Kelly A. Watt

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Domestic Violence Fatality Review Teams: Collaborative Efforts to Prevent Intimate Partner Femicide

Intimate Partner Femicide (IPF) The homicide of a woman by her current or

former intimate partner The single most common form of homicide

perpetrated against women Preventable tragedies following many

opportunities for intervention Critical to identify ways to increase

understanding and prevention

Domestic Violence Fatality Review Teams (DVFRT)

Emerged in 1994 as a means to understand and prevent cases of IPF

Involve a collaboration of stakeholders who review cases of IPF to identify risk factors and gaps in the system response

Publish report describing their work, findings, and recommendations for systems change

Active DVFRT

MICHIGAN

LakeSuperior

LakeHuron

LakeMichigan

LakeOntario

LakeErie

WA

ORID

MT

WY

CA

NV UT

AZ

ND

SD

NE

CO

NM

KS

OK

TX

MN

IA

MO

AR

LAMS AL GA

TN

KY

INIL

WI

OH

WV VA

NC

SC

FL

MEVT

NHMA

RICT

NJ

DEMD

DC

AK

HI

NY

PA

Nature and Accomplishments of DVFRT

Anecdotal evidence suggests that DVFRT may lead to systemic changes Increased public awareness Better coordination of services Improved policies and procedures

However, little is known about the nature of these teams or what they accomplish

National Study of DVFRT

This study employs qualitative methods to examine How DVFT attempt to promote systems change

by describing their goals, structures, processes, and outcomes

What critical issues or tensions underlie their efforts to promote change that may account for how they are set up and what they achieve

Methods: Participants

35 DVFRT (M 6 yrs) Representing 28 states and 1 province

42 Members (M 5 yrs) 38% chairs 31% coordinators 24% general 7% staff

Methods: Procedures

Reconnaissance Discussions with expert in the field Attendance to national conference

Recruitment Compiled list of “active” DVFRT At least 1 team from every state/province At least 1 member familiar with history/operations 100% of teams agreed to participate

Methods: Measures

In-depth interview (100%) Based on review of literature, access to

published reports, consultation with experts Explored goals, structures, processes, outcomes

and tensions of teams Document review (89%)

Reviewed most recent report published by the team available at the time of recruitment

Described teams work, findings, and recommendations for systems change

Methods: Analysis

Frequency Analysis Involves calculating the frequency of events

Content Analysis Involves analyzing information to uncover

common themes

Findings: Goals

Changing policies and procedures Promoting awareness and education Improving coordination and relationships Creating additional funding and resources

Findings: Structure

Authority 72% Legislation/Executive Order,

22% Interagency Agreement, 3% Coroner’s Act

“I think we can really identify the issues that need to be addressed and help make significant improvements to the system by sharing the information honestly and openly within the group.”

Findings: Structure

Jurisdiction 43% State/Province, 57% County/Regional

Membership 100% Professional, 17% Religious, 11% Victims,

and 1% Family

“We do not contact families to ask them for additional information. We really hold true to the fact our value of confidentiality and I do not think we could insure that if we included family.”

Findings: Process

Breadth of cases 43% Narrow review of intimate partner homicides 57% Broad review of domestic violence deaths

Findings: Process

Depth of review 91% Biographical (min 2 cases) 43% Epidemiological (max 200 cases)

“Because domestic violence is such a complex issue, we really need to gather a lot of information and take an in depth look at the uniqueness of each case. It gives you the opportunity to identify gaps and increase cooperation and collaboration. If you do not dig deep into a specific case the likelihood that you are going to be able to identify these things is pretty slim.”

Findings: Outcomes

Making recommendations 86% make recommendations 80% publish recommendations

“It makes it more difficult to have agencies change if we use the team as an agent for making policy recommendations. The result is the opposite of what you would like to get. People become more entrenched and unwilling to change because of feeling that something has been dictated to them instead of feeling that they are themselves agents of change.”

Findings: Outcomes

Developing recommendations 23% specific cases 20% aggregated across specific cases 3% nonspecific 54% combination

“Unless you provided the specific case and the specific recommendation, it would only be a recommendation without a context.”

Findings: Outcomes

Types of recommendations 100% changing policies and procedures 89% promoting awareness and education 71% improving coordination and relationships 68% creating additional funding and resources

“You can make all the recommendations in the world but if they are not looked at by the people who have the ability to change policies and procedures then you are just creating something for the shelf.”

Findings: Outcomes

Implementing recommendations 51% monitor recommendations 46% implement recommendations 23% publish actions taken 6% publish action plan

“The team never expected to have to follow up with implementation of recommendations. It learned, however, that its efforts were futile otherwise.”

Summary and Implications

The diverse nature of DVFRT appears to reflect their efforts to resolve important tensions

Differences between DVFRT may have implications for promoting systems change What are we accomplishing? Is it worth the time, resources, an energy? How do we compare to other prevention efforts?

Contact Information for Kelly

Kelly A. Watt

Clinical/Community DivisionDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign603 East Daniel StreetChampaign, Illinois 61820Phone: (604) 697-0016 E-mail: kwatt@uiuc.edu