theories of indigenous violence - university of new south ... › sites › › files › uploads...

DRAFT ONLY: NOT TO BE CITED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE AUTHORS

Theories of Indigenous violence:

A preliminary assessment

Lucy Snowball & Don Weatherburn1

NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research

1 Paper delivered at the Annual Australian Social Policy, University of New South Wales, 11th-13th July, 2007. Address for correspondence: [email protected].

mailto:[email protected]

Predictors of Indigenous Violence

Abstract A number of theories have been put forward to explain the high level of violence amongst Australia’s Indigenous population. Up until 2002, lack of suitable data on the risk factors associated with Indigenous violent victimisation made it very difficult to assess the adequacy of these theories. In 2002 the Australian Bureau of Statistics conducted a national survey (the NATSISS) of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. That survey made it possible to examine a range of correlates of Indigenous violent victimisation. Analysis of the NATSISS victimisation data, however, has so far been limited to a few bi-variate comparisons. The present article presents the results of the first multivariate analysis of risk factors for violent victimisation among Indigenous Australians using the NATSISS. The results provide strong support for lifestyle/routine activity theories, moderate support for social disorganisation and social deprivation theories but little support for cultural theories of Indigenous violence.

2


Introduction

Violence is a chronic problem among the Indigenous peoples of Canada, the United States, New Zealand and Australia (Brzozowski, Taylor-Butts & Johnson 2006; Brownridge; 2003, Bachman 1992; Morris, Reilly, Berry & Ransom 2003). The 2002 Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey (NATSISS) found that one-quarter of Australia’s Indigenous population (aged 15 years and over) had been victims of physical or threatened violence in the twelve months preceding the survey. This is double the corresponding victimisation rate for non-Indigenous Australians and double the rate reported for Indigenous Australians back in 1994 (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2004: 13).1

A number of explanations for the high level of violence amongst Australia’s Indigenous population have been put forward. Most (but not all) treat colonisation and dispossession and their sequelae as the underlying cause or causes of Indigenous violence. The precise mechanisms or processes linking the historical trauma of colonisation and dispossession to present-day problems of Indigenous violence, however, are far from agreed. Some maintain that the destruction of Aboriginal culture undermined Aboriginal social norms (Reser 1990, cited in Memmot et al. 2001). Others see Indigenous violence as a (predominantly male) response to loss of power and self-esteem (Hunter 1993). Some contend that Indigenous violence is a response to racial discrimination and socioeconomic disadvantage (e.g. Devery 1991; Gale, Bailey-Harris, & Wundersitz 1990). Others argue that the high levels of Indigenous violence are a comparatively recent phenomenon, generated by passive welfare dependence, on the one hand, and alcohol abuse on the other (Pearson 2001; Hughes and Warin 2005).

None of these theories have been subjected to any systematic empirical test. The main reason is that, up until recently, a key precondition for such tests—reliable and comprehensive data on the characteristics of Indigenous Australians who become victims of violence—simply did not exist. In 2002, the Australian Bureau of Statistics carried out a nationally representative sample survey of over 9,000 Indigenous Australians (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2004). The National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (NATSISS) survey was not designed as a vehicle for testing alternative theories about the causes of Indigenous violence, however it contains a wealth of information that is potentially useful for this purpose. The questions included in the survey cover a large number of issues, including unemployment, financial stress, social stress, level of social involvement, geographic mobility, level of education, family structure, alcohol consumption, illicit drug use, health/disability status, whether the respondent had been removed by authorities from their natural family and the extent to which the respondent still engages in traditional cultural practices.

Only one Australian study to date has used the NATSISS to explore the correlates of Indigenous violent victimisation. That study (Al-Yarman, Van Doeland & Wallis 2006) was limited to a small number of bi-variate comparisons. The purpose of this article is to report the results of a multivariate analysis of the predictors of Indigenous violent victimisation, conducted with a view to assessing contemporary theories of Indigenous violence. In the next section we describe theories of Indigenous violence in more detail and outline some of their implications. In the section that follows we

3


explain how we propose to conduct an assessment of these theories. In section three we discuss the NATSISS data and methods used to analyse it. In section four we present the results of our analysis. In the final section we discuss the implications of our study for theory, research and policy.

Theories of Indigenous violence

Theories of Indigenous violence, while influenced by the general theoretical literature on violence, tend to combine elements from several paradigms. This eclecticism is to be applauded but it means that any attempt to classify theories of Indigenous violence under traditional headings is an exercise fraught with difficulty. In what follows we tentatively group theories of Australian Indigenous violence under four headings: cultural theory, anomie theory, social disorganisation theory, social deprivation theory and lifestyle/routine activity theory. Readers should keep in mind that this classification scheme has been adopted more for heuristic reasons than because theories of Indigenous violence fit neatly under classical headings.

Cultural theory Wolfgang and Ferracuti (1967) were struck by the fact that many incidents of violence they observed in the United States were sparked by events (a glance, a derogatory remark) that, to an outside observer, would hardly seem to have justified the attack that followed. They famously concluded that:

“Quick resort to physical combat as a measure of daring, courage, or defence of status appears to be a cultural expression, especially for lower socioecononomic class males of both races.” (Wolfgang & Ferracuti 1967, p. 153)

Similar observations have been made about the propensity of Indigenous Australians to respond very aggressively to seemingly minor violations of social protocol (Chadbourne 1992, cited in Memmot et al. 2001, p. 21). Not surprisingly, a number of writers have been keen to emphasise the contribution of Indigenous culture to violent behaviour. Sutton (2001, p. 152), for example, pointed out that archaeological records of pre-historic (Aboriginal) remains reveal a much higher incidence of ‘defensive’ injuries to the bones of Aboriginal women than to the bones of Aboriginal men and argued that early versions of what is now called family violence or community violence were widespread under ‘traditional’ conditions. He contends that recent ethnographies by trained anthropologists leave little doubt that family and community violence were widespread and frequent in Australia prior to white settlement. Langton (1988) and Martin (1992) have also commented on the ritualistic and socially accepted nature of much of the violence in Aboriginal communities. According to Martin (1992), while some contemporary fighting and violence can be attributed to ‘intervention by the wider society’ violence and fighting:

“…are also deeply rooted in cultural values relating to such matters as the high stress on personal autonomy, on appropriate behaviour for each sex, on notions of morality, on how individuals are seen to be related to wider social groupings, on the appropriate expression of emotions such as anger, and how individuals are expected to act upon the world in order to achieve their ends or redress wrongs done to them.” (Martin 1998, p. 16).

4


Most scholars of Indigenous violence in Australia, nevertheless, reject the notion that violence is an integral feature of Aboriginal culture. Like their counterparts in Canada and the United States (e.g. Brownbridge 2003; Bachman 1992), they contend that Indigenous violence reflects the destructive effects of colonisation and dispossession. There are, nonetheless, at least three different views about why colonisation and dispossession have led to high levels of Indigenous violence.

Anomie theory Some writers, following Durkheim (1965), have argued that the rapid social change in Aboriginal society that followed colonisation and dispossession has thrown Aboriginal society into a state of anomie. Reser, for example, has argued that ‘cultural contact, historical brutality and acculturative stress’ have caused confusion among Indigenous people about their role and cultural identity, internal conflict and feelings of alienation and anomie (Reser 1990; cited in Memmot et al. 2001, p. 13). Other writers have taken a similar stance but placed more emphasis on the way in which colonisation and dispossession have affected young men. According to Gale (1978), for example:

‘In…post-traditional communities the status of women increased whilst that of men declined. It is not surprising, today, to find Aboriginal women in positions of dominance in the family and leadership in the community. By contrast, many Aboriginal men have lost both their status and their self-respect. The path now followed by so many of the men, from hotel to gaol, is but an inevitable consequence of their loss of status and purpose in society.’ (Gale 1978, p. 2) Hunter (1993) has likewise argued that: ‘Aboriginal violence is a statement of the compromised position of men in their communities, and their powerlessness as Aborigines in contemporary Australia. Male attacks on women and themselves reflect the consequent profound deficits in self-esteem.’ (Hunter 1993, p. 192). Again, Langton (1989, cited in Memmot et al. 2001, p. 30) sees Indigenous violence as a deliberate attempt on the part of Indigenous men ‘to preserve male dominance in ideology, structures and relationships.’ The common thread running through all these viewpoints is the notion that colonisation and dispossession has undermined the capacity of Indigenous communities to regulate themselves. Anomie theorists believe that the destruction of Aboriginal society has deprived Indigenous Australians of any sense of meaning, value and purpose. As a result, traditional rules no longer have the capacity to restrain antisocial behaviour.

Social disorganisation theory A second, closely related line of thought maintains that colonisation and dispossession produced a breakdown of Indigenous informal social controls. The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (hereafter referred to as the Commission) took this view, arguing that ‘disruption, intervention and institutionalisation’ had undermined Aboriginal family and kinship structures, thereby making it difficult for parents and elders to inculcate traditional social norms

5


(Commonwealth of Australia 1991, paras 14.4.39 to 14.4.43). According to the Commission (Commonwealth of Australia, para 14.4.43) there is a strong and widespread belief in Aboriginal communities in southeastern Australia: ‘that parents are forbidden by law to chastise their children, and that if they do they will be prosecuted or the children taken away…It may in part be a legacy of the feelings of powerlessness built up by the oppressive supervision and control of Aboriginal families in the past.’ Memmot et al. (2001, p. 11-12) share a similar view, arguing that Aboriginal social structures were broken down by:

• State policies of removing Aboriginal people and those of mixed descent to reserves and missions.

• The dormitory system, under which Aboriginal women and children were taken away from their communities and used as a source of cheap farm labour.

• The political and disciplinary disempowerment of elders by mission and reserve managers.

Memmot et al. (2001, p. 13) contend that the Indigenous communities most affected by violence should be those with a long history of functioning as removal centres or missions ‘where maximum dysfunctional cultural change has occurred’. The same reasoning would presumably lead one to expect higher rates of violent victimisation amongst those who are members of the stolen generation or amongst those whose family and kinship networks have been disrupted by removal from their traditional lands.

Social deprivation theory A third approach, following social opportunity theory locates Indigenous violence in economic and social disadvantage. Some variants of this idea take a strain theory (Merton 1968) approach to the relationship between disadvantage and crime. The Royal Commission (Commonwealth of Australia 1991, para 17.1.1), for example, observed that:

‘Since the colonisation of Australia, Aboriginal people have been progressively denied access to the means by which they traditionally supported themselves, yet they have not been able to share equitably in the benefits of the contemporary economy which was imposed upon them.’

Walker and McDonald (1995, p. 5) adopt a similar line, arguing that much of the difference between Indigenous and non-Indigenous imprisonment rates would disappear if appropriate adjustments were made for the high rate of Indigenous unemployment and low levels of Indigenous education.

Others take a view more akin to social opportunity theory (Cloward & Ohlin 1960), arguing that Indigenous violence is an act of rebellion or resistance against social marginalisation or exclusion. In commenting on his experiences in the Northern Territory Hunter (1991), for example, notes:

‘Arriving at Balgo shortly after, I noticed graffiti that had not been earlier obvious. Children had been painting “WARRIORS” on walls about the settlement. Clearly

6


being identified as violent, as ‘bad blackfellows’, was a greater source of self-esteem than the void in which they were otherwise required to live’ (Hunter 1991, p. 96).

The evidence does not permit a determination of which of these points of view is correct, but there is certainly a strong correlation between Indigenous violence and Indigenous disadvantage. Devery (1991) found a strong correlation between levels of disadvantage and rates of Indigenous appearance in NSW courts. Hunter (2001) found that the risk of Indigenous arrest for a violent offence was significantly higher for Indigenous Australians who are unemployed than for Indigenous Australians who are employed, even after controlling for a wide range of other predictors of arrest. Al Yarman, Van Doeland and Wallis (2006) reported higher risks of violent victimisation among those who are poor, unemployed, in poor health or have been exposed to social stress (e.g. death or imprisonment of a family member). Similar findings have been reported overseas. Bachman (1992) regressed rates of (American) Indian homicide across various communities against rates of economic deprivation (as measured by poverty and unemployment) and social disorganisation (as measured by geographic mobility and female-headed households) and found both were strong predictors of homicide rate across Indian communities, even after controlling for the number of young people in the population.

Lifestyle/routine activity theory Most theories of Indigenous violence that focus on the after-effects of colonisation and dispossession, also assign some role to alcohol abuse. Hunter (1993, p. 194) maintains that the lifting of restrictions on Aboriginal alcohol abuse in the 1970s exerted both short and long term effects on interpersonal violence. The short-term effects, according to Hunter (1993) were a result of the effect of alcohol intoxication on male behaviour. The long-term effects, he maintains, were a result of the impact of alcohol abuse on parenting and interpersonal relations.

Pearson (2001), however, blames the high level of Indigenous violence almost solely on Indigenous drug and alcohol abuse. Like Cohen and Felson (1979), he totally rejects the view that violence is a result of social deprivation or disadvantage. He also rejects the view that Indigenous drug and alcohol abuse are present-day symptoms of the historical events and processes associated with colonisation and dispossession. As he puts it:

‘We must understand that trauma, dispossession et cetera make our communities susceptible to grog and drug epidemics, they do not automatically cause abusive behaviour…..When abusive behaviour is deeply entrenched in our communities it is not the material destitution, the social ills and historical legacy that fuel the abuse epidemics. It is the epidemics themselves.’ (Pearson 2001, p. 4, italics in original).

The arguments put forward by Hughes and Warin (2005) represent another variant on lifestyle/routine activity theory. They accept that alcohol and other forms of drug abuse are a common correlate of violence in Indigenous communities but blame this state of affairs on Government policies that trap Indigenous Australians in welfare dependence. According to Hughes and Warin, because the basis on which welfare funds are distributed is not transparent to Indigenous people, ‘payback’ has become central to Indigenous bargaining over limited resources. The practice of ‘payback’, they maintain, bears prime responsibility for the high rates of violent death in remote Indigenous communities (Hughes & Warin 2005, p. 14).

7


Lifestyle/routine activity theory also enjoys some evidentiary support. When Al Yarman et al. (2006, p. 48) examined the relationship between alcohol abuse and violent victimisation in the 2002 NATSISS, they found that high-risk drinkers were twice as likely as non-drinkers to have experienced violence over the preceding 12 months. Studies of Indigenous cultures in other countries provide further support for the importance of alcohol abuse as a factor in Indigenous violence. Bachman (1992) conducted in-depth interviews with 30 American Indian homicide offenders. She found, however, that virtually all were under the influence of alcohol or some other drug at the time they committed their crime. Brownridge (2003) used Canada’s 1999 General Social Survey (GSS) to examine the correlates of male partner violence against Canadian Aboriginal women. She found that Canadian Aboriginal women who drank heavily were much more at risk of violence than Canadian Aboriginal women who did not.

The present study There is clearly no shortage of explanations for Indigenous violence. However, as Memmot et al. (2001, p. 31) note:

‘[the literature on Indigenous violence] tends to be top-heavy with theory and discussion, and lacks any depth of systematic reporting of empirical evidence on violence’. It is to be doubted that further progress will be made in understanding of Indigenous violence without further empirical research designed to elucidate which factors implicated by existing theories exert the strongest influence on Indigenous violence. Yet only two Australian studies have examined the correlates of Indigenous violence. Hunter (2001) used the 1994 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Survey (NATSIS) to conduct an exploratory multivariate analysis of the correlates of Indigenous involvement in various offences, including assault. He found a higher risk of self-reported involvement in assault among males, those who lived in rural areas, those who were unemployed, those who failed to complete year 12, those who lived in a crowded household, those who taken away from their natural family, those who lived with people who had been arrested, those who were unemployed, those who had a long-term health condition and those who consumed alcohol. In the second study, Al Yaman et al. (2006) used the 2002 NATSISS to examine various predictors of violent victimisation and found higher risks of victimisation amongst those who had failed to complete school, those who were on low incomes, those who were unemployed, those whose self-assessed health status was fair or poor, those who had been removed from their natural family, those who were high risk consumers of alcohol and those who were exposed to social stress. Both these studies highlight the scope for improving our understanding of Indigenous violence but both have their limitations. The 1994 NATSIS contains no measure of respondent experience of violence so Hunter (2001) was unable to examine risk factors for violent victimisation. The 2002 NATSISS contains a large number of variables potentially relevant to an assessment of theories of Indigenous violence but Al Yarman et al. (2006) did not set out to conduct an assessment of the adequacy of existing theory. As a result, they only examined a limited number of NATSISS factors and only analysed their bi-variate association with the risk of violent victimisation. It is unclear, therefore, whether any of the variables they found to be significant

8


predictors of Indigenous violent victimisation would remain significant in a multivariate analysis. Although the 2002 NATSISS was not designed as a vehicle for testing theories of Indigenous violence it is possible to construct measures of many of the key theoretical constructs we have been discussing using variables from that survey. If cultural theory is correct, for example, one might expect higher rates of violence among Indigenous Australians who:

• Live on traditional homelands • Identify with a clan or speak an Indigenous language2 • Have difficulties speaking English. • Live in a remote community.

It is difficult to tease out testable implications from anomie theories of Indigenous violence because the NATSISS contains no variable measuring the level of anomie (e.g. as manifest in loss of purpose, role confusion, loss of respect for traditional norms). Still, if the emphasis given to the anomic effects of colonisation and dispossession on Indigenous men were correct, one would expect to see higher rates of violent victimisation among Indigenous women than among Indigenous men. If the social disorganisation theory perspective on Indigenous violence were correct, one would expect higher rates of violent victimisation amongst Indigenous Australians who:

• Are not socially involved in their communities3 • Are sole parents • Have high rates of geographic mobility (as measured by the number of times

they moved house). • Are members or have relatives who are members of the stolen generation.

If, on the other hand, Indigenous economic and social deprivation is the key driver of Indigenous violence, one would expect to see higher rates of Indigenous victimisation amongst those who:

• Are socially stressed4 • Are unemployed, or if employed work within a Community Development

Employment Projects (CDEP) scheme • Have experienced financial stress5 • Left school early • Live in a crowded household6 • Live in a household with more than two dependent children • Have been charged as a child7

It is difficult to identify measures relevant to lifestyle/routine activity theory because the specific factors that render individuals vulnerable to violent victimisation are not identified within the theory. Still if, as Cohen and Felson (1979) maintain, vulnerability is increased when potential offenders come together with potential victims in the absence of capable guardians, one might expect higher rates of violent

9


victimisation among those who live with or near potential offenders; who cannot readily escape from potential offenders; or who engage in a lifestyle (e.g. heaving drinking) that exposes them to violence. In terms of NATSISS variables this suggests we would expect higher rates of violent victimisation amongst those who:

• Have a severe or moderate disability (and are therefore more vulnerable to attack).

• Live in an area with neighbourhood problems • Consume alcohol in a high risk manner8 • Use illicit substances or misuse licit substances9 • Reside with a person who has been charged with an offence • Do not have access to a motor vehicle (and therefore cannot escape from

violent situations) The object of the present study is to test these hypothesised relationships and in so doing conduct a preliminary assessment of theories of Indigenous violence. We use the term ‘preliminary’ for two reasons. Firstly, the 2002 NATSISS was not designed to yield valid and reliable measures of each of the key constructs in the theories we reviewed in the introduction. As a result, we lack strong measures of some key theoretical constructs (e.g. strength of social norms, feelings of anomie/marginalisation). Secondly, some of our variables are far from ideal measures of the theoretical constructs they are supposed to tap. We included the variable ‘charged first as a child’ under the heading of social deprivation, for example, because of the adverse social outcomes associated with criminal conviction (Hunter & Borland 1999; Fagan & Freeman 1999). It could be argued, however, that this variable also reflects exposure to a risky environment.

Method

Data source The data source for the study is the 2002 NATSISS survey. We used the entire sample for the both the bivariate and multivariate analysis. Details of the NATSISS can be found in Australian Bureau of Statistics report of the survey (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2004). It suffices to say here that the NATSISS involved face-to-face interviews with 9,359 Indigenous persons aged 15 and over, living in 5,887 households. As the estimated population of Indigenous Australians was 282,205 at the time of the survey, approximately 1 in 30 Indigenous Australians participated in the survey. The explanatory variables included in the study were outlined in the section above. The independent variable was whether the respondent had experienced threatened or physical violence at least once in the 12 months preceding the survey. We first looked at the bivariate relationship between each of the independent variables and the dependent variable, violent victimisation. Then we regressed the independent variables against violent victimisation. Where there were missing values for independent variables used in the model, we created additional variables that had the value 1 if the variable of interest was missing or not stated. These variables were then retained in the final model if they were significantly different from the reference group.

10


Results Table 1 gives the number of respondents with characteristics used in the model as well as the corresponding weighted percentage. The third column gives the number of missing or non-stated responses for each variable. Insert Table 1 about here Tables 2a and 2b give the bivariate comparisons for each of the independent variables with respect to the dependent variable, violent victimisation. To aid understanding of the results two separate tables are shown, one for dichotomous variables and the other for multi-category variables. Insert Table 2a about here Insert Table 2a about here Table 2a shows that being female, having difficulties with English, living in traditional homelands and identifying with a clan group or speaking an Indigenous language show an increased prevalence of victimisation. This difference is most pronounced in those who have difficulty speaking English. Table 2b similarly shows an increased risk of violence, as location becomes more remote. In Tables 2a and 2b, the social disorganisation variables show a contradictory picture. Lone parents, respondents who were removed as children or had a close relation who was removed and respondents who moved more than once in the preceding 12 months were considerably more likely to be victims of violence. However respondents who were not socially involved had a lower likelihood of victimisation. The same tables show an increased likelihood of violent victimisation for almost all economic and social deprivation variables. The only exceptions to this generalisation are the crowded household variable; which paradoxically exerts a slight protective effect, and the variable measuring whether there more than two dependents in the household; which appears to exert no effect. Being first charged as a child shows the largest effect, with the risk of violent victimisation doubling where someone has already been charged as a child. Lifestyle factors exert the strongest effects on risk of violent victimisation. High-risk alcohol use, substance abuse and having a profound disability all exert very strong effects. Note, however, that the substance abuse results are only applicable to respondents living in non-remote areas, for reasons outlined previously. Table 3 shows the results of the logistic regression modelling. Only variables that remained significant at the 5 per cent were retained. Many of the variables had a high degree of correlation with other variables (for example, lives on traditional homelands and identifies with clan). This was taken into account when variables were tested in the model. The final model was also tested for collinearity amongst independent variables. This was found not to be significant. Insert Table 3 about here

11


The results indicate that higher rates of violent victimisation are found among respondents who:

• Are under the age of 35 • Are lone parents • Live in an area with neighbourhood problems • Are exposed to social stressors. • Are involved in social activities • Are unemployed or working within a CDEP scheme • Are financially stressed • Moved at least once in the previous twelve months. • Have a severe or profound disability. • Are members or related to members of the stolen generation. • Consume alcohol at a high risk rate • Abuse substances • Live with someone who has been formally charged with an offence • Were charged with an offence as a child.

No significant effects were found for gender, whether or not the respondent lives in a major city or regional or remote area, whether the respondent identifies with a clan or speaks an Indigenous language, whether the respondent has difficulty speaking English, whether the respondent lives on traditional homelands, the respondent’s level of education, whether the respondent had access to a motor vehicle, number of children/dependents in the household and whether the household was crowded. The two ‘not stated’ control variables for alcohol abuse and being a member (or related to a member) of the stolen generation are significant and have relatively high odds ratios. It is possible that respondents who fell into these groups shared similar characteristics in terms of the dependent variable. It is also possible that the ‘not stated’ responses were due to the stigma attached to the variables (for example alcohol abuse) or the difficulties associated with discussing painful personal experiences (for example, removal from family). If this were the case, many of the ‘not stated’ cases would share similarities with those who answered ‘yes’ to the question on violent victimisation. Because of the high coefficient value for alcohol abuse and the characteristics of those respondents, there was concern that this could be an ‘intervening’ variable. In order to test this, we modelled victimisation using the same explanatory variables but excluding high-risk alcohol consumption to determine whether there was a significant change in the coefficients. Surprisingly we did not find a significant change in the coefficients of the variables. This suggests that there is an independent and significant effect of high-risk alcohol consumption. These results should be considered in conjunction with the prevalence rates shown in Table 1 above. Although high-risk alcohol use has a large effect on the probability of a person experiencing violence, only 5.6 per cent of the Indigenous population aged 15 and over is classed by the ABS in the category ‘high risk alcohol use’10. Similarly although the marginal effects of ‘Stressors’ and ‘first charged as a child’ were smaller than those of ‘high risk alcohol consumption’, the number of Indigenous people

12


affected is larger. Seventy-four per cent of Australia’s Indigenous population is exposed to one or more ‘stressors’, while 16.9 per cent have been charged as a child. Nearly 38 per cent are either members of the stolen generation or have a family member who is a member of the stolen generation’. Approximately 29 per cent have a problem with substance abuse, which is 40 per cent of those for whom data is available. In order to further examine the effects of the variables in the model, we calculated the marginal effects of the most influential variables, excluding demographic and location variables. Table 4 gives the marginal effect in percentage points associated with the variables. The median case is also given in order to give an understanding of the relative magnitude. The median case was determined by assigning the median value to the demographic and location variables in order to represent the average respondent. Here the average respondent was aged between 25 and 34 and lived in a crime prone area. Note that in order to examine the effect of the continuous variable, the number of moves, we assigned a value of ‘1’ to the variable, so in effect we are examining the effect of one move. It can be seen that an average Indigenous respondent has a 10.1 per cent chance of being a victim of violence. Adding the marginal effect of each of the variables to this likelihood gives the probability of victimisation for an average person with the additional characteristic. For example, the probability of becoming a victim of violence increases to 20.0 per cent when the person consumes alcohol at a rate that is classified as high risk. Stressors also increase the risk significantly, to 17.8 per cent. Insert Table 4 about here Figure 1 shows graphically the increase in becoming a victim of violence as risk factors accumulate. The average risk of violent victimisation may be ‘only’ about 10 per cent but if an Indigenous Australian consumes alcohol at a high-risk level, experiences economic and social stress, has moved once over the last 12 months, is a member of the stolen generation and has been charged with an offence as a child, the chance of having been a victim of violence over the last 12 months increases to more than 50 per cent. Insert Figure 1 about here. We can get a sense of effects of changing the risk factors for Indigenous victimisation using the model shown in Table 1. Table 4 shows the results of a simulation in which alcohol consumption and financial stress are reduced.11 If the percentage of the Indigenous population affected by financial stress were decreased by five per cent, the predicted number12 of victims would drop by 2.2 per cent, or about 0.6 percentage points. Similarly if the rate of high-risk alcohol use decreased by one per cent, the number of victims of violence would decrease by 0.8 per cent (i.e. 0.2 percentage points).

13


Discussion Because the NATSISS is a cross-sectional rather than longitudinal survey, we cannot be sure about the causal order underpinning significant correlations. Interpretation of our findings is further clouded by the fact that the violent victimisation question in the NATSISS relates to the respondent’s experiences over the previous 12 months, whereas many of the independent variables in our analysis (e.g. labour force status and financial and household stress) refer to the respondent’s current circumstances. In drawing inferences about the causal effects of our independent variables, therefore, we must assume that the respondent’s current circumstances prevailed at the time or prior to becoming a victim of violent crime. Setting these caveats to one side, the most striking finding to emerge from our analysis is that concerning high-risk alcohol consumption. The marginal effect of this factor far exceeds that of any other variable, including those measuring social disorganisation and social deprivation. The fact that high-risk alcohol consumption remains a strong predictor of Indigenous violence even in the presence of controls for financial stress, unemployment, family breakdown and geographic mobility provides support to those who, like Pearson (2001), have argued that alcohol abuse is not just a symptom of Indigenous disadvantage. The finding of a strong correlation between some factor and violent victimisation would not normally warrant the conclusion that the factor in question is an important cause of violent victimisation, even if the association held up in the presence of controls for a large number of other factors. Given the weight of other evidence linking alcohol abuse to violent behaviour, however, it is not unreasonable to conclude that alcohol abuse plays a leading role in facilitating Indigenous violence. High-risk alcohol consumption was not the only lifestyle/routine activity factor to emerge as a significant predictor of Indigenous violent victimisation. In order of importance the significant factors were: living in an area with neighbourhood problems, using illicit substances or misusing licit substances, having a severe or profound disability and residing with a person who has been charged with an offence. Each of these factors may be thought of as affecting victimisation risk because it influences the level of exposure to situations where violence might ensue. It is possible, however, that being exposed to violence increases the risk of a severe or profound disability rather than the other way round. The only lifestyle routine activity factor found not to be significant was access to a motor vehicle, which was found to be a protective factor in the bi-variate analysis but had no significant effect in the multivariate analysis. This may be because access to a motor vehicle is more a measure of economic wellbeing than of a person’s ability to escape from violent situations. This would explain why having a motor vehicle ceased to be significant a significant predictor of violent victimisation once controls were introduced for financial stress and unemployment. Our results also provide strong support for theories that attribute Indigenous violence to Indigenous social disorganisation. The variable measuring exposure to social stressors has the second strongest marginal effect, after high-risk alcohol consumption. It is, nevertheless, difficult to say much about this finding because we do not know which of the long list of events counted as social stressors13 was responsible for the strong association between social stress and risk of violent victimisation. The findings in relation to mobility and being a member or related to a

14


member of the stolen generation, on the other hand, are entirely consistent with past research linking high rates of family dissolution and geographic mobility to high rates of violent crime (Sampson, Raudenbush & Earls 1997). The only anomaly among our findings on social disorganisation was the observation that those not involved in social activity were less likely to have experienced violence. The only explanation we can offer for this result is that not being involved in social activity may be a marker of social isolation and/or lack of social support but it may also reduce an individual’s exposure to violent situations. The variables measuring financial stress, having been first charged as a child and unemployment all exerted strong effects. Only the variables measuring respondent’s level of education, the number of children/dependents in the household and whether the household was crowded were not significant. The effects of financial stress and unemployment are relatively easy to understand, as both would be expected to engender frustration, anger, boredom and social alienation. The finding in relation to being ‘first charged as a child’ is more difficult to interpret. As noted earlier, it was included amongst our measures of social deprivation because being arrested for or charged with an offence tends to have adverse effects on an individual’s employment and earnings prospects (Hunter & Borland 1999: Fagan & Freeman 1999). An alternative interpretation is that early contact with the criminal justice system signals defects in family functioning (e.g. child neglect or abuse) that expose an individual to violence in later life (Coumarelos & Allen 1998). Since age of first contact with the criminal justice system is a good predictor of later involvement in crime and imprisonment as an adult (Chen et al. 2005), it is also possible that those who are charged when they are young are more likely to find themselves in the company of violent people later on in adulthood. This may be one reason why those who live with someone who has been formally charged with an offence are also at higher risk of violent victimisation. If this interpretation is correct, being charged with an offence as a child may be more a marker of exposure to violence than it is a marker of economic and social disadvantage. Interestingly, our findings provide no support for cultural theories of Indigenous violence. In the bi-variate analyses, being female, having difficulties with English, living in traditional homelands, living in a remote rural area and identifying with a clan group or speaking an Indigenous language all showed a higher prevalence of victimisation. Yet none of these variables were significant in the multivariate analysis. The finding on gender is especially surprising, and not just because the level of attention given to domestic violence in Indigenous communities. Most large-scale population surveys find marked differences between males and females in their risks of becoming victims of violence. In its latest national survey on personal crime, for example, the Australian Bureau of Statistics found that males were more than twice as likely to have been assaulted in the preceding 12 months than females (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006). Since our measures of adherence to traditional culture are both varied and strong, their lack of effect suggests that, whatever the historical significance of cultural factors, they currently play little role in the production of Indigenous violence. The present study highlights the need for a more sophisticated approach to theory and research. Most theories of Indigenous violence are too schematic to generate predictions about the relative importance of various factors as causes of Indigenous

15


violence. Indeed, most are more preoccupied with explaining the difference between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities in rates of violent behaviour than they are in explaining why some Indigenous Australians are much more at risk of violence than others. There is a pressing need for theories that explain (1) how various factors combine to influence the risk of violent victimisation amongst Indigenous Australians in different (2) why rate of violence in some Indigenous communities appear so much higher than in others and (3) why rates of violence in a given Indigenous community rise and fall over time. The answers to these questions may vary from one part of the country to another but testable explanations that are limited in their applicability are always to be preferred over abstract theories that do not generate detailed and testable predictions. There is also much work to be done on how various factors influence the risk of violent victimisation. The 2002 NATSISS, for example, provides useful data on economic and social correlates of violence but contains no measures of the family factors (e.g. violent, coercive discipline) that are known to increase the risk of violent behaviour in non-Indigenous communities. Furthermore, being a cross-sectional survey, it is difficult to draw inferences about the causal status of variables found to be significant predictors of violent victimisation. There is also a pressing need for research beyond the individual level. We need a better understanding of how rates of violent crime amongst Indigenous Australians vary from one community to another and what factors are associated with that variation. We also need a clearer understanding of how and why rates of Indigenous violence vary over time, whether over the short run (daily, weekly) or over long run (monthly, annually). Given the exploratory nature of this study and the caveats just noted, it would be imprudent to draw strong conclusions regarding the policy implications of our current findings. Still, the strong association between alcohol abuse and violent victimisation and the wealth of other research linking alcohol to violence leaves little doubt that measures to reduce alcohol abuse in Indigenous communities would be of considerable assistance in reducing the risk of violent victimisation. The strong marginal effect of economic stress on the risk of Indigenous violent victimisation suggests that reducing the level of economic stress on Indigenous families is also very important. At the time of the 2002 NATSISS survey, more than two in five Indigenous Australians lived in households that had experienced financial stress in the previous 12 months. The Indigenous unemployment rate has fallen significantly since the NATSISS was conducted but it is still more than three times higher than the non-Indigenous unemployment rate (Commonwealth of Australia 2006). The evidence in Figure 1 suggests that it is the accumulation of risk factors, rather than any one risk factor, that puts Indigenous Australians at risk of violent victimisation. This suggests that a multi-pronged approach to reducing Indigenous violence is to be preferred over one that focuses on only one or two factors to the exclusion of all others.

16


References Al-Yarman, F., Van Doeland, M. & Wallis, M. (2006). Family violence among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Canberra. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2004). National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Cat. No. 4714.0, Canberra. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2006). Personal Safety Survey 2005. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Cat. No. 4906.0, Canberra. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2003). The Health and Welfare of Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Cat. No. 4704.0, Canberra. Bachman, R. (1992). Death and Violence on the Reservation: Homicide, family violence, and suicide in American Indian populations. Auburn House, New York. Brownridge, D.A. (2003). ‘Male Partner Violence Against Aboriginal Women in Canada: An empirical analysis’, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(1), pp. 65-83. Brzozowski, J.A., Taylor-Butts, A. & Johnson, S. (2006). ‘Victimization and offending among the Aboriginal population in Canada.’ Juristat, 26, 3, Cat. No. 85-002-XPE. Ottawa: Statistics Canada. Chen, S., Matrulio, T., Weatherburn, D. & Hua, J. (2005). The transition from juvenile to adult criminal careers. NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Sydney. Chikritzhs, T. & Brady, B. (2006). ‘Fact or Fiction? A critique of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey 2002’, Drug and Alcohol Review, 25(3), 277-287. Cloward, R.A. & Ohlin, L.E. (1960). Delinquency and Opportunity: A Theory of Delinquent Gangs, The Free Press, New York. Cohen, L. E. & Felson, M. (1979). ‘Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach’, American Sociological Review, 44, 588-608. Commonwealth of Australia (1991) Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Commonwealth of Australia (2006). Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage: Key indicators. Productivity Commission, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Coumarelos, C. & Allen, J. (1998). Predicting Violence Against Women: The 1996 Women’s Safety Survey. Crime and Justice Bulletin 42, NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Sydney.

17


Devery, C. (1991). Disadvantage and Crime in New South Wales. NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Sydney. Durkheim, E. (1965). The Division of Labour. tr. by George Simpson, The Free Press, New York. Fagan, J. & Freeman, R.B. (1999). ‘Crime and Work’. In M Tonry (ed.) Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 25, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 225-290.

Gale, F. (1978). ‘Introduction’. In F. Gale (ed.), Women’s Role in Aboriginal Society. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra. Gale, F., Bailey-Harris, R., & Wunderitz, J. (1990). Aboriginal Youth and the Criminal Justice System. Cambridge University Press, Sydney: Hughes, H. & Warin, J. (2005). A new deal for Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders in Remote Communities. Issue Analysis No. 54, Centre for Independent Studies, Sydney. Hunter, E. (1991). ‘The Intercultural and Socio-Historical Context of Aboriginal Personal Violence in Remote Australia’, Australian Psychologist, 26(2), 89-98. Hunter, E. (1993). Aboriginal Health and History. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hunter, B and Borland, J (1999) ‘Does crime affect employment status? The case of indigenous Australians.’ Economica, 67(1), 123-44

Hunter, B. (2001). Factors underlying Indigenous arrest rates, NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Sydney. Langton, M. (1988). ‘Medicine Square’. In K. Keen (ed.), Being Black, Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra, 16-22. Martin, D.F. (1992). ‘Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Homicide: same but different’. In H. Strang & S. Gerull (eds.), Homicide: Patterns, Prevention and Control. Proceedings of a conference 12th-14th May, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra, pp. 167-176. Memmot, P., Stacy, R., Chambers, C. & Keys, C. (2001). Violence in Indigenous Communities. Attorney General’s Department, Canberra. Merton, R.K. (1968). Social Theory and Social Structure, The Free Press, Glencoe Illinois. Morris, A., Reilly, J., Berry, S. & Ranson, R. (2003). New Zealand National Survey of Crime Victims 2001. NZ Ministry of Justice, Auckland.

18


Pearson, N. (2001). On the Human Right to Misery, Mass Incarceration and Early Death. The Charles Perkins Memorial Oration, MacLaurin Hall, University of Sydney, 25th of October. Sampson, R.J., Raudenbush, S.W. and Earls, F. (1997). ‘Neighbourhoods and Violent Crime: A Multi-level Study of Collective Efficacy’, Science, 277, 15th August. Sutton, P. (2001). ‘The politics of suffering: Indigenous policy in Australia since the 1970s’, Anthropological Forum, 11(2), 125-169. Walker, J. & McDonald, D. (1995). The Over-Representation of Indigenous People in Custody in Australia. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice No. 47, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra. Wolfgang, M.E. & Ferracuti, F. (1967). The Subculture of Violence. Tavistock, London.

19


Tables Table 1: Prevalence of variables

Number of respondents

Weighted percentage

Number missing or not stated

Under 25 2,431 29.3 - 25-34 2,431 25.2 - 35 and over 4,497 45.5 - Female 5,343 57.1 - Difficulties with English 1,522 16.3 16 Lives in homelands 2,530 21.9 - Identifies with clan or speaks Indigenous language 5,770 56.5

- Major city 1,482 27.3 - Regional 3,760 42.0 - Remote or very remote 4,117 30.6 - Not involved in social activities 1,103 11.8 - Person or family member of stolen generation 3,481 37.6

1,709 Lone parent 1,655 16.6 - Have not moved 6,679 69.1 - Moved once 2,018 22.7 - Moved twice 449 5.7 - Moved three times 126 1.6 - Moved four or more time 87 1.0 - Socially stressed 6,922 73.1 - Unemployed 995 12.1 - CDEP 1,446 13.8 - Employed (non CDEP) or Not in the Labour Force (NILF) 6,918 74.1

- Financial stress 4,169 43.7 - Finished school at year 12 1,316 16.9 - Finished school at year 10 or 11 1,085 10.9 - Finished school at year 9 or below 6,958 72.2 - Crowded household 1,440 14.8 - More than 2 dependents in the household 3,523 37.6 - First charged as a child 1,506 16.9 42 Severe or profound disability 434 5.6 - Neighbourhood problems 7,087 73.6 121 High risk alcohol use 587 5.6 61 Substance abuse 2,057 28.9 4,542 Other household member charged 2,567 25.1 - No access to a motor vehicle 4,473 45.0 31

20


Table 2a: Bivariate comparisons (dichotomous variables) Victimisation rate Yes No Female 25.7 23.1 Lives in homelands 26.3 23.2 Identifies with clan or speaks Indigenous language 24.8 23.7

Difficulties with English 29.6 23.6 Involved in social activities 25.2 16.3 Lone parent 33.6 21.7 Person or family member of stolen generation 30.9 19.0

Social stressors 36.2 22.3 Financial stress 33.3 17.3 Crowded household 23.4 24.5 More than 2 dependents in the household* 24.3 24.4 First charged as a child 42.1 20.7 Severe or profound disability 32.8 23.8 Neighbourhood problems 27.5 15.3 High risk alcohol use 42.3 23.2 Substance abuse 34.7 17.9 Other household member charged 31.6 21.9 No access to a motor vehicle 28.5 21.1 * Not significant at 5% level.

21


Table 2b: Bivariate comparisons (multi-category variables) Victimisation rate Location Major city 22.7 Regional 24.8

Remote or very remote 25.2

Number of moves in previous 12 months 0 20.8 1 26.4 2 45.7 3 54.5 4+ 52.8 Labour force status Unemployed 37.9 CDEP 25.4

Employed (non CDEP) or NILF 21.7

Highest level of schooling Yr 12 22.4 Yr 10 or 11 27.5 Yr 9 or below 22.0

22


Table 3: Results of logistic regression model

Comparison Parameter estimate P-value Odds ratio (with CI)

Intercept -0.33 (0.15) <0.0001 N/A Under 25 vs. 35+ 0.59 (0.07) <0.0001 1.81 (1.59 - 2.05) 25-34 vs. 35 + 0.37 (0.06) <0.0001 1.45 (1.28 - 1.64) No social involvement vs. Socially involved -0.30 (0.09) 0.0008 0.74 (0.62 - 0.88)

Lone parent vs. Non lone parent 0.33 (0.07) <0.0001 1.39 (1.22 - 1.58) Number of dwellings in previous 12 months 0.28 (0.03) <0.0001 1.33 (1.25 - 1.42)

Person or family member of stolen generation vs. Person or family not a member of the stolen generation

0.54 (0.06) <0.0001 1.71 (1.53 - 1.92)

Family removal not stated vs. Person or family not a member of the stolen generation

0.23 (0.07) 0.0022 1.25 (1.09 - 1.45)

Stressors vs. No stressors 0.66 (0.07) <0.0001 1.94 (1.69 - 2.22) Unemployed vs. Employed or NILF 0.19 (0.08) 0.0206 1.21 (1.03 - 1.41) CDEP vs. Employed or NILF 0.15 (0.07) 0.0349 1.17 (1.01 - 1.35) Financial stress vs. No financial stress 0.53 (0.05) <0.0001 1.69 (1.53 - 1.88) First charged as a child vs. Never charged or first charged as an adult 0.52 (0.07) <0.0001 1.69 (1.48 - 1.92)

Severe or profound disability vs. No severe or profound disability 0.27 (0.12) 0.0232 1.31 (1.04 - 1.65)

Neighbourhood problems vs. No neighbourhood problems 0.47 (0.07) <0.0001 1.61 (1.41 - 1.84)

High risk alcohol use vs. Not high risk alcohol use 0.80 (0.10) <0.0001 2.23 (1.85 - 2.70)

Alcohol use not stated vs. Not high risk alcohol use 0.69 (0.29) 0.0168 2.00 (1.13 - 3.53)

Substance abuse vs. No substance abuse 0.40 (0.06) <0.0001 1.49 (1.32 - 1.68) Other household member charged vs. No other household member charged 0.14 (0.06) 0.0187 1.15 (1.02 - 1.28)

Hosmer-lemeshow = 8.962 (p-value = 0.346) -2 Log likelihood = 10444.3

23


Table 4: Marginal effects of selected variables Variable Marginal effect High risk alcohol use 9.9 Stressors 7.7 Stolen generation 6.0 Financial stress 5.9 First charged as a child 5.8 Substance abuse 4.2 Moved once over previous 12 months 2.8 Median case 10.1%

24


Table 5: Percentage and percentage decrease in number of victims given a decrease in explanatory variables

Percentage point decrease in explanatory variable Percentage decrease Percentage point decrease

Financial stress 5% 2.2% 0.6 10% 4.1% 1.0 15% 6.2% 1.5 High risk alcohol users 1% 0.8% 0.2 2% 1.5% 0.4

25


Figure 1: The changing probability of victimisation when stacking characterisitcs

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Averagecase

High riskalcohol use

Stressors Stolengeneration

Financialstress

Firstcharged as

a child

Substanceabuse

Movedonce overprevious

12 months

Prob

abili

ty o

f vic

timis

atio

n

1 The high violent victimisation rate among Indigenous Australians is even more pronounced in hospital data. Between 1999 and 2001, Indigenous males were 8.3 times more likely than non-Indigenous males to be hospitalised as a result of an assault, while Indigenous females were 28.0 times more likely to be hospitalised than their non-Indigenous counterparts (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2003: 162). 2 This is a composite variable based on the two NATSISS variables, ‘Identifies with clan, tribal or language group’ and ‘Speaks an Indigenous language’. We classified respondents as possessing this characteristics if they agreed with either or both of these questions. 3 Social involvement includes: recreational or cultural group activities; community or special interest group activities; church or religious activities; going out to a cafe, restaurant or bar; involvement in sport or physical activities; attendance at sporting event as a spectator; visiting a library, museum or art gallery; attending movies, theatre or concert; visiting a park, botanic gardens, zoo or theme park; attendance at ATSIC or Native Title meetings; attending a funeral, ceremony or festival; and fishing or hunting in a group. 4 The stressors included in this variable were: divorce or separation; death of a family member or close friend; serious accident; mental illness; witness to violence; gambling problem; pressure to fulfil cultural responsibilities; and discrimination or racism. 5 This was measured by whether the household had days without money for basic living expenses in the preceding 12 months. 6 We defined crowded as households where the number of people exceeded twice the number of bedrooms. 7 We include this variable because Hunter (1999) has shown that being arrested exerts a substantial suppression effect on Indigenous employment prospects. 8 The ABS classify this using the Australian Alcohol Guidelines. 9 Note, that due to data quality concerns the ABS only released information on this variable for respondents living in non-remote areas. 10 Chikritzhs and Brady (2006), it should be noted, have argued that the NATSISS underestimates the prevalence of high-risk alcohol consumption among Indigenous Australians. However this criticism, if accepted, suggests that reducing alcohol abuse amongst Indigenous Australians would exert an even bigger effect that we estimate here 11 Note that these percentages decreases are carried out on unweighted data, as are the estimates of victimisation before and after the decrease. We chose not to use the weighted data to avoid making further assumptions. 12 This is the rate of victims predicted using the model and the available dataset 13 See footnote (4).

26

theories of indigenous violence - university of new south ... › sites › › files › uploads...

Documents