Updated Evaluation of the Alexis Family Violence Response Model
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BackgroundThe Alexis Family Violence Response Model (Alexis- FVRM) is a coordinated police and social services response to recidivist family violence in Victoria. Following the success of the pilot program (2015- 2017 in Glen Eira, Bayside and Kingston), the Alexis- FVRM was expanded to include multiple regions in the South-Eastern metropolitan corridor of Melbourne and is currently active across multiple police divisions (e.g., Bayside, Prahran, Morwell and Wonthaggi).Aims and MethodThe current mixed-methods evaluation aimed to explore the effectiveness of the Alexis-FVRM since the rollout to other police divisions across Victoria. It comprised two stages:-an anonymous online survey to examine victim-survivors’ perceptions of the Alexis-FVRM (n = 18), and-an analysis of de-identified client data to examine risk levels for respondents (n = 101) and affected family members (n = 100) following Alexis-FVRM intervention.The evaluation also sought to provide an overview of the type of support provided by the Alexis-FVRM, and an exploration of engagement rates and modes of engaging victim-survivors and respondents.Key Stage 1 Survey ResultsOf the 18 complete survey responses, the majority of victim-survivor participants (78%, n = 14) viewed the Alexis-FVRM positively. Most felt supported by the Alexis-FVRM team and reported that the Alexis-FVRM had helped to connect them with relevant services (e.g., housing, mental health, medical).Most victim-survivor participants (78%, n = 14) reported that the Alexis-FVRM helped to reduce family violence in their lives. Zero victim-survivor survey participants reported that family violence became worse following Alexis-FVRM intervention. Key Stage 2 Results for RespondentsThe risk levels for respondents significantly reduced following Alexis-FVRM intervention. Of the 101 respondents in the dataset, 66% (n = 67) had lower risk levels at case closure compared to their initial risk ratings.Alexis-FVRM provided support to respondents for 13 to 286 days (on average 70 days), with key supports including assertive outreach, service planning and engagement, risk assessment, safety planning, brokerage, crisis response, psychoeducation, and socio-emotional support.Engaging respondents in family violence interventions is widely recognised as a challenging task. Alexis-FVRM practitioners reported successful contact with respondents in 83% of cases, with assertive outreach used in 85% of cases.For over a third of respondents (36%), their case was closed because their needs had been met by the Alexis-FVRM. Key Stage 2 Results for Affected Family Members (AFMs)Risk levels for AFMs significantly reduced over the Alexis-FVRM support period. Of the 100 AFMs in the dataset, 66% (n = 66) had lower risk levels at case closure compared to the initial risk ratings.The Alexis-FVRM provided support to AFMs for 4 to 313 days (100 days on average). For over half (52%) of the AFMs who were engaged with the Alexis- FVRM, the recorded reason for case closure was that the victim-survivor’s needs were met. Overall, the Alexis-FVRM provided a range of support to a diverse pool of respondents and victim-survivors in several police divisions across Victoria. Taken together, the two stages of the evaluation results are largely positive regarding the efficacy of the Alexis- FVRM. The evaluation results indicate that the Alexis-FVRM helped to reduce the risk of family violence for many of the respondents and affected family members, and that the victim-survivor survey participants generally felt safer and supported following the coordinated police and social services response.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,091 | 0,156 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».