Family Relationship Centres: partnerships with Legal Assistance Services

In June 2009, the Commonwealth Attorney General in Australia announced a Family Relationship Centres/ Legal Assistance Partnerships Program, (the “Better Partnerships” program). Its aim was to assist separated or separating families, “by providing access to early and targeted legal information and advice when attending Family Relationship Centres” (McClelland, 2009). After contextualizing this significant shift in policy and practice, the present paper reports on largely positive key results of an evaluation of the program by the Australian Institute of Family Studies. The paper concludes with reflections on future challenges and possibilities regarding ongoing collaboration between Australia's legal and family relationship sectors.     

Treating Couples Who Mutually Exhibit Violence or Aggression: Reducing Behaviors that Show a Susceptibility for Violence

This work evaluated a psycho-educational, group-based, conjoint treatment for couples experiencing intimate partner violence characterized by mutual low-level physical violence and psychological aggression. The ability of the treatment program to reduce violence between partners was evaluated via a multi-method, multi-informant, multiple time point experimental design. Procedures were completed at four times: baseline/pre-treatment, post-treatment, ~six months post-treatment, and ~12 months post-treatment. At each time point, couples individually self-reported on violence in the relationship and participated in a conflict discussion during which behaviors that show a propensity toward violence (i.e., contempt, belligerence, domineering, anger, and defensiveness) were observed. Results show that the program had no direct impact on self-reported violence. However, the program did impact observed behavior; males in the treatment group showed a significant decline in behaviors that show a propensity toward violence. Although the model for females was not significant, the pattern for females was comparable to that of males.     

To allot or not to allot public services? An incomplete contract approach

Using an incomplete contract framework, we analyze the consequences of allotment in public procurement. Allotment aims at dividing a public service into several lots that can be awarded to different operators. This increases the number of bidders during the competitive tendering, as well as it reduces the size of the service managed by each operator. We model the impacts of allotment both on price and quality of public services provided under public procurement. When the quality of services depends on non-contractible efforts made by the operators during the execution of the contract, our results show that (1) the operators have higher incentives to make non-contractible efforts when there is no allotment, and that (2) allotment does not maximize the joint payoffs of the public and private parties (i.e. the total surplus), but mainly benefits public authorities representing the users of the service.