured method is transparent and free of discrepancies (Singh, Grann & Fazel, 2011). However, the unstructured clinical decision-making tool is not that transparent and there are chances that discrepancies will occur while using this tool. The structured clinical judgement assesses the risks on the facts of theoretical knowledge. On the other hand, the unstructured clinical decision-making tools depends upon the experience and expertise of the assessor. Leaving the structured and the unstructured method, the paper-based tools is way different from the above-mentioned process (Forouzanfar et al., 2016).
This tool depends upon the responses gathered by the interviews and the questionnaire. In this method, the actual risks encountered by the victims can be analysed. There is no generalization of this tool. Every respondent’s case study and sufferings are different and this requires the psychologists to take a deeper dig into the life of the victims. There are no set rules for using this technique that increase the flexibility of the method. Therefore, it can be said that among the three methods discussed here, the paper-based tool is the most flexible (Mann, Hanson & Thornton, 2010). Along with the flexibility attribute, the method has huge scope of discrepancies. Therefore, the people who are using this method should be careful in their approach while effectively assessing the risks regarding the different victims of domestic violence.
Advantages and Limitations of Risk Assessment Methods
Conclusion
It can be recommended to use structured-clinical judgement as for the violence risk assessment tool, as this approach is more flexible as compared to paper-based tool. This tool is more generalizable as compare to other tools. Structured-clinical judgement approach is better than unstructured clinical judgement approach as it is more transparent and consistent. Therefore, structured-clinical judgement is the suitable tool for violence risk assessment.
Victims of domestic violence are variable in nature and numbers with individual issues affecting their risk factors analysis. Using paper-based risk calculation methods may not be efficient when it is related to the victims’ intuitions regarding factors that could be applicable for all victims. It is necessary to reduce the number of domestic violence to provide as safe and secure life for people. In addition to this, a proper risk assessment tool should be used so that the risk of domestic violence can be reduced up to a certain extent.
References
Abs.gov.au. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/by%20Subject/1370.0~2010~Chapter~Crime%20references%20(4.4.10)
De Bortoli, L., Ogloff, J., Coles, J., & Dolan, M. (2017). Towards best practice: combining evidence?based research, structured assessment and professional judgement. Child & Family Social Work, 22(2), 660-669. 10.1111/cfs.12280
Desmarais, S. L., Reeves, K. A., Nicholls, T. L., Telford, R. P., & Fiebert, M. S. (2012). Prevalence of physical violence in intimate relationships, Part 2: Rates of male and female perpetration. Partner Abuse, 3(2), 170-198. pa/2012/00000003/00000002/art00003
Elbogen, E. B., Fuller, S., Johnson, S. C., Brooks, S., Kinneer, P., Calhoun, P. S., & Beckham, J. C. (2010). Improving risk assessment of violence among military veterans: An evidence-based approach for clinical decision-making. Clinical psychology review, 30(6), 595-607. S0272735810000498
Eriksson, L., & Mazerolle, P. (2015). A cycle of violence? Examining family-of-origin violence, attitudes, and intimate partner violence perpetration. Journal of interpersonal violence, 30(6), 945-964. 10.1177/0886260514539759
Forouzanfar, M. H., Afshin, A., Alexander, L. T., Anderson, H. R., Bhutta, Z. A., Biryukov, S., … & Cohen, A. J. (2016). Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. The Lancet, 388(10053), 1659-1724. S0140673616316798
Hannah-Moffat, K. (2013). Actuarial sentencing: An “unsettled” proposition. Justice Quarterly, 30(2), 270-296. 10.1080/07418825.2012.682603
Kropp, P. R. (2018). Intimate partner violence risk assessment. In Violent and sexual offenders (pp. 64-88). Routledge. 9781315310404/chapters/10.4324
Mann, R. E., Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2010). Assessing risk for sexual recidivism: Some proposals on the nature of psychologically meaningful risk factors. Sexual Abuse, 22(2), 191-217.
Manning, N. (2018). Assessing violence and sexual risk among offenders with cognitive intellectual difficulties. In Violent and Sexual Offenders (pp. 179-193). Routledge. fulltext/EJ1188334
Messing, J. T., & Thaller, J. (2013). The average predictive validity of intimate partner violence risk assessment instruments. Journal of interpersonal violence, 28(7), 1537-1558. doi/abs/10.1177/0886260512468250
Monahan, J. (2012). Violence risk assessment. Handbook of Psychology, Second Edition, 11. 10.1002/9781118133880
SHAH, S., Yasuhara, K., & HEILBRUN, K. (2011). Violence risk assessment tools: Overview and critical analysis. In Handbook of violence risk assessment (pp. 11-28). Routledge. 9781136914591/chapters/10.4324
Singh, J. P., Grann, M., & Fazel, S. (2011). A comparative study of violence risk assessment tools: A systematic review and metaregression analysis of 68 studies involving 25,980 participants. Clinical psychology review, 31(3), 499-513. S0272735810001947
Smith, J., & Humphreys, C. (2018). Child protection and fathering where there is domestic violence: Contradictions and consequences. Child & Family Social Work. 10.1111/cfs.12598
Stets, J. E. (2012). Domestic violence and control. Springer Science & Business Media.
Trotter, C. (2015). Working with involuntary clients: A guide to practice. Routledge.
Vatnar, S. K. B., Friestad, C., & Bjørkly, S. (2017). Intimate partner homicide in Norway 1990–2012: Identifying risk factors through structured risk assessment, court documents, and interviews with bereaved. Psychology of violence, 7(3), 395. fulltext/2017-12260-001
Whiteribbon.org.au. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.whiteribbon.org.au/understand-domestic-violence/what-is-domestic-violence/domestic-violence-definition/
Yang, M., Wong, S. C., & Coid, J. (2010). The efficacy of violence prediction: a meta-analytic comparison of nine risk assessment tools. Psychological bulletin, 136(5), 740. 2010-17510-003
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
