Abstract
Domestic and family violence (DFV) is a pressing concern in Australia and internationally. Risk assessment tools and processes may be insufficient for detecting DFV—especially coercive control—among people from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds. This study assesses CALD community members’ perceptions about risk factors, and what shortcomings, strengths, and opportunities for improvement they identify in relation to detecting coercive control. Participants identified that risk assessment tools and practices typically overlook factors associated with ethnicity, culture, visa/migration status, and dependency on the abuser. Risk assessment practices can be refined to better capture these experiences.
Introduction
Intimate partner violence (IPV)—that is, violence between current or former romantic partners—is a pressing social concern in Australia and internationally. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Personal Safety Survey (PSS), which relies on self-reports, indicates that in 2021–2022, one in four (23% or 2.3 million) women and one in 14 (7.3% or 693,000) men have experienced violence from an intimate partner since the age of 15 (ABS, 2023). IPV has received particular policy attention in recent years, and is the focus of this study. However, IPV should also be viewed within the broader context of domestic and family violence (DFV). DFV includes a wide range of relationships, such as parents, children, siblings, and extended family members. Taking this broad scope recognizes that IPV can in some cases occur alongside DFV more generally, and that IPV may in some instances be facilitated, accepted, or sustained by extended family networks.
Traditionally, IPV has been framed as taking the form of primarily physical violence, but there is growing acknowledgement that IPV can also include “hidden” forms of abuse such as coercive control. Coercive control is “a strategic course of oppressive conduct that is typically characterized by frequent, but low-level physical abuse and sexual coercion in combination with tactics to intimidate, degrade, isolate, and control victims” (Stark, 2013, p. 18). Coercive control includes a wide range of behaviors and tactics including psychological abuse, emotional abuse, economic abuse, technology-facilitated abuse, physical abuse, reproductive abuse (such as denying a victim birth control/forcing them to become pregnant, or demanding pregnancy termination), and sexual abuse (e.g., Dobash & Dobash, 1992; McMahon & McGorrery, 2020; Stark, 2007, 2013; Williamson, 2010; Woolley, 2024). Coercive control can also involve tactics such as systems abuse—for example, a perpetrator making vexatious or fraudulent reports to authorities such as police or child services.
Relative to physical violence and other “visible” behaviors, there are few statistics available about the occurrence of coercive control within abusive intimate relationships. However, despite limited information about its prevalence, coercive control is increasingly recognized as an important correlate of intimate partner homicide (IPH). There are growing calls for coercive control to be incorporated into risk assessment tools and processes (e.g., Myhill & Hohl, 2019). However, a challenge in recognizing coercive control is that the behaviors are often highly contextual and very subtle, making them difficult to identify from outside of the relationship (Bishop & Bettinson, 2018; McMahon & McGorrery, 2020).
Risk Assessment in a Policing Context
In several instances, investigations into high-profile IPH cases in Australia have revealed that victims sought help from police in the days or hours before their deaths but were considered to not be at “high risk” of severe violence (e.g., Brown, 2024; Coroners Court of Queensland, 2022; Perpitch, 2024). This has driven community demands for improved police responses to DFV, and has focused attention on the adequacy of police risk assessment tools and processes, particularly at the point of callout.
Risk assessment is intended to allow limited resources to be focused on those who are most in need, and to support policing practices. For instance, many frontline police have recently left police training and may have relatively little experience or knowledge about the dynamics and subtleties of DFV (Ballucci et al., 2017; Kebbell, 2019). Risk assessment tools can encourage police officers to concentrate on known risk factors that contribute to the risk of harm, re-offending, and possible lethality (Spivak et al., 2020).
There is contention within research literature about whether the primary purpose of risk assessment is prediction or prevention (e.g., Bennett Cattaneo & Goodman, 2007); however, it is generally agreed that the goals of risk assessment tools used by frontline police officers are to prevent future violence to the victim (particularly, lethal violence), support practices that hold perpetrators accountable for their abusive behaviors, and assist with arrest decisions (Northcott, 2012; Robinson et al., 2016). Risk assessment tools can influence police officers’ perceptions of what constitutes IPV and “high risk,” as well as their decisions about what actions to take (e.g., Aspinall et al., 2024; Ballucci et al., 2017; Gill et al., 2021; Robinson et al., 2016).
Most studies on IPV risk assessment have focused on the accuracy with which specific tools can predict future assaults and, to a lesser extent, lethality (Myhill et al., 2023). Overall, risk assessment tools have been found to have only moderate predictive ability (e.g., Ringland, 2018; van der Put et al., 2019). Risk assessments also, typically, rely on a combination of different risk factors which are not specifically “weighted” to reflect their relative importance (for instance, some factors are more likely than others to be associated with severe/lethal violence).
Relatively little research has examined how well risk assessment tools are able to identify coercive control, and what “types” or combinations of coercive controlling behaviors may be most crucial for understanding a victim's risk of both future coercive control, and severe physical violence including lethal violence (e.g., Bishop & Bettinson, 2018; McMahon & McGorrery, 2020; Walklate & Fitz-Gibbon, 2019). Risk assessment tools tend to be limited in assessing risk that does not contain physical abuse (Kebbell, 2019) and do not effectively capture situations that include coercive control (Medina Ariza et al., 2016).
There have been increasing efforts to incorporate detection of coercive control into risk assessment tools (Barlow & Walklate, 2021; Hilton et al., 2023; Kebbell, 2019; Turner et al., 2019). However, tools that seek to incorporate coercive control behaviors appear to have had limited success in improving police information gathering (Myhill et al., 2023). Without sufficiently nuanced tools to detect coercive control, and, particularly, specific “clusters” of coercive controlling behaviors that pose an especially high risk (Richardson & Norris, 2020), it is likely that a proportion of high-risk cases will remain undetected or be incorrectly designated as low risk (Brennan et al., 2019; Pitman, 2016; Robinson et al., 2016).
Risk Assessment in Queensland
In Queensland, Australia, where this study takes place, the main risk assessment tool used by the Queensland Police Service (QPS) is the Domestic Violence—Protective Assessment Framework (DV-PAF). This was introduced in 2013 to assist frontline officers in assessing risk and determining the protective needs of an aggrieved person. The DV-PAF is a decision-making framework designed to be used in all reports of DFV. It covers a range of risk factors including past violence, child abuse, sexual violence, controlling behavior, threats, pregnancy, strangulation/suffocation, property destruction, significant changes in circumstances, and separation.
The DV-PAF uses a structured professional judgement approach to risk assessment, where police use a combination of structured questions and their own investigative skills, experience, and professional judgement in determining an appropriate course of action. Like other DFV risk assessment tools used by police around the world, it is heavily influenced by factors that research has long associated with IPH. It was not developed to specifically take coercive control into account.
Risk Assessment and Cultural Diversity
Queensland has a population of around 5.6 million people. In 1971, 12.3% of Queensland residents were born overseas. This increased to 21.6% in 2016, and 22.7% in 2021 (around 1,100,000 people). In 2021, around one in five Queenslanders (19.5%) used a language other than English at home (80.5%), up from 18.8% in 2016. Collectively, in 2021, Queenslanders spoke more than 190 overseas languages other than English at home, reported an affiliation with one or more of over 100 religions and came from around 200 different countries and territories (Department of Families, Seniors, Disability Services and Child Safety, 2024).
Culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) 1 communities include people with extremely different backgrounds and belief systems, potentially making their DFV risk factors highly unique and individualized. 2 With that point acknowledged, CALD communities have been identified as having elevated vulnerability to certain types of DFV, such as reproductive coercion and honor killings (Khawaja & Hebbani, 2024; Tarzia et al., 2021; although also see Asquith, 2015). While a full exploration of community-specific contributors and risks exceeds the scope of this paper, key issues are briefly highlighted below.
Broadly, limited understanding of what constitutes abuse in Australia, different definitions of DFV, and acceptance of DFV as normal can limit victim reporting and increase offender perpetration. Family, community, and cultural norms where abuse is accepted, couples are discouraged from discussing family disputes, traditional gender roles are prominent, arranged marriages take place, and family breakdown is feared can create further barriers to reporting and encourage violence (Maher & Segrave, 2018; Marmo et al., 2023). Extended families can make women more vulnerable to abuse and control by extended family members. Language barriers can also reduce reporting and understanding of one's rights. Experiences of racial discrimination may limit reporting due to fears of marginalization or a mistrust of authorities (Ghafournia & Easteal, 2018).
Immigration status and issues around immigration are important to consider, as this can limit reporting for CALD people due to limited access to services, uncertainty of rights, fear of deportation, and dependency on abusive partners. There are unique forms of abuse relating to immigration status, such as threats of deportation, withdrawal of visa sponsorship, separation from children via deportation, taking away passports, and preventing family from accessing visas to visit victims (Ghafournia & Easteal, 2018). However, there has been scarce study of whether these types of cultural considerations are adequately captured by risk assessment tools and practices. The DV-PAF, for example, focuses primarily on reporting future victimization and requires police to consider: “are there cultural considerations preventing the aggrieved from reporting DV in the future? For example, aggrieved may not be aware of rights in Queensland, aggrieved is isolated, cultural customs prevent aggrieved from speaking out” (QPS, 2023).
Recent Australian inquiries into IPV have specifically recommended that greater attention be given to the appropriateness and effectiveness of policing responses and risk assessment processes for people from CALD communities. Overall, research suggests that risk assessment tools are not sufficiently nuanced to take into account issues such as ethnicity and culture, and how those factors may intersect with other risks for violence (Barlow & Walklate, 2021). There is evidence that existing risk assessment tools do not sufficiently reflect the realities of vulnerable individuals’ everyday lives (Barlow & Walklate, 2021). It has also been suggested that insufficiently nuanced risk assessment tools may decrease the likelihood of police detecting coercive control victimization. For example, concerns have been raised that victims from CALD communities may experience particular difficulties in “convincing” police officers that they are victims of coercive control (Jones & Anyieth, 2023).
There is very little information available about how well risk assessments are able to identify coercive control in CALD populations. Most research has been conducted in the United Kingdom or Canada and may not apply in other countries. The current paper begins to address this gap in knowledge. It assesses how CALD community members perceive risk factors for IPV and what shortcomings, strengths, and opportunities for improvement they identify in relation to detecting coercive control in particular. This can inform risk assessment practices, with the goal of better supporting vulnerable communities.
Method
All procedures were approved by the Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee. Participants were recruited using a variety of “opt in,” self-selection methods, including direct contact with relevant organizations who worked with CALD victims of IPV (e.g., multicultural support service providers), word of mouth through professional networks, and social media advertising. Participants were referred by CALD DFV support services based on being above 18 years old, able to communicate in basic conversational English, and being perceived by DFV support services as not being vulnerable to harm due to participation in the study. Participants were given detailed information about what the study was seeking to find and what they would be asked to do, and all participants gave informed consent. Materials were provided in plain English, and no participants requested (or required) information in another language.
As there is a lack of data surrounding CALD community perceptions of risk assessment, a qualitative approach was employed in this research as an exploratory tool. Qualitative approaches have been widely used in similar studies, such as to understand perceptions of DFV by police (e.g., DeJong et al., 2008), and guides have been developed (e.g., Tong et al., 2007) which allow the reader to assess the rigor and validity of the data and interpretations presented here.
Focus groups were conducted with specialist practitioners (e.g., advocates working with CALD IPV victims) who themselves were from CALD backgrounds, and with CALD community members who had experienced IPV and had interactions with police in respect of that. Focus groups contained a maximum of five participants. Focus groups were supplemented by one-on-one interviews, because some participants (n = 5 victim-survivors) preferred to be interviewed individually. On average, one-on-one interviews ran for around 75 min. All focus groups ran for 2 h.
There was a total of 12 participants (seven CALD community IPV victim-survivors, five advocates who were also members of the CALD community). All participants were female. Participants were aged between 18 and 65. All came from non-English-speaking backgrounds, and had migrated to Australia from a range of countries across Asia, the Middle East, South America, the Indian sub-continent, Europe, and Africa. To ensure participants’ complete anonymity, further details about exact country of origin are not provided in this paper. Given that the focus of this work was on qualitative exploration of CALD participants’ unique and individualized lived experiences of IPV and risk assessment in Queensland, and that this did not require controlling for age or other demographic characteristics such as length of time living in Australia, participants were not required to disclose details about their life histories (although some chose to provide extensive information during the course of the study, given the inconsistent nature of this information it was not sufficiently robust to include in the dataset).
Participants were asked semi-structured questions covering a range of topics, including interactions between CALD IPV victim-survivors and police, how CALD communities perceive IPV and things that may not be recognized as IPV, what factors they believe a culturally appropriate and effective risk assessment should include, and what types of interventions more generally they believe would be effective and appropriate to support CALD IPV victims. Participants were also shown a copy of the DV-PAF and asked whether they thought it was relevant and useful for assessing risk in CALD communities, as well as whether there were any relevant risk factors that were not currently captured.
Interviews and focus groups were conducted by experienced personnel who monitored participant wellbeing continuously, and protocols were in place to discontinue interviews at any time in case of participant distress. Participants were informed that they could stop at any point, and were reminded of this at points during the interviews/focus groups. No participants withdrew. All interviews/focus groups with victim-survivors were conducted by a female interviewer who was also from a CALD background. Appropriate post-participation referral pathways were in place for any participants who needed any further support. Participants were given A$20 grocery vouchers to remunerate them for their time.
Focus groups and interviews were recorded, with permission from participants. Participants were informed that anything they said, could later be removed if they wished. Recordings were transcribed. Although there were two groups in the study (advocates and victim-survivors), these were combined for analysis purposes, given that the focus of the work was on understanding CALD communities’ perceptions of risk assessment, rather than comparing advocates with victim-survivors (and noting, also, that some advocates also had lived experience of IPV).
Within qualitative research, grounded theory is a methodology of systematically gathering and analyzing qualitative data (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Grounded theory uses an inductive “bottom-up” approach whereby the data provide the starting point for identifying themes instead of researchers shaping them to fit existing theories (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) and so was used here. Transcripts were analyzed using Nvivo, and recurring patterns, ideas, and concepts were identified. These were grouped into broader, or key, themes. Note that quotes used below to illustrate each theme are largely verbatim, with very light editing for the sake of clarity.
Results
Participants identified several CALD-community specific risk factors that they did not perceive to be currently well incorporated into risk assessment, as well as various, more general factors. The factors sat under the broad themes of police responsiveness/policing practices (e.g., confidentiality, rapport, respect), cultural norms and power dynamics (e.g., expectations about family matters being “private”), visa/migration status and passport control (e.g., threats to cancel visas, hiding children's passports), family/community dynamics (e.g., extended family relationships, connections to community, religion), limited knowledge about systems and services/financial dependence (e.g., not knowing what supports are available, not knowing about legal rights), and other (e.g., backgrounds involving war trauma). These are reported in further detail below.
Police Responsiveness/Policing Practices
A number of participants highlighted the crucial role that police responses play in victim-survivors’ perceptions and outcomes. Many of the responses related to information gathering practices.
Understanding Language Limitations
Chiefly, participants identified multiple challenges with police's ability to work with individuals who did not speak English well: So it is important to find out that what is the actual language, that's one thing…often it happens that police arrive and police listen to the perpetrator who has been speaking good English and often by listening to their side of the story. Police often don't explore the other side of the story. Often it happens that women, if they have children who are teenage who speaks good English, often police use children's version. That is very inappropriate. (CALD advocate 2) …when some policemen come and they see your culture, they dismiss your language…like they act tone deaf in the sense of they can't understand you, ‘cause you're speaking English and ‘cause they can't understand your accent… And it's worse because even when we speak English, we are translating it from our language… And then when I speak like that, sometimes they [police] perceive it as aggression. When I've raised my voice, when I'm translating, they see that as aggression. You know, I've come across people when I when I'm talking and I get excited, I raise my voice and they're like, oh, stop being aggressive. Stop being aggressive. (CALD IPV victim-survivor 2)
Confidential Interactions with the Victim-Survivor
Some participants identified that, in addition to understanding the impact of language barriers, police needed to be aware that it is not appropriate to talk to victims in front of the perpetrator or to allow the perpetrator to translate/interpret, and that doing so would likely lead to inaccurate responses to risk assessment questions. Some respondents noted that language barriers were particularly problematic if the perpetrator was a native English speaker and the victim was not: …will be more victims if the man is Aussie and try to speak instead of the girl. (CALD IPV victim-survivor 4) In front of the perpetrator, they shouldn't do it [risk assessment]. And interpreters have to be used because it is extensive, like it's a lot. Even if they can articulate themselves in English, they might feel more comfortable expressing what's going on in their own language. (CALD advocate 4) I think it's necessary [to speak to the victim in private] because sometimes the person is afraid to talk in front of the partner. And then don't say the true history. (CALD IPV victim-survivor 6) Firstly, if I call the police and I don't know how to speak in English and the police need to confirm what's happened with my husband, my husband can tell whatever he wants, much easier. (CALD IPV victim-survivor 1)
Building Rapport and Being Respectful
A number of respondents spoke about the importance of police having the “right” attitude, and identified that the way in which police approach an interaction fundamentally affects what occurs next: If [police officer] tried to ask too many questions, might don't make you feel comfortable ‘cause that time you, you, you are in very anxiety situation. You feel very scared and even you can't think properly. (CALD IPV victim-survivor 4)
Some respondents noted that respectful interactions (rather than “box ticking”) were crucial, as was having some comprehension of CALD community members’ potential backgrounds and experiences: …but when they just come and start off, you know, some of them come with a tick box. Oh yeah, no, oh yeah. And they stay at you like you're in the wrong. Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah [imitating ticking boxes and not paying attention]. And like, am I a criminal? What have I done wrong? (CALD IPV victim-survivor 2) Maybe some words could be quite triggering, like if they're talking about a safe place and the word refuge is used, that's often misunderstood to mean a like a refugee camp. It's not a safe place. (CALD advocate 3) …if I go to the police, the police will think that I am the scammer. She [immigration lawyer] said…because you are international, but he is the Aussie guy, they're going to think you are the scammer. (CALD IPV victim-survivor 5) …my husband Australian, I'm [country of origin] and my husband is much older than me as well. So somehow there's like a young girl with older men…they call back and talk to my husband and, you know…and then they pressure me like for a little scratch [that her husband had reported to police, after the victim engaged in retaliatory violence]. (CALD IPV victim-survivor 7) …everyone is different, circumstances are different, you know what I mean? So every individual is different for me at the end of the day, no matter what happens, they [police] just need to have the proper attitude. (CALD IPV victim-survivor 2)
Cultural Background and Gender of Responders
Some participants suggested that having female police or support workers engage with female victims to was most appropriate when undertaking risk assessment: I know maybe there are not many female police…the first time was two male police and the one who talk to me, he's very nice. Otherwise, you might be scared to talk with the man…it's good if in this situation you have a female police ‘cause they can maybe feel you more, ‘cause men…they are men… (CALD IPV victim-survivor 4) Interviewer: Who is the best person to do a risk assessment with the victim? CALD advocate 1: …ideally a female support worker or social worker. For me it doesn't matter if it's male or female ‘cause some of them, some police are aggressive, some social workers are aggressive…. For me it matters if someone knows the information, someone who is trained to identify the information. Because we don't know the information, I don't know what is my risk. I can't identify my risk. But if someone who comes and finds a way…makes you comfortable, doesn't matter [if] it's male or female. But if they have that skill of ensuring you to feel safe to talk…. When I went to a [support worker], and I was trying to explain my things, she was, she was a woman and she was already aggressive, you know, I mean, and she was from a similar colour, from my same culture. And you could see she was already judging me because, you know, because she might not know [about domestic violence]… (CALD IPV victim-survivor 2)
Cultural Norms and Power Dynamics
Several participants identified that in CALD communities, IPV is often not recognized as such by the victim: There's no information of saying or when someone is controlling you, that's abuse. There's no information that says it's someone who…tell me if you leave me, I will die. If you do this, I will do this…all these things are form of abuse that I just discovered not less than a month. I've been living this for eight years and I didn't know that was abuse. (CALD IPV victim-survivor 2) …for eighteen years I didn't know that I was being abused and been treated badly. I worked just right away when I get out of my delivery room [after giving birth]…and he not allowed me to get away from my phone because I have to answer the customer. (CALD IPV victim-survivor 7) Well, the definition of controlling behaviour is maybe not really considered to be controlling in some cultures. (CALD advocate 3) So it [assessing coercive control] would be very complicated for CALD [communities] because this financial control maybe is very normal. It would need to be seen as control. (CALD advocate 2) In [country of origin], there's DV everywhere there…the men, they are very “oh, I can do everything because I am the man.” So, we grow up sometimes like, “oh, it's normal.” We don't end up calling the police, because we see this as normal, you know. (CALD IPV victim-survivor 1) Because the power usually for people, for us, our cultures, the man has the power most of the time…in our culture, the man has the power of the household…for someone to come and tell you that you have power, what do you mean? I've been trained since I was a child: the man is the man of the house. What he says is the right way…. And if the police are not trained with this information, yeah, you know, Western culture, they all say equal, equal, but it's not equal in our culture, our culture, the men are the power and the women are whatever. (CALD IPV victim-survivor 2) Male privilege, many culture does have male privilege for thousands of years and they think that that's very normal. And that's mainly making decisions and women has to follow through those decisions…that means their husband, their father in law, their grandfather…. I don't know how they will incorporate this as a consideration [in risk assessment], but that's a huge factor. (CALD advocate 2) You take the loss then, you know, to keep the peace of the family, to keep the family together… Don't air your dirty laundry. No. Or you'll be considered the worst of the worst in the society if you air your dirty laundry in public…You don't have a label for this information, and the understanding of how women in our culture there, what we need to do for our families, you know, that is considered here as abuse. But to us, it's just the norm. (CALD IPV victim-survivor 7) Asking about who make the decision or who has the, you know, that role, the authority in the family because sometimes it's, you know. ‘Who makes the decision in this family who decides what to what to do, what to buy or things like that’…daily living stuff, that could be a good indicator… (CALD advocate 1) …I told [police] my husband pushed me against the wall…my ex-husband said, “no, I didn't do anything. I was just holding her and I didn't hold here I just hold her like” … and then the police guy he said, but this is a domestic violence. You cannot push here anybody or try to hold someone that wants to go away … the police was amazing with me, like talking to me… (CALD IPV victim-survivor 1)
Visa/Migration Status and Passport Control
Visa/migration status was repeatedly identified as an IPV risk factor in CALD communities, particularly for victims on some form of “sponsorship” visa that required them to remain associated with the partner in order to stay in the country: …it depends on how police understand that the people come from international and having the Aussie people [who] use the partner visa to sponsor. Yeah, not every police officer understands about this. (CALD IPV victim-survivor 5)
Visa status as a factor that promoted dependency on an abuser was explicitly acknowledged: …if women are on a temporary visa status, they are financially and socially dependent on the perpetrator and that's a barrier for them to leave the relationship…they are not eligible for work, they are not eligible for Centrelink income. They are not even eligible for child care benefits. If they don't have work rights they don't have job. And if they don't have job they cannot have rental accommodation, even homeless accommodation and women's refuge. Also you have to have some certain type of income to pay the rent… these all are interlinked and interconnected and intertwined. (CALD advocate 2) It's about to prove that I love him so much, it's kind of like his technique…he [kept] forcing me more and more…he used the partner visa as a tool to manipulate me. To why he cannot cancel my visa…even my work, my job, or if I have two visits, my girlfriend, birthday party, I don't allow to go. If I go or if I think like other people more important than him, he can then cancel my visa. (CALD IPV victim-survivor 5) And they use this benefit [the abuser being a permanent resident or citizen] to threaten you to go back. (CALD IPV victim-survivor 4) He [did not say this to me] but he asked me [many times] about [our daughter's] passport and in my mind [a] red flag is pointed. And then I worried that he take my kids and go there straight away to [country of origin] and stay there with them…. Yeah, that's the reason why I was afraid. (CALD IPV victim-survivor 6) They [police] let my husband stay with my daughter and ignored the fact that he hid her passport away from me and refused to return [it]. (CALD IPV victim-survivor 7) …something in common that I feel like CALD women has is the lack of awareness of their rights and the fear like they even if the visa situation is all ended, like or if they are already residents or citizens, they feel like always feel that fear that they for some reason, if something happened, they can be expelled or deported. (CALD advocate 1)
Family/Community Dynamics
Family and community dynamics were repeatedly identified as CALD-community specific risk factors for IPV. The first family dynamic identified was isolation from family as a means of abuse: Sometimes in the CALD community they have extended family, they have brothers, sisters living in Australia and they [the person using violence] often stops them going to see their brother, sister's house or going to talk to them, stopping them talking to them because they think that they are brainwashing hard. (CALD advocate 2) …the partner probably is the only connection that they have with Australia. (CALD advocate 1) [Consider whether] they are here with family and if they here by themselves…(ex-)partner can control their life and they have not any freedom…people alone in this country, we don't have any other people [apart from the partner]. (CALD IPV victim-survivor 5) …women often abused by the in laws, mother in law, sister in law, brother in law so that is huge factors in some communities… [Ask] are you afraid of anyone else other than [in] this place? Then they will say that my sister in law, my brother in law from in the country tell him what to do. (CALD Advocate 2) …your in laws, what's the relationship like with them? They [victim] may be too afraid to say because they're right there and they have to deal with the consequences when the police leave. (CALD advocate 3) I think it's cultural considerations too, because sometimes the person wants to isolate you from your family because the family not live close [to] you, [they are] living in the other country and then he put [them] against you. You stay alone in this country. (CALD IPV victim-survivor 6)
Arranged marriages were mentioned by some participants, in relation to stigma and family responsibilities that can facilitate IPV and contribute to victim's decision-making: And when they are arranged marriage, there are lots of stigma, shame, lots of social responsibilities to keep the family together…if they say that it's an arranged marriage, that can be a red flag…. She may not [decide to get married] or she may and if she separate, family will blame her. She may not get the future support from the land or from the money from the person using violence. Her children may not get the percentage of the family wealth. (CALD advocate 2) …in [my community], the male interpreters…might know the perpetrator. And so the women sometimes will identify that they know. I had clients who could identify that voice and go, no, I'm not talking. And so I in my practice implemented getting the interpreter's name and their ID, just so that my client felt safe with who they were talking to…it's my kind of wish to have a female-only kind of interpreting space just for DV, especially in this sector, because especially with male police officers, females will go, ‘no, I'm not that, that's fine, nothing happened, it's fine’. (CALD advocate 4) Are they linking with the cultural community? If the cultural committee does have association, are they linked in with the cultural community? Are they regularly going to the cultural community?…do they attend any religious like the temples or worships or any cultural area that they go and they are connected to. (CALD advocate 2)
Limited Knowledge About Systems and Services/Financial Dependence
Many participants identified that IPV victims from CALD communities lacked knowledge about systems and services. Most identified financial dependence and abuse as a key element of coercive control in CALD communities. This was facilitated by victims’ language barriers, visa/migration status, and lack of knowledge about Australian financial (and legal) systems: …the women, they are not the owner of the house. He is the owner of the house… women pay the mortgage to him and he pays the mortgage and women doesn't have any idea how the mortgage system looks like, how to pay those mortgage…she doesn't have any understanding if the relationship ends, she may not have any percentage from the property settlement… But women doesn't have understanding that, OK, he put the property on his name only and he gave the explanation to the women that as you are on temporary visa, I cannot add you in the house title… (CALD advocate 2)
Faith
It was raised that CALD community members can have strong connections with religion, and that understanding the role of faith in people's lives is important for assessing risk, but that asking about faith can be difficult: [Ask] is he stopping them going to the worship or going to the temple?… Sometimes some of the community may feel confronted if police ask questions about religion. That's a very sensitive topic that many people may not feel comfortable. Probably they [police] can ask in a in a very respectful way about their faith. (CALD advocate 2)
Other Factors
Some items on the DV-PAF were explicitly identified as potentially confusing for CALD community members, and/or not reflective of CALD communities’ daily lives. Mental health was highlighted: Mental health is one where it's…in the multicultural community not even considered mental health or identified as mental health [due] to religious beliefs. (CALD advocate 3) …it has to be reframed like in the way that you ask those questions. Because if it's just mental health, you need to explain what do you mean by that. It's kind of behaviours of concern or it's a history or I don't know, but it has to be more simple language. (CALD advocate 1)
Some respondents identified that social connections and independence/dependence in general should be considered: Do they have any family in Australia? Do they have any trusted friends in Australia? Do they often talk to those friends?… Many women, they don't have transport. Transport would be one of the issues that police may like to add in the risk assessment because many women, they do not have driver licence, they don't know how to drive so they are solely dependent on him for transport. (CALD advocate 2)
Discussion
The current findings replicate and extend previous research into CALD communities’ experiences with police responses to IPV, coercive control, and risk assessment. In keeping with past studies, this work found that limited understanding of what constitutes abuse in Australia and acceptance of DFV as normal can limit victim reporting to police. It was also apparent that factors such as family, community, and cultural norms that may sustain abuse, reticence about discussing private family matters, fears about family breakdown, and beliefs and expectations about traditional gender roles, can create barriers for IPV victims to identify and report abuse. The findings confirm earlier work that extended family networks can increase vulnerability to IPV (Maher & Segrave, 2018; Marmo et al., 2023). The findings also support previous suggestions that IPV victims from CALD communities may experience particular difficulties in “convincing” police officers that they are victims of coercive control (Jones & Anyieth, 2023).
This study indicates that police responses to IPV within CALD communities play a key role in victims’ help-seeking behaviors, as well as the likely accuracy and completeness of risk assessments that are undertaken. This is consistent with studies of risk assessment in mainstream communities but provides new insight into culturally specific factors that can impact on risk assessment practices. Importantly, police ability to work respectfully and appropriately with persons from CALD communities—especially those with limited English language skills—was repeatedly and consistently identified as a problem for risk assessment.
This points to the strong influence of police attitudes and behaviors on victims’ experiences and perceptions and, by implication, the ability of police to gather accurate and complete information to support risk assessment. This is crucial to recognize, because many risk assessments rely heavily on information that is disclosed to a police officer at an incident, and information gathering and information quality is critical to effective risk assessment. The adage, “rubbish in, rubbish out” is relevant: police cannot make a good assessment of risk based on absent or misleading information—police can only rely on information that is available to them.
The current findings suggest that attention must not be focused only on improving actuarial risk assessment tools for cultural contexts, but also on improving police practices in relation to working effectively with CALD communities and exercising objective, professional judgement regarding members of the CALD community. This may be particularly important in situations where the victim, but not the alleged abuser, is from a CALD background (and/or where there is a marked difference in the parties’ English language skills). Although it is an organizational requirement that frontline QPS officers use formal risk assessment tools, the findings nevertheless raise questions about whether there may be alternatives to current risk assessment practices, that may be more suited to the needs of CALD communities. For example, current risk assessment practices require officers to complete a series of “yes/no” items for specific risk factors, but these “box ticking” exercises were raised as problematic by some study participants. This may point to a need for more engaged approaches to assessment where police are seen to be more actively attending to what an individual is saying (especially if that person has difficulty with English) and take steps to minimize the possibility of victim-survivors feeling that they are being disregarded because of language or other barriers.
The findings in this study also indicate that members of CALD communities may be fearful or distrustful of police and that negative experiences can dissuade them from seeking police intervention. This is consistent with broader work into barriers to help-seeking in general populations. This highlights the importance of exploring what other avenues—outside of, or in addition to, police responses and formal risk assessment—may be available to people from CALD communities who are experiencing violence. For example, there may be a need for expanding/strengthening community-based support services within CALD communities, to both reduce reliance on police and provide a skilled liaison service between community members and police to overcome some of the challenges and barriers that study participants identified.
Factors such as gendered cultural expectations (where males are regarded as authorities within their families) and community norms (such as not discussing “private” family matters and/or refraining from any actions that could lead to family breakdown), seem especially important for responders to be aware of. In terms of coercive control, for example, this study found that a number of participants highlighted that in cultures where males are expected to be “authority figures,” certain behaviors—such as males controlling the household finances—may be perceived as normal rather than abusive. This raises challenging questions about how to assess the presence of coercive control, and respond to that from a policing perspective, in situations where cultural norms do not align with (and may indeed contradict) “mainstream” conceptualizations of controlling behavior.
In addition, understanding that cultural factors can influence whether or not a behavior will be perceived as abusive, should also be balanced with understanding that communities are diverse. There is unlikely to be a one-size-fits-all approach to risk assessment with CALD persons. Some individuals may, for example, report that their partner controls the household finances but that this is “normal” and not causing any harm. Others may report that their partner controls the household finances and that this is “normal” but is severely affecting the victim-survivor's wellbeing. There may be value in police turning their attention to the impacts of a partner's behavior on the victim-survivor, rather than simply seeking to identify the presence or absence of particular behaviors or classifying certain behaviors as necessarily indicative of abuse.
Risk assessment research is increasingly focused on understanding how different risk factors have different predictive “weight” and what different types of risk factors may cluster together (e.g., Campbell et al., 2009; Hilton et al., 2004; Myhill & Hohl, 2019). The current work is too preliminary to enable any inferences to be drawn about what this may look like in various CALD groups. However, the current work strongly implies that any evaluation of risk assessment with CALD communities must seek to determine which particular culturally specific factors are most associated with re-victimization (up to and including IPH) and, indeed, the extent to which cultural factors may add to the predictive ability of risk assessment tools over and above more “mainstream” items. For example, use of extreme physical violence may be predictive of future harm across all cultures but in combination with separation may be particularly concerning in some communities.
Most studies to date have examined violence in cases where both parties are from CALD backgrounds. The current research adds novel information to the existing body of knowledge about IPV risk factors in CALD communities. It identifies that a “red flag” for abuse can be different cultural backgrounds of the perpetrator and victim: specifically, when the perpetrator is Australian-born and the victim is not. This factor was identified in relation to English language competency, police interactions with the parties, potential stereotypes about the victim, visa/migration status issues, and knowledge about systems and services. This potential CALD-specific risk factor has been greatly under-recognized within existing literature and has received almost no consideration with regards to risk assessment tools and processes. Based on the current findings, it appears prudent for risk assessment tools and processes to consider the cultural backgrounds of both victim and perpetrator, and for police to avoid any preconceptions about relationships where one party is from a CALD background and the other is not.
This paper confirms past research that has identified the role of visa/migration status as a form of coercive control (Ghafournia & Easteal, 2018). Visa/migration status was associated with an inter-related network of risks and vulnerabilities such as limited access to/understanding of services, uncertainty about rights, fear of deportation, and financial and emotional dependency on abusive partners. This was a prominent and frequently repeated theme in the current study. This work also confirms past research that has shown unique forms of abuse relating to visa/migration status, such as threats of deportation, withdrawal of visa sponsorship, deportation of children, and taking away passports (Ghafournia & Easteal, 2018). It appears that these behaviors represent an especially relevant element of coercive control within relationships where at least one party is from a CALD background.
An unanticipated finding was that whether the sex of the responding officer/s was considered less important than their general attitude toward victim-survivors. It may have been expected that, particularly for participants from cultures where males are viewed as authority figures, there would be a preference for either talking to a female officer (if male authority in general—or “male solidarity”—is seen as a factor underlying violence) or a male officer (if male authority in the form of police, is seen as necessary to respond to male violence). Instead, the findings imply that thorough, compassionate, and respectful police responses are seen as paramount.
This finding also raises a question that merits significant attention in the future: namely, whether the sex of an officer would be perceived to matter more, if the officer was from the same cultural background as the victim-survivor. That is, some participants indicated that working with males from their own communities can be challenging and raise trust issues in the context of translator/interpreter services. This may extend to policing. This is a very important possibility to explore further, because current recruitment efforts for Queensland Police Service place emphasis on recruiting culturally diverse officers in order to better reflect Queensland's diverse demographics and better engage with CALD communities. While this is a very well-intentioned policy that is likely to have benefits, the potential for unintended negative impacts in some circumstances should not be disregarded.
More broadly, the theme of male authority that some participants raised also highlights the possibility that police intervention in “private” family matters may not be seen as appropriate or legitimate. While this is not necessarily directly related to risk assessment at the point of police callout, it nevertheless points to the importance of not assuming that all communities will respond equally to police intervention or directives. Some victim-survivors, therefore, may face a heightened risk of future harm, as a consequence of stepping outside traditional community authority structures (such as extended family) and involving “outsiders.” Once more, this suggests that there could be unintended outcomes of police responses—for instance, where female police attend a callout, this may be seen as particularly offensive to male authority within a family. Again, this emphasizes the value of police being aware of different cultural beliefs and expectations about authority (or feeling comfortable asking about those), and how that may impact victim-survivors. There is a clear need for police to engage with diverse communities, to gain knowledge about such sensitivities and dynamics.
Limitations and Future Directions
This study was based on perceptions and beliefs of a relatively modest number of members of the CALD community in Queensland (advocates as well as IPV victim-survivors), who self-selected into the study. Their responses may not be generalizable to other settings, and may not reflect the experiences and views of the CALD community more generally. Indeed, the findings from this study repeatedly highlighted that the CALD community is diverse, with differing views about issues such as who should undertake risk assessment. There is a clear need for more detailed and comprehensive research into CALD communities’ experiences with IPV/DFV, coercive control, and police interactions.
This study used qualitative methods only. Although a powerful way obtaining rich and detailed information, factors which may affect the results obtained—such as participants’ demographic characteristics––cannot be fully controlled for. Also, the study could not test how well current risk assessments predict re-victimization among members of the CALD community. It would be highly beneficial to conduct larger-scale, quantitative research to augment the current findings and provide further insights into risk assessment with CALD communities.
This study provided new insights into how members of CALD communities perceive and experience police responses to IPV, and risk assessment tools and processes. It did not consider police experiences with responding to CALD communities. There would be value in assessing police perceptions of their interactions with CALD community members, to identify areas that police find especially challenging, and inform practical measures to improve police responses. It would also be beneficial to identify areas where CALD community members and police diverge in their views about what is most relevant for risk assessment and how risk assessment can be made more effective.
Policy and Practice Implications
The findings suggest—unsurprisingly—that risk assessment within CALD communities is compromised by factors such as police attitudes and how police ask questions of victims. A factor that requires particular attention by frontline police is how to engage with people who do not speak English well. This includes awareness of elements such as how a person “translating words in their head” can result in behaviors that are misinterpreted as aggression, as well as recognition of the role that translators/interpreters (or other “trusted parties” who can help the victim to communicate) may play in supporting police responses and risk assessment practices.
However, use of translators/interpreters must also consider the close-knit nature of some cultural communities. This may be especially prominent if the translator/interpreter is male (and also from a cultural background where males hold traditional roles of authority). This suggests that there may be value in implementing independent, women-only translator/interpreter services to support victims who have limited English language skills.
The current findings suggest that the main risk assessment tool currently used by police in Queensland, the DV-PAF, requires further refinement for use in culturally specific settings. Questions that merit further consideration for inclusion are: whether both or only one of the parties was born in another country, visa status, overall dependence (such as financially, or for transport), who makes day-to-day decisions in the relationship/family, relationships between the victim and extended family members, and faith (such as whether a person is not being allowed to attend a place of worship or engage with their faith community). However, it is also important that risk assessment tools are clear, simple, and relatively succinct. At present, it is not known which of the potential items for inclusion that were identified in this study may prove most useful in identifying risk and informing decisions to protect victims and hold perpetrators accountable.
Conclusion
Overall, the current research indicates that risk assessment tools and practices may overlook crucial nuances associated with ethnicity, culture, visa/migration status, and dependency on the abuser. This work also indicates that existing risk assessment tools do not sufficiently reflect the realities of vulnerable individuals’ everyday lives, particularly in areas such as their fears and vulnerabilities around their visa/migration status, trauma (for instance, war in their country of origin), cultural norms and extended family relationships, understandings of (largely) Western-specific concepts such as mental health, and the role of faith. Although appropriate interpretive caution is required, based on these findings it is reasonable to conclude that current risk assessment tools and practices do not adequately capture experiences of DFV in CALD communities, and miss opportunities for detecting certain forms of coercive control. There is clear value in considering what risk factors may look like in particular communities, and modifying our understandings of—and tools to assess—coercive control and DFV accordingly.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
The authors have no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The authors gratefully acknowledge Francesca Menis and Cathrin Hiett for their help with the focus groups. The authors thank the participants for their insights and the Queensland Police Service for funding this work. The views expressed here are our own.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work was supported by the Queensland Police Service,
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.