Normal view MARC view ISBD view

Safe@home evaluation Jennifer Martin, Marlene Levine

By: Martin, Jennifer.
Contributor(s): Levine, Marlene.
Material type: materialTypeLabelBookPublisher: Wellington, N.Z.: Ministry of Social Development, 2010Description: electronic document (27 p.); PDF file: 107.93 KB.Subject(s): ABUSED WOMEN | EVALUATION | INTERVENTION | PROTECTION ORDERS | SAFETY | INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE | Shine (Safer Homes In New Zealand Everyday)Online resources: Click here to access online | Access the website Summary: Safe@home is a service provided by shine*,1 an Auckland NGO that works with victims of family violence. The service is delivered to women and children identified by shine* and Avondale police as being at high risk from domestic violence. Safe@home makes victims’ homes safer from attack by whatever security work or devices are deemed necessary, including locks, stronger doors, alarms and escape plans. It enables them to stay in their own homes, as an alternative to the temporary safe haven of a Women’s Refuge. This minimises disruption to their lives and the lives of their children, and avoids the cost of permanent relocation. Shine* received funds to establish the project in May 2008 from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) through its service arm Family and Community Services (FACS), Shine* enrolled the first clients to the service in November 2008. Project development was supported by a Steering Group with representatives from participating government agencies, shine*, the building firm and alarm provider. This was a formative evaluation designed to collect and analyse information to answer the following questions about the implementation of the service:  Did the project meet its delivery targets, and if not why not?  Were the homes safety audited, and what did the safety audits find?  What were the changes made to the houses, and what equipment was provided?  Was there evidence that victims were safer and/or felt safer as a result of the intervention? In addition we asked key informants: “What worked well and why?” and “What did not work well, and why?” The evaluation was not an outcomes or impact evaluation but drew on information collected from 50 victims who were referred for the service up to June 2009. This allowed for a minimum three-month follow-up period. The information was self reported information about their perceived safefy and wellbeing and was collected by shine* advocates at the time victims entered the service and again after the security upgrade was complete. No independent data was sourced and victims were not interviewed for the purposes of the evaluation. (from the Summary).
Item type Current location Call number Status Date due Barcode
Access online Access online Online Available ON12110552

Safe@home is a service provided by shine*,1 an Auckland NGO that works with victims of family violence. The service is delivered to women and children identified by shine* and Avondale police as being at high risk from domestic violence. Safe@home makes victims’ homes safer from attack by whatever security work or devices are deemed necessary, including locks, stronger doors, alarms and escape plans. It enables them to stay in their own homes, as an alternative to the
temporary safe haven of a Women’s Refuge. This minimises disruption to their lives and the lives of
their children, and avoids the cost of permanent relocation.
Shine* received funds to establish the project in May 2008 from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) through its service arm Family and Community Services (FACS), Shine* enrolled the first clients to the service in November 2008. Project development was supported by a Steering Group with representatives from participating government agencies, shine*, the building firm and alarm provider.

This was a formative evaluation designed to collect and analyse information to answer the following
questions about the implementation of the service:
 Did the project meet its delivery targets, and if not why not?
 Were the homes safety audited, and what did the safety audits find?
 What were the changes made to the houses, and what equipment was provided?
 Was there evidence that victims were safer and/or felt safer as a result of the intervention?
In addition we asked key informants: “What worked well and why?” and “What did not work well,
and why?”
The evaluation was not an outcomes or impact evaluation but drew on information collected from 50 victims who were referred for the service up to June 2009. This allowed for a minimum three-month follow-up period. The information was self reported information about their perceived safefy and wellbeing and was collected by shine* advocates at the time victims entered the service and again after the security upgrade was complete. No independent data was sourced and victims were not interviewed for the purposes of the evaluation. (from the Summary).