Bringing in “The Ones Who Know Them”

Abstract

Victim advocates help victims of intimate partner violence to plan for their safety and encourage them to find social support. In New Zealand, however, victims often bring supportive allies with them to safety planning meetings, and those allies help to plan for the victim’s safety. Interviews were conducted with representatives from 24 refuges in New Zealand, and from their perspective, the inclusion of allies in safety planning meetings is beneficial not only for social support but also for enhancing the safety of the victim. The benefits and implications of enlisting informal community members to help keep victims safe are discussed.

Keywords

safety planning safety conferencing victim advocacy intimate partner violence

Part of safety planning for victims of intimate partner violence may include decisions about who will be part of the plan, or whether anyone else will be included in the implementation of the plan, and those decisions are typically based on the discretion of the victim (Davies, Lyon, & Monti-Catania, 1998). Victim advocates are usually trained to honor the decisions that victims make about their own safety, including who will be a part of the safety plan (Davies et al., 1998). Formal community members (i.e., professionals from relevant agencies) of a safety plan could include police, school officials, social services, counselors, probation, or other professionals who may come in contact with the perpetrator. These professional collaborations have evolved in New Zealand as well as the United States to enhance the safety of victims of family violence by addressing gaps in services and training (Hardin, 1996; Shepard & Pence, 1999; Sudderth, 2006). Informal community members may include family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, or any other people the victim sees as supportive. They may be included in the safety plan, but that decision is left up to the victim. Victim advocates are often given some discretion in terms of which questions to ask based on the victim’s situation; they usually encourage the victim to seek out social support so that she can cope more effectively (Davies et al., 1998; Tan, Basta, Sullivan, & Davidson, 1995), but seldom meet with members of the victim’s social network to discuss safety options (see Pennell & Francis, 2005).

Theoretically, however, community networks are part of a larger social response to intimate partner violence, which affects the willingness of battered women to interact with social services and the criminal justice system. Ptacek (1999) argues that structured inequalities combined with ambivalent institutional and community responses undermine women’s abilities to escape violent relationships and constitute “social entrapment.” “Safety,” in fact, is a relative term, depending on the cultural context in which battered women attempt to escape the violence of their partners. Violence against women is certainly affected by the economy, the level of infrastructure, legislation, the availability of firearms, poverty, level of gender inequality in a society, and war (see, for example, Krug, Dahlberg, Mercy, Zwi, & Lozano, 2002; Leatherman, 2011; Nikolic-Ristanovic, 2002). Therefore, safety is relative to a larger social structure that frames the choices victims of violence make. Battered women try to stay safe from violence that is connected to gender and family expectations, but also within the social context of poverty, racial or ethnic inequality, the availability of support services, and the level of violence in their own communities (Manjoo, 2011; Ptacek, 1999; Wurtzburg, 2003). Victim advocates, then, face the daunting task of helping battered women plan for their own safety within a complicated context of individual and structural violence.

Although the use of professional collaborations to address the safety concerns of battered women has been discussed (Jeanne Geiger Crisis Center, 2012; J. Martin & Levine, 2010; Shepard & Pence, 1999; Sudderth, 2006; Websdale, 2003), less is written about the inclusion of informal social networks in safety planning practices. New Zealand is an ideal place to study the incorporation of informal community into safety planning because of its national policy initiatives to encourage friends and family of victims of intimate partner violence to intervene in intimate partner violence (Crichton-Hill & Taylor, 2013; Ministry of Social Development, 2009). The purpose of this study is to use qualitative data from interviews with a sample of domestic violence professionals in New Zealand to explore the incorporation of informal social networks into safety planning practices for victims of intimate partner violence. The article includes a review of the literature on community and safety planning and the context of New Zealand domestic violence policies. The final sections of the article discuss the ways in which social networks are included in safety planning in New Zealand, the benefits of that practice, and the implications for future research.

Community and Safety Planning

Safety planning protocols are currently used by victim advocates to help victims of intimate partner violence minimize their exposure to further abuse and to offer support through empowerment (Davies et al., 1998). A safety plan, for example, may include what survivors will do during a subsequent act of violence, a plan for leaving the relationship, for staying safe after exiting the relationship, and keeping children safe (Davies et al., 1998; Hart, 1990; Hart & Stuehling, 1992).

In addition, risk assessment instruments have been developed to assist in safety planning by giving an indicator of the continuum of violence, which victims of battering face (e.g., J. C. Campbell et al., 2003). One study of women who had been killed by their partners suggested (posthumously) that they would have had an average score of eight out of 15 questions (e.g., partner threatened them with a weapon), so this score alerts advocates to women most at risk of homicide (J. C. Campbell et al., 2003). Campbell et al. also found that a good proportion of the victims did not realize the level of risk of their situation; thus, some have argued for the inclusion of this risk assessment, or some version of it, in standard safety planning for battered women (J. C. Campbell, 2004). Particularly in cases where there is high risk of lethality, domestic violence programs in the United States and New Zealand collaborate with police and other professionals to keep victims safe (Jeanne Geiger Crisis Center, 2012; J. Martin & Levine, 2010; Websdale, 2003). In New Zealand, for example, most municipal police departments work with a family violence coordinator who works with victim advocates to address safety concerns about victims of intimate partner violence that come to the attention of the police, regardless of whether or not the perpetrator was arrested (New Zealand Police, 2014).

However, the inclusion of non-professional community members in safety planning is more controversial, and in the feminist literature, the relationship between women and the community has been represented as simultaneously oppressive and nurturing (see Fox-Genovese, 1991). Ambiguous feelings about community inclusion are understandable. After all, the community was traditionally part of the problem. Domestic violence shelters provide victims of intimate partner violence a haven from abusive partners by separating them from the community through a confidential address; it is an acknowledgment that victims of intimate partner violence need alternative communities to reclaim their lives (Schechter, 1982). Victims of intimate partner violence historically encountered negative reactions from friends and relatives, who see domestic violence as a private matter or as non-criminal (Kelly, 2003). Victims, then, may not see their community as supportive, and advocates may see community members as barriers to the victim’s safety. Although victim advocates may acquiesce to the wishes of the victim who wants to bring someone to a safety planning meeting, there may be resistance to intentionally inviting others to sit in on those meetings because of concerns about confidentiality and the potential for exacerbating the victim’s circumstances (Moe, 2007; Stark, 2007).

However, domestic violence shelters in the United States are forced to turn thousands of women away every day because of lack of space, staffing, or funding (Moore & Smith, 2008; National Network to End Domestic Violence, 2013). Victims of intimate partner violence, in fact, may return to the household to live with an abusive partner because it is the safest option; indeed, some victims may prefer to stay in their own communities as they attempt to end the abuse (Davies, 2009). By the time survivors of intimate partner violence report to police or disclose to social workers, counselors, domestic violence workers, or volunteers, they have typically already discussed their circumstances with friends and family (Moe, 2007). Moreover, women from marginalized communities who rely on informal supports to cope with the structural oppression of racism, classism, or homophobia may find it more difficult to separate from the community, even to escape an abusive partner (Price, 2012; Renzetti, 1992). Therefore, planning for the safety of battered women is very often planning for safety within their own households in the context of their own communities.

Research suggests that intentionally including informal community in safety planning could be beneficial to victims and the professionals who try to help them. Pennell and Francis (2005), in fact, recommend bringing in supportive community members for “safety conferencing,” to enhance the impact of a safety plan. Bringing a friend or family member to a safety planning meeting may be one end of the spectrum, whereas engaging multiple community members to prevent further violence is on the other (Pennell & Francis, 2005). For example, safety conferencing includes the survivor’s informal network of family and friends (typically excluding the abuser) in the plans to keep the victim safe from further abuse (Pennell & Francis, 2005). The group meets at a location that maintains the safety of the victim, and they discuss ways to address any obstacles to her safety; in fact, they may be part of the safety plan for the victim. In cultures in which the community is the traditional means for social control of criminal or aberrant behavior, safety conferencing can be used as a way to include the victim’s (and sometimes the offender’s) social network to reduce the likelihood of further violence (Goodman & Epstein, 2008; Koss, 2000; Kruger, 2004; Mirsky, 2003).

The purposeful inclusion of community, for example, may help to interrupt the pattern of isolation of victims in abusive relationships, providing the victim with social support as well as practical assistance in taking steps to protect herself. Victims benefit emotionally from social support, particularly from other survivors, and this may enhance their safety (L. Campbell, Gray, & Brogden, 2012; Sullivan & Bybee, 1999). Research suggests, for example, that the use of community advocate volunteers doing one-on-one work with victims of intimate partner violence over a relatively short period of time (10 weeks) reduced violence and symptoms of depression, and increased social support, access to community resources, and quality of life satisfaction (Sullivan & Bybee, 1999). Therefore, victim advocates may want to incorporate others into safety planning for direct emotional support, but also the indirect benefit of enhanced safety.

Second, isolation can also be conceptualized as a tool of the offender, something that allows him opportunities to commit the crime (Stark, 2007), because the target is visible and accessible, and there are few “guardians” to witness the abuse (Felson, 1998). Intimate partner violence tends to take place in private without adult witnesses (Stark, 2007); therefore, including community members, friends, or family in safety planning increases the number of people monitoring the situation, interrupting opportunities to offend (Drumm, 2007; Kruger, 2004; Mills, 2003). This is in addition to professional collaborations that monitor the situation. The inclusion of informal community members in safety planning may extend the reach of the professional community to monitor the offender and the victim to provide more options for assistance and more people to call for assistance when needed.

Third, victims who do report to domestic violence agencies are typically speaking with people who do not know them, often at times when they are traumatized by the most recent incident of abuse (Stark & Flitcraft, 1996). Family members, friends, or other allies may be able to provide information to the victim advocate or to the police that would not otherwise come to the surface. For example, because victims often turn first to friends or family for assistance (Moe, 2007), informal communities may have knowledge of unreported incidents or injuries, or how the victim was before involvement in the abusive relationship. Victim advocates, then, many want to invite members of a victim’s social network to take part in safety planning to maximize their own understanding of the situation.

However, there are several reasons victim advocates may be cautious about inviting friends and family to a safety planning meeting. First, community members, friends, and family may have traditional views of marriage and gender prescriptions, which conflict with providing support for a woman considering the dissolution of her marriage or the abuse of her husband/partner (Stark, 2007). Particularly in communities where divorce or separation is taboo, or where women are stigmatized if they challenge traditional gender prescriptions, community members may accept that a husband has the prerogative to control his wife or that models of traditional femininity are not subject to violence (Ferraro, 2006; Stark, 2007). In some religious communities, battered wives would be counseled to work on their marriage, rather than think about their safety (Fortune, 1993; Knickmeyer, Levitt, & Horne, 2010). Certainly, unsupportive responses from friends and family negatively affect the victims of intimate partner violence (Kocot & Goodman, 2003; Moe, 2007). Therefore, victim advocates may want to minimize the potential harm of unsupportive members of the victim’s social network being present in a safety planning meeting.

Second, one tactic of abusive men is to isolate the victim; victims cut off relations with their social networks at the insistence of the perpetrator (Stark, 2007), so they may not have a social network on which to call when they do seek assistance. “Isolation evolves through a cat and mouse game in which victims attempt to establish and perpetrators to locate and destroy safety zones where autonomy can be preserved and practiced” (Stark, 2007, p. 262). By the time victims do successfully reach out for help, their social support network is depleted, and they may feel embarrassed or awkward talking to family or friends (e.g., Moe, 2007). Victim advocates may not want to include informal community in safety planning to honor the wishes of the victim who feels uncomfortable doing so.

Third, the victim may fear that the perpetrator will target anyone who helps her, and thus, she may not want to endanger family or friends by involving them in her plans to leave (Davies, 2009). “Separation can make a woman who has already been isolated feel more vulnerable, not less, particularly if she depends on proximate cues from her partner to detect danger” (Stark, 2007, p. 268). Community members in fact may not help a victim of intimate partner violence out of fear of retaliation by the offender (Stark, 2007). Similarly, victim advocates may worry about the safety of community members who become involved in safety planning for a victim of intimate partner violence.

In summary, the intentional inclusion of informal networks in safety planning could be beneficial because it (a) enhances the safety and social support of victims, particularly those women from marginalized and oppressed communities, (b) interrupts opportunities for the perpetrator to offend, and (c) maximizes the information available to victim advocates about the case. However, bringing nonprofessionals into a safety planning meeting may exacerbate the victim’s situation by (a) exposing her to unsupportive reactions based in traditional expectations about gender and marriage, (b) underscoring the depletion of supportive connections due to isolation, or (c) placing her informal support system at risk of retaliation by the offender. Research on safety planning that intentionally includes informal networks could provide some clarification about the benefits and challenges of this practice.

New Zealand Context

According to Fanslow and Robinson (2004), 30-39% of ever-partnered women in New Zealand have experienced at least one act of physical violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime, whereas 5% have experienced it in the last year. Compared with many other countries, however, victims of intimate partner violence in New Zealand are more willing to disclose to friends and family as well as to seek formal assistance, although in some research more helpful responses came from formal systems of support (Fanslow & Robinson, 2010; Garcia-Moreno, Jansen, Ellsberg, Heise, & Watts, 2006). In 2013, more than 19,000 women and children received services through the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges (NCIWR)-affiliated agencies, including shelter, training, and assistance with social, health, and legal services (Women’s Refuge, 2013a). Among those receiving services, 2,940 women were given refuge, averaging more than 200 women and children per night, whereas 6,178 women received “support and advocacy services” in the community (Women’s Refuge, 2013a).

Although Māori citizens¹ represent 15% of the total population of New Zealand (Statistics New Zealand, 2013), they are at higher risk of family violence than women of European or Pacific Island descent, and they are 42% of the women who receive services through NCIWR (Morrison, Smith, & Gregg, 2010; Paterson, Feehan, Butler, Williams, & Cowley-Malcolm, 2007;Women’s Refuge, 2013a). Rose (2012) points out that the high rates of intimate partner violence in Māori cultures, as in Native American cultures, are a result of colonization, rather than a by-product of traditional cultures. Indeed, the Māori people traditionally found protection from violence in their own communities, so to separate from the community for the sake of protection would have been inconsistent with cultural practice (Kruger, 2004). In the Māori language (one of the official languages of New Zealand), one word for “refuge” or “haven” (piringa) can also mean “connection, link, association, relationship” (Moorfield, 2014). Therefore, initiatives that effectively respond to intimate partner violence in the Māori community incorporate traditional cultural perspectives that include respect for women and a greater role of extended family and community in personal problems. Interpersonal violence becomes a problem of the larger community or social network rather than a case of individual victimization (Kruger, 2004).

Despite some gaps in services for victims (Boshier, 2006; Taylor, 2006), New Zealand’s domestic violence organizations consciously incorporate cultural sensitivity into their programming (Crichton-Hill, 2010); victim advocates in domestic violence shelters in New Zealand integrate cultural belief systems into their service to the client; the shelter system in New Zealand includes not only a wide variety of services, but services that cater to particular ethnic groups (Haldane, 2009). In addition, government-sponsored campaigns to raise awareness about intimate partner violence target not only victims but also members of the victim’s social network, so that they will encourage the victim to get help (Ministry of Social Development, 2009).

The NCIWR, the umbrella organization for most domestic violence refuges in New Zealand, is an acknowledged model of “parallel development,” that is, the integration of services that are culturally sensitive to the needs of Māori women (Crichton-Hill & Taylor, 2013; NCIWR, 2012a). In 1988, recommendations were published on how social services could best respond to the needs of Māori families, including how to respond to family violence (Puao-Te-Ata-Tu, 1988), and the NCIWR incorporated these guidelines into their own model response to family violence (Crichton-Hill & Taylor, 2013). Of the 58 domestic violence refuges listed on the Collective website, 13 (22%) are exclusively for Māori women in need of shelter (NCIWR, 2012a).² The NCIWR is governed by a group (Te Taumata o Te Kōwhai Core Group) of eight representatives from four regions in New Zealand, and one representative from each region is Māori, and one is non-Māori (NCIWR, 2012a).

Domestic violence legislation in New Zealand began with the Domestic Protection Act in 1982, which gave police the authority to intervene in family violence situations, including through arrest (see New Zealand Ministry of Justice, 2013). The Domestic Violence Act of 1995 clarified the definition of domestic violence to include married and unmarried couples, gay/lesbian relationships, children, and family members, as well as “flatmates” sharing a living arrangement. Violence was broadly defined to include not only physical and sexual violence within this context but also psychological abuse, financial abuse, property damage, threats, and harassment (Domestic Violence Act, 1995). In 2002, Te Rito: New Zealand Family Violence Prevention Strategy was published by the Ministry of Social Development, articulating nine principles to eradicate family violence. This was followed by the formation of the Taskforce for Action on Violence within Families in 2005: “The objective of the taskforce is to educate the community about family violence, to encourage individuals, families and communities to be leaders against family violence and to improve service responses to family violence” (Crichton-Hill & Taylor, 2013, p. 114). The Domestic Violence Reform Bill (2008, implemented 2010) allows police to arrest without a warrant. New Zealand Police (2014) officers may issue a Police Safety Order (PSO) if there is insufficient evidence to arrest, but sufficient evidence for concern, and independent of the wishes of the victim. The order lasts up to 5 days, and the “bound person” must leave the accommodation, surrender any firearms, and avoid contact with the victim during the time specified on the PSO (New Zealand Police, 2014). The combination of a national initiative to increase awareness and intervention in domestic violence as well as the incorporation of cultural sensitivity into social service delivery makes New Zealand an opportune place to study efforts to include social networks in safety planning with victims of intimate partner violence.

Method

This study is based on semi-structured interviews conducted with service providers in New Zealand who had expertise in safety planning for victims of intimate partner violence. Purposive sampling was used (a) to select at least one refuge in each of the 16 regions listed on the website of the NCIWR, and (b) to ensure that Māori refuges were adequately represented. I did try to reach the only organization catering to the needs of Pacific Island women, but multiple phone and email messages were not returned.

The majority (70%) of the 58 refuges in New Zealand are members of the NCIWR. The rest are either “associated” (13.7%) or “unaffiliated” (17%) with the national organization (Women’s Refuge, 2013b). Of the programs listed on the Collective website, 45 (78%) are on the North Island, and the other 13 are on the South Island. Although all refuges in New Zealand strive to offer culturally appropriate services, a little more than one fifth of the refuges are designated as “Māori,” meaning the services are strictly for victims who identify as Māori (Women’s Refuge, 2013a).

Of the 36 refuges contacted by phone and/or email between February 1 and March 30, 2014, 24 (67%) refuge representatives agreed to participate. A follow-up email was sent to refuges that had not responded by March 30, and two participants were interviewed after this date. The remaining 12 did not respond even after additional attempts at contact. When I was able to make contact with a refuge, I asked to speak with the person responsible for safety planning training or someone who was familiar with safety planning for victims of intimate partner violence. Among those interviewed, seven were social workers, seven were in management positions, four were victim advocates, three were community outreach workers, and three were educators; all of them had experience with safety planning with victims of intimate partner violence. Of the 24 refuges in the sample, 13 (54%) were located on the North Island, and 11 were on the South Island. Although the majority of my sample are from the North Island, I was actually more successful at completing interviews with participants on the South Island. I was also able to do more in-person interviews on the South Island, which may have increased the chances of those I contacted agreeing to participate.

Of the 24 refuges in the sample, 19 (79%) are NCIWR members, and five (21%) are unaffiliated. Of the 24 refuges, six (25%) were specifically for Māori women, although some refuges had specific services and providers for Māori women within their own agency, that is, “parallel services.” The number of employees in each agency ranged from 1-30, and half the sample had a staff of 5-7 employees. All except two refuges had volunteers on their staff with estimated ranges of 2-60 volunteers. Half of the refuges had 2-6 volunteers on their staff. In the majority of refuges (79.2%), all of the staff, both paid and unpaid, were trained to do safety planning. In the other five refuges, safety planning training was either restricted to paid staff or to key personnel.

All of the agencies in the sample had at least one “safe house” or refuge for victims of intimate partner violence and staffed their own hotline (there is a national hotline as well). The majority of organizations provide domestic violence training for their own staff (96%), the community at large (66.7%), first responders (79.2%), and other professionals (87.5%). The majority of refuges (70.8%) also offered classes for victims of domestic violence and programming for their children. Some refuges also offered mental health services for victims (37.5%) and vocational training (8.3%). Other services offered included linking victims to social and legal services and accompanying them when needed, comprehensive security assessment for high-risk cases, shelters for pets, and one trained peer program; five agencies offer programming for male perpetrators, and two offered programming for female perpetrators.

The interview schedule included closed-ended questions about services provided, safety planning practices, and the use of risk assessments, as well as open-ended questions about the use of informal community members in safety planning. Responses to the open-ended questions were recorded by hand, then typed up as soon as possible after the interview. Most of the interviews were conducted over the phone, but whenever possible, interviews were completed in person. One interview was completed through email and a follow-up phone call. On average, it took about 30 min to complete the interview. All of those who participated were sent the summary of their interview with an invitation to comment or correct any errors. No remuneration was offered, but I did offer to send each participant an executive summary at the end of the study.

By the summer of 2014, all participants had the chance to look over their interviews. I began to read through the responses to each open-ended question several times, noting any emergent themes. Those themes were recorded in a summary of the research, which I then sent to all of the participants for comment. The findings suggest the potential benefits of intentionally including members of the victim’s social network in safety planning meetings.

Results

Consistent with the guidelines for safety planning articulated in the literature (Bybee & Sullivan, 2002; Davies et al., 1998; Pence, 1987), all of the participants follow a model of empowerment in terms of conducting safety planning with victims of intimate partner violence. The emphasis in helping survivors is to follow their lead, and to treat each victim as the expert in her own situation, with the caveat that any high-risk situations are discussed quite honestly with the victim. Nevertheless, victim advocates tend to respect the safety plan determined by the victim, rather than to override her choices. “You develop an instinct about when to push and when not; and at the end of the day, she is the expert on her safety” (Refuge manager, 3-12-14).

All of the participants had a protocol for assessing the risk of lethality, but the method for assessment varied. Half of the refuges in the sample use a standardized risk assessment with every victim they encounter. Seven of the refuges (29%) use a standardized risk assessment under certain conditions, such as when “red flags” are mentioned by the victim (e.g., experiences of strangulation, access to firearms, threats to kill). “Every story is horrific, but you get red flags now and then” (Community educator, 3-13-14). In one refuge, the volunteers use a standardized risk assessment, but paid staff assess risk based on their own judgment. Four participants said they do not use a standardized risk assessment, but do listen for clues in the woman’s story that would help them understand her level of risk: “They know this person [the perpetrator]; they can read the situation. So it is about giving them options. They know when it is about to happen, so they know ‘I need to get out.’ They are the experts.” (Advocate, 3-18-14). Because police in New Zealand often do risk assessments in the field using the Ontario Domestic Abuse Risk Assessment (ODARA), many participants said they use ODARA scores from the police in combination with their own methods of assessing risk. At least four refuges had created their own lethality assessment using questions from well-known standardized risk assessments and their own experiences with victims. Many participants mentioned that although they use standardized risk assessments, they also had other ways of assessing risk, such as noting the victim’s demeanor or body language or listening for specific warning signs (e.g., strangulation, extreme jealousy). One participant pointed out that those trained are cautioned, “No level of risk eliminates the risk of being killed” (Te Kaitaunaki, 2-26-14); therefore, although they use standardized risk assessments with every survivor, they also listen for other aspects of the story that indicate high risk.

Because services are driven by the circumstances and wishes of the victim, all participants said they would allow a victim to bring someone with them to a safety planning meeting. Advocates often cautioned that they would attempt to make sure that the victim wanted that person to be in on the meeting, and would monitor the interaction between them. Others said they often went to meet with victims who would have someone with them—e.g., a sister, mother, friend–and that this was very helpful. Allies are allowed to contribute to the development of a safety plan, and many advocates said the support person could be very helpful in multiple ways.

According to participants, victims bring someone with them to a safety planning meeting, depending on proximity to the crisis, the location of the meeting, and/or the plans of the victim in terms of the continuation of the abusive relationship. No one except the victim and her children are allowed at the refuges, but supportive friends or family could accompany the victim to the community office or (more commonly) to be with her at the house when the victim advocate arrives. Typically, according to participants, victims do not bring anyone to the first meeting, because this is a crisis incident or very shortly after a critical incident. However, at the second meeting, it is more common for victims to bring someone with them. Others said that self-referrals tended to bring someone with them to a meeting, but those referred by the police did not.

In addition, safety plans are dynamic and evolving as the victim makes decisions about her next course of action. So there may be an initial safety plan set up with the victim at home, a different safety plan if she decides to come into refuge, and another safety plan after she leaves the refuge. Consistent with Davies et al. (1998), friends, family, neighbors, co-workers, and others can be incorporated into any one of those plans, depending on the situation and the wishes of the victim. The plan may also involve the woman’s family if the family is threatened by the abuser, or if she is from a Māori background. In traditional Māori culture, families responded to the victimization of one member as a crime against the entire group; therefore, the response had to be a collective one (Kruger, 2004). Some refuge representatives said Māori women in particular were likely to bring someone with them to a safety planning meeting; however, two representatives from Māori women’s refuges pointed out that colonialism had fractured Māori culture so that economic class was now more relevant than ethnicity. “Some clients have whanau [family] fully involved in safety planning (from the beginning). Some have whanau partly involved and others have no whanau involvement” (Social worker, 3-21-14).

If you expect to live on the dole and be in a violent relationship, then you may not care so much about what others think of you, because that is not the most important and pressing challenge in your life. But in the middle class, you don’t want to draw attention to yourself or to the negative stereotypes. (Refuge manager, 3-12-14)

Almost all the participants said that having someone accompany the victim in a safety planning meeting was beneficial. Once advocates feel assured that the victim wants their companion to be in the meeting, the ally or allies can participate in the development of the safety plan, as long as they are doing so in a supportive way. The benefits of having allies sit in on safety planning meetings fell into six categories: emotional support, target hardening, logistical support, unique insights into the situation, cultural sensitivity, and social change. Table 1 illustrates these categories.

Table 1.

Benefits of Informal Supports in Safety Planning Meetings.

Benefits of having informal allies in safety planning	Examples
Emotional support	Getting victim to meeting with advocate
	Setting up connection to someone who understands what victim is going through
	Reconnecting to family
	Reconnecting to community
Target hardening	More people monitoring victim
	Family safer when included in safety planning
	More people monitoring perpetrator behavior
Logistical support	Call police for victim
	Provide interpretation
	Keep keys, other emergency items for victim
	Alternative housing
Cultural sensitivity	Recognition that culture of victim is based in communal identity
Cultural sensitivity	Bringing in church representatives so that victim does not have to choose between church and refuge
Unique insight	Memory of past incidents
	Familiarity with victim
	Bringing up options the victim has not considered
Social change	Educate allies of victim about domestic violence
Social change	De-stigmatization of victim

Emotional Support

Getting emotional support was the most commonly cited benefit of having someone sit in on a safety planning meeting with the victim. One out of three participants said that part of safety planning is making sure the victim has connections that offer her this kind of support. Sometimes, victims are referred by a friend or family member who accompanies them to the first meeting, and some advocates pointed out that if the victim seems nervous on the phone, she will ask whether there is someone who can accompany her to the meeting. “This works well, because here is someone who is willing to support her in keeping her safe. It extends the sphere of safety around the victim” (Community outreach worker, 2-24-14). In fact, some participants, particularly those serving Māori clients, said this was one of the first questions they asked: “Who loves you? Who do you trust?” (Services manager, 3-10-14) or “Who have you got around you that is good support?” (Women’s advocate, 3-19-14). One participant said they had found “better outcomes for clients when they have good social support” (Social worker, 3-11-14).

Similarly, reconnecting with family and friends is an important part of the process of healing from abuse, and the assumption is that victims will be safer when they are connected and communicating with other people. In Māori cultures, reconnecting with community may also be part of the healing process, and the assumption is that victims will be safer as isolation decreases (Kruger, 2004). Having someone sit in on the safety planning meeting may be the first step in ending the isolation characteristic of abusive relationships (Stark, 2007).

Target Hardening

Most participants discussed safety planning meetings that included representatives from other agencies, most often the police or child protective services, and their role in monitoring the victim’s situation. One organization, Strength in Families, arranges meetings with relevant agency representatives, a victim advocate, and the victim to identify issues in the family, and in these meetings, the safety of the victim is discussed. Participants described these meetings as helpful in that there are more people involved in watching out for the victim. “The community must play a role in safety planning, because not only refuges are watching her, but there are 5-6 other sets of eyes on this woman” (Refuge manager, 2-25-14).

However, almost half of the participants also described using informal community networks as an additional way to monitor the offender, the victim, or the situation. Several participants made the point that the more people there are monitoring the victim or the behavior of the perpetrator, the safer the victim. One advocate pointed out that it is “ideal” when victims bring whoever they are living with because “the more eyes looking out for her safety, the better” (Refuge manager, 5-19-14). “If we know what he’s doing, then she can do what she needs to do” (Support worker, 3-24-14). “The more checks and balances we can get on the victim, the better the safety plan” (Social worker, 3-10-14). Another participant pointed out this comes from the child protection field where one tries to have “five sets of eyes” on the child victim, so for victims of intimate partner violence,

Staff identify others in her social network who could “keep an eye on her.” For some, this would be family members, but for others who have been isolated or burned those bridges, it might be a teacher, coworker, caregiver, etc. (Social worker, 3-21-14)

Others pointed out that increased monitoring of the perpetrator can increase safety for the victim by designating someone who will notify the police if he comes near the house/apartment, or through communal pressure, that is, expressing disapproval of the perpetrator’s behavior. In small towns and in some cultural communities, this pressure may be substantial. In one small town, for example, the interviewee pointed out that everyone knows where the refuge is, but perpetrators never come there because they do not want to be seen there. One participant gave the example of a Māori couple with three young children. The husband had significant family violence in his background as well as a gang association. The staff brought the whole whanau (family) together; they got him support for drug/alcohol treatment, anger management, and so on. They also got her and the children support through social services. After 3 or 4 weeks, the victim said she wanted to leave the relationship but had not out of fear that the offender would hurt her family. The staff got all of her family together (parents, siblings, cousins, grandparents) and discussed her fears about leaving.

She felt that it was safer for everyone if she stayed with him. As a result, they together came up with a safety plan for and multiple safety plans for whanau members. She left the relationship, and eight months later, she is still separated from him, and everyone is safe. The whanau feel that this plan was successful because of all the support around the victim and her family. (Social worker, 3-21-14)

Allies in the safety planning meeting, then, become part of a team of people watching out for the victim’s safety.

Logistical Support

Allies who come to safety planning meetings are often incorporated into the plan for the victim’s safety. For instance, a common suggestion in safety planning is to keep emergency belongings, such as keys, important documents, or a packed bag or clothes and toiletries, in a secure location.

For example, perhaps she has never rung the police before, and it may be hard for her to do that, but it would still be up to her to call the police or not, or to allow someone else to call. (Community educator, 3-13-14)

The person who accompanies the victim to the meeting is often the one who keeps those things, or offers alternative housing. The support person may offer to call the police when the victim gives an agreed-upon signal. In some cases, the support person may provide translation for the victim as she tries to understand her options.

Cultural Acknowledgment and Sensitivity

Victims often face the choice of leaving their community to enter a refuge or staying in an abusive relationship with community connections. One participant pointed out that for Pacifica women involved in a church, it may be necessary for the victim advocate to speak with the victim and the minister of her church to keep her safe. Otherwise, the woman has to choose between safety and her church, and in those situations, victims will choose their church, because “the church is like her village, and culturally, you don’t leave your village” (Education coordinator, 3-12-14). In these cases, it is crucial to have support in reporting intimate partner violence, so safety planning necessarily involves other people, such as other church members or extended family. Some participants pointed out that Māori women were more likely to bring someone in with them to a safety planning meeting. One educator in a Māori women’s refuge said, “For Māori women, you can’t do safety in isolation; culturally, it makes no sense to do things alone. . . . So for Māori women, safety planning includes identifying their support system” (Te kaitaunaki, 2-26-14). The impact of capitalism and colonialism, however, is that the nuclear family model is imposed on service provision; for Māori women, family violence affects an entire group of people considered family, but outside the husband/wife/children model (Kruger, 2004). “In Māori culture, crimes were traditionally addressed by an entire family, and family means a minimum of 10 people” (Te kaitaunaki, 2-26-14). Because the connection to family is traditionally very strong in Māori culture, one of the first questions to a new client in a Māori refuge may be “Where is your family now?” (Support worker, 3-24-14). One Māori refuge on the North Island trains its workers to ask first, “are you safe enough to talk?” but the second question is about the victim’s ethnicity so that she can be connected to culturally appropriate services (Te Kaitaunaki, 2-26-14).

Unique Insights Into the Situation

Several participants pointed out that the victim is a complete stranger to them, so having someone in the meeting who knows the victim and is familiar with her situation is very helpful. “They have insight we haven’t . . . we expect and welcome other people’s input” (Community worker, 3-21-14). Allies often have memories of past incidents that offer insights into safety planning, and they may bring up options the victim has not considered. “It is good to watch the dynamic play out [between the victim and her social support]” (Education coordinator, 3-12-14).

Social Change

Finally, some participants pointed out that having a member of the victim’s social network in a safety planning meeting is an opportunity to provide education about domestic violence, and in the process, they improve the quality of support for the victim.

For example, most participants emphasized that negative comments from allies were rare; most of them came to support the victim. The occasional negative comments typically revealed stereotypes about victimization (“she could just leave”) or that victims had not disclosed everything that had happened. Participants typically responded to negative comments by asking the person to explain her reasoning and using the opportunity for education about the dynamics of domestic violence. “Sometimes it may be best to bring them [friends, family, etc.] to talk about supporting her, because some people don’t realize [they are not being supportive]” (Victim advocate, 3-3-14). “The trick is to identify supportive people and get them to see how they can be helpful in safety planning. . . . It’s about social change on the one hand, and about practical support on the other” (Te Kaitaunaki, 2-26-14). Nevertheless, most advocates could describe a protocol for asking an ally to leave the meeting if they continued to be unsupportive.

Conclusion

Results of this study suggest that from the perspective of domestic violence workers in New Zealand, the intentional inclusion of informal community members in safety planning is beneficial in terms of providing emotional support for victims, providing increased monitoring of both the victim and the offender, supporting the logistics of escaping violence, respecting cultural connections to community, and encouraging social change that will ultimately provide a more supportive environment for victims.

Although this study is limited to descriptive data, there are several ways in which it contributes to the literature on policies addressing violence against women. First, there are few studies on safety planning practices, either of a descriptive or evaluative nature, so victim advocates operate with little understanding of what others in their position are doing across cultural settings. In fact, participants in the study often expressed interest in having information about safety planning practices in other agencies and other countries. The sharing of safety planning practices across cultures, then, is in and of itself valuable.

Second, safety planning practices in New Zealand place emphasis on cultural sensitivity and incorporate cultural practices into protocols on safety planning. These results could be useful for programming in other cultural contexts where abuse victims in marginalized populations hesitate to seek refuge because they would have to leave their community. This does not eliminate the need for refuge, but offers another option to victims with strong connections to their community network, that is, utilizing community supports to keep battered women safe while preserving their connections to community. This approach recognizes the relative definition of “safety” in the whirlwind dynamics of interpersonal and structural violence.

Third, the inclusion of social networks in safety planning for victims may be especially meaningful in communities with few resources, or those where shelters are forced to turn women away due to lack of space or staffing. In some places, domestic violence organizations work with both professional networks (local police departments, and other relevant agencies, depending on the case) and informal networks (social support of the victim) to allow battered women to remain in their homes. For example, the Shine safe@home program originated in Auckland, but is also used in Canterbury on the south island of New Zealand. The program includes a menu of security measures and social support that allows abused women and their children to stay in their home “. . . whilst simultaneously receiving specialist support and advice to move towards a life free from violence, either with or without their partner” (Aviva, 2013). Particularly in communities with few resources, the ability to enlist informal social networks in the support of victims of intimate partner violence may be a way to create safe space without the cost of building a shelter (e.g., Sudderth, 2013). In addition, finding ways to encourage and enlist community members in the creation of safe space opens up possibilities for places where the lack of anonymity hinders help seeking—island communities, rural areas, small towns, and college campuses. The use of informal community, then, may be one way to create safe space for battered women without establishing a physical shelter or separating victims from their social network.

Fourth, these practices of including community networks in safety planning speak to the relationship between crime, victimization, and community. Certainly, including informal social support allies in a safety plan does not mean they take on the role of law enforcement or replace medical care. However, B. Martin and Hand (2006) argue that communities have a responsibility to act against domestic violence, and that obligation to act may include linking victims to appropriate services, being another “set of eyes” that monitor a violent relationship, or simply being an informed “point of contact.” Similarly, the utilization of community networks to enhance safety undermines the social entrapment encountered by battered women as they try to resist or get away from violence (Ptacek, 1999) through targeted education of the victim’s social support network. “Informed individuals are threads in the fabric of communities which, in turn, weave the larger institutional systems of society as a whole” (B. Martin & Hand, 2006, p. 55). The approach articulated in this study is to place the victim in a context in which she has support within the community or within her social network, whether or not she goes to shelter. The assumption is that the increased monitoring by friends, family, or other allies interrupts isolation, enhances social and logistical support, and, especially in more community-oriented cultures, couches the victim in a safer environment, one more aware and less tolerant of intimate partner violence.

There are two related limitations to this research. First, Pacific Island refuges and services in New Zealand are not adequately represented in the sample. Some participants did discuss safety planning with Pacific Island clients, but none of them worked for the agency that caters to Pacific Island women. Because Pacific Island cultures, such as the Māori, tend to be very community-oriented, the addition of data from these types of service providers would have greatly enhanced our understanding of the role of community in safety planning. A related second limitation is that refuges on the northern part of the North Island are under-represented in this sample. This is mainly due to financial constraints on the research project, which limited travel and time. Because many services for Pacific Island women are located in this part of New Zealand, the two limitations are intertwined.

These shortcomings, however, do not negate the value of community-based approaches to safety planning. In fact, they suggest that more research is necessary to add Pacific Island perspectives to the portfolio of safety planning practices in New Zealand. Moreover, this study offers insights into safety planning practices in a country that encourages community-level intervention in intimate partner violence. New Zealand is unique in its efforts to incorporate indigenous values into social service delivery, and these interviews tap into the experience of frontline service providers who implement safety planning that draws on the strengths of Māori culture.

This study provides both academic and practical benefits, including documentation of the types of protocols used by domestic violence organizations, innovative practices in serving diverse populations, and sociological insights into the role of social networks in keeping victims safe. Although it was important to understand the perspective of educators and victim advocates in these organizations because of their experience and expertise in working with victims of domestic violence (Sullivan et al., 2008), future studies should examine how victims perceive their informal social support system in terms of their safety. In addition, both victims and victim advocates would benefit from evaluative studies that could articulate the impact of informal social support or safety conferencing on outcomes related to safety. Future studies should systematically compare safety planning practices that purposefully include the social networks of the victims. The intentional inclusion of community support networks in safety planning inspires broader questions about the role of community in responding to intimate partner violence in different cultural contexts, and with a continuum of resources, established services, and government support.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Annabel Taylor and Claire Gray for their support and assistance during this project. I would also like to express my gratitude to all the participants who took time out of very busy days to share their insights with me.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was partially funded by a Galpin Internalization Grant administered through Quinnipiac University.

Notes

Author Biography

Lori K. Sudderth is a professor of criminal justice in the Sociology Department at Quinnipiac University in Hamden, Connecticut in the United States. Her research focuses on policy responses to violence against women in the United States and internationally, including the challenges of providing services and safety to victims of gendered violence in different contexts, such as geographic isolation, migration, and extreme poverty.

References

Aviva. (2013). The Canterbury context for Shine safe@home service. Retrieved from http://www.avivafamilies.org.nz/Services/Shine-safehome/

Boshier

(2006). Achieving an effective response to domestic violence. Te Awatea Review, 4, 3-6.

Bybee

D. I.

Sullivan

C. M.

(2002). The process through which a strengths-based intervention resulted in positive change for battered women over time. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 103-132.

Campbell

J. C.

(2004). Helping women understand their risk in situations of intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1464-1477.

Campbell

J. C.

Webster

Koziol-McLain

Block

C. R.

Campbell

Curry

M. A.

. (2003). Assessing risk factors for intimate partner homicide. National Institute of Justice Journal, 250. Retrieved from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/jr000250e.pdf

Campbell

Gray

Brogden

(2012). Peer support: Reframing the journey from lived experience of domestic violence. Te Awatea Review, 10, 18-22.

Crichton-Hill

(2010). Changing landscape: Responding to domestic violence in New Zealand. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 22, 12-19.

Crichton-Hill

Taylor

(2013). Intimate partner violence. In Taylor

Connolly

(Eds.), Understanding violence: Context and practice in the human services (pp. 102-117). Christchurch, New Zealand: Canterbury University Press.

Davies

(2009). Advocacy beyond leaving: Helping battered women in contact with current or former partners. Washington, DC: Family Violence Prevention Fund.

10.

Davies

Lyon

Monti-Catania

(1998). Safety planning with battered women: Complex lives/difficult choices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

11.

Domestic Violence Act. (1995). An act to provide greater protection from domestic violence (Public Act 1995 No 86). Retrieved from http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1995/0086/latest/DLM371926.html

12.

Domestic Violence Reform Bill. (2008). Amendments to Domestic Violence Act 1995 (Government Bill 304–1). New Zealand Legislation. Retrieved from http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2008/0304/latest/whole.html

13.

Drumm

(2007). Turning the tide: A national and local coordinated approach to addressing domestic violence in the United Kingdom. Auckland, NZ: Preventing Violence in the Home. Retrieved from www.2shine.org.nz/LiteratureRetrieve.aspx?ID=135059

14.

Fanslow

Robinson

(2004). Violence against women in New Zealand: Prevalence and health consequences. New Zealand Medical Journal, 11, 1-12.

15.

Fanslow

Robinson

(2010). Juxtaposing beliefs and reality: Prevalence rates of intimate partner violence and attitudes to violence and gender roles reported by New Zealand women. Violence Against Women, 16, 812-831.

16.

Felson

(1998). Crime and everyday life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

17.

Ferraro

K. J.

(2006). Neither angels nor demons: Women, crime, and victimization. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

18.

Fortune

M. M.

(1993). The nature of abuse. Pastoral Psychology, 41, 275-288.

19.

Fox-Genovese

(1991). Feminism without illusions: A critique of individualism. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

20.

Garcia-Moreno

Jansen

H. A. F. M.

Ellsberg

Heise

Watts

(2006). Prevalence of intimate partner violence: Findings from the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence. Lancet, 368, 1260-1269.

21.

Goodman

L. A.

Epstein

(2008). Listening to battered women: A survivor-centered approach to advocacy, mental health, and justice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

22.

Haldane

H. J.

(2009). The provision of culturally specific care for victims of family violence in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Global Public Health, 4, 1-13.

23.

Hardin

(1996). Family group conferences in child abuse and neglect cases: Learning from the experience of New Zealand. Washington, DC: ABA Center on Children and the Law.

24.

Hart

(1990). Safety planning for children: Strategizing for unsupervised visits with batterers. Reading: Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

25.

Hart

Stuehling

(1992). Personalized safety plan. Reading: Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

26.

Jeanne Geiger Crisis Center. (2012). Programs and services. Retrieved from http://jeannegeigercrisiscenter.org/home/programs-services/

27.

Kelly

K. A.

(2003). Domestic violence and the politics of privacy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

28.

Knickmeyer

Levitt

Horne

S. G.

(2010). Putting on Sunday best: The silencing of battered women within Christian faith communities. Feminism & Psychology, 20, 94-113.

29.

Kocot

Goodman

(2003). The roles of coping and social support in battered women’s mental health. Violence Against Women, 9, 323-346.

30.

Koss

M. P.

(2000). Blame, shame, and community: Justice responses to violence against women. American Psychologist, 55, 1332-1343.

31.

Krug

E. G.

Dahlberg

L. L.

Mercy

J. A.

Zwi

A. B.

Lozano

(2002). World report on violence and health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

32.

Kruger

(2004). Transforming whānau violence: A conceptual framework. Available from http://www.nzfvc.org.nz

33.

Leatherman

J. L.

(2011). Sexual violence and armed conflict. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

34.

Manjoo

(2011). Report of the special rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences (Human Rights Council, Seventeenth session). New York: United Nations General Assembly.

35.

Martin

Hand

(2006). Community responsibility for freedom from abuse. Women’s Studies Journal, 20, 48-58.

36.

Martin

Levine

(2010). Safe@home evaluation. Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Social Development.

37.

McLauchlan

(2014). A short history of New Zealand. Auckland, New Zealand: David Bateman.

38.

Mills

L. G.

(2003). Insult to injury: Rethinking our responses to intimate abuse. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

39.

Ministry of Social Development. (2009). Campaign for action on family violence: Impact of the It’s Not Ok Television Advertisements. Wellington, NZ: Author. Retrieved from http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/research/campaign-action-violence-research/

40.

Mirsky

(2003). Family group conferencing worldwide: Part one in a series (Restorative Practices eforum). Available from www.restorativepractices.org

41.

Moe

A. M.

(2007). Silenced voices and structured survival: Battered women’s help seeking. Violence Against Women, 13, 676-699.

42.

Moore

A. M.

Smith

(2008). The future of interventions to reduce intimate partner violence: Moving forward while learning from past experiences. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 32, 309-320.

43.

Moorfield

J. C.

(2014). Te Aka online Māori dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.maoridictionary.co.nz/

44.

Morrison

Smith

Gregg

(2010). The New Zealand Crime and Safety Survey: 2009 main findings report. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Justice.

45.

National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges (NCIWR). (2012a). Core group. Retrieved from https://womensrefuge.org.nz/WR/About-Us/our-structure

46.

National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges (NCIWR). (2012b). Our story: Working for women past, present and future. Retrieved from http://a1test.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Our-Story1.pdf

47.

National Network to End Domestic Violence. (2013). 13 domestic violence counts: National summary. Retrieved from http://nnedv.org/projects/census/4225-domestic-violence-counts-census-2013-report.html

48.

New Zealand Ministry of Justice. (2013). Introduction. Retrieved from http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/publications-archived/2000/domestic-violence-act-1995-process-evaluation-august-2000/introduction#1

49.

New Zealand Police. (2014). Police safety orders. Retrieved from http://www.police.govt.nz/advice/family-violence/police-safety-orders

50.

Nikolic-Ristanovic

(2002). Social change, gender and violence. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

51.

Paterson

Feehan

Butler

Williams

Cowley-Malcolm

E. T.

(2007). Intimate partner violence within a cohort of Pacific mothers living in New Zealand. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 698-721.

52.

Pence

(1987). In our best interest: A process for personal and social change. Minneapolis: Minnesota Program Development.

53.

Pennell

Francis

(2005). Safety conferencing: Toward a coordinated and inclusive response to safeguard women and children. Violence Against Women, 11, 666-692.

54.

Price

J. M.

(2012). Structural violence: Hidden brutality in the lives of women. Albany: State University of New York Press.

55.

Ptacek

(1999). Battered women in the courtroom: The power of judicial responses. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

56.

Puao-Te-Ata-Tu. (1988). The report of the Ministerial Advisory Committee on a Māori perspective for the Department of Social Welfare. Retrieved from http://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/archive/1988-puaoteatatu.pdf

57.

Renzetti

C. M.

(1992). Violent betrayal: Partner abuse in lesbian relationships. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

58.

Rose

S. D.

(2012). Gender violence: Using culture as a resource in the process of decolonization. Te Awatea Review, 10, 3-7.

59.

Schechter

(1982). Women and male violence: The visions and struggles of the battered women’s movement. Boston, MA: South End Press.

60.

Shepard

M. F.

Pence

(1999). Coordinating community responses to domestic violence: Lessons from Duluth and beyond. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

61.

Stark

(2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. New York: Oxford University Press.

62.

Stark

Flitcraft

(1996). Women at risk: Domestic violence and women’s health. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

63.

Statistics New Zealand. (2013). 2013 Census QuickStats about Māori. Retrieved from http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2013-census/profile-and-summary-reports/quickstats-about-maori-english/population.aspx

64.

Sudderth

L. K.

(2006). An uneasy alliance: Law enforcement and victim advocates in a rural area. Feminist Criminology, 1, 329-353.

65.

Sudderth

L. K.

(2013, May). Empowering the women of Goyena: Domestic violence programming in rural Nicaragua. Presentation at International Development Evaluation Association Global Assembly, Bridgetown, Barbados.

66.

Sullivan

C. M.

Baptista

O’Halloran

Okroj

Morton

Stewart

(2008). Evaluating the effectiveness of women’s refuges: A multi-country approach to model development. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 32, 291-308.

67.

Sullivan

C. M.

Bybee

D. I.

(1999). Reducing violence using community-based advocacy for women with abusive partners. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 43-53.

68.

Tan

Basta

Sullivan

C. M.

Davidson

W. S.

II . (1995). The role of social support in the lives of women exiting domestic violence shelters: An experimental study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10, 437-451.

69.

Taylor

(2006). Victim assistance services in Aotearoa in New Zealand. Te Awatea Review, 4, 11-12.

70.

Websdale

(2003). Understanding domestic violence deaths. National Institute of Justice Journal, 250, 26-31.

71.

Women’s Refuge. (2013a). Annual Report 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013. Wellington, New Zealand: National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges. Available from https://womensrefuge.org.nz

72.

Women’s Refuge. (2013b). Find a local refuge. Wellington, New Zealand: National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges. Available from https://womensrefuge.org.nz

73.

Wurtzburg

S. J.

(2003). The Pacific Island community in New Zealand: Domestic violence and access to justice. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 14, 423-446.