1

Formal or informal social control? Responding to

family polyvictimization

Edward Ko-ling Chan, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Department of Social Work & Social Administration

The University of Hong Kong

Mind the Culture Gap’:

Understanding and Appreciating the Role of Culture in

Developing Effective Interventions for IPV conference

October 24, 2015

2

Complexity of family violence

Current pragmatic approach in studying family violence: -

• Considerable studies of family violence have focused on

a single form of victimization out of the large spectrum

of family violence like child victimizations (Finkelhor,

Ormrod, Turner & Hamby, 2005)

• Finkelhor, Ormrod, Turner & Hamby (2007) revealed that

22% of the children experienced four or more different

kinds of victimization in a single year (poly-victims).

• Poly-victimization was highly predictive of trauma

symptoms.

Growing studies of co-occuring forms, examples:

IPV + elder: 1% to 71% (Grossman & Lundy, 2003;

Zink & Fisher, 2007)

Child maltreatment + elder abuse: 10% to 66%

(Pritchard,2007; Reay & Browne, 2001).

CAN + IPV: 6% to 67% (Chan, 2015a)

Co-occurrence of three forms or more?

3

“Family polyvictimization”

4

5

Distribution of the Families, by Number of Types

Experienced (N = 7,466)

Distribution of Parental Addictive Behavior and Health-

Related Factors, by the Number of Types of Violence

6

7

8 Table 1

9

Table 2 Family violence by types of child victimization

IPV, In-law conflict & elder abuse:

Risk factors of child victimization & polyvictimization

10

Discussion

High prevalence rates of co-occurrence of child victimization & family violence

Children who experience one kind of victimization are at greater risk of experiencing other forms of victimization

Sharing common risk factors: gambling, smoking, alcoholic and substance abuse

Impact of family polyvictimization on health and mental health

11

Formal services: criminal justice response

Awareness and screening for co-occurring forms of family violence.

Unless the full extent of violence across different types is evaluated, practices focusing on only a single type of violence exposure will be neither efficient nor effective in intervening in the cycle of violence.

It is thus essential for child protective service workers, clinicians, researchers, and police officers to be aware of the interconnections among types of violence and the variables that exacerbate those connections if the environment for abused children is to be improved.

Intervention by checking for the simultaneous existence of multiple forms of violence within the same nuclear family should therefore be implemented.

12

Is the existing law sufficient to protect?

Competing values:

Child welfare vs property of parents

For the best interest of a child vs parents’ concern/family

wholeness

Legal representative for a child: A child can be represented by

the “next friend” (2008 amendment of DVO). Any legal

support (e.g. advocates) provided?

Low utilization of restraining orders under DCRVO (Cap189)

13

Gender sensitive &

child-centered court procedures

Example: A child killed by being locked in a suitcase

(2006)

14

Suitcase Killing case

16

Could the surviving child be more safe?

Is it the court’s concern?

Does the judge need to be sensitive?

18

Informal social control

Concept of neighborhood, social support, availability of

family support

Informal social control/support, as a partnering force of

violence prevention, other than formal services

19

Recent studies in Asia:

Informal social control as a protective

factor for child abuse & IPV

20

Informal social support can be:

Supportive but not protective

Conditions required to becoming “informal social

control” which is a protective factor for IPV and CAN

Policy and law to enhance informal social control

21

Thank you!

22