Waiting for redress: Child sexual abuse survivors' experiences of Australia's National Redress Scheme.

BACKGROUND: Governments in multiple countries have established redress schemes to acknowledge institutional responsibility for child maltreatment; to provide survivors with access to compensation, counselling and apologies; and to prompt better practice to prevent child maltreatment. Establishing a National Redress Scheme was recommended by Australia's Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. The Scheme commenced in 2018 and will run for a decade. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to understand the ways survivors have experienced applying for redress under the National Redress Scheme, and how Scheme processes could be improved for survivors. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Participants were 322 survivors of child sexual abuse who had applied for redress or considered doing so during the first two years of the Scheme's operation. Two thirds (68%) were aged 55 or over and over half (55%) were men. METHODS: To provide feedback about their experiences and perceptions of the National Redress Scheme, participants completed closed and open-ended survey questions. RESULTS: Only a minority rated the Scheme as either good (16%) or very good (11%). Survey comments provide insight into the ways waiting has contributed to survivors' negative experiences of the Scheme. Survivors waited for the Scheme to be established, for institutions to opt-in, for decisions, and for direct personal responses. Waiting compounded uncertainty and was retraumatising for survivors. Some avoided seeking redress due to likely delays and risks of retraumatisation. CONCLUSIONS: Australia's National Redress Scheme is an ambivalent policy innovation which can both facilitate support and exacerbate harm. The design of redress schemes should pre-emptively address their potential to generate harm, including by recognising that rapid responses are essential to procedural justice, and particularly important for older survivors of child sexual abuse.

Adapting Service Delivery during COVID-19: Experiences of Domestic Violence Practitioners.

COVID-19 rapidly altered patterns of domestic and family violence, increasing the complexity of women's needs, and presenting new barriers to service use. This article examines service responses in Australia, exploring practitioners' accounts of adapting service delivery models in the early months of the pandemic. Data from a qualitatively enriched online survey of practitioners (n = 100) show the ways services rapidly shifted to engage with clients via remote, technology-mediated modes, as physical distancing requirements triggered rapid expansion in the use of phone, email, video calls and messaging, and many face-to-face interventions temporarily ceased. Many practitioners and service managers found that remote service delivery improved accessibility and efficiency. Others expressed concerns about their capacity to assess risk without face-to-face contact, and were unsure whether new service modalities would meet the needs of all client groups and reflect best practice. Findings attest to practitioners' mixed experiences during this period of rapid service innovation and change, and underline the importance of monitoring emerging approaches to establish which service adaptations are effective for different groups of people, and to determine good practice for combining remote and face-to-face service options in the longer term.

COVID-19 lockdowns, intimate partner violence and coercive control.

2020 was a year like no other, with the COVID-19 virus upending life as we know it. When governments around the world imposed lockdown measures to curb the spread of COVID-19, advocates in the domestic and family violence (DFV) sector recognised that these measures were likely to result in increases in violence against women, particularly intimate partner violence (IPV). IPV can take many forms, including physical, emotional, psychological, financial, coercive controlling behaviours, surveillance and isolation tactics. Lockdown conditions provide fertile ground for the exercise of coercive control by encouraging people to stay at home, limiting social interactions to household members, reducing mobility and enabling perpetrators to closely monitor their partner's movements. However, media reports and awareness of IPV are generally dominated by a focus on physical violence and lethality, which are easily defined and measured. By contrast, coercive control as a concept is difficult to operationalise, measure and action in law, policy and frontline interventions. This paper discusses the challenges inherent in measuring coercive control and engages with current debates around the criminalisation of coercive control in NSW. Such reflection is timely as the conditions of COVID-19 lockdowns are likely to lead to an increase in coercive controlling behaviours.