Family violence in KFL&A

Data sources: Rapid Risk Factor Surveillance System (RRFSS), 2007 and 2011

Sample: Residents 18 years and over in the KFL&A area.

Released: June 2016

Introduction to family violence in KFL&A

Respondents were asked several questions about family violence in their community. Family violence covers several forms of abuse such as physical, sexual, and emotional abuse and can occur between anyone who is part of a family.

Frequency of perceived family violence

The first question asked of respondents was to what extent they thought there is family violence in KFL&A.

Figure A. Frequency of perceived family violence in KFL&A

Figure A. Please see table A below for text representation.

*Use with caution due to high variability.

NR - not releasable due to small numbers.

Table A. Frequency of perceived family violence in KFL&A, % (95% Confidence Interval)

Year	None	A little	Some	A lot	Don't know
2007	NR	10*% (7.0, 14.1)	50.8% (45.2, 56.4)	28.7% (24.0, 34.0)	9.9*% (7, 13.7)
2011	0.9%* (0.5, 1.8)	10.7% (9.1, 12.6)	55.7% (53.0, 58.4)	24.8% (22.5, 27.2)	7.8% (6.5, 9.3)
Total (both 2007 and 2011)	0.9%* (0.5, 1.6)	10.6% (9.1, 12.3)	54.7% (52.3, 57.2)	25.6% (23.5, 27.7)	8.2% (7.0, 9.6)

*Use with caution due to high variability.

NR - not releasable due to small numbers.

Interpretation for Figure A

In KFL&A, 54.7% (52.3, 57.2) of residents thought there was some family violence present in KFL&A (2007 and 2011).

Change in frequency of family violence

Respondents were asked, in general, compared to five years ago, did they think family violence had gone up, gone down, or stayed about the same?

Figure B. Perception of any change in family violence frequency, KFL&A

Figure B. Please see Table B below for text description.

*Use with caution due to high variability.

Table B. Perception of any change in family violence frequency, KFL&A, % (95% confidence interval)

Year	Up	Down	Stayed the same	Don't know
2007	39.5% (34.0, 45.4)	3.6%* (2.0, 6.4)	41.5% (35.8, 47.5)	15.4% (11.4, 20.5)
2011	38.3% (35.6, 41.1)	7.2% (5.8, 8.8)	45.7% (42.9, 48.6)	8.8% (7.3, 10.5)
Total (both 2007 and 2011)	38.6% (36.1, 41.1)	6.5% (5.3, 7.9)	44.9% (42.4, 47.5)	10.1% (8.6, 11.7)

*Use with caution due to high variability.

Interpretation for Figure B

44.9% (42.4, 47.5) of residents thought the frequency of family violence in KFL&A has stayed about the same compared to five years ago (2007 and 2011).

hange in seriousness of family violence

Respondents were asked, in general, compared to five years ago, did they think family violence was seen as a more serious problem, a less serious problem, or that it had stayed the same?

Figure C. Perception of any change in the seriousness of family violence, KFL&A

Figure C. Please see table C below for text representation.

*Use with caution due to high variability.

Table C. Perception of any change in the seriousness of family violence, KFL&A, % (95% Confidence Interval)

Year	More serious problem	Less serious problem	Stayed about the same	Don't know
2007	59.8% (53.8, 65.5)	2.9%* (1.5, 5.6)	31.9% (26.5, 37.7)	5.4*% (3.1, 9.2)
2011	57.1% (54.2, 59.9)	2.3%* (1.6, 3.3)	36.7% (34.0, 39.5)	3.9% (3.0, 5.2)
Total (both 2007 and 2011)	57.6% (55.9, 60.1)	2.4% (1.8, 3.3)	35.7% (33.3, 38.3)	4.2% (3.3, 5.4)

*Use with caution due to high variability.

Interpretation for Figure C

35.7% (33.3, 38.3) of residents thought the seriousness of family violence in KFL&A has stayed about the same compared to five years ago (2007 and 2011).

Likeliness of depression in children who see or hear violence

Respondents were asked about children seeing or hearing violence in their own families. They were asked if they thought children who see or hear violence in their own family are much more likely, somewhat more likely, somewhat less likely to experience depression than other children, or if they thought seeing or hearing violence made no difference.

Figure D. Perception of likeliness of depression in children who see or hear violence, KFL&A

Figure D. Please see table D below for text representation.

*Use with caution due to high variability.

NR - not releasable due to small numbers.

Table D. Perception of likeliness of depression in children who see or hear violence, KFL&A, % (95% confidence interval)

Year	Much more likely	Somewhat more likely	Somewhat less likely	No difference	Don't know
2007	57.8% (52.2, 63.3)	31.2% (26.1, 36.8)	NR	NR	7.1%* (4.7, 10.5)
2011	52.2% (49.4, 54.9)	38.8% (36.1, 41.5)	1.1%* (0.7, 1.9)	2.2%* (1.6, 3.1)	5.7% (4.6, 7.1)
Total (both 2007 and 2011)	53.3% (50.8, 55.7)	37.3% (34.9, 39.7)	1.0% (0.6, 1.7)	2.4% (1.8, 3.3)	6.0% (4.9, 7.2)

*Use with caution due to high variability.

NR - not releasable due to small numbers.

Interpretation for Figure D

53.3% (50.8, 50.9) of residents thought that the likelihood of depression in children who see or hear violence in their own family is much more likely (2007 & 2011).

Likeliness of having problems learning at school in children who see or hear violence

Respondents were asked about children seeing or hearing violence in their own families. They were asked if they thought children who see or hear violence in their OWN family are much more likely, somewhat more likely, somewhat less likely to have problems learning at school than other children, or or if they thought seeing or hearing violence made no difference.

Figure E. Perception of likeliness of having problems learning at school in children who see or hear violence, KFL&A

Figure E. Please see table E below for text representation.

*Use with caution due to high variability.

NR - not releasable due to small numbers.

Table E. Perception of likeliness of having problems learning at school in children who see or hear violence, KFL&A, % (95% confidence interval)

Year	Much more likely	Somewhat more likely	Somewhat less likely	No difference	Don't know
2007	56.6% (51.0, 62.1)	30.2% (25.4, 35.5)	NR	4.1%* (2.3, 7.5)	7.6%* (5.0, 11.2)
2011	56.1% (53.4, 58.8)	36.2% (33.6, 38.9)	0.8%* (0.4, 1.4)	2.7%* (2, 3.9)	4.1% (3.2, 5.4)
Total (both 2007 and 2011)	56.2% (53.8, 58.6)	35% (32.7, 37.4)	0.9%* (0.6, 1.5)	3.0% (2.2, 4.1)	4.8% (3.9, 6.0)

*Use with caution due to high variability.

NR - not releasable due to small numbers.

Interpretation for Figure E

56.2% (53.8, 58.6) of residents thought that the likelihood of having problems learning at school in children who see or hear violence in their own family is much more likely (2007 and 2011).

Likeliness of having problems getting along with other children in children who see or hear violence

Respondents were asked about children seeing or hearing violence in their own families. They were asked if they thought children who see or hear violence in their own family are much more likely, somewhat more likely, somewhat less likely to have problems getting along with other children, or do you think there is no difference?

Figure F. Perception of likeliness of having problems getting along with other children in children who see or hear violence, KFL&A

Figure F. Please see table F below for text representation.

*Use with caution due to high variability.

NR - not releasable due to small numbers.

Table F. Perception of likeliness of having problems getting along with other children in children who see or hear violence, KFL&A, % (95% confidence interval)

Year	Much more likely	Somewhat more likely	Somewhat less likely	No difference	Don't know
2007	51.0% (45.3, 56.5)	37.7% (32.4, 43.3)	NR	3.4%* (1.9, 6.1)	5.9%* (3.8, 9.1)
2011	51.9% (49.2, 54.7)	38.6% (35.9, 41.2)	2.4%* (1.7, 3.4)	3.1% (2.3, 4.2)	4.0% (3.1, 5.1)
Total (both 2007 and 2011)	51.8% (49.3, 54.2)	38.4% (36.0, 40.8)	2.3%* (1.7, 3.2)	3.2% (2.4, 4.1)	4.4% (3.5, 5.4)

*Use with caution due to high variability.

NR - not releasable due to small numbers.

Interpretation for Figure F

51.8% (49.3, 54.2) of residents thought that the likelihood of having problems getting along with other children in children who see or hear violence in their own family is much more likely (2007 & 2011).

Perceived likelihood of abuse in pregnant women by a partner

Finally, respondent were asked a question about pregnancy and woman abuse. Did respondents think that by becoming pregnant, a woman is much more likely to be abused by her partner, somewhat more likely to be abused by her partner, somewhat less likely to be abused by her partner, that it makes no difference, or is this something that you are not sure about?

Figure G. Perceived likelihood of abuse in pregnant women by a partner, KFL&A

Figure G. Please see table G below for text representation.

*Use with caution due to high variability.

Table G. Perceived likelihood of abuse in pregnant women by a partner, KFL&A, % (95% confidence interval)

Year	Much more likely	Somewhat more likely	Somewhat less likely	No difference	Don't know
2007	6.0%* (3.8, 9.4)	13.1% (9.7, 17.6)	9.4%* (6.7, 13.2)	16.1% (12.4, 20.5)	55.3% (49.7, 60.8)
2011	5.6% (4.5, 7.0)	12.8% (11.1, 14.7)	12.5% (10.8, 10.6)	19% (16.9, 21.1)	50.2% (47.5, 52.9)
Total (both 2007 and 2011)	5.7% (4.6, 6.9)	12.8% (11.3, 14.6)	11.9% (10.4, 10.2)	18.4% (16.6, 20.4)	51.2% (48.7, 53.6)

*Use with caution due to high variability.

Interpretation for Figure G

18.4% (16.6, 20.4) of residents thought that the likelihood of abuse by a partner in women who become pregnant is no different than in women who are not pregnant (2007 and 2011).

Notes

The Random Risk Factor Surveillance System (RRFSS) is a random-digit-dialed telephone survey of adults aged 18 years and older, conducted by the Institute for Social Research at York University, on behalf of KFL&A Public Health.

Confidence intervals explained

Researchers look at the "confidence levels" of percentages being compared to decide if there is a statistically significant difference between percentages. If the 95% confidence intervals of two estimates do not overlap, there is considered to be a significant difference between the estimates. A statistically significant difference means that:

the difference between two percentages is unlikely to have occurred by chance alone, and
there is likely a true difference or change in the percentages.

In this report, 95% confidence intervals will accompany each percentage in all figures and tables. The true or actual percentage falls within the 95% confidence interval range 95 times out of 100. A wide confidence interval reflects a large amount of variability or imprecision. Usually, the larger the sample size, the narrower the confidence intervals. In tables, the 95% confidence intervals will be written with the percentage, followed by the 95% confidence interval range in brackets, e.g., 25.3% (12.3, 32.4). In figures, the 95% confidence interval are represented by error bars at the top of each bar.