Evidence Centre seminar: August 2019
Published: August 27, 2019
Our August seminar featured two presentations: one looking at family harm initiatives from Police and the other discussing the results of the 2018 NZ Crime and Victims Survey from the Ministry of Justice.
Safer Whānau Initiatives from Police
Bronwyn Marshall is Acting Superintendent, Safer Whānau Business Change Manager at Police. She is currently leading several significant and innovative family harm initiatives. Bronwyn provided a comprehensive overview of the need for change, and described some of the initiatives she is leading such as Video Victim Statements, the multi-agency Integrated Safety Response and Whāngaia Ngā Pā Harakeke pilots, and the transformative changes made to the way Police respond to family harm incidents.
Safe Whānau Initiatives from Police - video transcript
Bronwyn Marshall - Acting Superintendent, Safer Whānau Business Change Manager at Police:
Kia ora. How are you all? Good? Doing good? Hey, I've been told I'm confined to this space, I'm not allowed to move which I find very hard because usually I walk and talk so I'm going to get weird looks from the guy down the back there who's filming us if I start moving too much, so I'm going to find this sort of a bit difficult to stay right here, I'm just warning you now, okay?
I've got notes but I don't usually look at those. I'll flick onto a bit about the work that I've been leading with an amazing team, some of whom are here today and it's called Safer Whānau.
So, the work that we've been doing is looking at and transforming our response to family harm and violence across the country because we became very aware some years ago that we weren't doing a very good job so -- for our victims and for our people that were actually trying to help. So we had a really good look at ourselves to say what could we do to actually change. So we launched into quite an extensive inquiry with our own staff and partners to say what could we do to change and out of that emerged a number of themes and from those themes we did a bit of scoping. We did 11 scoping exercises across the country in different parts of the country to say what could this look like, how could we shape this up, what could we do differently.
And again, this was with partners as well asking those questions, and out of that emerged what became a transformation programme called Safer Whānau and the key elements of that transformation programme called Safer Whānau were the Integrated Safety Response pilots which was done in conjunction with all of our multiagency partners, we became the operational lead but it is very much a multiagency programme of work.
Underneath that or aligned with that are the Proximity Alarms pilot which is going to be happening this year, I'll tell you a bit more about that soon.
Whāngaia Ngā Pa Harakeke, which is a transformational change within New Zealand Police partnering very closely with iwi around how we do the post initial attendance response, we also had a look and tested this concept of victim video statements, which I will talk a bit more about, and Police practice, which was the massive internal change.
So, we were going to domestic incidents and we treated them like incidents but we all know that family violence and harm is episodic in nature, so if you treat it on an incident basis, then you are not going to understand what has been going on. You're not going to understand the patterns of coercion and control. So it's really important for our staff to understand this episodic nature of harm, so we had to change from going to a domestic incident to something else for Police staff.
So, we came up with family harm investigation, because we want our people to look deeper at the context of what is actually occurring there. Sometimes, we are going to find family violence there, yeah. Sometimes, we just find harm and hurt, actually. We see people in pain and in crisis that just need some help. So we needed our staff to understand that.
So, what we did is we employed what we called an "Eyes Wide Open" approach. Some of you may have seen this before. So when we launched into this campaign, which is really a campaign of change and I guess transforming hearts and minds of our people, it was really important for us to really try and change some of the language that we were using within our organisation and it was really intentional to do that. We had a bit of a research document done by our intelligence team that looked at what were some of the compounding factors that we should be looking for when we are very privileged to go into people's homes and what we saw from there is a transformation in the response.
Now, we haven't got it perfect, I'm not claiming perfection, okay, we still make mistakes but what I did see and what I have seen over the years since that time is our staff looking at things really differently. We've heard really amazing stories of frontline staff walking into what is presented as a violent situation but it's people distressed and arguing over the fact there literally is no food in the fridge, their power's just been turned off. Stories of cops going to supermarkets and getting food. I know that you guys do that stuff too, you know, out of your own pocket. I know that all of you that have been frontline workers have done stuff like this as well.
So when you start hearing the stories coming back, you actually can start seeing that our staff are looking and perceiving things differently when they go into homes to help people.
So, it's all very well us having a look at that sort of stuff, trying to change our culture and approach. It took quite a bit of training, we need to do a lot of embedding, but it is really important that we keep pushing on this and keep pushing for change so that we get different outcomes for the families that we are trying to help. But we don't do this in isolation. So, understanding, too, that when we go there, we're also getting information to pass onto our partners so that we can give our families further help.
So, one of the things that we did do is we looked at the tools that we were using to assess risk within our organisation when we're at family harm investigations and family violence and we were using a tool called ODARA. ODARA was developed in Ontario, it's the Ontario Domestic Assessment for Re-assault and it was great for Ontario. Internationally, it had great reviews, we put it into the New Zealand context. It did not apply in the New Zealand setting, okay. We used it for a number of years, reviews were done and it proved that it actually was not good for New Zealand. So what we did was we embarked on quite a journey and we -- Elaine actually was involved in this -- but we also got a clinical psychologist involved, statisticians involved, and we looked at data in our system, we did regression analysis on multiple different variables -- how many? 42 different variables, I think it was, to have a look if we could come up with a past harmonious model that was derived from information within our system to create a static assessment for family violence recidivism for New Zealand based on New Zealand information.
So, we did that. And we actually came up with a static measure that is holding steady at a 0.74 AUC (Area Under the Curve). So that's actually very good statistically, so we are really happy with that.
Then the question was, "How am I going to apply that in operational practice? Because if I say that to frontline staff, they're not going to be very happy", right? So I had to think about how could we actually operationalise this so we can actually use it in the field to help our frontline staff assess what is going on at the scene or help inform what's the likelihood this person might reoffend when they're on scene. So, we actually built that into our system so that when a frontline staff member attends a family harm investigation, they can query a person which we can do on our Police iPhones, and it will surface that in the context of a family harm investigation.
Then what happens is we also looked at what are some dynamic questions, because you know static's good, it's a latent measure of the likelihood, but what are some dynamic questions we need to ask at the scene, so we again reviewed that, looked at international research, looked at research in New Zealand, and ascertained a set of what is 16 questions for a dynamic assessment at the scene.
So it really transformed Police response. We also developed an app, so our frontline staff can actually use an app on their Police iPhones to do this, so they don't have to calculate anything, they just have to get our people, our victims there to answer some questions, yes/no questions, they can even lock their phone and hand their phone to a victim and allow the victim to answer it themselves without actually verbalising it. It's quite a different -- provides quite a different opportunity for interaction. Then the phone actually does a calculation and it adds together static assessment, the response to the dynamic assessment and gives an overall level of concern for safety at the scene. So it's very much operationalising what has been very well researched and is definitely a tool that we have that is valid for New Zealand.
So from that, we thought, "Okay, it's really good, our staff knowing what our total concern for safety is, but then what do they do?"
So, I had worked with Rachael Smith, who was then with the Family Violence Death Review Committee, and she came up and helped me develop a graduated Family Harm Response Model, which is a set of safety actions that an officer can take at the scene based on this assessment that they do for the victim, the children and the perpetrator.
Does that all make sense to you, or is that just babble? Got it? Yeah? Makes sense? So it's all very evidence-based. Our frontline officers put this into practice, underneath it all is a whole pile of research and evidence to support the assessment tools that we're using, yeah? And so out of that, officers create a frontline safety plan. Simple.
What's really great, having an app to do this with, is that we can actually press little buttons on the app to automatically send a Child Protection Referral to Oranga Tamariki. We can press a button on the phone to immediately call a Critical Incident Service across this line for family violence. We can immediately, if, say, the offender's decamped from the scene, press a button on the phone and create an alert in the system to say, "Hey, this person's decamped and we need to find them".
So it's pretty amazing what you can do with technology to enable really different actions and responses at the scene, and our big focus when we did this transformation for our staff was focus on the people and less on the process and we're giving you some tools to help you do that.
So that's been happening now for over a year, so it was May last year that we actually rolled that out nationally.
The other thing that we've actually done is a bit different and it's quite exciting because we've now got funding for national rollout is we did a proof of concept originally for Victim Video Statements. We did a test in Palmerston North, we did a -- got a decision from a judge said that -- the judge said we needed the evidence regulations change, we worked with MoJ, MoJ got the evidence regs changed, awesome, and what it is, is we take a little ten minute video on our -- again on our Police iPhones of a victim on the scene, "Tell me about what happened tonight", and what's really exciting, as of 3 December last year, that evidence can be used as evidence in chief in Court. Yeah. So we got a proper academic evaluation done to determine whether this was worthwhile to do. I know that you're all thinking this is a no-brainer, eh? Yeah.
So, what we found, 77 times more likely to obtain a guilty plea with a victim video statement than without. That's pretty amazing, eh? The other really cool thing is 58% of the cases where there's a victim video statement plead guilty at or before a case review hearing, which means that it opens up other opportunities for conversation around what's going to happen with that person, maybe non-custodial options, depending on lots of other factors, but it opens up the opportunity for that conversation.
I think in terms of an evidence base to support something, victims have told us that it is way better for them. We've taken in across Tāmaki Makaurau over 2,000 videos now, only one has gone hostile or been a hostile witness in Court, then the video was played, the judge was lovely, the judge said to the victim, "Look, I understand why you're saying what you're saying now, but I believe what you said at the time", yeah? And then put in an appropriate response in place, because they wanted to be back together. But without that victim video, we couldn't have done that, you know? So this is -- I just think this is an amazing tool, it's been rolled across the country, we got money in the budget to do that and we're working really closely with MoJ and with Corrections to make that happen, so that's really exciting.
And again, this piece of research of the evaluation done by Dr Darren Walton and Robert Brooks is being published or it was published in Academic Journal, wasn't it, Bobby? Yeah. Can you remember the name of the journal? The Journal of Interpersonal Violence, yeah. So it's an international journal, so it was actually published in that, so a pretty exciting piece of work.
One of the other pieces of work that we're doing at the moment, we're going to be piloting these things called proximity alarms. Again, in terms of the evidence basis around this is that we've been getting -- we've got our evaluation planned for this. We did feasibility testing, so proximity alarms are a device -- have you all heard of EM bail? Electronic Bail. Yeah. So, electronic bail is a device on the perpetrator, yeah, and it -- often they have to stay in a particular location or they have got like the geo located, right, with the device. But there's nothing there for the victim in that. With this system, the victim has an app on their phone and if the perpetrator comes within a 15 kilometre proximity of that victim, an alarm will sound anywhere the victim is.
It also allows for geo ring fencing, so you can geo ring fence locations, so the victim's house, school, all that sort of stuff. It means that a perpetrator can actually be out going to work, attending courses around their support networks as long as they stay away from the victim.
In the ISR sites we were doing this, Integrated Safety Response sites we were doing this, there's a victim specialist working with the victim, creating a victim safety plan, there's a perpetrator specialist working with the perpetrator creating a plan and supporting positive behaviour with the perpetrator. So we're about to do -- or start to do, we're building up -- to do a pilot on this this year. So it's new, it's a different way of doing things and it's going to be interesting to see how that goes with all the safety elements that we've got in place.
Now, we did significant feasibility testing before we came to this, so we did an RFI, we tested three different providers, we got actors out there in the field, police officers make very good actors, we had -- my team were our victims and offenders, they were stalking each other, they were doing all sorts of stuff out there trying to see what was the best advice to use, what was the most accurate device to use that had the best coverage, the usability elements, all that sort of stuff, and we've arrived at one particular set out of all that testing and studying and evaluating all that. So it will be great to see this working this year.
The other pieces of work that we have been doing are very much centered around integrated practice, so we've got Whāngaia Ngā Pa Harakeke and we've got the Integrated Safety Response pilot.
So, I've been in the Police for 26 years and -- I know I don't look like that -- what I've found in my time in Police is that I meet tonnes and tonnes of people that do really amazing work, you know, from every different agency and from the NGO sector I think there are so many amazing people that do this amazing work, but the problem that we have is that we don't work well together. And it's true. And it's tragic. Because actually, we all really care about our families that we're working with. We all do. We're passionate about it. It can bring me to tears. I've seen so many things operationally that actually, you know, they are horrible things to see. We see people in crisis collectively, you know. And it's really tragic that we don't work well together. It breaks my heart.
What I love about these two different models is that this is us trying to actually bring ourselves together to work together in a different way, and I tell you what, when you get it right, it is brilliant. And we do have pockets of brilliance around this country where there is amazing relationship formed by different operational workers on the ground that are just getting out there, doing the mahi, and they do it well together. But we actually need to make that something that we do as a country. Everywhere. Put aside our individual "this is my little silo world that I'm living in" and actually expand and actually think and trust our partners. I think that's essential. It's really essential.
And in these pilots I've seen this happening and it's exciting to see it happening, it's exciting to see the outcomes that occur when this does happen.
What we've done is that we've evaluated these things, yep. So with Whāngaia Ngā -- so that, that's just a little bit about the integrated practice and how we weave together and how we explained it to our staff.
With Whāngaia Ngā Pa Harakeke, it's in 13 different locations now around the country, yeah. So, we started it in pilot sites, Counties Manukau, Te Hiku and Tairāwhiti. Counties Manukau's more of a metro style model, Te Hiku is a partnership with Iwi with the -- under the Te Hiku Social Accord, and Tairāwhiti is very much a partnership with Iwi and providers as well are involved in Tairāwhiti.
In the other parts of the country -- in other parts of the country, they have formed in different ways, so Whāngaia, if you hear that, is the Police starting a conversation -- that's all it is -- with the community to say, "How do we do this differently together?" and then the community decides how they're going to do it differently together. And, yes, we're involved, we are the conversation starter, but it's very much what the community wants to create. So, in Rotorua it's called Collective Impact. In Whanganui, it's called Flow. In Te Hiku, it's called Whiria te Muka. In other parts, they have adopted the name Whāngaia Ngā Pa Harakeke because that was actually gifted to us by the Commissioner's Maori Advisory Forum. So they've actually claimed that name for themselves, which is lovely, but I went to a presentation in Dunedin and it was from Dunedin and Invercargill communities around how they were going to do Whāngaia Ngā Pa Harakeke together and it was the most beautiful thing that I have seen. It was beautiful. And at the end of it, there was this choir down there, a kapa haka group actually, but that's of all of our different agencies and NGOs that have all come together and they waiata together and they -- it's changing the culture of who they are because they're starting to collectivise in terms of who they are. It's a beautiful thing to see.
And it actually creates different outcomes for our families. So what we found in this evaluation in Counties Manukau is that we've got a 15% reduction in harm, which is pretty great.
I'm going to flick through because I only have probably four minutes left now.
The other great thing that we've done is we've done evaluations of the Integrated Safety Response pilot. Elaine's been heavily involved in this. What we did this year is when New Zealand Victims of Crime Survey came out, I said to Jo Ryan, who's on my team, who's from Oranga Tamariki -- thank you, Oranga Tamariki, for giving me Jo for a while, really appreciate it -- what I got her to do was compare the data that we have in the Family Safety System for ISR and Whāngaia and compare it to New Zealand Victims of Crime data, because I wanted to see, are we a long way out, do we sort of match? Guess what? It's pretty similar. It's amazing how similar.
So we've got three years' worth of data now for Christchurch, about two and a half years for Waikato, there's about a year's worth in there for Counties Manukau and then about three or four months for some of the other smaller Whāngaia sites, but it's amazing to see how aligned we actually are with New Zealand Victims of Crime data. So that's exciting, I was a bit excited. Michael was a bit excited too, which is cool.
And it is really interesting to know that people are more likely to report an intimate partner than they are family members, you know, so that's a little bit of a breakdown from our system about who reports the information to us, it's quite interesting. Just flick on a bit.
The other thing that we're doing within the ISR sites is we're doing these pre and post assessments. So I spoke to Treasury quite some time ago because we wanted to figure out how to measure whether we were making a difference for the families, and I guess psychologists have been doing this for years, different disciplines have been doing this for years, you're doing the pre and post surveys, and what we found from doing the pre and post surveys is that we do, we are having positive outcomes, you know, and so the people are telling us that actually the intervention that they're getting is actually helping them, and I think that's a win, yeah. I'll claim that. On behalf of everybody -- no.
So, it is really exciting to see that people's knowledge of support services has increased, their understanding's increased which is really, really important. I tell you what, when you go to -- and I welcome any of you to come along to an ISR Multiagency Table, Grainne Moss went just 12 July to Christchurch and saw it in action and saw a case where a young, a child had come -- it was a child focused one and the social worker got up off the table and took action straight away, it was that critical, and so did Police. It was one of those very -- once we brought all the risk information together collectively, suddenly a different picture surfaced.
The really interesting thing that I found about that sharing information in the sense of understanding risk for families is that no one of our agencies knows everything. The most frightening one was right at the start for me, still sticks in my head, we had one report and ACC had 85 reports of a person "falling down the stairs", but the mechanism of injury did not match the injuries that the person had sustained.
Or another lady, where an engine block had fallen on her foot six times, and she's not a mechanic. And it is actually frightening when you start seeing the information that we collectively hold that actually really clearly demonstrates that people are at very extreme risk, and we really do need to do this. The ISR sites demonstrate it really clearly. Whāngaia sites, there's only if the relationships are good that you get people around the table. That's the weakness of Whāngaia. The strength of Whāngaia is the partnership with Iwi and the number of police staff that are supporting the partnership, the partnered response post initial attendance. That's the reality.
So, what we've got, we brought a little handout of the emerging findings from the latest evaluation which is not let published but we have published emerging findings. They were available at the back of the room. These are some of the little bits and pieces that we've found and overall we're finding that ISR is a really effective response, particularly for Maori. We got an 18% reduction in re-victimisation for Maori from a specific Kaupapa Māori element of the evaluation that was actually done.
But for everybody, very positive results, lots of things to still do. It's not perfect, it's a continuous improvement model. So, I'm a big believer of let's just get out there and do something differently together and we can just change it as we go. Don’t wait til you've got it perfect to start something. That's my view of the world.
So, I am a real believer of get out there, do something different, try and help families as best as we can together and then we will develop and change and grow it, you know, each community's going to be a little bit different.
So, some great, great evidence which supports this and I mean, of course, for Treasury we did the CBA. Anybody here from Treasury? Which really shows that it's got massive benefits. And this is their -- this is what I like. Unambiguously positive. How about that?
But that's from us working together differently, so it's pretty exciting to see what we can do when we transform and change our response collectively.
End of transcript.
NZ Crime and Victims Survey from the Ministry of Justice
Dr Michael Slyuzberg is a Principal Advisor in the Research and Evaluation team at the Ministry of Justice. Michael is a researcher and a statistician who has lead multiple research projects including initiatives like publishing Inland Revenue’s tax statistics, international benchmarking of tax authorities performance, and the redesign and implementation of the NZ Crime and Victims Survey (NZCVS). In this presentation, he discussed the 2018 results of the NZCVS, which has received extensive media feedback.
NZ Crime and Victims Survey from the Ministry of Justice - video transcript
Dr Michael Slyuzberg - a Principal Advisor in the Research and Evaluation team at the Ministry of Justice:
Thank you (inaudible) and thank you Oranga Tamariki for inviting us. It's kind of mission impossible to report the results of a crime and victims survey within 20 minutes so my first suggestion is don't pay too much attention to numbers. I will bombard you with numbers but it's more about story rather than numbers and all the numbers are available from the website in many different formats.
So, New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey, a national survey which substitutes the formerly run New Zealand Crime and Safety Survey, which was disconnected in 2014. We believe that NZCVS is really a big improvement, both in terms of methodology and in terms of value for money, and in terms of effectiveness and in terms of accuracy which is probably the most important. The survey is delivering all core crime and victimisation measures. For New Zealand what is important that we are talking about both reported and not reported to police crime, so this data is very, very different from admin data provided by police. The survey covers 12 months back from the date of an interview, that's another important thing to understand. The results we report is not crime in 2017, it's crime 12 months before the date of interview and the interviews are ongoing.
We interview 8,000 people annually and meanwhile we have money for three years, then we will see. The case bit for Treasury is on my desk but just keeping finger's crossed. However, 24,000 interviews will be finalised by September 2020 and it's a lot. We are using two samples about two-thirds it's a core sample developed and provided by Statistics New Zealand, about one-third is Māori boosting sample based on data we received from Electoral Committee. These are face to face interviews, no way to make it on phone or online, it's too sensitive and too sophisticated. The important difference with NZCASS is that we allow people, especially highly victimised people, to cluster, to group similar incidents, which is very important in terms of resulting data and accuracy because you can imagine if a person says that they were victimised, family violence types of incidents, 120 times a year we can't ask to describe all these incidents and NZCASS in this situation imputed 119 based on 1, which was far from ideal and now we have I believe much, much more robust approach.
The survey consists of two modules, one module is the core one which is repeated without any changes every year which allows us to build robust time series, the second module is what we call in depth module and it is changing every year and focussed on particular prioritised types of offences and for the first year it was family violence. And the last very important difference is that our coding system of four types of offences was developed by our friends from police, and so we are pretty confident that our coding and police coding is very similar. We try to be as transparent as possible in terms of the results and every year we are going to release the whole set of reports, including top line report, methodology for each year, which will be consistent but slightly different because of in depth modules, key findings reports, and the whole set of topical reports on prioritised topics which we are working right now, and plan to release by Christmas many of them. All of this is available from the website.
Now, what did we find? 71% of adults, adults means 15 years old and older, did not experience any crime over last 12 months. How to interpret, well, it it's up to you. It's a significant majority but it means that 29% did experience which is not really good. 80% of households didn't experience any household crimes, four out of five. The most widespread offence is burglary which was not surprising, then it was followed by harassment and threatening behaviour and then fraud and deception. We returned fraud and deception as an offence type to Crime and Victim Survey; it was not part of the survey in 2014 and 2009. Māori are significantly more likely to be victims. On all these graphs orange means statistically significant difference from national average. Interestingly, Chinese people are significantly less likely to be victims. Older people are more safe than national average while the highest risk is for 20-29 years old group. One important thing, the survey covers only residential households. We don't ask people in institutions, we don't ask people in prison, so this may a bit affect all the people who live in retirement villages, for example.
There is no difference overall between the level of victimisation for men and women. It's perfectly equal, 29.3%-29.4%, but when you will start breaking down these numbers by offence types you will see in a few minutes the picture is hugely different. There is very little difference in crime between major urban centres, and you can see that we live in the crime capital of New Zealand, 33%, but it's not significantly different from all other urban centres. And again you will see that if you will go down to suburbs level it will change.
Some more important findings; very clear correlation, very clear dependence between the level of victimisation and their life satisfaction. Perfectly linear with very high correlation coefficient. I am not talking about causality(?), I am not saying that happy people experience less crime, maybe it's the other way around, maybe it's those people who experience less crime are more happy, but still there is a very clear correlation. Also a very clear correlation between the level of victimisation and perceived safety of people, which is not surprising of course. Surprising is that we didn't find any difference between disabled and not disabled people. We expected it may be higher for disabled people; no, it's not. And when we go down to offence types, grouped offence types, it's also not. However, there is a huge difference in victimisation level for people with high mental health pressure. We look at three grades, low, moderate and high, even for moderate mental pressure the level of victimisation is significantly higher. Not surprisingly, the higher is the area depravation where people live the higher is level of victimisation, especially for household crime. People with high level of financial hardship have more chance to be victimised, and those living in larger households, and larger households are five or more people, more likely to experience crime. Now, this is a very interesting graph; 4% of victims report 50% of incidents. It's a hugely high concentration. And 11% of victims, one tenth, report three-quarters of all incidents, and we are currently working on a topical report, who are these 4%, what is the difference between them and other people, whom we should focus on in the first instance.
Now family violence and sexual violence. Family violence for the purpose of the survey is any interpersonal violence and some property violence, which is done by family members. Family members in a very wide sense, we often -- we always say family/whanau, so it's more than just immediate relatives. This includes intimate partners of course, both current and ex-partners. I said that the survey asks about what has happened 12 months before the interview, there are 2 exceptions. We ask about sexual violence experience and intimate partner violence experience over their lifetime as well, and the numbers -- the lifetime numbers are really shocking. One in four adults experience sexual violence of different kinds during their lifetime, one in three women. One in six adults experience intimate partner violence over a lifetime, one in five women. Back to 12 months, surprisingly the number of adults experiencing family violence from their partners is more or less equal to violence from other family members. I expected this proportion will be higher but it's not. 71% of victims are women, 71%. Māori people experience family violence twice more often than pākehā. In terms of age, 40% are young people, 15 to 29. Interestingly, and they can't explain it, we have a bit of a drop for the age group 30 to 39 and then it goes up again for 40 to 49 and 50 plus. I don't know how to explain this drop and maybe the second year will clarify -- the second year data collection will clarify the situation. We assess that almost 45,000 of adult New Zealanders victimised by their intimate partners, 30,000 current partners, 16,000 ex-partners. And for intimate partner violence 77% of victims are women, almost half between 15 and 29 years old, and Māori people experience almost three times more intimate partner violence incidents than the national average.
Now we analysed psychological violence and found that more than 100,000 adults experience different types of psychological violence over 12 months which included different things starting from controlling behaviour of different kinds and up to pressing into paid work and stopping from doing paid work. Here the gender proportion is more balanced, 54% of victims are women. If you will combine physical and psychological violence then the number of victims achieves 160,000 adults.
Sexual violence, almost 200,000 sexual assault incidents with 90,000 victims. Here the proportion of women is 80% of victims and 66% of victims are 15 to 29 years old. However, from ethnical perspective there is not much difference between Māori and pākehā for sexual violence. We tried to analyse what are the immediate drivers of crime and of course it's perceptional data, it's what victims told us what they believe triggered the incidents. We found that about 20%, one of five victims, believe that the incident happened because of offender's attitudes towards particular things, such as race, ethnicity, sex, age, religion, disability and so on. Sex is the obvious leader in this list. All other reasons, all other triggers are on the 7% and less percentage level. Sex is their major perceived driver for one-third of interpersonal violence. People believe that one of three incidents of current partner violence was triggered by financial issues. 44%, almost half of family violence incidents, triggered by arguments and it is followed by jealousy. And 40% of family violence incidents happened when an offender was under the influence of alcohol or drugs, 40%.
And finally we analysed within our in depth module family violence victims' experience, what do they feel about support they received after the incident happened. And it's interesting and to me a quite concerning picture. A huge majority, 90% plus, know about support organisations, about helplines, about phone numbers, virtually everybody. But only 23% used this. And when we asked why not people -- about 30% of those who did not use support organisations said, "No, we don't need help" and then they said, "It's a private matter and we wanted to handle it ourselves" which is great if they are able to do it but in many cases this results in repeated victimisation, in increased level of violence, and I think one of the obvious action points from the results of this survey is that we need to talk more with victims and we need to explain to them why it is good to ask for help and why it is not a shame to ask for help.
Just about 23%, under a quarter of all crime, was reported to police. The percentage is very much varying depending on types of crime. 82% of theft from vehicles reported to police which is not surprising, it's insurance, they have to. On the other hand, only 7% of fraud which is probably also not surprising because in many cases people report fraud to their banks, to their financial companies, to their insurance companies and not to police. I was surprised with the pretty high level of family violence reporting, it was 37%, compared to burglaries 36%, or the same, which is to me a very positive sign. And interestingly victims more often report, as Bronwyn said, their intimate partner violence than violence from other family members. My hypothesis is that intimate partner violence is much more repeatable and victims just lose their patience, while other family members it may be more episodic, less frequent.
There are a few factors which affect reporting to the police. We asked people, "Do you consider what has happened as crime or just something wrong but not crime?" and those who don't consider it crime report it to police even in 9% of cases, while those who see it as crime in 33% of cases. And we also asked people to categorise the seriousness of crime on a scale from zero to ten. So those who assess the incident as serious, starting from level seven out of ten, their level of reporting to police is around 40%.
Finally, we tried to use the survey data as much as possible to support policy development, operational decisions, and whatever management decisions. Because of this we try to share this information as wide as possible. From September - and I am keeping fingers crossed - but from September we hope our database will be available from IDI(?). Disclaimer, 93% of the database, because we received consent from victims for 93% of responses. Stats is using our victimisation indicators for their Indicators Aotearoa project. We continue developing our website and we hope in some time to be able to offer interactive tools for people to explore more about that survey data. And one thing I would like to urge you when you will use CVS data, please don't compare the results with NZCASS or internationally because in many cases and most cases we are talking about very small differences, and these are different surveys, this is different methodology, this is different sample size, this is different coding system, so they are just incomparable and the comparison may result in very misleading conclusions. Where to find, as I said, everything is on our website, we have there multiple formats starting from 150 pages full size survey and up to a set of A3 infographics, and up to Excel spreadsheets with aggregated data. And you are very welcome to contact us and ask any questions you have about the survey. Thank you very much.
End of transcript.