Kelly A. Watt
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Domestic Violence Fatality Review Teams: Collaborative Efforts to Prevent Intimate Partner Femicide
Intimate Partner Femicide (IPF) The homicide of a woman by her current or
former intimate partner The single most common form of homicide
perpetrated against women Preventable tragedies following many
opportunities for intervention Critical to identify ways to increase
understanding and prevention
Domestic Violence Fatality Review Teams (DVFRT)
Emerged in 1994 as a means to understand and prevent cases of IPF
Involve a collaboration of stakeholders who review cases of IPF to identify risk factors and gaps in the system response
Publish report describing their work, findings, and recommendations for systems change
Active DVFRT
MICHIGAN
LakeSuperior
LakeHuron
LakeMichigan
LakeOntario
LakeErie
WA
ORID
MT
WY
CA
NV UT
AZ
ND
SD
NE
CO
NM
KS
OK
TX
MN
IA
MO
AR
LAMS AL GA
TN
KY
INIL
WI
OH
WV VA
NC
SC
FL
MEVT
NHMA
RICT
NJ
DEMD
DC
AK
HI
NY
PA
Nature and Accomplishments of DVFRT
Anecdotal evidence suggests that DVFRT may lead to systemic changes Increased public awareness Better coordination of services Improved policies and procedures
However, little is known about the nature of these teams or what they accomplish
National Study of DVFRT
This study employs qualitative methods to examine How DVFT attempt to promote systems change
by describing their goals, structures, processes, and outcomes
What critical issues or tensions underlie their efforts to promote change that may account for how they are set up and what they achieve
Methods: Participants
35 DVFRT (M 6 yrs) Representing 28 states and 1 province
42 Members (M 5 yrs) 38% chairs 31% coordinators 24% general 7% staff
Methods: Procedures
Reconnaissance Discussions with expert in the field Attendance to national conference
Recruitment Compiled list of “active” DVFRT At least 1 team from every state/province At least 1 member familiar with history/operations 100% of teams agreed to participate
Methods: Measures
In-depth interview (100%) Based on review of literature, access to
published reports, consultation with experts Explored goals, structures, processes, outcomes
and tensions of teams Document review (89%)
Reviewed most recent report published by the team available at the time of recruitment
Described teams work, findings, and recommendations for systems change
Methods: Analysis
Frequency Analysis Involves calculating the frequency of events
Content Analysis Involves analyzing information to uncover
common themes
Findings: Goals
Changing policies and procedures Promoting awareness and education Improving coordination and relationships Creating additional funding and resources
Findings: Structure
Authority 72% Legislation/Executive Order,
22% Interagency Agreement, 3% Coroner’s Act
“I think we can really identify the issues that need to be addressed and help make significant improvements to the system by sharing the information honestly and openly within the group.”
Findings: Structure
Jurisdiction 43% State/Province, 57% County/Regional
Membership 100% Professional, 17% Religious, 11% Victims,
and 1% Family
“We do not contact families to ask them for additional information. We really hold true to the fact our value of confidentiality and I do not think we could insure that if we included family.”
Findings: Process
Breadth of cases 43% Narrow review of intimate partner homicides 57% Broad review of domestic violence deaths
Findings: Process
Depth of review 91% Biographical (min 2 cases) 43% Epidemiological (max 200 cases)
“Because domestic violence is such a complex issue, we really need to gather a lot of information and take an in depth look at the uniqueness of each case. It gives you the opportunity to identify gaps and increase cooperation and collaboration. If you do not dig deep into a specific case the likelihood that you are going to be able to identify these things is pretty slim.”
Findings: Outcomes
Making recommendations 86% make recommendations 80% publish recommendations
“It makes it more difficult to have agencies change if we use the team as an agent for making policy recommendations. The result is the opposite of what you would like to get. People become more entrenched and unwilling to change because of feeling that something has been dictated to them instead of feeling that they are themselves agents of change.”
Findings: Outcomes
Developing recommendations 23% specific cases 20% aggregated across specific cases 3% nonspecific 54% combination
“Unless you provided the specific case and the specific recommendation, it would only be a recommendation without a context.”
Findings: Outcomes
Types of recommendations 100% changing policies and procedures 89% promoting awareness and education 71% improving coordination and relationships 68% creating additional funding and resources
“You can make all the recommendations in the world but if they are not looked at by the people who have the ability to change policies and procedures then you are just creating something for the shelf.”
Findings: Outcomes
Implementing recommendations 51% monitor recommendations 46% implement recommendations 23% publish actions taken 6% publish action plan
“The team never expected to have to follow up with implementation of recommendations. It learned, however, that its efforts were futile otherwise.”
Summary and Implications
The diverse nature of DVFRT appears to reflect their efforts to resolve important tensions
Differences between DVFRT may have implications for promoting systems change What are we accomplishing? Is it worth the time, resources, an energy? How do we compare to other prevention efforts?
Contact Information for Kelly
Kelly A. Watt
Clinical/Community DivisionDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign603 East Daniel StreetChampaign, Illinois 61820Phone: (604) 697-0016 E-mail: [email protected]
Top Related