Kepa Antric Associates: He Tu Rangatira Te Tuhauora

Kepa Antric Associates
He Tu Rangatira Te Tuhauora
Auckland & Tauranga
www.kepaantricassociates.co.nz
The Role of the Accident Compensation Corporation in

the Prevention of Family Violence in Aotearoa New
Zealand and promising practices to reduce the
incidence and severity of injuries from Family Violence-
related assaults.
Tim Antric
Friday, 13th May 2005

Tim Antric Page 1 of 39
Contents
Abstract 2
Acknowledgements 3
Introduction 3
The Accident Compensation Corporation 3
Family Violence in Aotearoa New Zealand 5
The Cost of Family Violence to the Accident Compensation Corporation 9
Health Promotion 10
Injury Prevention 11
Family Violence Prevention 13
Primary Prevention 13
Secondary Prevention 14
Tertiary Prevention 15
Prevention of Family Violence 15
Parenting Programmes 16
Universal Home Visits 16
Social Marketing 17
Universal Screening 19
Education of Children and Young People 19
Community Development and Action 21
Working with Witnesses of Family Violence 23
Working with adult female victims 25
Working with Perpetrators 26
Government Legislation and Strategy 27
Health promotion: An approach to the prevention of family violence. 28
The Role of ACC in family violence prevention 30
Conclusion 34
References 36
th
Friday, 13 May 2005 Downloaded from http://www.kepaantricassociates.co.nz
Abstract
Family violence has been found to affect families from all cultures, backgrounds
and socio-economic situations. It can occur in all close personal relationships,
wherever individuals are part of a family or fulfilling the role of family.
The Accident Compensation Corporation of Aotearoa New Zealand funds the
care and rehabilitation costs of all New Zealanders injured within the confines of
Aotearoa New Zealand. The huge cost of family violence to the Corporation
requires ACC to act to reduce the impact of family violence on its claim costs.
Through supporting agencies working to reduce family violence at primary,
secondary and tertiary levels, ACC will impact its own costs and thus the levies
to its funders while contributing to making Aotearoa New Zealand a safe place for
all, in line with the New Zealand Injury Prevention Strategy.
Approaches to reducing family violence include parenting programmes, universal
home visits, social marketing, universal screening, education of children and
young people, community development and action, working with victims,
perpetrators and witnesses of family violence and implementing Government
legislation and strategies.
Health promotion theory provides an ideal framework to ensure that family
violence is being addressed at every level. Through identifying effective
interventions and placing them with a health promotion framework,
recommendations for the Accident Compensation Corporation’s role can be
made.
th
Acknowle dgement s
My thanks go to my colleagues at the Accident Compensation Corporation and
the members of the Te Rito Advisory Group for their support and advice in
preparing and writing this paper.
Introduction
This paper will examine the role of the Accident Compensation Corporation in
reducing the incidence and severity of family violence in Aotearoa New Zealand.
It will also provide an overview of family violence and effective health promotion
and injury prevention models to reduce the effect of family violence on society
(Ministry of Social Development 2002, Department of Child, Youth and Family
Services 2001, Ministry of Health 2001).
I will begin by introducing the New Zealand accident compensation scheme and
providing an overview of family violence and its cost to the Corporation. I will
then look at the most common approaches to health promotion and injury
prevention in Aotearoa New Zealand before moving on to explore examples of
initiatives that have taken place both locally and internationally to prevent family
violence, showing how these fit within a health promotion framework and finally,
providing recommendations for the Corporation’s future involvement in this field.
The Accident Compen sation Corporation
The Accident Compensation Corporation / Te Kaporeihana Äwhina Hunga
Whara (ACC) was established on 1st April 1974 to administer a no-fault coverage
against injury scheme for every New Zealander (ACC 2004). The accident
th
compensation scheme administered by the Corporation came into being as a
result of a 1967 Royal Commission looking into workers’ compensation; in 1972
Parliament adopted the recommendations of the Royal Commission and passed
the Accident Compensation Bill into law. The original system had three parts:
• Compensation for work injuries, funded through levies paid by workers and
their employers;
• Compensation for road injuries, funded through levies paid by owners of
motor vehicles;
• Compensation for everyone else, funded through the New Zealand
Government.
There have been many changes in the scope and structure of the Accident
Compensation Corporation since its inception, primarily as a result of changing
legislation. The scheme is now primarily governed by the Injury Prevention,
Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 (IPRC). The IPRC is essentially a set
of regulations governing who is entitled to compensation, what is covered by the
scheme, how the scheme is funded and how much can be paid out to claimants.
A major change brought about by the introduction of the IPRC has been an
increased focus on injury prevention. Section three of the Act provides the
Corporation with the responsibility “to enhance the public good and reinforce the
social contract represented by the first accident compensation scheme by …
minimising both the overall incidence of injury in the community, and the impact
of injury on the community (including economic, social, and personal costs)”
th
(IPRC 2001). Section 263 of the IPRC requires that the Corporation undertake
injury prevention work if this is likely to result in a cost-effective reduction in either
levies or the government contribution to the scheme. The Corporation is also
required to co-ordinate activities with other government agencies to increase the
efficiency and effectiveness of its injury prevention activities.
In addition to its interest in assault as a result of the IPRC, the Corporation is a
key stakeholder in a number of strategies which impact on family violence.
These include:
• Te Rito: New Zealand Family Violence Prevention Strategy (Ministry of Social
Development 2002);
• Crime Reduction Strategy: Action Plan to Reduce Community Violence and
Sexual Violence (Ministry of Justice 2002A).
• New Zealand Injury Prevention Strategy (Minister for ACC 2003);
• Opportunity for All New Zealanders (Office of the Minister for Social
Development 2004).
Whilst not a major stakeholder in the area of assault within these strategies, the
Corporation as a result of its interest in the prevention of intentional injury has the
potential to play a major part in operationalising these strategies.
Family Violen ce in Aotea roa New Zealand
Family violence is a significant issue in Aotearoa New Zealand; it creates major
social and economic costs for our society. Family violence has been found to
th
affect families from all cultures, backgrounds and socio-economic situations. It
compromises the safety of children, adults and elders and its effects are broad
and multi-dimensional. The need to understand and address family violence is
not new, however identifying effective best practice can be problematic. A broad
range of controlling behaviours falls under the banner of family violence. These
typically lead to fear, intimidation and emotional deprivation through
psychological, sexual and emotionally abusive behaviours. Family violence can
occur in all close personal relationships, wherever individuals are part of a family
or fulfilling the role of family. Common forms of violence within the family include:
• Spouse or intimate partner abuse (violence and abuse between adult
partners);
• Child abuse or neglect (abuse and neglect of children by an adult);
• Elder abuse or neglect (abuse and neglect of people over the age of 65 by a
person or persons with whom they have a relationship of trust);
• Parental abuse (violence perpetrated by a child against a parent);
• Sibling abuse (violence perpetrated between siblings).
(Ministry of Social Development 2002, Ministry of Health 2001)
Family violence is a major social problem, estimated to cost Aotearoa New
Zealand between $1.187 billion and $5.302 billion per year (Snively 1994). It
further contributes to the continuation of the cycle of abuse within families and in
society in general (Ministry of Social Development 2002). The perpetrators of the
most severe and lethal cases of family violence are predominantly men; their
th
victims are predominantly women and children. Tangata whenua1 are
significantly over represented as both victims and perpetrators of family violence.
The best available population-based estimates of partner abuse suggest that 15 -
35 percent of women are hit or forced to have sex by their partners at least once
in their lifetime, while seven percent of men report experiencing this type of
abuse. A 1995 study revealed that one in five New Zealand men admitted
assaulting their partners in the previous year (Leibrich, Paulin & Ransom 1995).
Men assaulting their women partners comprise between 86 percent (New
Zealand Police Statistics for 1996/97 operational year, men were the offenders in
86.7 percent of Family violence incidents) and 98 percent (Hamilton Abuse
Intervention Project database, 1991-1994).of family violence-related arrests. New
Zealand studies found that 35 percent of men reported physically assaulting their
partners (Leibrich, Paulin & Ransom 1995) and 33 percent of women reported
physical or sexual abuse from their male partner (Morris 1996).
According to the Ministry of Health (2001), lifetime estimates of child abuse
suggest that between four and ten percent of New Zealand children experience
physical abuse and approximately 18 percent experience sexual abuse.
Between 1996 and 1997, 38,000 children were present during the 30,340 family
violence incidents attended by New Zealand Police; 28,621 were under 10 years
1
Whilst the term Māori is more commonly used to refer to the indigenous peoples of Aotearoa New Zealand, the author
uses the term Tangata Whenua as this is a term used by these peoples as opposed to the term Māori, introduced by the
European colonisers of this land.
th
old, and 9,844 were aged between 10 and 16 years (New Zealand Police 1997).
From interviews with children, researchers found that almost all can describe
detailed accounts of violent behaviour that their mother or father never realised
they had witnessed (Jaffe, Wolf & Wilson 1990).
In the year to June 2000, the Department of Child, Youth & Family Services
assessed 6,833 children as abused or neglected (Ministry of Social Policy (now
Ministry of Social Development) 2001). Further, in the four years to 2002, over
1,600 children under the age of 10 years were sexually abused. Given the
nature of this issue, the number of child victims (as with women) is considered
grossly underrepresented.
Research indicates that there is considerable overlap between physical,
psychological and sexual abuse, and children who are subject to one form of
abuse are significantly more likely to suffer other forms of abuse (Briere & Runtz
1990).
There are significant overlaps between male violence against female partners
and child abuse and neglect. A comprehensive review of studies in this area
indicates that in 30 to 60 percent of families where either child abuse or partner
abuse is found, the other type of abuse occurs also (Edelson 1999). The
likelihood of co-occurrence of child abuse increases with increasing frequency of
partner abuse.
Most research estimates that between two and five percent of the older
population are victims of elder abuse. In Aotearoa New Zealand, based on the
th
1996 census, this means there could be between 8,453 and 21,133 older New
Zealanders suffering from some form of abuse and neglect. Most elder abuse
victims are aged 70 to 84 years, with psychological abuse considered the most
common type of elder abuse (Age Concern New Zealand 1992).
For the purposes of this paper, family violence will be assumed to include
intimate partner abuse and child abuse or neglect. The prevention of parental,
elder and sibling abuse are beyond the scope of this discussion, primarily due to
the lack of clear evidence that these present significant cost to the Accident
Compensation Corporation. It should also be noted that these three areas are
not currently being prioritised within either Opportunity for All New Zealanders or
Te Rito: New Zealand Family Violence Prevention Strategy.
The Cost of Fam ily Violence t o the Accident

Compen sation Corporation
The costs to ACC of providing treatment and entitlements in respect of assault
(excluding sexual abuse) cannot be easily identified, particularly as many claims
are processed through the bulk funded emergency departments of public
hospitals2. Recent estimates of the cost of assault to the Corporation suggested
a possible 6,660 cases at a cost of over NZ$21 million (Stephenson, Trotter &
Langley 2004). According to Statistics New Zealand (2001), “male assaults
female” (i.e., intimate partner abuse) is the most common type of violent crime
2
Public hospital acute services (i.e., emergency departments) within Aotearoa New Zealand are funded by a bulk
payment from ACC to the New Zealand Government. The Ministry of Health is then funded by the Crown to purchase
these services from the District Health Boards on behalf of ACC.
th
recorded by New Zealand Police and thus the most common reported assault.
We can therefore assume that family violence is the most common form of
assault, with intimate partner abuse alone accounting for half the cost of assault
to the Corporation.
Health Promot ion
The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion defines health promotion as “the
process of enabling people to increase control over, and to improve their health”
(World Health Organization 1986). The three strategies for health promotion
identified in the charter are advocacy, enabling and mediating, these are
explained within the Health Promotion Glossary (World Health Organization
1998) as “advocacy for health to create the essential conditions for health...
enabling all people to achieve their full health potential; and mediating between
the different interests in society in pursuit of health”.
The three strategies of health promotion are supported by five key areas for
action:
• Building healthy public policy;
• Creating supportive environments for health;
• Strengthening community action for health;
• Developing personal skills; and
• Reorienting health services.
th
There are many other models for health promotion and a range of theories to
support the different facets of this emerging discipline however, with the
exception of its failure to recognise the social contracts of indigenous peoples
(Lane & Gardiner 2003), the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion is sufficient to
provide a working definition of health promotion.
Under the IPRC, the Corporation clearly has a role to play in reducing the level of
family violence within society and thus reducing its own costs. Section 263 of the
IPRC recognizes that in fulfilling its primary function to reduce personal injury, the
Corporation should seek to:
• Create supportive environments that reduce the incidence and severity of
personal injury; and
• Strengthen community action to prevent personal injury; and
• Encourage the development of personal skills that prevent personal injury.
Clearly health promotion is a role of the Accident Compensation Corporation.
Injury Pre vention
ACC has traditionally involved itself in the prevention of unintentional injury,
mostly in the areas of sport, traffic, workplace and falls. Within these areas, the
Corporation has adopted an injury prevention approach.
Injury prevention is a subset of health promotion, using educational, engineering
and enforcement approaches to reduce injuries within society. Whilst injury
prevention makes use of the models of health promotion, specific models have
th
also been developed. The Spectrum of Prevention (Cohen & Swift 1999)
provides a framework for delivering comprehensive injury prevention
programmes.
Level of Spectrum Definition of Level
Strengthening Individual Knowledge and Skills Enhancing an individual’s capability of preventing injury or
illness and promoting safety
Promoting Community Education Reaching groups of people with information and
resources to promote health and safety
Educating Providers Informing providers who transmit skills and knowledge to
others
Fostering Coalitions and Networks Bringing together groups and individuals for broader
goals and greater impact
Changing Organizational Practices Adopting regulations and shaping norms to improve
health and safety
Influencing Policy and Legislation Developing strategies to change laws and policies to
influence outcomes
Spectrum of Prevention (Cohen & Swift 1999)
Injuries can be prevented at a primary, secondary or tertiary level. Primary
prevention aims to reduce the risk of injury at a population level, secondary
prevention reduces the risk to those in high risk groups whilst tertiary prevention
aims to reduce the reoccurrence of injury.
Whilst acknowledging the above and other models of injury prevention as a
subset of health promotion, this paper will consider primary, secondary and
th
tertiary injury prevention activities as they fit into the framework for health
promotion action proposed by the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion (World
Health Organization 1986). The various activities will be considered as they fit
into a matrix considering healthy public policy, supportive environments for
health, community action, personal skills and health services.
Family Violence Prevention
Given the limited access to University facilities provided by the author’s remote
location, the internet has been utilized to identify and obtain the literature relating
to the prevention of family violence. Initial searches were undertaken using
www.google.com and the key words “family violence” and “primary prevention”,
“secondary prevention” or “tertiary prevention”. The author has also made use of
his substantial connections within the family violence sector in Aotearoa New
Zealand to gain access to documents and research papers produced by the
various government ministries.
Primary Prevention
It is recognised that primary prevention strategies based on risk factors have
limited effectiveness; in common with many health promotion programmes it is
necessary to use broadly based social programmes (Bethea 1999, Edelson
2000). Programmes should be focused on society and not individuals. It should
also be noted that whilst much research has been done on the prevalence of
family violence within Aotearoa New Zealand and elsewhere, little sound
research into the most effective practices is available (Bethea 1999, Family
Violence Prevention Fund 2004).
th
Common features of effective programmes include (Bethea 1999, Family
Violence Prevention Fund 2004):
• Strengthening family and community connections;
• Raising awareness of the unacceptability of family violence;
• Developing networks of agencies and community leaders;
• Changing the social and community conditions which foster violence;
• Making services accountable to the needs of families and communities.
Secondary Prevention
The secondary prevention of family violence is largely concerned with the
potential victims in homes and families in which family violence is already
occurring. This will include child witnesses of intimate partner violence, siblings
of abused children, and so forth. Initiatives here will focus on:
• Addressing the needs of the perpetrator to ensure they do not widen the
scope of their violence given that there is between a 30 and 60 percent
chance of families where either child abuse or partner abuse is found, also
experiencing the other form of abuse (Edelson 1999);
• Working with child and adult witnesses of family violence to develop safety
behaviours and to break the cycle of violence, particularly given the strong
correlations between witnessing family violence as a child and experiencing
family violence in adult intimate relationships (Strauss, Gelles & Steinmetz
1980);
th
• Providing key workers with the skills to recognise and respond appropriately
to families at high risk of violence.
Tertiary Prevention
There are a range of interventions offered within Aotearoa New Zealand to assist
families who have experienced family violence. These include education
programmes for perpetrators and victims delivered by Non-Government
Organisations under the Domestic Violence Act, legislation and systems to
protect women and children from abuse by family members (i.e., Protection
Orders and specific offences relating to family violence) and programmes such
as Strategies with Kids, Information for Parents (SKIP), the Ministry of Social
Development programme to provide parents with non-violent means of
disciplining children along with strategies to raise happy and healthy children.
It is recognised that many initiatives and practices to address family violence will
cross all three levels of injury prevention, this was evidenced most recently in the
Family Violence Funding Circuit Breaker Project, where attempts to categorise
grass root projects to address family violence failed due to linkages between the
levels of prevention (Opie 2004).
Prevention of Family Violen ce
There are a wide range of strategies and programmes operating within Aotearoa
New Zealand to prevent or minimise the occurrence of violence within families. I
shall consider those which have been evaluated here. It should be noted that
th
many potentially effective programme running throughout the world have not
been evaluated due to funding limitations.
Parenting Programmes
A huge diversity of parenting programmes are available throughout the world,
most programmes within Aotearoa New Zealand operate from a parenting skills
development base rather than addressing parenting issues (Dalziel). Parenting
programmes do not fit neatly into a primary, secondary or tertiary prevention
model as they vary considerably in scope, some are aimed at all parents, some
at high risk parents and some at parents who have already abused their children.
The Triple P – Positive Parenting Programme (Sanders, Turner & Markie-Dodd
2002) is an example of a programme that covers a broad range of familial need,
this was the only programme identified that had been evaluated.
The programme reported having a strong theoretical and research base, clear
methods for using learning to inform practice, being specific about parenting
skills and making use of a wide variety of referral routes. Weaknesses of the
programme included a failure to engage with families in greatest need for the
length of a programme and a lack of awareness of gender related power and
control issues (Sanders, Turner and Markie-Dodd 2002)
Universal Home Visits
Bethea (1999) reports that of the range of supports offered to parents, including
long term home visitation, short term home visitation, early and extended
mother/child contact, intensive GP contact, drop-in centres and parenting
th
classes, only long-term visitation has been found to be effective in reducing the
incidence of child abuse as measured by hospital admissions. Results of studies
included improved parental attitude towards children, increased interactions
between parents and children and reduced incidences of child abuse. However
the high costs associated with a universal home visiting programme have
prevented such programmes
Social Marketing
Social marketing is the application of commercial marketing techniques to
achieve social change (i.e., to influence social and health behaviours and
attitudes). It is intended to influence how people think and behave (Nutbeam &
Harris 1999); examples of social marketing materials include television and radio
commercials, advertisements in print media, posters and mailouts.
Many programmes to raise awareness of family violence have been undertaken
throughout the world, examples include the Family Violence Prevention Fund
There’s No Excuse for Domestic Violence, (Fullwood 2002), Freedom From Fear
(Donovan, Francas, Paterson & Zapelli 2000), Aktiv gegen Männergewalt / Active
Against Male Violence (Women Against Violence Europe), Zero Tolerance
Campaign (Women Against Violence Europe) These campaigns largely operate
from the premise that it is necessary to change social norms that allow family
violence to exist. A range of media have been utilised, including posters, print
and broadcast media, information pamphlets, CD ROMs, large scale events and
the internet. The target groups for the campaigns have included the general
public (Fullwood 2002, Women Against Violence Europe), adult males (both
th
perpetrators and non-perpetrators) (Donovan, Francas, Paterson & Zapelli 2000),
boys and young men (Reid Howie Associates Ltd 2001)
The components that contributed to successful social marketing campaigns
included integration of all aspects of the campaign (Donovan, Francas, Paterson
& Zapelli 2000, Reid Howie Associates Ltd 2001), the use of research in
campaign development, the use of a conceptual framework working with relevant
stakeholders throughout the campaign (Donovan, Francas, Paterson & Zapelli
2000), creating critical discussion around the issue of family violence (Reid
Howie Associates Ltd 2001, Women Against Violence Europe) and consistent
use of appropriate promotional strategies (Donovan, Francas, Paterson & Zapelli
2000).
For social marketing campaigns to have maximum effect, they must be
supported by other initiatives able to create and sustain dialogue within
communities, peer groups and families (Women Against Violence Europe). The
evaluations of the programmes discussed above have all claimed increases in
knowledge however few gains have been identified relating to long term
attitudinal and behavioural change. Public awareness campaigns often increase
awareness of services and thus referrals (Hall & Stannard 1997), a useful result
but often not the purpose of these campaigns. Mass media campaigns are of
little use in isolation but rather make up an important component of a
comprehensive strategy to address family violence (Women Against Violence
Europe).
th
Universal Screening
Universal screening of families for family violence has been common in many
countries for some years now, whilst it is only now being introduced to Aotearoa
New Zealand thanks to the recently developed Ministry of Health Family Violence
Intervention Guidelines (Ministry of Health 2002) and associated workforce
development. Evaluations of health care professional training in the USA
(Edelson 2000) have shown that universal screening does increase the
identification of adult-female victims of intimate partner abuse. Edelson does
however caution on the lack of knowledge of the effects of this screening on
those who are not exposed to family violence and the lack of clear evidence of
behaviour change as a result of these interventions
Education of Children and Young People
Edelson (2000) suggests that it is in the area of school-based prevention
programmes that the greatest primary prevention activities relating to family
violence have occurred. Many programmes have been evaluated and results
indicate that young people participating in these programmes have greater
knowledge of family violence and hold more desirable attitudes to violence in
general. However, it must be noted that the longest follow-up period for any
programme has been 16 months and, as such, it is not possible to comment on
any long-term behavioural or attitudinal changes.
The lack of any long term follow up of education programmes noted above
makes it difficult to assess whether programmes within schools and other
education settings are successfully reducing the acceptability of violence and,
th
ultimately, the levels of family violence within society. Programmes addressing
child abuse, young people’s intimate relationships and family violence as a whole
are being delivered in many territories throughout the world however the lack of
long term outcome evaluations makes it impossible to identify the factors that
create successful projects. The projects discussed here report some gains and
attempt to identify factors that contribute to their success however; the short-term
nature of any attached research is problematic.
The school activities contained within the Aktiv gegen Männergewalt (Women
Against Violence Europe) campaign were deemed successful in that they
initiated ongoing activities within schools however, the campaign did note the
considerable support required for teachers at implementation, this need for
support and training was also reported by the Zero Tolerance Young Person’s
Campaign (Reid Howie Associates Ltd 2001).
The Australian YouthSafe Peer Support Programme (Partnerships Against
Domestic Violence 2000), consisting of one-day awareness raising sessions
within schools and other learning institutions reported increased awareness of
pertinent issues amongst young people, including the nature and extent of family
violence, alternatives to violence within relationships and assistance available to
young people in the community. Factors considered important in the success of
this project included community involvement, staff training and development,
level and quality of planning work and the support available to staff delivering the
project.
th
Evaluation of the New Zealand Police Keeping Ourselves Safe programme
reported that teaching staff believed it to be an “excellent programme” (Briggs
2002). The programme reported an increase in the number of children reporting
abuse of themselves or their peers, with parents reporting that students who had
participated in the programme successfully stopping incidents of sexual abuse
and reporting it to their caregivers. Important factors in the success of this
programme have been identified as Police Education Officers working with
teachers around the more sensitive issues, parallel information sessions for
parents and strong links to the relevant curriculum documents.
Community Development and Action
Community development is “is a process of enabling communities to develop
their capacity to address the issues that they identify. Core components of
community development are self-help, mutual support, community integration,
capacity development, problem solving and self-representation and the
promotion of collective action” (Antric 2005) whilst “community action is a
process involving the linking of groups and individuals to develop collective
action to tackle an identified issue (Antric 2005). Both are valid approaches to
addressing the prevention of family violence and have been utilised in many
communities.
The Aotearoa New Zealand Sure Start programme is based on a British model
aimed at “improving health and emotional development for young children” (Sure
Start 2005). This model is described as community development although given
that it is implemented in Government defined areas with core services including
th
outreach and home-visiting, support services for families and children, quality
childcare and children’s facilities, community healthcare, and support for children
with special needs, it can more accurately be called community action. Given
that local governance bodies, including parents and community leaders, exist to
guide the local priorities (Davies, Wood & Stephens 2002).
Campaigns to mobilise communities to address family violence issues have been
undertaken in many communities. Core strategies have included raising
awareness of family violence, connecting those at high risk to support services,
developing community leaders able to advocate for healthy families, changing
the conditions that support family violence and making services accountable to
their communities (Fullwood 2002). Additionally campaigns have sought to
ensure community ownership at the most local level (Maciak, Guzman, Santiago,
Villiabob & Israel 1999).
An Australian project aimed at mobilising schools and communities to address
family violence highlights a number of key considerations to be addressed in this
area (Sidey 2001, Ridge & McLeod 1997). First and foremost any definition of
violence must be negotiated locally and must include a local definition of the
problem, including race, gender, ability and sexuality issues. Preventative action
should make use of a positive, strengths-based community development
approach and should be aligned with policy, education, community networking
and environmental changes where possible.
th
Working with Witnesses of Family Violence
As will be appreciated by the reader, children have active emotional and
psychological lives from the moment of birth and providing children with the
opportunity to talk about any negative experiences will support their present and
future health (Kelly, Anderson & Dawson 2003). Any intervention undertaken
with child witnesses should be appropriate to the children’s gender, culture,
ethnicity, spirituality, ability, etc. Programmes undertaken with child witnesses of
family violence will deal with both the short term needs of the children and
breaking the pattern of aggressive behaviour associated with the cycle of abuse
(Bennett, Coggan, Fill & Lee 2004).
Many programmes to address the needs of child witnesses of family violence are
run in Aotearoa New Zealand under the Domestic Violence Programmes
regulations administered by the Department for Courts. These programmes aim
to assist “children to deal with the effects of domestic violence” (Ministry of
Justice 2004A), they are provided for the general population and for Tangata
whenua; Tangata whenua programmes incorporate indigenous models of health
(i.e., Te Whare Tapa Whā (Durie 1994)) and Whakawhanaungatanga (i.e.,
indigenous concepts around family and relationships).
Three of the Ministry of Justice approved programmes for children were
evaluated (Ministry of Justice 2002B), the evaluations found that the programmes
assisted children to manage with the effects of domestic violence through an
effective educational programme, and that programmes helped children to
th
express their feelings about family violence and develop strategies to protect
themselves.
The uptake of Protection Orders has declined in recent years (Jacobson 2005)
and whilst the Ministries of Justice and Women’s Affairs are undertaking
research regarding this, any results are not yet available. Alongside the low
uptake of Protection Orders has been low uptake of Ministry of Justice approved
programmes (Jacobson 2005). This results from both the low use of Protection
Orders and a lack of awareness by parents of the effects of witnessing family
violence on children (Bennett, Coggan, Fill & Lee 2004).
A programme to raise awareness of the effects of witnessing family violence, the
benefits of Protection Orders and the available services to families has been
undertaken by Preventing Violence in the Home, formerly the Auckland Domestic
Violence Centre (Bennett, Coggan, Fill & Lee 2004). Evaluation of this project
indicates that completion of the programme leads to reports of increased
wellness from child participants, the development and implementation of safety
plans by children and an increased awareness by parents of the effect of
witnessing family violence on children. Further research is being undertaken to
determine whether this and similar projects have a significant effect on the
uptake of Protection Orders and Ministry of Justice approved programmes
although anecdotal evidence suggests that participation in the Domestic Violence
Centre programme quadruples the likelihood of children attending Ministry of
Justice approved education programmes.
th
Working with adult female victims
In Aotearoa New Zealand, education programmes to meet the needs of adult
victims of family violence are provided under Section 28 of the Domestic
Violence Act to promote the protection of victims of domestic violence through
education, information and support (Ministry of Justice 2004B). The programmes
are delivered either in groups or with individuals depending on personal
circumstances. The preferred means of delivery is in groups however, where the
victim is male, gay, bisexual or has other special needs, individual programmes
are often used.
The Ministry of Justice has produced research to establish “whether programmes
for adult protected persons contribute to the protection of victims of family
violence” (Maxwell, Anderson & Olsen 2001). Maxwell et al found that the
programmes produced significant gains for participants with 88 percent of women
reporting that they had learned how to keep themselves safe, 92 percent
reporting that they had learnt how to keep their children safe and 91 percent
reporting that they had a safety plan in place for themselves and their children.
The participants in the research also reported a significant reduction in the
reporting of abuse during the programme when compared with previous
experiences of abuse. Participants in the programmes “believed that the
programme had actively contributed to them feeling safer and being more able to
keep children safe” (Maxwell, Anderson & Olsen 2001).
The study by Maxwell, Anderson and Olsen (2001) attempted to identify best
practice, although it should be noted that this was not done by comparing the
th
programmes but based on feedback from participants. The most effective
programmes met the needs of women to understand family violence, were
culturally responsive and appropriate, had appropriate staffing and were
delivered by organisations with effective infrastructures. Weaknesses of
programmes included not being able to meet the broader needs of participants
(i.e, if a woman did not have secure accommodation for herself and her family
she would be unlikely to prioritise attending the programme), referral to the
programme via the Family Court was considered inadequate and further support
in accessing the programme was required, and accessing programmes was also
difficult in some areas.
Working with Perpetrators
In Aotearoa New Zealand, programmes for perpetrators of family violence are
one facet of the array of legal responses to family violence. The primary
objective of these programmes is the “stopping or preventing domestic violence
on the part of the respondent” (Ministry of Justice 2004C). The Department of
Corrections evaluated four approved community-based family violence
prevention programmes for perpetrators in Porirua, Takapuna, Wanganui and
Wellington (Ministry of Justice 2004D). The evaluation reported a number of
positive results. The participants in the programmes reported a reduced
frequency of violence and abusive behaviour, a reduction in their involvement in
the criminal justice sector, and significant improvement in their wellbeing. The
partners of the men also reported a reduction in the frequency and nature of
physical abuse although no similar reduction in emotional abuse and controlling
th
behaviour was reported. It should be noted that behaviour change was only
monitored for a maximum of 13 weeks following completion of the programmes
and even here there was some decline in participants’ sense of wellbeing and
further follow up may find that any behaviour change was not maintained
(Ministry of Justice 2004D).
The evaluation undertaken by the Department of Corrections identified a number
of issues which impacted on the effectiveness of the programmes; these included
a failure to meet the cultural needs of men from backgrounds other than Tangata
Whenua or Pākehā3 and a completion rate of approximately half (Ministry of
Justice 2004D). Research into the effectiveness of these programmes indicates
that 70 to 80 percent of men who complete the programmes do not return to
using physical violence. This compares to a success rate of around half reported
overseas (Gondolf 1998 cited in Ministry of Justice 2004D) however given that
Aotearoa New Zealand studies have not been undertaken over a longer period it
may be that the rate of non-violence fall over the longer term.
Government Legislation and Strategy
The legislation relating to family violence within Aotearoa New Zealand is largely
encompassed within the Domestic Violence Act 1995 (DVA) and the Children,
Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 (CYPFA). These acts provide for
the safety of victims of family violence, support to at-risk families and the
prosecution and treatment of perpetrators of family violence. The major
3
New Zealand European
th
weakness of these Acts is their failure to provide for the mandatory reporting of
family violence.
The two key government strategies relating to family violence are Te Rito: New
Zealand Injury Prevention Strategy and Opportunity for All New Zealanders. The
former represents the New Zealand Government’s response to family violence
prevention while the latter identifies violence within families as one of five priority
areas for government. Te Rito identifies the key areas for action in preventing
family violence whilst Opportunity for All represents the largest ever commitment
from the New Zealand Government towards the eradication of family violence.
As noted earlier, family violence is also addressed through the New Zealand
Injury Prevention Strategy and the Crime Reduction Strategy.
Health promot ion: An a pproach to the pre vention

of family violen ce.
I have outlined a number of key areas in the prevention of family violence:
• Parenting programmes;
• Universal home visits;
• Social marketing;
• Universal screening;
• Education of children and young people;
• Community development and action;
• Working with witnesses of family violence;
th
• Working with adult victims of family violence;
• Working with perpetrators; and
• Government legislation and strategy.
There are many other areas which will impact on the prevalence of family
violence in our society and reductions in the frequency and intensity of that
violence however, these are either too broad to consider in a targeted approach
or lie too far beyond the scope of ACC to be considered in this paper. The
following table considers how these approaches to the prevention of family
violence fit within the health promotion framework provided by the Ottawa
Charter.
Ottawa Charter Area for Family violence prevention activities

Action
Building healthy public • Government legislation and strategy;
policy
• Education of children and young people (school policies);
• Universal screening (organisational policies).
Creating supportive • Parenting programmes;
environments for health
• Community development and action.
Strengthening community • Parenting programmes;
action for health
• Social marketing;
• Community development and action.
th
Ottawa Charter Area for Family violence prevention activities

Action
Developing personal skills • Parenting programmes;
• Community development and action;
• Working with perpetrators.
Reorienting health services • Parenting programmes;
• Universal screening;
• Working with perpetrators.
Prevention of family violence and the Ottawa Charter
Clearly all the family violence prevention activities outlined in this paper fit within
the health promotion framework provided by the Ottawa Charter. Family violence
prevention is most clearly health promotion but what is the role of the Accident
Compensation Corporation within this area?
The Role of ACC in family violence prevent ion
As stated above, ACC has a requirement to undertake health promotion work if
this is likely to result in a cost-effective reduction in either levies or the
government contribution to the accident compensation scheme. Conservative
estimates place the cost of family violence to ACC as approximately NZ$7 million
per annum although according to research conducted by the Injury Prevention
Research Unit, this may be as high three times this figure (Stephenson, Trotter &
th
Langley 2004). Preventing injuries as a result of family violence will result in
savings for the Corporation and its funders.
Whilst secondary and tertiary prevention of family violence presents the
Corporation with opportunities to reduce immediate costs through preventing re-
victimisation of women and children and increasing the safety of at-risk families,
it is in primary prevention that the greatest long-term gains can be made.
Challenging the acceptance of family violence at an individual, family, whānau4,
community and societal level, and supporting the development of a violence free
society will see the greatest gain for ACC.
Services for victims and perpetrators of family violence in Aotearoa New Zealand
are already provided by the Department of Child, Youth and Family, Ministry of
Justice and various Non-Government Organisations. These include
comprehensive services for persons covered by a Protection Order (i.e.,
respondents and their families), services for at-risk children and education
programmes for perpetrators of family violence. As has already been identified,
uptake of Ministry of Justice programmes for children who witness family
violence has been low. This may be due to the lack of awareness of these
services, the lack of understanding of the effects of witnessing family violence
and the barriers to accessing Protection Orders. Research is currently underway
to explore this. Given this situation, ACC should explore the means by which the
Corporation can support families in crisis to take out Protection Orders, access
4
Extended family, the basic unit of indigenous society within Aotearoa.
th
Ministry of Justice approved programmes and increase caregivers understanding
of the effects of children witnessing violence. This will provide a cost effective
means of increasing the support for families given that Ministry of Justice funding
for programmes is uncapped and relies only on a Protection Order being in
place. Thus the Corporation can ensure that child witnesses and adult victims of
family violence are better supported and that the cycle of violence is broken.
There is insufficient evidence of the effectiveness of education programmes for
perpetrators to justify ACC’s investment in this area.
ACC does not involve itself in home visits or in working with families however, as
a provider of rehabilitation and care services for people with injuries it does have
significant contact with up to 1.6 million New Zealanders each year (ACC 2004)
through the Corporation’s staff and external contractors. ACC should therefore
develop policies and procedures to ensure that the claimants it, and its agents,
have contact with are screened appropriately to identify families experiencing, or
at risk of, family violence. The Corporation should also explore funding major
Non-Government Organisations with significant contact with families (e.g., Royal
New Zealand Plunket Society, Barnados New Zealand, etc.) to undertake similar
policy and procedure development.
Through identifying families at-risk of family violence and supporting access to
programmes to break the cycle of violence in families, ACC will see a reduction
in the severity and incidence of family violence. However, these strategies need
to be reinforced with population based initiatives to challenge social norms
relating to violence.
th
Major national social marketing campaigns have been launched in various
territories throughout the world, including Aotearoa New Zealand. For these to
be effective they need to be sustained over a long period of time and to combine
with local awareness raising and community action. The Corporation should
therefore develop a primary prevention programme that includes national and
local social marketing along with community action. It is recommended that ACC
work with the lead stakeholders in the area to develop messages and social
marketing collateral whilst using its unique knowledge of communities and
community action to draw together the many initiatives addressing family
violence at a local level and to develop a toolbox for communities to use to
strengthen awareness and action around family violence.
Social marketing and community action will begin to make changes in the diverse
communities of Aotearoa New Zealand. However, this needs to be reinforced
through work with children and young people. Changing the attitudes and
expectations of the young whilst working to target the whole population will
effectively impact the acceptance of family violence in our society. It is
recommended that ACC support the further expansion of the New Zealand Police
Keeping Ourselves Safe programme to reach all early childhood education
centres, primary and intermediate schools and colleges. This will ensure that the
same messages are received throughout a child’s scholastic career and that the
reputation of the existing programme can be used to roll out a more
comprehensive family violence prevention initiative.
th
ACC must also maintain its involvement in the various national strategies relating
to family violence. The Corporation is the largest employer of health promotion /
injury prevention staff in Aotearoa New Zealand and has substantial opportunity
to reduce its costs relating to family violence through supporting the New
Zealand Government to create a society in which everyone can live free from
violence.
Conclusion
ACC has a role to play in the reduction of the severity and incidence of family
violence in Aotearoa New Zealand. The Corporation should take a role in
supporting the key Government agencies addressing family violence and its
prevention (i.e., Ministry of Social Development, Ministry of Health, Department
of Child, Youth and Family Services, Ministry of Justice and New Zealand Police)
through identifying opportunities to support the work of these agencies and to
improve access to existing services. ACC is required to reduce its costs
associated with family violence related assault in a cost effective manner, the
Corporation is unable to compete with the considerable Government funding
available and as such must seek avenues to add value. The recommendations
made above such as increasing access to Ministry of Justice education
programmes, using the Corporation’s considerable expertise in social marketing
to support the lead agencies in developing social marketing campaigns and
supporting the expansion of existing programmes all provide opportunities for
ACC to make considerable gain with a relatively low investment.
th
Through supporting the activities outlined above and aligning its strategies with
the key stakeholders in the sector, ACC can fulfil its obligations under the IPRC
and the relevant Government strategies, undertake appropriate health promotion
action, achieve substantial savings, reductions in levies and government
contributions to injury treatment and rehabilitation and thus contribute to a safer
and healthier environment for all New Zealanders.
th
References
ACC. 2004. 30 years on: Annual Report 2004. ACC: Wellington, Aotearoa New Zealand.
Age Concern New Zealand. 1992. Promoting the rights and wellbeing of older people and those who care for them. A
resource kit about elder abuse and neglect. Age Concern New Zealand: Wellington, Aotearoa New Zealand.
Antric T. 2005. Injury Prevention Toolbox: Alcohol. Accident Compensation Corporation: Wellington, Aotearoa New
Zealand.
Bennett S, Coggan C, Fill J, Lee M. 2004. An Evaluation of the Child Crisis Intervention Project: University of Auckland:
Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand.
Bethea L. 1999. Primary Prevention of Child Abuse. American Family Physician. Vol. 59. No. 6. March 1999.
Briere J, Runtz M. 1990. Differential adult symptomatologies associated with three types of child abuse histories. Child
Abuse and Neglect, 14, 357-364.
Briggs F. 2002. To what extent can Keeping Ourselves Safe protect children? New Zealand Police: Wellington,
Aotearoa New Zealand.
Cohen L, Swift S. 1999. The Spectrum of Prevention: Developing a Comprehensive Approach to Injury Prevention.
Prevention Institute: www.preventioninstitute.org
Dalziel L. Report to Joint Ministers on Hamilton’s Violence Intervention Project (VIP). Unpublished document.
Davies E, Wood B, Stephens R. 2002. From rhetoric to action: A case for comprehensive community-based initiative to
improve developmental outcomes for disadvantaged children. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand. No. 19. pp. 22-47
Department of Child, Youth and Family. 2001. An Interagency Guide to Breaking the Cycle: let’s stop child abuse
together. Department of Child, Youth and Family Services: Wellington, Aotearoa New Zealand
Dickson G. 1989. Family Violence: A Community’s Health Promotion Response and the Federal Government’s New
Initiatives. Canadian Journal of Public Health. Vol 80. July/August 1989. pp 300 – 302.
Donovan R, Francas M, Paterson D, Zapelli R. 2000. Formative Research for mass media campaigns: Western
Australia’s freedom from fear campaign targeting male perpetrators of intimate partner violence. Health Promotion
Journal of Australia. Vol. 10. pp. 78-83.
Durie M. 1994. Whaiora: Tangata Whenua Health Development. Oxford University Press: Auckland, Aotearoa New
Zealand.
Edelson J. 2000. Primary Prevention and Adult Domestic Violence. Collaborative Violence Prevention Initiative: Sa
Francisco: USA
Edelson J. 1999. The Overlap between Child Maltreatment and Women Battering. Violence against Women, 5(2): 134-
154.
Family Violence Prevention Fund. 2004. Preventing Family Violence: Lessons form the Community Engagement
Initiative. Family Violence Prevention Fund: San Francisco, USA
Fullwood P. 2002. Preventing Family Violence: Community Engagement Makes the Difference. Anderson L. Mitchell-
Clark K. (eds) Family Violence Prevention Fund: San Francisco, USA.
Fullwood P. 2002. Preventing Family Violence: Community Engagement makes the Difference. Family Violence
Prevention Fund: San Francisco, USA.
Gundersen L. 2002. Intimate-Partner Violence: The Need for Primary Prevention in the Community. Annals of Internal
Medicine. Vol. 136. No. 8. April 2002. pp 637 – 640
Hall S, Stannard S. 1997. Social marketing as a tool to stop child abuse. Social Work Now. Vol. 8 pp. 5-12
Jacobson V. 2005. Personal Communication. Ministry of Justice: Wellington, Aotearoa New Zealand.
Jaffe P, Wolf D, Wilson S. 1990. Children of Battered Women. Sage Publications.

Kelly M, Anderson J, Dawson K. 2003. Working with children affected by violence. In MacMaster K, Wells A. Innovative
Approaches to Stopping Family Violence. Steele Roberts: Wellington, Aotearoa New Zealand.
Lane M, Gardiner A. 2003. An Indigenous Peoples Framework for Public Health: Indigenous Peoples/Tangata Whenua
Determinants of Health. Tino Rangatiratanga in Public Health: Public Health Association Conference 2003 Papers.
Public Health Association of New Zealand: Wellington, New Zealand
Leibrich J, Paulin J, Ransom R. 1995. Hitting Home: Men Speak About Abuse of Women Partners. Department of
Justice in association with AGB McNair: Wellington, Aotearoa New Zealand
th
Lia-Hoagberg B, Kragthorpe C, Schaffer M, Leal Hill D. 2001. Community Interdisciplinary Education to Promote
Partnership in Family Violence Prevention. Family and Community Health. Vol. 24. No. 1. April 2001. pp 15 – 27.
Maciak B, Guzman R, Santiago A, Villalobob G, Israel B. 1999. Establishing LA VIDA: A Community-based partnership
to prevent intimate violence against Latina women. Health Education and Behaviour. No.26 pp.821-840
Maxwell G, Anderson T, Olsen T. 2001. Women Living with Violence: An evaluation of programmes for adult protected
persons under the Domestic Violence Act 1995. Ministry of Justice: Wellington, Aotearoa New Zealand.
Minister for ACC. 2003. New Zealand Injury Prevention Strategy. Rautaki Ärai Whara o Aotearoa. ACC: Wellington,
Ministry of Health. 2001. DHB Toolkit Interpersonal Violence. Ministry of Health: www.moh.govt.nz
Ministry of Health. 2002. Family Violence Intervention Guidelines: Child and Partner Abuse. Ministry of Health:
Wellington, Aotearoa New Zealand
Ministry of Justice. 2002A. Crime Reduction Strategy: Ministry of Justice, Wellington, Aotearoa New Zealand.
Ministry of Justice. 2002B. Evaluation of Programmes for children under the Domestic Violence Act 1995. Ministry of
Justice: Wellington, Aotearoa New Zealand.
Ministry of Justice. 2004A. Children’s Programme Guidelines for providers wishing to be approved to provide domestic
violence programmes for children. Ministry of Justice: Wellington, Aotearoa New Zealand.
Ministry of Justice. 2004B. Adult Protected Persons Programme Guidelines for providers wishing to be approved to
provide domestic violence programmes for adult protected persons. Ministry of Justice: Wellington, Aotearoa New
Zealand.
Ministry of Justice. 2004C. Respondent Programme Guidelines for providers wishing to be approved to provide domestic
violence programmes for respondents. Ministry of Justice: Wellington, Aotearoa New Zealand.
Ministry of Justice. 2004D. Domestic Violence Programmes for Perpetrators: Research Findings. Ministry of Justice:
Wellington, Aotearoa New Zealand.
Ministry of Social Development. 2002. Te Rito New Zealand Family Violence Prevention Strategy. Ministry of Social
Development: Wellington, Aotearoa New Zealand
Ministry of Social Policy. 2001. The Social Report 2001. MSP: Wellington, Aotearoa New Zealand.
Morris A. 1996. Women’s Safety Survey 1996. Institute of Criminology Victoria University of Wellington: Wellington,
New Zealand Police. 1997. National Family Violence Coordinator’s Internal Report. Unpublished paper.
Nutbeam D, Harris E. 1999. Theory in a Nutshell: A guide to health promotion theory. McGraw Hill: Roseville, Australia
Office of the Minister for Social Development. 2004. Opportunity for All New Zealanders. Ministry of Social
Development: Wellington, Aotearoa New Zealand.
Opie A. 2004. Report on Second Round of Discussions with Family Violence Funding Circuit Breaker Project Teams:
October 2004. Ministry of Social Development: Wellington, Aotearoa New Zealand.
Partnerships Against Domestic Violence. 2000. Young people say “DV – no way)”: Evaluation of the national domestic
violence prevention workshops for young people. Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Commonwealth
of Australia: Canberra, Australia.
Reid Howie Associates Ltd. 2001. Evaluation of the Zero Tolerance “Respect” Pilot Project: Summary Report. Scottish
Executive: Edinburgh, UK.
Ridge D, McLeod J. 1997. Creating new choices: An evaluation. University of Melbourne: Melbourne, Australia.
Sanders M, Turner K, Markie-Dadds C. 2002. The development and dissemination of the Triple P – Positive Parenting
Program: A multilevel, evidence based system of parenting and family support. Prevention Science. Vol. 3 pp. 173-189
Sidey M. 2001. Creating new choices: A violence prevention project for schools in Australia. UNESCO, Geneva:
Switzerland.
Snively S. 1994. The New Zealand Economic Cost of Family Violence. Coopers & Lybrand: Wellington, Aotearoa New
Zealand
Statistics New Zealand. 2001. Crime in New Zealand (1994 – 2000). Statistics New Zealand: Wellington, Aotearoa New
Zealand.
Stephenson S, Trotter M, Langley J. 2004. Verification of the intent of the injury event for ACC entitlement claimants who
were hospitalised for the treatment of their injuries. Draft Report.
Strauss M, Gelles R, Steinmetz S. 1980. Behind closed doors: Violence in American Families. Doubleday: New York,
USA.
th
Sure Start. 2005. About Sure Start. http://www.surestart.gov.uk/aboutsurestart/

Taket A. 2004. Tackling Domestic Violence: the role of health professionals. Home Office: London, United Kingdom
The Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 (Aotearoa New Zealand)
Wolfe A, Jaffe P. 1999. Emerging Strategies in the Prevention of Domestic Violence. Domestic Violence and Children.
Vol. 9. No. 3. Winter 1999. pp 133 - 144
Wolfe A, Wekerle C, Scott K, Straatman A, Grasley C, Reitzel-Jaffe D. 2003. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology. Vol. 71. No. 2. pp 279 - 291
Women Against Violence Europe. DAPHNE. www.wave-network.org/daphne.html
World Health Organization. 1986. Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. World Health Organization: www.who.int
World Health Organization. 1998. Health Promotion Glossary. World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland
th

Kepa Antric Associates: He Tu Rangatira Te Tuhauora

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Kepa Antric Associates: He Tu Rangatira Te Tuhauora

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Kepa Antric Associates

Auckland & Tauranga

The Role of the Accident Compensation Corporation in

Friday, 13th May 2005

and socio-economic situations. It can occur in all close personal relationships,

wherever individuals are part of a family or fulfilling the role of family.

The Accident Compensation Corporation of Aotearoa New Zealand funds the

Through supporting agencies working to reduce family violence at primary,

all, in line with the New Zealand Injury Prevention Strategy.

Approaches to reducing family violence include parenting programmes, universal

home visits, social marketing, universal screening, education of children and

young people, community development and action, working with victims,

perpetrators and witnesses of family violence and implementing Government

legislation and strategies.

Health promotion theory provides an ideal framework to ensure that family

violence is being addressed at every level. Through identifying effective

interventions and placing them with a health promotion framework,

recommendations for the Accident Compensation Corporation’s role can be

My thanks go to my colleagues at the Accident Compensation Corporation and

preparing and writing this paper.

(Ministry of Social Development 2002, Department of Child, Youth and Family

Services 2001, Ministry of Health 2001).

prevention in Aotearoa New Zealand before moving on to explore examples of

providing recommendations for the Corporation’s future involvement in this field.

The Accident Compen sation Corporation

The Accident Compensation Corporation / Te Kaporeihana Äwhina Hunga

compensation scheme administered by the Corporation came into being as a

result of a 1967 Royal Commission looking into workers’ compensation; in 1972

Parliament adopted the recommendations of the Royal Commission and passed

• Compensation for road injuries, funded through levies paid by owners of

• Compensation for everyone else, funded through the New Zealand

Compensation Corporation since its inception, primarily as a result of changing

legislation. The scheme is now primarily governed by the Injury Prevention,

of regulations governing who is entitled to compensation, what is covered by the

social contract represented by the first accident compensation scheme by …

of injury on the community (including economic, social, and personal costs)”

injury prevention work if this is likely to result in a cost-effective reduction in either

levies or the government contribution to the scheme. The Corporation is also

required to co-ordinate activities with other government agencies to increase the

efficiency and effectiveness of its injury prevention activities.

In addition to its interest in assault as a result of the IPRC, the Corporation is a

key stakeholder in a number of strategies which impact on family violence.

• Te Rito: New Zealand Family Violence Prevention Strategy (Ministry of Social

• Crime Reduction Strategy: Action Plan to Reduce Community Violence and

Sexual Violence (Ministry of Justice 2002A).

• New Zealand Injury Prevention Strategy (Minister for ACC 2003);

potential to play a major part in operationalising these strategies.

Family Violen ce in Aotea roa New Zealand

Family violence is a significant issue in Aotearoa New Zealand; it creates major

affect families from all cultures, backgrounds and socio-economic situations. It

and multi-dimensional. The need to understand and address family violence is

typically lead to fear, intimidation and emotional deprivation through

psychological, sexual and emotionally abusive behaviours. Family violence can

• Spouse or intimate partner abuse (violence and abuse between adult

• Child abuse or neglect (abuse and neglect of children by an adult);

person or persons with whom they have a relationship of trust);

• Parental abuse (violence perpetrated by a child against a parent);

• Sibling abuse (violence perpetrated between siblings).

(Ministry of Social Development 2002, Ministry of Health 2001)

Family violence is a major social problem, estimated to cost Aotearoa New

society in general (Ministry of Social Development 2002). The perpetrators of the

victims are predominantly women and children. Tangata whenua1 are

significantly over represented as both victims and perpetrators of family violence.