Veteran families
Topic last updated: | See what’s been updated
Key findings
- Studies of veteran families have reported levels of intimate partner violence (IPV) ranging from 2% to 46%.
- In 2015, almost 3 in 10 (29%) recently transitioned Australian Defence Force (ADF) members and more than 1 in 5 (22%) current ADF members reported IPV exposure in their current relationship.
- 1 in 4 (25%) clients of specialist homelessness services in 2021–22 who were current or former members of the ADF had experienced family and domestic violence (FDV).
The nature of service in the Australian Defence Force (ADF) affects a range of lifestyle aspects for the serving member and their family and can make it difficult to develop and maintain social connections outside of the military (AIHW 2022b). ADF service increases the likelihood of exposure to trauma (either directly or indirectly) and affects support networks, for example, separation from family during deployment (AIHW 2022a). Veterans (see Box 1) and their families may also experience specific challenges in seeking support for family and domestic violence (FDV) (Fitz-Gibbon et al. 2022).
The Defence Strategy for Preventing and Responding to Family and Domestic Violence 2023–2028 and DVA Family and Domestic Violence Strategy 2020–25 are part of the Australian Government’s response to FDV. The strategies aim to improve awareness and support for veterans and their families affected by FDV (Department of Defence n.d.; DVA 2020).
This page focuses mainly on intimate partner violence (IPV), rather than FDV, due to the available data. While IPV among veteran families could include violence perpetrated by a veteran or a partner of a veteran, most of the research to date has focussed on IPV perpetrated by veterans. Further research is needed to build the evidence base about the experience of FDV within veteran families (Fitz-Gibbon et al. 2022).
The term ‘veteran’ traditionally described former ADF personnel who were deployed to serve in war or war-like environments. While veterans may now be considered people who have any experience in the ADF including current, reserve, and former (ex-serving) personnel, there may be different definitions of veterans depending on the available data (AIHW 2022a).
The Australian Bureau of Statistics’ (ABS) 2021 Census of Population and Housing included the ADF Service Variable for the first time. This is a standard question about whether a person is currently serving or has previously served in the ADF. The ADF consists of regular service (considered a person’s main ongoing job, and most roles are full-time in nature) and reserves service (normally part-time in nature and can include up to 200 days of service per year, depending on the role). The ADF includes:
- Australian Army (including NORFORCE (North-West Mobile Force))
- Royal Australian Navy
- Royal Australian Air Force (ABS 2021).
It also includes people who previously served in the National Service and the Second Australian Imperial Force. It does not include people who have served in non-Australian defence forces and excludes overseas visitors (ABS 2021).
The ABS definition generally applies for the purpose of this topic, noting that the particular cohort of veterans included in the available data may differ.
In the 2021 Census of Population and Housing, 1 in 20 (5.3%) Australian households reported at least one person who had served, or was currently serving, in the ADF (ABS 2022).
What do we know?
There is a lack of research regarding IPV perpetration and victimisation among veteran families (Cowlishaw et al. 2022; Pollard and Ferguson 2020), and FDV within veteran families more broadly.
International research has reported higher rates of FDV within military families when compared with civilian families (Cowlishaw et al. 2022; Hinton 2020; Kwan et al. 2020; Pollard and Ferguson 2020). Specific factors that are unique to military families may contribute to conflict in relationships and increase the risk of IPV – for example: family separation and reintegration due to deployment; frequent geographic moves resulting in social isolation and economic dependence on the serving member; and trauma experienced during service (Daraganova et al. 2018; Gierisch et al. 2013; Pollard and Ferguson 2020; Yu et al. 2021). Similarly, there is a complex interaction between mental health and the experience and use of violence, and research indicates some veterans may also be at increased risk of mental illness following transition out of regular ADF service (Van Hooff et al. 2019).
The male-dominated military environment has been identified as a hypermasculine culture that emphasises operational effectiveness and deployability (Pollard and Ferguson 2020). Members who display characteristics that are considered feminine or weak (such as empathy, fear, sadness) and those who seek help, could be perceived as a liability that should be removed from the group. Cultures like this may influence attitudes, behaviours and social norms that are associated with violence against women (Our Watch 2021) and reinforce the stigma associated with seeking help, contributing to the under-reporting of IPV (Pollard and Ferguson 2020).
Issues with under-reporting of IPV that may be more specific to military families include: financial-, housing- and health-related dependence on the serving member or veteran; the military reputation of the serving member; and the possibility of the serving member being demoted or discharged and losing the benefits associated with service (Fitz-Gibbon et al. 2022; Hinton 2020; Pollard and Ferguson 2020).
Data sources for reporting on veteran families
- Timor-Leste Family Study (see Box 3)
- Vietnam Veteran Families Study (see Box 4)
- Family Wellbeing Study (see Box 5)
- Transition and Wellbeing Research Programme (Box 6)
- Specialist homelessness services collection (see Data sources and technical notes).
What do the data tell us?
Data on the experience of FDV within veteran families are currently only available from a limited number of sources and are not routinely reported. However, data development activities are being undertaken to enhance reporting in this area, including the potential use of the ABS ADF Service Variable (see Box 1) to explore data from the ABS 2021–22 Personal Safety Survey.
When examining the available data, it is important to note the available data are not contemporary and only provide part of the picture:
- The studies included in this page are cross-sectional – the data cannot identify causality but may provide an indication of potential associations between IPV and ADF service.
- For the studies included in this page, reporting on IPV was limited to physical and/or sexual violence and some aspects of emotional abuse. The wider range of behaviours and harms that are now understood to be IPV, such as financial abuse, stalking and coercive control, may not have been captured in these studies.
- Findings from the studies included in this page are largely based on male ADF members and their female partners due to the higher proportion of males represented in the veteran population. According to the 2021 Census of Population and Housing, most (86%) veterans (including those currently serving and those who had previously served) were male, and 14% were female. However, there was a higher proportion of females (21%) represented in the currently serving ADF population (ABS 2022).
The studies included in this page used the Woman Abuse Screening Tool (WAST) to measure IPV. However, findings are not comparable across the studies due to differences in the veteran cohort included in the studies and the application of the WAST (refer to Boxes 2–6 for information about the use of the WAST).
The Woman Abuse Screening Tool (WAST) comprises 8 items to assess the degree of relationship tension, the amount of difficulty the respondent and partner have in resolving arguments and whether a partner experienced physical, sexual and/or emotional abuse.
The first 2 questions constitute the WAST-Short:
1. In general, how would you describe your relationship? (The response options for this question are: ‘a lot of tension’, ‘some tension’ and ‘no tension’).
2. Do you and your partner work out arguments with: great difficulty, some difficulty or no difficulty?
When used for initial screening for IPV in a validation study, these 2 questions correctly identified 92% of women who had experienced IPV and 100% of women who had not experienced IPV (Brown et al. 2020).
The remaining questions have the response options ‘often’, ‘sometimes’ and ‘never’:
3. Do arguments ever result in you feeling down or bad about yourself?
4. Do arguments ever result in hitting, kicking or pushing?
5. Do you ever feel frightened by what your partner says or does?
6–8. Has your partner ever abused you physically/emotionally/sexually?
Findings across data sources are not comparable due to differences in the WAST items used and the scoring of response options.
There is limited evidence supporting the psychometric properties of the WAST. The WAST:
- does not define the types of IPV being measured and relies on participants’ existing understanding of IPV
- does not capture the wider range of behaviours and harms that are now understood to be IPV (such as financial abuse, stalking and coercive control)
- cannot be used to explore past-year prevalence, frequency, duration or impact of IPV.
Source: Brown et al. 2000, Cowlishaw et al. 2023, McGuire et al. 2012.
Timor-Leste Family Study
1 in 10 (10%) current partners of members who were deployed to Timor-Leste between 1999 and 2010 reported the experience of IPV post-deployment.
The Timor-Leste Family Study was the first Australian study to investigate the effects of recent deployments on the health and wellbeing of ADF families. Study participants (almost 2,900 ADF members and just over 1,300 current partners) were recruited from ADF members deployed on one or more operation(s) to Timor-Leste between 1999 and 2010 and a comparison group of ADF members who were not deployed to Timor-Leste. Previous partners (referred to as ‘former partners’ in the study) were also invited to participate, however their responses were not included due to the small number of previous partners who completed the questionnaire.
The questionnaire, completed between May 2011 and January 2012 included the WAST (see Box 2). Participants were classified as screening positively for IPV if they responded in the highest categories (‘a lot of tension’ and ‘great difficulty’) for either of the first 2 items. Participants were not required to endorse questions relating to specific types of violence to be screened positively for IPV. Previous research has indicated that the first 2 questions correctly identify more than 90% of women who have experienced IPV.
Source: McGuire et al. 2012.
One in 10 (10%) serving members’ partners reported the experience of IPV post-deployment to Timor-Leste (McGuire et al. 2012). There was no statistically significant difference in the reported level of IPV between ADF members who were deployed and those who were not. IPV was significantly associated with poorer mental health scores and symptoms of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder for partners (McGuire et al. 2012).
Spouses and Partners of Vietnam Veterans – findings from the Vietnam Veterans Family Study
Less than 2% of current partners of Vietnam veterans reported experiencing IPV.
The Vietnam Veterans Family Study aims to understand the impact of deployment on the families of Vietnam servicemen by comparing findings with the families of Vietnam-era personnel (other men who served in the ADF during the Vietnam War between 1962–75, but were not deployed). The data, collected in 2011, were reported for 1,447 current partners (referred to as ‘current spouses/partners’ in the study) of Vietnam veterans, 852 current partners of Vietnam-era personnel, 67 previous partners (referred to as ‘ex-spouses/partners’ in the study) of Vietnam veterans and 21 previous partners of Vietnam-era personnel. Male partners were excluded (Yu et al. 2021).
The study examined whether partners had experienced abuse at any stage of the couple relationship using 6 items from the WAST (see Box 2) to determine if there had been physical, sexual or emotional abuse between partners. A 3-point Likert scale of 1 (Never), 2 (Sometimes) and 3 (Often) was used with an average score of 1–3 calculated across the 6 items (WAST scores generally range from 8 to 24, higher scores indicating higher levels of abuse). Findings for previous partners were not considered reliable due to small cell sizes.
Source: Yu et al. 2021
Overall, less than 2% of current partners reported there had been IPV at some stage in the couple relationship. Mean levels of abuse in the couple relationship were higher for the partners of Vietnam veterans (1.4%) compared with partners of Vietnam-era personnel (1.2%) (Yu et al. 2021).
IPV was reported as an underlying reason for the relationship ending by:
- 28% of previous partners of Vietnam veterans
- 17% of previous partners of Vietnam-era personnel (Yu et al. 2021).
Family Wellbeing Study
Around 1 in 20 (4.8%) current partners of ADF members or those who had recently transitioned from service in 2015 reported they had experienced abuse at some stage in their relationship.
The Family Wellbeing Study is part of the Transition and Wellbeing Research Programme undertaken for the Department of Defence and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs.
The Family Wellbeing Study was designed to investigate the health and wellbeing of families of ADF members who were either in full-time active service in 2015, or had left service between 2010 and 2014. Almost 1,400 family members took part, including around 980 partners (referred to as ‘spouses/partners in the study) – about 680 were partners of current serving members and about 305 were partners of ex-serving members.
The study examined whether current partners had experienced IPV at any stage of the couple relationship using the 8-item WAST (see Box 2). Responses were scored using a 3-point Likert scale of 1 (Never), 2 (Sometimes) and 3 (Often), with a total score calculated as the sum of the 8 items. This was subsequently categorised as ‘there had not been abuse in the relationship’ (a score of 0–16) and ‘there had been abuse in the relationship’ (a score of 17–24).
Source: Daraganova et al. 2018.
Around 1 in 20 (4.8%) partners reported they had experienced abuse at some stage in their relationship. The authors noted that the lower rate in this study compared with the Timor-Leste Family Study may be related to the effects of recent deployment on the participants in the Timor-Leste Family Study. As noted, deployment may increase the risk of conflict in relationships and increase the risk of IPV (Daraganova et al. 2018).
Other findings from the study include:
- A higher proportion of partners of ex-serving ADF members (8.4%) reported the experience of IPV, when compared with partners of current serving members (3.1%).
- Partners with poorer physical health and/or who were psychologically distressed were 3 times as likely to report experiencing IPV than partners who did not have these health issues.
- Partners of members who had served more years in the ADF were less likely to report the experience of IPV (Daraganova et al. 2018).
Partners were asked whether they had ever been without a permanent place to live and the associated reasons – of the almost 205 partners who had ever been without a permanent place to live, 6.4% reported it was due to violence/abuse/neglect (Daraganova et al. 2018).
Transition and Wellbeing Research Programme Secondary Analyses
In 2015, about 3 in 10 (29%) recently transitioned ADF members and 1 in 5 (22%) current ADF members reported any IPV exposure in their current relationship.
Findings from the secondary analyses of data from the Transition and Wellbeing Research Programme indicate high levels of IPV among veteran families. Any IPV exposure in their current relationship (see Box 6) was reported by about:
- 3 in 10 (29%) transitioned ADF members
- 1 in 5 (22%) current personnel
- almost half (46%) of partners of transitioned ADF members
- 1 in 4 (24%) partners of current personnel (Cowlishaw et al. 2023).
These findings should be considered in relation to the limitations of the available data (see Box 2, Box 6 and Cowlishaw et al. 2023).
The Transition and Wellbeing Research Programme was a large-scale study conducted in 2015 to explore the impact of military service on the health and wellbeing of ADF members and families. Secondary analyses reported in this topic are based on 2 of the components:
- The Mental Health and Wellbeing Transition Study (MHWTS) – surveys of ADF members who had transitioned from the Regular ADF between 2010 and 2014 and a comparison sample of permanent, full-time current serving members in 2015. The survey was completed between June and December 2015.
- The Family Wellbeing Study (FWS) – surveys of family members of transitioned and current serving members who nominated a family member to take part. The survey was completed between September 2015 and February 2016.
The sample included:
- around 2,900 ADF members who had transitioned and around 6,200 permanent, full-time current serving members who reported involvement in an intimate relationship
- around 300 intimate partners of transitioned members and around 660 intimate partners of current serving members
- a sub-sample of transitioned personnel who provided consent for their responses to be linked with data from family members in the FWS (around 265 ‘couples’).
IPV exposure was measured using a subset of items from the WAST (items 4–8, see Box 2), to assess whether physical (items 4 and 6), emotional (items 5 and 7), or sexual violence (item 8) ever occurred in the current relationship. WAST items were only asked of participants in current relationships and therefore did not capture IPV exposure in previous relationships. Analyses based on the FWS are not fully representative of partners as it only includes partners if the ADF member agreed for them to be contacted, the sample tended to over-represent older participants and previous partners were excluded.
Different response options were used in the MHWTS (‘Never’ ‘Rarely’ and ‘Sometimes’) and the FWS (‘Never’, ‘Sometimes’ and ‘Often’). Response options for items were collapsed to form binary measures (0 = Never, 1 = Rarely/Sometimes or Sometimes/Often). For most analyses, any IPV exposure was categorised as non-zero scores on any of the items 4–8 from the WAST.
Source: Cowlishaw et al. 2023.
Emotional abuse was the most common type of violence reported by all groups, followed by physical abuse. Rates of self-reported IPV exposure were similar for men and women among both transitioned and current ADF members (Cowlishaw et al. 2023).
Findings also indicated that higher rates of IPV exposure for members and partners were associated with financial hardship and/or exposure to trauma. Conversely, protective factors, such as social connection and resources were associated with lower rates of IPV exposure (Cowlishaw et al. 2023).
The use of IPV by transitioned members was explored for a sub-set of around 265 couples for whom Mental Health and Wellbeing Transition Study (MHWTS) data for the transitioned member was linked with their partner’s data from the Family Wellbeing Study (FWS). Findings indicated that high proportions of transitioned members who used IPV reported harmful drinking (69%), suicidal ideation (63%), depression (59%) and PTSD (58%) (Cowlishaw et al. 2023).
What else do we know?
-
1 in 4 clients
of specialist homelessness services in 2022–23 who were current or former members of the ADF had experienced FDV
Source: AIHW Specialist Homelessness Services Collection
Homelessness is an important aspect to consider in understanding the welfare of veterans (AIHW 2019). In 2022-23, around 1,500 SHS clients were current or former members of the ADF (AIHW 2023). Of these:
- about 1 in 4 (23%) had experienced FDV
- 1 in 7 (14%) had experienced FDV and had a current mental health issue
- 1 in 20 (5.0%) had experienced FDV and had problematic drug or alcohol use
- about 1 in 20 (4.7%) had experienced FDV and both of the additional selected vulnerabilities (current mental health issue and problematic drug or alcohol use)
- 11% reported FDV as the main reason for seeking assistance
- 14% needed assistance for FDV (AIHW 2023).
Analysis of data generated by linking information from the Department of Defence personnel system data with the AIHW’s Specialist Homelessness Services Collection (SHSC) explored the use of homelessness services for the contemporary ex-serving ADF population (that is, ex-serving ADF members who had at least one day of service on or after 1 January 2001, who discharged after 1 January 2001 and before 1 July 2017). This analysis included an assessment of women who needed domestic and family violence services (DFV) (AIHW 2019).
53% (or 145) of female ex-serving ADF members who were SHS clients between 1 July 2011 and 30 June 2017 needed DFV services.
Between 1 July 2011 and 30 June 2017, 1.7% (or 274) of the female contemporary ex-serving ADF population had accessed SHS (AIHW 2019).
- 53% (or 145) of female ex-serving ADF SHS clients were assessed as needing DFV services.
- Female ex-serving ADF SHS clients who needed DFV services had a longer length of support than those who did not need DFV services – 43% had a support length of 91 days or longer, compared with 25% of women who did not need this type of service (AIHW 2019).
Related material
More information
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (2021) Australian Defence Force service, detailed (ADCP), ABS website, accessed 9 August 2022.
ABS (2022) Service with the Australian Defence Force: Census, ABS website, accessed 9 August 2022.
AIHW (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare) (2019) Use of homelessness services by contemporary ex-serving Australian Defence Force members 2011–17, AIHW, Australian Government, accessed 9 August 2022.
AIHW (2022a) Health of veterans, AIHW, Australian Government, accessed 9 August 2022.
AIHW (2022b) Understanding the wellbeing characteristics of ex-serving ADF members, AIHW, Australian Government, accessed 13 October 2022.
AIHW (2023) Specialist homelessness services annual report 2022–23, AIHW, Australian Government, accessed 13 February 2024.
Brown JB, Lent B, Schmidt G and & Sas G (2000) Application of the Woman Abuse Screening Tool (WAST) and WAST-short in the family practice setting, J Fam Pract, 2000. 49(10): p. 896-903.
Cowlishaw S, Freijah I, Kartal D, Sbisa A, Mulligan A, Notarianni M, Couineau A-L, Forbes D, O’Donnell M, Phelps A, Iverson KM, Heber A, O’Dwyer C, Smith P and Hosseiny F (2022) Intimate partner violence (IPV) in military and veteran populations: A systematic review of population-based surveys and population screening studies, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(14), doi:10.3390/ijerph19148853.
Cowlishaw S, Dennison M, Rioseco P, Baur J, Burns A, Lawrence-Wood E, McCarthy J, Couineau A, O’Donnell M, Muir S and Forbes D (2023) Intimate Partner Violence among current and ex-serving Australian Defence Force personnel and families: Transition and Wellbeing Research Programme Secondary Analyses Project, Phoenix Australia – Centre for Posttraumatic Mental Health.
Daraganova G, Smart D and Romaniuk H (2018) Family Wellbeing Study: Part 1: Families of Current and Ex-Serving ADF Members: Health and Wellbeing, Department of Defence and Department of Veterans’ Affairs, Australian Government, accessed 9 August 2022.
Department of Defence (n.d.) Defence Strategy for Preventing and Responding to Family and Domestic Violence 2023–2028, Department of Defence, Australian Government, accessed 9 January 2024.
DVA (Department of Veterans' Affairs) (2020) DVA Family and Domestic Violence Strategy 2020–25, DVA, Australian Government, accessed 9 August 2022.
Fitz-Gibbon K, Meyer S, Gelb K, McGowan J, Wild S, Batty R, Segrave M, Maher JMM, Pfitzner N, McCulloch J, Flynn A, Wheildon L and Thorburn J (2022) National Plan Stakeholder Consultation: Final Report, Monash University.
Gierisch JM, Shapiro A, Grant NN, King HA, McDuffie JR, Williams JW (2013). Intimate partner violence: Prevalence among U.S. military veterans and active duty servicemembers and a review of intervention approaches, US Department of Veterans Affairs website, accessed 9 August 2022.
Hinton CE (2020) Unintended consequences: Intimate partner violence, military caregivers, and the law, Journal of Veterans Studies, 6(1):211–225, doi:10.21061/jvs.v6i1.166.
Kwan J, Sparrow K, Facer-Irwin E, Thandi G, Fear NT and MacManus D (2020) Prevalence of intimate partner violence perpetration among military populations: A systematic review and meta-analysis, Aggression and Violent Behaviour, (53)July-August, doi:10.1016/j.avb.2020.101419.
McGuire A, Runge C, Cosgrove L, Bredhauer K, Anderson R, Waller M, Kanesarajah J, Dobson A and Nasveld P (2012). Timor-Leste family study: Technical report. University of Queensland, Centre for Military and Veterans’ Health, accessed 9 August 2022.
Open Arms (2022) Intimate Partner Violence among current and ex-serving ADF personnel and families, Open Arms - Veterans & Families Counselling, Australian Government, accessed 9 August 2022.
Our Watch (2021) Change the story: A shared framework for the primary prevention of violence against women in Australia, Our Watch, accessed 9 August 2022.
Pollard R and Ferguson C (2020) ‘Intimate partner violence within Australian Defence Force families: an exploratory study’, Journal of Gender-Based Violence, 4(2), 191-205, doi:10.1332/239868020X15850130841880.
Van Hooff M, Lawrence-Wood E, Sadler N, Hodson S, Benassi H, Daraganova G, Forbes D, Sim M, Smart D, Kelsall H, Burns J, Bryant R, Abraham M, Baur J, Iannos M, Searle A, Ighani H, Avery J, Hansen C, Howell S, Rosenfeld J, Lawrence A, Korgaonkar M, Varker T, O’Donnell M, Phelps A, Frederickson J, Sharp M, Saccone E, McFarlane A, and Muir S (2019) Transition and Wellbeing Research Programme: Key findings report, Department of Defence and Department of Veterans’ Affairs, Australian Government, accessed 9 August 2022.
Yu M, Smart D and Daraganova G (2021) Spouses and partners of Vietnam veterans – Findings from the Vietnam Veterans Family Study, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Australian Government, accessed 9 August 2022.
- Previous page People from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds