Domestic and Family Violence Service System …...Domestic and Family Violence Service System Redesign Recommendations Paper Nous was commissioned by Women NSW to review the Domestic

Domestic and Family Violence Service System Redesign

Recommendations Paper

Nous was commissioned by Women NSW to review the Domestic and Family Violence Service System and delivered their recommendations in April 2017.

Domest ic and Fami ly Vio lence Serv ice System Redes ign : Recommendat ions Paper

Contents

Glossary .................................................................................................................................................................................... 2

1 Executive summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Background and context ................................................................................................................................. 3

1.2 Recommendations framework ........................................................................................................................ 5

1.3 Recommendations .......................................................................................................................................... 7

2 Background and context ............................................................................................................................................ 13

3 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................................................... 15

3.1 One overarching recommendation ............................................................................................................... 15

3.2 Potential long-term future vision for the DFV response ............................................................................... 16

3.3 Detailed recommendations ........................................................................................................................... 20

4 Implementation plan ................................................................................................................................................. 64

Appendix A Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 70

Appendix B Process map of the redesigned service system ............................................................................. 71

Appendix C Analysis of cost of additional cycles through the system .............................................................. 74

Appendix D LGAs identified for specific recommendations .............................................................................. 82

Appendix E Recommendations mapped to government agencies ................................................................... 90

© Nous Group

Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 2 |

Glossary

Term Definition

ADVO Apprehended Domestic Violence Order

Blueprint Analytical

model Cost model created by H4 consulting for Women NSW to calculate the cost of DFV in NSW.

BOCSAR Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research

CALD Culturally and Linguistically Diverse

CRP Central Referral Point

Cycle through A term to describe when a victim or perpetrator enters the domestic and family violence service

system more than once and has multiple interactions with services.

DFV Domestic and family violence

DVSAT Domestic Violence Safety Assessment Tool

Early Intervention

services

Approaches aiming to keep people safe and change attitudes and behaviours or build skills of

individuals or groups who are at-risk, or exhibiting early signs, of using or experiencing domestic

and family violence. These approaches seek to prevent escalation and address issues arising from

the experience of domestic and family violence.

Growth rate of DFV The growth in domestic and family violence related assaults over a time period

Incidence The number of domestic and family violence incidents reported to police

LCP Local Coordination Point

Legal and statutory

services

Includes government agencies that have a legislated role in responding to the victims and

perpetrators of domestic and family violence (e.g. Police, Corrective Services). Also includes

services delivered by courts and legal representatives.

LGA Local Government Area

LSI-R tool Level of Service Inventory-Revised tool

Mainstream

services

Services that can be accessed by all members of the community, including health services, schools

and education providers, family and parenting support services.

NSW MOH New South Wales Ministry of Health

OOHC Out Of Home Care

Prevalence The number of domestic and family violence incidents per 100,000 people

Primary prevention

services

Approaches aiming to reduce or prevent new instances of violence across whole populations

before they occur, by addressing underlying causes.

Response services Crisis interventions for people experiencing domestic and family violence, and post crisis

interventions to assist with recovery and protect from further violence.

SAM Safety Action Meeting

Service A once-off or ongoing form of support or assistance provided to a victim and/or perpetrator of

DFV.

Warm referrals

A warm referral is a referral made by a service provider on behalf of a victim. Warm referrals

involve contacting a service provider for a victim, rather than providing the victim with

information to contact a service provider themselves. It also involves a follow-up. The initial

service provider checks to make sure that the referral has been successful and the victim is

receiving the required support from the service provider to which they have been referred.

WDVCAS Women's Domestic Violence Court Advocacy Service


1 Executive summary

1.1 Background and context

Domestic and family violence (DFV) is a significant issue across NSW. It occurs in all communities and affects all

socio-demographic groups, ages and sexes, but disproportionally affects some more than others. In 2015, there

were 138,000 DFV incidents reported to Police – an average of almost 380 incidents per day.1

The rate of DFV is projected to continue to grow if nothing more is done to address it. Over the five years from

2015 to 2020, DFV incidents (reported to Police) are forecast to increase by 18%.2 The service system needs

increased capacity and capability to better meet current demand and be equipped to meet projected future

growth in demand.

The NSW government has a strong commitment to improving outcomes for people and families who experience

DFV. It invests significantly in the DFV response, doubling its investment in specialist services to more than $300

million over four years in the 2016-17 budget. One of the 12 Premier’s Priorities is to reduce DFV re-offending,

which further demonstrates the government’s commitment. The NSW government released the Blueprint for the

Domestic and Family Violence Response in NSW (the Blueprint) in August 2016. The Blueprint outlines a vision

and strategy to improve outcomes for victims, perpetrators and those at-risk of experiencing or perpetrating

DFV.

In March 2016, the Cabinet Standing Committee on Expenditure Review agreed to an external, expert led

redesign of the interagency DFV service system. Women NSW (through the Ministry of Health (MoH)) engaged

Nous Group (Nous) to lead the redesign of the interagency DFV service system (the redesign). The redesign

aimed to develop a more effective DFV service system, one that ultimately results in safer lives for women, men

and children. It built on the Blueprint and other DFV-related policy reform, such as the roll-out of the Safer

Pathway reforms.

The redesign found that the DFV service system is faced with responding to a highly complex issue, one that is

closely linked with many other social issues, such as child protection, homelessness, mental illness and drug and

alcohol use. An ongoing challenge is the limited evidence on what works to prevent and respond to DFV in

Australia and internationally. This means successful implementation of reforms to the DFV system will require a

coordinated commitment from many government agencies, combined with regular assessment of emerging

evidence on what works.

A service system is the means by which activities, facilities and supports are developed, coordinated and

delivered to clients. The recommendations outlined in this paper are based on the best available evidence at the

time of the redesign. They focus on strengthening the service system, in line with the overarching DFV strategy

(articulated in the Blueprint).

The intent of the overarching recommendation of the redesign is for a more integrated service system to reach

more people earlier, to achieve a longer-term reduction in the cost and impact of DFV. This includes:

stopping violence

offering the right help to those most at-risk of experiencing or perpetrating DFV earlier

reducing the impact of violence on victims, children and families

working with perpetrators to hold them to account and change behaviours.

1 Data is based on the Blueprint analytical model. The model used reported incidents based on data provided by BOCSAR. This

captured reported incidents, both incidents where an offence was recorded and those where no offence was recorded. 2 This is based on Police reported incidents in LGAs and population growth in LGAs. It is greater than the projected demand

used in the Blueprint analytical model, which resulted in a conservative growth in demand of 7%. It is a more nuanced

calculation, based on differential growth rates for individual LGAs. Limited data makes it difficult to determine the reasons for

the continued growth in DFV incidents (reported to Police). It is not possible to determine whether growth is due to more

people reporting to DFV or an actual growth in DFV across communities in NSW.


This Recommendations Paper provides:

the recommendations to strengthen the DFV service system, which includes:

the framework Nous used to structure the recommendations (see section 1.2)

an overarching recommendation for the DFV service system redesign (see section 1.3.1)

a potential long-term future vision for the DFV response (see section 1.3.2).

21 recommendations to improve the capacity and capability of the DFV service system to deliver on

the Blueprint (see section 1.3.3).

an implementation plan, which outlines the sequential timing for implementation of the

recommendations (see section 4).

This paper is the culmination of:

analysis on the effectiveness and performance of the current DFV service system and trends in demand

for DFV services over time.

state-wide consultation with government agencies and service providers on options to strengthen the

service system.

interviews with victims and perpetrators to better understand what worked well and are for

improvement based on their interactions with the service system.3

consultation with the Interagency DFV Service System Redesign Steering Committee and the Domestic

and Family Violence and Sexual Assault Council.

Appendix A provides a detailed methodology.

The Social Policy Cabinet Committee will review the final recommendations in June 2017.

3 In April 2017, Nous interviewed two victims and five perpetrators of DFV in the Sydney metropolitan area. The purpose of the

interviews was to test the redesign recommendations to ensure they were focused on strengthening the parts of the system

that most needed it from the perspective of a victim or perpetrator. Whilst a small and non-representative sample, the

themes from these interviews aligned with themes from interviews Women NSW and FACS took in developing the Blueprint

and the FACS DFV Strategy.


1.2 Recommendations framework

Nous developed a framework that depicts the DFV service system to structure redesign recommendations. It ensured the recommendations were comprehensive, exhaustive

and linked to the Blueprint, as the overarching DFV strategy for NSW.

The framework shows:

the link between the service system redesign recommendations and the six Blueprint actions.

the interlinked components of the DFV service system. This includes the links between government agencies, government and non-government service providers (of

mainstream, statutory and specialist services) and communities, families, friends and workplaces.

the spectrum of service delivery, from primary prevention and early intervention to crisis response and recovery.

the supporting mechanisms required to enable the DFV service system to function.

the relative investment required across the service system.

the underpinning principles of the DFV service system, which should inform design, implementation and evaluation of activities.

The 21 recommendations in this report are mapped to the framework, as shown in Figure 1 overleaf.


Figure 1: Recommendations framework for the DFV service system redesign

Principles

Supporting mechanisms

NSW Domestic and Family Violence Blueprint for Reform 2016-2021: Safer lives for women, men and children

Blueprint actions

Scope of the service system

Primary prevention

Data collection and evaluation

Workforce capability and culture

Early intervention and crisis response and recovery

Coordination and information sharing

Governance

Shared vision Funding and commissioning

DFV and other specialist services

Mainstream services

Legal and statutory services

Funding gap (requires more $) More efficient and integrated funding (requires moving $ around)

Serv

ice

syst

em

Workplaces Communities Family and friends Peak bodies

Responses informed by an assessment of risk

Preventing DFV1 Supporting victims3Holding

perpetrators accountable

4Delivering quality

services5

Intervening early with vulnerable

communities2

Improving the system

6

Co

mm

un

ity

Investment required

R1

R2

R3 R10

R13

R14

R18 R19 R20

R5

R5

R8

R9

R11R12

R15 R16

R17

R21

R7

R4

Victim empowermentPerpetrator

accountability

Trauma-based and/or trauma-informed

responses

Client centred responses (focused on the child and family)

Client choice of response options

Gender and cultural safety

Local flexibility in service delivery,

based on minimum service standards


1.3 Recommendations

This sub-section details the recommendations of the redesign. It outlines:

one overarching recommendation to strengthen the DFV service system (section 1.3.1)

a potential longer-term future vision for the DFV response in NSW (section 1.3.2)

a suite of 21 recommendations that provide feasible actions to strengthen the service system (section

1.3.3). The 21 recommendations are intended to be implemented together to achieve a strengthened

DFV service system and the maximum impact on outcomes victims, perpetrators and those at-risk (as

opposed to separately strengthening selected elements of the service system).

1.3.1 One overarching recommendation

Nous developed one overarching recommendation for the DFV service system redesign, which is that the NSW

government should adopt a more integrated approach for the DFV service system to improve outcomes for

victims, perpetrators and those at-risk in NSW.

Overarching recommendation:

The NSW government, organisations and communities should enable safer lives for women, men and children in

NSW through adoption of an integrated approach for the DFV service system. An integrated approach better

responds to the needs of victims, their children and families, and perpetrators. It should build on elements of the

system and regions in which the response currently works well or is more mature. The integrated system will

operate with clear and strong linkages between parts of the service system (including between agencies, service

providers and communities). The core element will be a standardised and coordinated approach to assessing an

individual’s level of need earlier, which then directs the intensity and responsibility for service delivery to

promote safety and recovery.

The underpinning principles of the DFV service system response, which should inform design, implementation

and evaluation of elements will be:

Victim empowerment

Perpetrator accountability

Trauma based and/or trauma-informed responses




Local flexibility in service delivery, based on minimum service standards.

The intent of the overarching recommendation is for a more integrated service system to reach more people

earlier, to achieve a longer-term reduction in the cost and impact of DFV. This includes:

stopping violence




The overarching recommendation informed development of:

a potential longer-term vision, which is a bold concept that outlines a wholly redesigned approach to

DFV. It would require major system reform to implement. The NSW government should consider it when

thinking about the potential longer-term approach to DFV in NSW (see section 1.3.2).

a suite of 21 recommendations, which are proposed for implementation in the nearer-term. Collectively,

they outline a new redesigned service system, but are more feasible to action in the nearer-term (see

section 1.3.3).


1.3.2 A potential longer-term vision for the DFV response

Under the potential longer-term vision, the NSW government would take an insurance-like approach to

managing the costs and demands on the service system. The essence of insurance is that:

agencies and organisations take a long-term view, have an incentive to fund cost-effective early

interventions, and collect data to monitor outcomes and ensure efficiency. Insurance schemes aim to

minimise the long-term costs. 4

agencies or organisations collectively share risk. This means that when an individual experiences an

incident, the pooled resources of all are available to help them recover. In government, many services

could be framed as insurance. This ranges from those that are more obviously the case (such as

Medicare, where health services are largely free) to those that are less obvious (such as education, which

can be framed as risk reduction against poor economic and social outcomes).

The aim of this type of approach is to reduce the number and likelihood of individuals being in situations where

violence escalates. This potentially results in reduced: (i) risk of severe and negative consequences for individuals

(e.g. injury or death), and; (ii) cost to the system by lowering the demand for high-cost crisis and recovery

services.

The underpinning principles of an insurance-like approach to DFV would be:

coordination and management of the DFV service system by a single lead agency

segmentation and analysis of those at-risk of experiencing DFV for the purposes of service delivery

payment of premiums into a single asset pool to spread risk amongst agencies

a focus on primary prevention and early intervention activities to minimise harm and long-term costs

management and monitoring of DFV service providers to ensure service quality and consistency.

1.3.3 Recommendations to strengthen the service system

Overview

The 21 recommendations are based on the principles of the potential future vision, but will not deliver it in its

entirety. They provide practical actions that will strengthen the capacity of the service system to deliver on the

Blueprint. This is in recognition of the need for more feasible, nearer-term actions to improve the system now.

The final suite of recommendations:

build on initiatives or parts of the current system that are more mature and have proven effectiveness

identify service system improvements that result in greater effectiveness and/or efficiency

aim to improve outcomes for victims and perpetrators and those at-risk by: (i) refocusing attention and

resources on actions that provide a disproportionate benefit and (ii) strengthening primary prevention

and early intervention activities to prevent violence from escalating

modify the service system structure to provide more easily accessible non-statutory entry points

are underpinned by the notion that the underlying causes of DFV and other social issues overlap and

service providers across these areas should be able to support overlapping clients (e.g. across DFV, child

protection and other programs for vulnerable families)

strengthen the ability of the service system to respond to changes in demand

are inclusive of the critical role of communities and society in preventing, recognising and responding to

DFV

4 Australian Government Productivity Commission, Productivity Commission Inquiry Report: Overview and Recommendations,

No 54, 2011.


are based on the funding principle that primary prevention and early intervention services require more

investment, but crisis and recovery services need more efficient investment.

Collectively, the 21 recommendations outline a whole-of-system intervention. They focus disproportionate effort

on parts of the service system that are least mature (e.g. non-statutory entry points and pathways); recognising

parts of the service system are more mature than others (e.g. Safer Pathway initiatives). They are intended to be

implemented together to achieve a redesigned service system and improved outcomes for victims, perpetrators

and those at-risk.

Structure of the redesigned service system

Many of the recommendations refer to the core structure of the redesigned service system (see Figure 2). The

structure is characterised by clearly defined, but interlinked, layers of service delivery. As shown in Figure 2

overleaf, the redesigned service system:

uses an individual’s level of risk to determine the appropriate intensity of response to offer victims, their

families and perpetrators

has a layered structure that supports differing intensity of responses and strong linkages across layers

to support people as they move through the system

has more clearly defined non-statutory entry points and pathways.


Figure 2: Structure of the redesigned service system

Detailed recommendations

For each recommendation, Nous has outlined the responsibility, accountability, timing and cost implication. Table

1 provides further detail on timing and cost implication categorisations.

Table 1: Description of timing and cost categories

Timing Cost implication

Short term: within the next two years

Medium term: two to five years

Long-term: 5+ years

Low: No or very minimal cost of implementation

Medium: Some additional cost associated with

implementation

High: Higher cost of implementation

Table 2 outlines the 21 recommendations.

Table 2: Recommendations for strengthening the NSW DFV service system

Recommendation Accountability Responsibility Time Cost implication

Responses informed by an assessment of risk

1. Develop a common risk assessment framework that

integrates risk assessment tools to inform a service

system response based on an individual’s level of risk.

Women NSW

NSW Police

NSW Health

Dept. of Family

and Community

Services (FACS)

Short

term Low

Primary prevention

NO

N-S

TATU

TOR

Y E

NTR

Y

PO

INTS

Local Coordination

Points

Helplines

Safe Family Network

NSW Police

Primary prevention Crisis response and recoveryEarly intervention

Community Members

Aboriginal medical services

Child protection

services

Mental health services

Drug and alcohol services

Referrals

Centrelink

Counselling

Practical support

Disability services

Case management

Housing

Workplaces

Other professionals

STA

TUTO

RY

EN

TRY

P

OIN

TS

Safety Action Meetings

Families and Friends

Inte

nsi

ty

Network of service providers

Family referral services

Victims

Perpetrators

Children and families

Local courts and family courts


2. Target primary prevention activities towards at-risk

cohorts and specific areas of NSW with a high

prevalence and/or incidence of DFV.

Women NSW

Women NSW,

FACS, Dept. of

Justice and Dept.

of Education

Short

term Medium

3. Target the significant financial investment of the

Domestic and Family Violence Innovation Fund

towards funding primary prevention and early

intervention initiatives.

FACS Women NSW Short

term Low

Early intervention and crisis response and recovery

4. Strengthen non-statutory, alternative entry points, pathways and service coordination for victims, perpetrators and families.

FACS

Women NSW

Dept. of Justice (Legal Aid)

Short term

Medium

5. Improve the capacity of actors within communities and society to recognise and respond to DFV.

Women NSW Women NSW Medium term

Medium

6. Improve access for victims, families and perpetrators by better integration of helplines and improved pathways for people to access services and information.

Women NSW

FACS

NSW Health

Dept. of Justice

Medium term

Low

7. Strengthen the capacity for system navigation for victims and families through an enhanced role of Local Coordination Points (LCPs).

Women NSW

Women NSW


Long-term

High

8. Continue to roll-out the Safety Action Meetings (SAMs) as a response to victims and families at serious threat.

Women NSW NSW Health, Police, FACS, Dept. of Justice

Medium term

Low

9. Expand perpetrator and Men’s Behaviour Change Programs, increase access to existing programs and explore alternative service system response options.

Women NSW Women NSW

Dept. of Justice

Long term

Medium

10. Prioritise data collection for the victims and perpetrators who repeatedly cycle through the DFV system.

Women NSW Women NSW

FACS

Short term

High

11. Provide more intensive, long-term case management for victims, their families and perpetrators who repeatedly cycle through the DFV system over a long period.

Women NSW FACS

Dept. of Justice

Medium term

High

12. Explore innovative ways to increase substantially the range, availability and suitability of housing options for victims of DFV.

FACS FACS Medium term

Medium


13. Develop a common understanding of the vision of the DFV service system and a common policy direction amongst key agencies.

Women NSW Women NSW Short term

Low

14. Education, FACS, NSW Health and Justice should each develop a specific whole-of-agency DFV strategy and action plan and report progress against agreed actions.

Women NSW Dept. of Education, FACS, Health and Dept. of Justice

Short term

Low


15. Allocate funding based on performance, ongoing evaluation or accreditation and adoption of standard practices and systems.

NSW Treasury Women NSW Medium term

Low

16. Ensure future funding and commissioning practices provide long-term, outcomes based funding.

NSW Treasury Women NSW Long term

Low

17. Build on existing data collection tools to develop a DFV integrated platform that collates information about individuals and families experiencing DFV.


High

18. Complete the Blueprint commitments to establish service quality standards and embed evaluation practices.


Low

19. Build on existing information sharing platforms to establish a shared system for both DFV and vulnerable children/families service providers.


Medium

20. Encourage more service providers to provide integrated services for across the child protection, vulnerable families and DFV sectors.

Women NSW Women NSW

FACS

Short term

Low

21. Consider opportunities for skills development and training for non-government organisations to occur alongside government workers.

Women NSW Women NSW

FACS

Medium term

Low


2 Background and context

This section outlines the context, background and methodology of the service system redesign and the structure

of this paper.

DFV context in NSW

DFV is a significant issue across NSW. It occurs in all communities and affects all socio-demographic groups,

ages and both sexes, but disproportionally affects some more than others. In 2015, there were 138,000 DFV

incidents reported to Police – an average of almost 380 incidents per day.5

Taking into account the high underreporting rate of 67%, potential demand on the DFV service system is

419,000 incidents in NSW annually (or 1,100 per day).6 If underreporting rates change, this would create

significantly more demand on an already overburdened service system (e.g. if more victims started to report DFV

to police).

The rate of DFV is projected to continue to grow if nothing more is done to address it. Over the five years from

2015 to 2020, DFV incidents (reported to Police) are forecast to increase by 18%.7 The service system needs

increased capacity and capability to better meet current demand and be equipped to meet projected future

growth in demand.

In August 2016, Women NSW released the Blueprint. It outlined the NSW government’s vision, which is to

improve outcomes for victims, perpetrators and those at-risk of experiencing or perpetrating DFV.

Significant DFV-related policy reform and other work are underway in NSW. Nous considered this work to ensure

the redesign aligned with previous and current reforms. This includes:

the roll-out of the Safer Pathway reforms

the Premier’s Priority to reduce the proportion of DFV perpetrators re-offending within 12 months by

five per cent

the independent review of Out of Home Care (the Tune Review)

an organisational redesign of Women NSW that clarifies the scope of the unit’s role including its role to

coordinating the DFV response in NSW

major DFV policy documents, including the DFV Prevention and Early Intervention Strategy and the DFV

Outcomes Framework, developed by Women NSW

an examination of the facilitation of interagency collaboration, commissioned by FACS

the findings of an independent, expert led review of joint commissioning practices including DFV,

commissioned by FACS.

5 Data is based on the Blueprint analytical model. The model used reported incidents based on data provided by BOCSAR. This

captured reported incidents, both incidents where an offence was recorded and those where no offence was recorded. 6 Blueprint analytical model; underreporting rates has been estimated using the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013 and the

Personal Safety Survey, Australia, 2012 7 This is based on Police reported incidents in LGAs and population growth in LGAs. It is greater than the projected demand

used in the Blueprint analytical model, which resulted in a conservative growth in demand of 7%. It is a more nuanced

calculation, based on differential growth rates for individual LGAs. Limited data makes it difficult to determine the reasons for

the continued growth in DFV incidents (reported to Police). It is not possible to determine whether growth is due to more

people reporting to DFV or an actual growth in DFV across communities in NSW.


Background to the DFV service system redesign

In March 2016, the Cabinet Standing Committee on Expenditure Review agreed to an external, expert led

redesign of the interagency DFV service system. Women NSW (through the MoH) engaged Nous to lead the

redesign. The redesign aimed to develop a more effective DFV service system and ultimately safer lives for

women, men and children in NSW.

The redesign found that the DFV service system is faced with responding to a highly complex issue, one that is

closely linked with many other social issues, such as child protection, homelessness, mental illness and drug and

alcohol use. An ongoing challenge is the limited evidence on what works to prevent and respond to DFV in

Australia and internationally. This means successful implementation of reforms to the DFV system will require a

coordinated commitment from many government agencies, combined with regular assessment of emerging

evidence.

A service system is the means by which activities, facilities and supports are developed, coordinated and

delivered to clients. The recommendations outlined in this paper are based on the best available evidence at the

time of the system redesign project. They focus on strengthening the service system, in line with the overarching

DFV strategy (articulated in the Blueprint).

In the initial phase of the redesign, Nous undertook extensive data collection and analysis to assess the

performance of the current DFV service system. Nous also conducted interviews with victims and perpetrators to

understand what worked well and areas for improvement based on their interactions with the service system.

Along with government and non-government stakeholder consultation across NSW on options for reform, this

assessment informed the recommendations in this paper. Appendix A details the methodology Nous used to

undertake the redesign.

Prior to developing the recommendations, Nous developed ‘problem statements’ to highlight key issues in the

current service system. These helped to focus the recommendations on areas that provided the greatest

opportunity for improvement. Key opportunities identified through the redesign included:

Responses informed by an assessment of risk: Service providers do not consistently provide

individuals and families with the most appropriate type, timing and intensity of services, based on their

individual level of risk.

Primary prevention: Primary prevention activities and initiatives are underdeveloped, unfocused and as

a whole, not well coordinated.

Early intervention and crisis response and recovery: The service system does not effectively use

mainstream services to provide early intervention services or pathways for victims, perpetrators and

vulnerable families. The service system is not efficiently supporting victims, perpetrators and vulnerable

families when DFV first occurs. This can result in some individuals remaining in the system for too long,

and not receiving the right support at the right time.

Supporting mechanisms: There is no agreement or accountability on the DFV outcomes sought and

the service system does not effectively collect data and track outcomes to drive the delivery of high

quality, evidence-based services.

Structure of this paper

This paper outlines recommendations to develop a strengthened DFV service system. The intended audience is

the Interagency DFV Service System Redesign Steering Committee. Specifically, this paper provides:

the recommendations to strengthen the DFV service system, which includes:

an overarching recommendation for the DFV service system redesign (see section 3.1)

a potential long-term future vision for the DFV response (see section 3.2).

21 recommendations to improve the capacity and capability of the DFV service system to deliver on

the Blueprint (see section 3.3). The 21 recommendations are intended to be implemented together

in order to achieve a strengthened DFV service system that has the maximum impact on outcomes


for those who experience DFV (as opposed to only strengthening particular individual elements of

the service system).

an implementation plan, which outlines the sequential timing for implementation of the

recommendations (see section 4).

3 Recommendations

This section details the DFV service system redesign recommendations, including the overarching

recommendation, a potential long-term vision and 21 recommendations.

3.1 One overarching recommendation

Nous developed one overarching recommendation for the DFV service system redesign, which is that the NSW

government should adopt a more integrated approach for the DFV service system to improve outcomes for

victims, perpetrators and those at-risk in NSW.

Overarching recommendation:

The NSW government, organisations and communities should enable safer lives for women, men and children in

NSW through adoption of an integrated approach for the DFV service system. An integrated approach better

responds to the needs of victims, their children and families, and perpetrators. It should build on elements of the

system and regions in which the response currently works well or is more mature. The integrated system will

operate with clear and strong linkages between parts of the service system (including between agencies, service

providers and communities). The core element will be a standardised and coordinated approach to assessing an

individual’s level of need earlier, which then directs the intensity and responsibility for service delivery to

promote safety and recovery.

The underpinning principles of the DFV service system response, which should inform design, implementation

and evaluation of elements will be:

Victim empowerment

Perpetrator accountability

Trauma based and/or trauma-informed responses




Local flexibility in service delivery, based on minimum service standards.

The intent of the overarching recommendation is for a more integrated service system to reach more people

earlier, to achieve a longer-term reduction in the cost and impact of DFV. This includes:

stopping violence




The overarching recommendation informed development of:

a potential longer-term vision, which is a bold concept that outlines a wholly redesigned approach to

DFV. It would require major system reform to implement. The NSW government should consider it when

thinking about the potential longer-term approach to DFV in NSW (see section 3.2).


a suite of 21 recommendations, which are proposed for implementation in the nearer-term. Collectively,

they outline a new redesigned service system, but are more feasible to action in the nearer-term (see

section 3.3).

3.2 Potential long-term future vision for the DFV response

This section outlines a potential long-term future vision for the DFV service system in NSW. It is a bold concept

that would require major system reform to implement. Similar approaches have been explored and implemented

in social services sectors in Australia. The recommendations in this paper are based on the principles of the

potential future vision, but will not deliver it in its entirety.

An insurance-like approach to better manage the costs and demands of DFV

A bold future vision for NSW would be to take an insurance-like approach to managing the costs and demands

on the DFV service system. The essence of insurance is that:

agencies and organisations take a long-term view, have an incentive to fund cost-effective early

interventions, and collect data to monitor outcomes and ensure efficiency. Insurance schemes aim to

minimise the long-term costs.8

agencies or organisations collectively share risk. This means that when an individual experiences an

incident, the pooled resources of all are available to help them recover. In government, many services

could be framed as insurance. This ranges from those that are more obviously the case (such as

Medicare, where health services are largely free) to those that are less obviously so (e.g. education,

which can be framed as risk reduction against poor economic and social outcomes).

For DFV, an insurance-like approach would represent a movement to a market-based insurance model that

focuses on minimising the cost and demand for services. This vision is inspired by similar approaches adopted in

social services settings.9 This approach would require major reform to how the NSW government currently

responds to DFV – to an approach that focuses on risk and risk segmentation to identify those at-risk early and

provide a timely response. The aim is to reduce the number and likelihood of individuals and families being in

situations where violence escalates. This potentially results in: (i) reduced risk of severe and negative

consequences for individuals (e.g. injury or death), and; (ii) reduced cost to the system by reducing the demand

for high-cost crisis and recovery services.

Figure 3 overleaf illustrates the core components of this insurance-like approach. The underpinning principles

are:

coordination and management of the DFV service system by a single lead agency

segmentation and analysis of those at-risk of experiencing DFV for the purposes of service delivery

payment of premiums into a single asset pool to spread risk amongst agencies

a focus on primary prevention and early intervention activities to minimise harm and long-term costs

management and monitoring of DFV service providers to ensure service quality and consistency.

8 Australian Government Productivity Commission, Productivity Commission Inquiry Report: Overview and Recommendations,

No 54, 2011. 9Two examples are the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NIDIS) and the Victorian Transport Accident commission. Given

the scale of change, if government decided to implement this future vision model it would require a detailed financial

analysis considering the impact on key agencies' core functions.


Figure 3: An insurance-like approach to managing DFV

Coordination and management of the DFV service system by a single lead agency

In an insurance-like approach to managing DFV, a single government agency would act as the lead. The purpose

of the lead agency is to have clear accountability for service system performance and client outcomes. It also has

oversight of the system to ensure integrated, value-for-money service delivery.

Potentially, this agency would:

be accountable for the overall performance of the DFV response in improving outcomes for those who

experience or perpetrate DFV. 10

It would represent the interests of all agencies involved in the response.

It would hold other government agencies and service providers to account for their performance.

ensure the DFV response is coordinated. This would involve ensuring there are strong linkages between

agencies and service providers to reduce overlaps and gaps in service delivery. This would be in DFV

10

B Bonyhady, ‘What will inclusion look like for people with disability in 10 years?, 2016, date viewed 3 February 2017, accessed

at: https://www.ndis.gov.au/news/media/speeches/Bruce-Bonyhady-Speech-What-will-inclusion-look-like-for-people-with-

disability-in-10-years.html.

Risk informed approach

NSW Health

Dept. of Justice

FACS

NSW Police

Women NSW

Education

Commonwealthgovt. agencies

Serviceproviders

https://www.ndis.gov.au/news/media/speeches/Bruce-Bonyhady-Speech-What-will-inclusion-look-like-for-people-with-disability-in-10-years.html



and across other issues with significant overlap, such as housing, child protection and other programs

that target vulnerable families.11

manage the market of service providers to ensure high quality, consistent service provision across NSW.

This would involve ensuring services are regularly evaluated and funded or commissioned based on

evidence-based performance and outcomes. The lead agency would be the assessor and funder, but not

the provider of care or support.12

manage a central data collection and storage system. It would be responsible for leveraging the benefits

of data collected on victims, perpetrators, families and those at-risk (and ensuring integration of that

data with other social services).

manage the funds agencies contribute as premiums to ensure effective and coordinated allocation

funds as the need arises.13

Segmentation and analysis of those at-risk of experiencing or perpetrating DFV

Risk identification and risk segmentation of individuals and families underpins this approach. The lead agency

would assess the risk of at-risk individuals and actual clients to enable risk stratification and early intervention.

The aim of a risk-based approach is to identify those who are at-risk when they are at low risk and to prevent

their situation from worsening (i.e. their risk from increasing).

This approach supports the provision of early intervention services for lower-risk individuals and families to

prevent violence from escalating, risk from increasing, and cost of response services required growing. This is

also intended to reduce the proportion of clients who end up at high risk of DFV or in crisis situations, who then

need the most intense and costly services and support.14

This focus on a risk-based response allows for:

tailored service delivery based on the risk profile of the individual. For example, the single agency can

better identify relatively low risk individuals and families and provide (less costly) targeted early

intervention services. This reduces both the potential consequence of DFV for individuals and families

and the overall cost (by avoiding the need for intensive crisis response and recovery services).

common eligibility criteria and entitlements to individually tailored support based on a uniform

assessment process. 15

decisions that adopt a longer-term perspective of DFV victims and perpetrators by better using

evidence-based risk data. This has the potential to minimise long-term costs through timelier and more

cost-effective early interventions.16

access to different intensities and duration of support.17

For example, it responds to both ‘short-term’

victims, perpetrators and families (those who need services for a short period of time) and ‘longer-

11

B Bonyhady, ‘The What? Why? Who? And Market Opportunities of the NDIS,2015, date viewed 3 February 2017, accessed at:

https://www.ndis.gov.au/bruce-speech-what-why-who-market. 12

Australian Government Productivity Commission, Productivity Commission Inquiry Report: Overview and Recommendations,

No 54, 2011. 13


No 54, 2011. 14

If the NSW government pursues this approach, it would need to determine which client groups overlap with other service

systems and how would the new approach will increase reach without duplicating resources. To ameliorate the risk of

exclusion under a market-based approach, it will be important to build information access and advocacy mechanisms into

any service system model to support people experiencing DFV. 15


No 54, 2011. 16



disability-in-10-years.html.

https://www.ndis.gov.au/bruce-speech-what-why-who-market




term/repeat’ victims, perpetrators and families (who require longer term, and often more intensive,

support).

Payment of premiums into a single asset pool to spread risk amongst agencies

Key government agencies involved in the DFV service system response would share their risk (i.e. cost) by

contributing premiums to a pool of funds. The focus of pooled funding is on insuring against the higher-cost,

but less frequent incidents.18

Consistent with the traditional model of insurance, agencies would transfer funds and spread the risk of costs

arising from DFV to the single lead agency.19

In the event that that there is a DFV incident, the pooled resources

of all agencies would be available to assist victims, perpetrators and their families as part of the coordinated

crisis response and recovery. This proposed system provides an inherent financial incentive to minimise costs

through the provision of more cost-effective early intervention services.

Focus on primary prevention and early intervention activities to minimise harm and

long-term costs

The focus of the service system would increasingly move towards primary prevention and away from crisis

response and recovery. A greater focus on primary prevention would help to reduce the likelihood of DFV

occurring (particularly amongst at-risk cohorts).

This principle reflects one of the core elements of insurance models, which is to manage risk and prevent loss

and injury to reduce costs. 20

In the DFV context, a focus on primary prevention would aim to reduce the number

of individuals and families who enter the DFV service system. By preventing violence, and preventing people

from entering the system, the economic and non-economic costs of DFV likely reduce.

Management and monitoring of DFV service providers to ensure service quality and

consistency

Typically, traditional insurance companies do not involve themselves in the management of recovery. Rather,

they have an approved range of service providers who deliver services to clients.

In the DFV context, an insurance-like approach would involve the single lead agency managing the market of

DFV service providers. This would help to ensure consistent quality and availability of service provision across

NSW. This is particularly the case if performance and outcomes determine which services government funds and

commissions.

Under an insurance-like approach to DFV, the single agency would:

accredit or create service agreements with DFV service providers.21

capture service quality data to ensure the quality of DFV service delivery.

provide grants to promote innovation in service delivery amongst DFV service providers.22

17

Ibid. 18


No 54, 2011. 19

Australian Government Private Health Insurance Administration Council, Risk sharing in the Australian private health

insurance market, 2015, Research paper no 4. 20

S Subramaniam, Some reflections on the best practices in the insurance industry in Asia,2012, date viewed 3 February 2017,

accessed at: https://www.oecd.org/daf/fin/46112781.pdf. 21

National Disability Insurance Scheme, Service agreements with providers, Date viewed two February 2017, accessed at:

https://www.ndis.gov.au/document/service-agreements-providers . 22

B Bonyhady, ’Australia’s National Disability Insurance Scheme: Its Design, Progress, Campaign Lessons, Challenges and

Opportunities’, 2015, Date viewed 3 February 2017, accessed at: https://www.ndis.gov.au/chair-speech-ndia-design-progress-

lesson.

https://www.oecd.org/daf/fin/46112781.pdf


Successful implementation of an insurance-like approach has many potential

benefits

If done successfully, implementation of this type of approach has many potential benefits. This includes benefits

to the NSW government, to service providers and, most importantly, to victims, perpetrators, vulnerable families

and those at-risk of DFV.23

Potential benefits include:

a greater focus on outcomes for individuals and families. This approach would promote greater

competition amongst service providers to provide quality services. This creates an imperative for service

providers to innovate and allocate resources efficiently.24

a reduction in the cost and consequences of DFV through a focus on primary prevention. An insurance-

like approach would acknowledge the benefits of a whole-of-life approach for clients.25

The system

would have an incentive to make short-term investments that may reduce larger long-term costs.26

more efficient service delivery through more strategic thinking on how to target and deploy resources.

An insurance-like approach would allow for more evidence-based decisions and earlier identification of

those at-risk.27

a reduction in the long-term costs of managing DFV through a shift towards multi-year budgeting and

longer-term strategy. This type of approach lends itself towards longer-term funding that aims to move

people down the spectrum of service delivery (to early intervention and ultimately out of the system) to

reduce costs.

3.3 Detailed recommendations

Nous based the 21 recommendations for the redesigned service system on the principles of the potential long-

term vision (see section 3.2). The recommendations will not deliver the potential long-term vision, but provide

feasible actions in the short to medium term.

Overview

Nous considered many reform options, both major and minor, to develop the 21 recommendations.

Collectively, the recommendations outline a whole-of-system intervention to strengthen the capacity of the

service system to deliver on the Blueprint. They focus disproportionate effort on parts of the service system that

are least mature (e.g. non-statutory entry points and pathways), recognising some parts of the service system are

more mature than others (e.g. Safer Pathway initiatives).

The final suite of recommendations:

23

Should the NSW government consider implementing the longer-term vision outlined in section 3.2, it should undertake

impact studies to determine the effect it would have on at-risk cohorts (such as CALD groups and Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander communities). 24



disability-in-10-years.html. 25

Transport Accident Commission Victoria, ‘TAC 2020 strategy,’ Date viewed two February 2017, accessed at:

http://www.tac.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/192753/TAC_Strategy2020_UPDATE_WEB.pdf. 26

B Bonyhady, ‘The Accessible Country’, 2016, Date viewed two February 2017, accessed at: https://www.ndis.gov.au/bruce-

bonyhady-speech-accessible-country.html. 27

B Bonyhady, ’Australia’s National Disability Insurance Scheme: Its Design, Progress, Campaign Lessons, Challenges and

Opportunities’, 2015, Date viewed 3 February 2017, accessed at: https://www.ndis.gov.au/chair-speech-ndia-design-progress-

lesson.



https://www.ndis.gov.au/bruce-bonyhady-speech-accessible-country.html

https://www.ndis.gov.au/bruce-bonyhady-speech-accessible-country.html


are based on the principles of the potential long-term future vision (see section 3.2). These

include, but are not limited to, a greater focus on primary prevention and early intervention,

responses informed by an assessment of risk and better data collection and evaluation to support the

consistent and quality service provision.

identify service system improvements that result in greater effectiveness or efficiency (e.g.

address less effective service and/or reduce duplication in service delivery). In particular, they

strengthen the handover points and linkages between layers of the service system (e.g. the handover

point between statutory and non-statutory pathways).

aim to improve outcomes for victims, perpetrators and those at-risk. This is done by the service

system refocusing resources on actions that provide a disproportionate benefit (e.g. a greater focus

on primary prevention, early intervention and vulnerable families, to reduce the number of people

and families from moving into long-term, crisis situations).

modify the service system structure to provide more easily accessible non-statutory entry

points and pathways for individuals and families. The aim is to prevent and/or reduce the number

of people escalating through services to the statutory system, who then need more costly crisis and

recovery services.

are underpinned by the notion that the underlying causes of DFV and other social issues

overlap. This includes issues with significant overlap, such as child protection and programs for

vulnerable families. The strengthened service system recognises the common enablers and

encourages service providers to build trust with at-risk individuals and families.

strengthen the ability of the service system to respond to changes in demand for services. This

includes changes over time and across geographical locations. Nous’ analysis of the prevalence and

incidence of DFV across Local Government Areas (LGAs) informed the design. This means the

intensity of service delivery is tailored to local contexts and is structured to enable a more agile

approach to dealing with demand fluctuations.

are inclusive of communities and society (such as interactions with families and friends,

communities or workplaces). The redesigned service system better links government agencies, service

providers, communities and society, with the aim of addressing the high rate of underreporting and

intervening earlier.

are based on the funding principle that primary prevention and early intervention services

require more investment (i.e. using the innovation fund). In contrast, crisis response and recovery

services require more integrated and efficient funding (i.e. redistribution of funding).

Structure of the redesigned service system

Many of the recommendations refer to the core structure of the redesigned service system (see Figure 4

overleaf). The structure of the redesigned service system is characterised by clearly defined, but interlinked,

layers of service delivery. Figure 4 shows:

an overall structure that links an individual’s level of risk and need to an appropriate offering (see

Recommendation 1). This means an individual’s level of risk and need would determine the type, timing

and intensity of response they are offered.

a layered service system that is structured to offer differing intensity of responses and strong linkages to

support people as they move through the system. For example, the Safe Family Network layer provides

a non-statutory entry point and pathway to services (see Recommendation 4). The LCP layer provides

more intense support, particularly for those who enter through statutory entry points (see

Recommendation 7). The ‘Safety Action Meeting’ element is for the provision of coordinated support to

the most complex and/or at-risk individuals and families (see Recommendation 8).

the complex network of service providers that offer victims, children, families and perpetrators the

appropriate intensity, type and timing of support.

Appendix B provides a process map for the redesigned service system.


Figure 4: Structure of the redesigned service system28

Criteria for assessing the effectiveness of the redesigned DFV service system

A crucial step in designing a more effective DFV service system is to understand the criteria by which one can

judge system performance and effectiveness. Nous developed criteria for an effective DFV service system.29

Nous used the criteria to inform development and assessment of reform options. The criteria provide NSW

government agencies and service providers a reference point for measuring the effectiveness of the future

service system.

28

Nous also calculated the approximate case load of each ‘layer’ of the service system. The annual numbers for SAMs (13,5000

cases per annum), LCPs (135,000 cases per annum) and Safe Family Network (220,000 cases per annum) are the approximate

number of cases each of these organisations/meetings may need to be equipped to deal with. The numbers calculated: a) for

SAMs: based on available data on the approximate annual case load of current SAM locations, extrapolated to account for

the planned roll-out of SAM, up until March 2017; b) for WDVCAS: based on annual total reported incidences to Police,

BOCSAR, 2015; c) For Safe Family Network: based on annual number of incidences in LGAs with i) high growth & high

prevalence and ii) high prevalence & high incidence, and scaled for under-reporting. 29

Nous developed these based on the Blueprint consultations, analysis of system performance outlined in the Stage 1 Report

and the DFV outcomes framework developed by Women NSW in 2016. Nous tested and refined these with government

agencies and service providers during Stage two of the redesign project.

NO

N-S

TATU

TOR

Y E

NTR

Y

PO

INTS

Local Coordination

Points

Helplines

Safe Family Network

NSW Police

Primary prevention Crisis response and recoveryEarly intervention

Community Members

Aboriginal medical services

Child protection

services

Mental health services


Referrals

Centrelink

Counselling

Practical support

Disability services

Case management

Housing

Workplaces

Other professionals

STA

TUTO

RY

EN

TRY

P

OIN

TS


Families and Friends

Inte

nsi

ty

Network of service providers

Family referral services

Victims

Perpetrators


Local courts and family courts


The seven criteria for an effective DFV service system are:

1. The DFV service system increasingly focuses on primary prevention.

2. Individuals and communities have a common understanding of what constitutes healthy and safe

relationships.

3. Early intervention services are more easily available.

4. Individuals, families and children can access holistic support.

5. Help is intuitive and the system is easy to navigate for everyone.

6. The social and economic impact of domestic and family violence decreases.

7. Service provision is high quality and evidence based.

Twenty-one recommendations

Nous developed 21 recommendations that will help to achieve a strengthened DFV service system. Nous used

the Recommendations Framework to structure the recommendations (see section 1.2).

The sub-sections below detail recommendations under four categories, as shown in Figure 5. These are:

1. Responses informed by an assessment of risk (section 3.3.1)

2. Primary prevention (section 3.3.2)

3. Early intervention and crisis response and recovery, which covers: a) vulnerable families and help-

seekers, b) ‘first time’ incidents reported to police and c) longer-term, repeat incidents (section 3.3.3).

4. Supporting mechanisms, which covers the six supporting mechanisms outlined in the Stage 1 Report

(section 3.3.4).

It is important to recognise some elements of the existing system are more mature than others. The 21

recommendations recognise this and build on existing strengths of the system, as well as recommend options to

improve less mature elements of the system. The recommendations also recognise that different communities

will be at different starting points, but all communities should be provided the resources to meet minimum

service standards and quality.

Figure 5: The four categories of recommendations

1. Responses based on assessment of risk

2. Primary prevention3. Early intervention and crisis response and recovery

Vulnerable families and help seekers

‘First time’ incidence

Long-term, repeat incidents

4. Supporting mechanisms


For each recommendation, Nous has outlined the responsibility, accountability, timing and cost implication.

Table 3 provides further detail on timing and cost implication categorisation.

Table 3: Description of timing and cost categories

Timing Cost implication



Long-term: longer than five years

Low: No or very minimal cost of implementation

Medium: Some additional cost associated with

implementation

High: Higher cost of implementation

For each recommendation, Nous identified any corresponding Blueprint actions and commitments.

3.3.1 Recommendation: Responses informed by an assessment of risk

Recommendation Accountability Responsibility Timing Cost

implication

1. Develop a common risk assessment framework that

integrates risk assessment tools to inform a service system

response based on an individual’s level of risk.

Women NSW

NSW Police

NSW Health

FACS

Short

term Low

Alignment with Blueprint actions

No Blueprint actions or commitments relate to a strengthened risk assessment framework.

Recommendation 1: Develop a common risk assessment framework that integrates risk assessment tools to

inform a service system response based on an individual’s level of risk.

This recommendation outlines a new approach to segmenting DFV clients based on their individual level of risk. It recognises that multiple risk assessment tools are used by different agencies to inform their responses to DFV. Although useful as resources, their usefulness can be further improved by understanding how they fit together to more consistent responses that better meet people’s needs.

NSW Police, NSW Health and FACS, led by Women NSW, should develop a common risk assessment framework.

The common risk assessment framework should identify which tool service providers should use in particular

circumstances and how existing tools link together. This includes risk assessment tools used for victims,

perpetrators and for children. This would enable agencies to determine the type, timing and intensity of the

service response to offer clients and ensure greater consistency across the system.

It is important to note that this recommendation does not suggest development of a new risk assessment tool,

but rather a framework that better links existing tools.

This common risk assessment framework should adopt a definition of risk that captures the diverse

circumstances of individuals. This will enable agencies and providers to offer clients timelier and better-tailored

services that mitigate or remove any immediate risks.

The framework should take account of the effective elements of existing tools, such as the DV Safety Assessment

Tool (DVSAT) and the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) tool.30

The development process should include

30

Nous’ analysis of evidence on the effectiveness of DVSAT as part of Stage 1 of the redesign showed DVSAT is a standardised

and easy to use tool that generates a shared understanding of threat levels and how to assess risk. It also provides common

language to discuss issues with clients. The common risk assessment framework should also take account of any relevant

findings from the Ministry of Health’s trial of the DVSAT and the current evaluation of the DVSAT


reconciliation of agency views about the use of different tools.31

The final framework should also leverage the

best evidence nationally, such as from relevant learnings from the Queensland and Victorian common risk

assessment frameworks.32

A common risk assessment framework would mean:

service providers would be better equipped to offer clients an appropriate response based on an

individual’s level of risk. Service providers would use the common risk assessment framework to

determine an individual’s level of risk and vulnerability. An individual risk assessment allows for

customisation of the type, timing and intensity of interventions offered to clients. It would be

appropriate for use with victims, perpetrators and vulnerable families and children.

the service system response is more likely to be consistent, regardless of which part of the service

system an individual or family first interacts with. All service providers, including specialist and

mainstream services, would use the common risk assessment framework. This would mean individuals

and families could expect greater consistency across the system, regardless of where and how they first

interact with it.

This approach to understanding client needs better supports a more client-centric, tailored service system. It

enables a service system that better recognises the unique risk factors that exist within at-risk cohorts (more so

than considering clients as socio-demographic at-risk cohorts with similar needs).

Government and non-government service providers should have a role in co-designing the common risk

assessment framework. In the initial roll-out phase, the common risk assessment framework should be trialled in

a selection of government and non-government providers that operate the following services:

major service system entry points (e.g. through Police, Health and FACS). Analysis from Nous’ Stage 1

Report showed major system entry points are through Police reports (56%), NSW Health

programs/services (20%) or FACS programs/services (24%).33

services that regularly interact with at-risk cohorts. This should include service providers working in

maternal health, housing and child protection services. Analysis from Nous’ Stage 1 Report identified

these as examples of services whose clients may be within an at-risk cohort (e.g. pregnant women,

women with children, or the part of the significant proportion of people needing housing services who

also experience DFV).34

31

Nous understands that NSW Police, NSW Health, FACS, Women NSW, the Department of Justice, Legal Aid and peak non-

government organisations have been involved in cross agency work on developing existing risk assessment tools.

Implementation of this recommendation should leverage this existing work where appropriate. Nous also understands that

Department of Education staff use the Mandatory Reporter Guide to assess risk to children and young people in relation to

DFV. Nous does not suggest the Department of Education cease using this tool nor develop a new risk assessment tool. 32

Monash University undertook a review of the Family Violence Risk Assessment and Risk Management Framework in

September. The final report is available at: http://artsonline.monash.edu.au/gender-and-family-violence/review-of-the-family-

violence-risk-assessment-risk-management-framework-craf-final-report/ The Queensland government made a commitment

to develop a common risk assessment framework as part of the First Action Plan of the Domestic and Family Violence

Prevention Strategy 2015-2016. It is available at: https://www.communities.qld.gov.au/resources/gateway/campaigns/end-

violence/dfv-first-action-plan.pdf 33

This data captures major entry points for victims into the DFV based on data provided by NSW MOH, FACS, Women NSW

and BOCSAR data. It is an estimate of the relative proportion who touch with different services and supports, based on data

compiled from different years (e.g. some data was available for 2015-16, but other data was only available for 2014-15 or

2013-14). It does not capture all entry points, as some entry points are unknown. For some known entry points, no data was

available (e.g. entry through DV helplines such as 1800RESPECT). Major NSW Health entry points included were entry through

mainstream services (e.g. ED presentations), NSW Health programs for vulnerable children and families or DFV routine

screening services. Major FACS entry points were through DFV specialist services (DV Line) and other FACS programs for

vulnerable children and families. 34

For example, 47% of women and children who access homelessness services are experiencing DFV. 46% of NSW Health’s

Child Protection Counselling Service are experiencing DFV. (Figures are based on 2014-15 data provided by FACS to Women

NSW for the Blueprint development).

http://artsonline.monash.edu.au/gender-and-family-violence/review-of-the-family-violence-risk-assessment-risk-management-framework-craf-final-report/


https://www.communities.qld.gov.au/resources/gateway/campaigns/end-violence/dfv-first-action-plan.pdf



In the longer-term, all key agencies and mainstream, specialist and statutory service providers involved in the

DFV response should adopt the common risk assessment framework (both government and non-government

providers).

The common risk assessment framework should be developed and implemented within the next two years. It is a

foundational component and should be completed in the early phase of reforms. The common risk assessment

framework should be independently evaluated during implementation.35

The cost implication of this recommendation is low. Resources from key agencies will be required to develop the

common risk assessment framework; however, there is a significant base on which they can build upon.

Rationale

NSW does not currently have a common risk assessment framework. The use of multiple risk assessment tools

can limit the ability of agencies to provide a coordinated (and early) response.

The DVSAT provides police with an approach to determine a victim’s level of risk. The tool is not mandatory for

all agencies nor used consistently across the service system; it is only used after an incident is reported to police

(based on stakeholder consultations).36

This means victims can receive different risk assessments, depending on

the agency or service provider they first interact with. Stakeholders in consultations also reported that individuals

in the same household may be assessed using different risk assessment tools that often do not align (e.g.

agencies would use a different tool for a victim and for a child in the family).

In addition, NSW government agencies and service providers have typically examined clients’ socio-demographic

factors to determine relatively broad at-risk cohorts. This method of categorisation does not reflect that people

within these socio-demographic cohorts have different risk factors, vulnerabilities and needs (although there is

an increasing awareness of these amongst government agencies).

A more client-centric service system would consider an individual’s risks and needs using a common risk

assessment framework. This is as opposed to assuming these are consistent across broad socio-demographic

cohorts. At a system-level, the socio-demographic information on at-risk clients can help with planning services

(e.g. knowing that more intense services are likely to be required in rural or remote areas).

Other jurisdictions have found a common risk framework helps achieve a more integrated understanding of how

risk can inform service planning and access. 37

3.3.2 Recommendations: Primary prevention


implication

2. Target primary prevention activities towards at-risk

cohorts and specific areas of NSW with a high prevalence

and/or incidence of DFV.

Women NSW

Women NSW,

FACS, Dept. of

Justice and

Dept. of

Education

Short

term Medium

35

This recommendation should consider the outcomes of the evaluation and review of the Police and non-Police DVSATs and

considerations for data sharing as part of the Dept. of Justice’s ongoing efforts to enhance of the CRP. 36

The DVSAT has been a mandatory risk assessment tool for NSW Police since 1 July 2015, but other agencies that interact

with DFV victims are not mandated to use it. 37

Monash University undertook a review of the Family Violence Risk Assessment and Risk Management Framework in

September. The final report is available at: http://artsonline.monash.edu.au/gender-and-family-violence/review-of-the-family-

violence-risk-assessment-risk-management-framework-craf-final-report/ The Queensland government made a commitment

to develop a common risk assessment framework as part of the First Action Plan of the Domestic and Family Violence

Prevention Strategy 2015-2016. It is available at: https://www.communities.qld.gov.au/resources/gateway/campaigns/end-

violence/dfv-first-action-plan.pdf







implication

3. Target the significant financial investment of the

Domestic and Family Violence Innovation Fund towards

funding primary prevention and early intervention

initiatives.

FACS Women NSW Short

term Low


Action 1 in the Blueprint relates specifically to primary prevention (Action 1: Preventing domestic and family

violence). The two recommendations to strengthen the DFV system below build on a key commitment under

Action 1, which is the launch of the Innovation Fund to support primary prevention initiatives.

Recommendation 2: Target primary prevention activities towards at-risk cohorts and specific areas of NSW with a

high prevalence and/or incidence of DFV.

This recommendation aims to strengthen primary prevention efforts within selected regions and groups that

experience a disproportionate amount of DFV. This recommendation does not suggest stopping broad,

population-based primary prevention campaigns.

Targeted primary prevention efforts should have a service system focus – that is, campaigns or programs that

communicate where people can go to access services and the types of services available.

Targeted primary prevention activities, with a service system focus, should be delivered in four high priority areas

or groups (see Table 4).

Table 4: Regions and groups for targeted primary prevention activities

Region or group Responsibility

a) regions where there is a high volume of DFV incidents and DFV is highly

prevalent Women NSW

b) regions where DFV incidents are growing at a faster than average rate and DFV

is highly prevalent Women NSW

c) selected high risk cohorts including CALD groups, Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander communities, people with a disability and young women leaving out of

home care

Women NSW

and FACS

d) schools within regions covered under a) and b) through the mandatory

Personal Development, Health and Physical Education (PDHPE) curriculum for

students in Kindergarten to Year 10.

Department of

Education

Each of these is described further below.

a) Primary prevention activities should be targeted within regions where there is a high

volume of DFV incidents and DFV is highly prevalent.

b) Primary prevention activities should be targeted within regions where DFV incidents are

growing at a faster than average rate and DFV is highly prevalent.

Nous recommends targeted primary prevention activities are delivered in 46 high priority LGAs (see Figure 6).

Nous defined high priority LGAs as LGAs that have either a high incidence and prevalence of DFV or a high DFV

prevalence and high DFV growth rate. The 46 LGAs account for:


42% of the total NSW population (2,911,721 people)

59% of the total DFV reported incidents (17,044 incidents)

54% of victims (143,483 victims)

54% of perpetrators (113,240 perpetrators).38

Figure 6: High priority LGAs recommended for targeted primary prevention activities

Appendix D provides a detailed list of these LGAs.

c) Primary prevention activities should be targeted within selected high-risk cohorts

including CALD groups, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, women with a

disability and young women leaving out of home care.

Government agencies and services providers recognise these groups/communities as at-risk, as they are more

likely to experience DFV than the general population (see Figure 7).39

Delivery of primary prevention activities in

these areas should have a disproportionate benefit (i.e. reach a greater proportion of those at-risk of DFV,

compared with broad based primary prevention efforts).

38

BOCSAR 2014 incident data by LGA; Nous analysis. 39

Women NSW, ‘Who experiences it?’, 2016, date viewed 13 February 2017, accessed at:

http://www.domesticviolence.nsw.gov.au/what-is-domestic-violence/who-experiences-it

2

1

3

Areas with a high incidence and prevalence of DFV

Areas with a high DFV prevalence and high DFV growth rate

Areas that fall into both category 1 and 2

KEY

http://www.domesticviolence.nsw.gov.au/what-is-domestic-violence/who-experiences-it


Figure 7: At-risk groups and communities recommended for targeted primary prevention

The Department of Justice should have responsibility for identifying victims and perpetrators who are part of an

at-risk cohort (and who interact with the statutory system). This data should be used to identify any common

priority areas where a large proportion of these individuals live. This would be a starting point for targeting

primary prevention activities at these at-risk cohorts.

d) Primary prevention activities should be targeted at schools within areas shown

above in Figure 6 through the existing PDHPE curriculum.

Delivery of primary prevention activities through the PDHPE curriculum in schools in the same

areas targeted through a) and b) results in a powerful, multi-faceted campaign.40

Primary prevention messaging

and education would be reinforced through multiple channels. The Department of Education should establish a

feedback mechanism that enables better monitoring of what is being delivered under PDHPE and where it is

being delivered.

Findings from a 2010 evaluation of New Zealand’s DFV prevention efforts should inform the design of targeted

prevention activities in NSW. Critical success factors included:

the use of mass media for broad public marketing

simple and positive message combined with appealing stories that challenge social norms

common branding across all service providers

interagency cooperation of government, communities and the media and partnerships that bring

together DFV sector leaders

building on work already done in communities and investing in community organisations to undertake

initiatives

media advocacy for journalists

ongoing research and evaluation to guide continuous improvement of initiatives. 41

This recommendation is low cost as:

Both NSW and Commonwealth government agencies currently fund state-wide prevention campaigns.42

Assuming Commonwealth-funded prevention campaigns continue, state funding could be used for the

targeted primary prevention efforts.

40

The Dept. of Education supports delivery of DFV prevention and early intervention approaches in the school curriculum in all

NSW public schools. This recommendation suggests tailoring the messaging of approaches in high priority LGAs. 41

Point Research Ltd., An innovative approach to changing social attitudes around family violence in New Zealand: Key ideas, insights and

lessons learnt The Campaign for Action on Family Violence, Point Research Ltd, Prepared for Centre for Social Research and Evaluation, New Zealand, 2010.

42 Commonwealth agencies fund major national campaigns such as The Line and White Ribbon. NSW government agencies

fund delivery of LOVE Bites and Respectful Relationships with NSW schools and Tackling Violence within NSW communities.

Aboriginal women

4x more likelythan non-Aboriginal

women

Women with disability

40% more likely than women without a

disability

Women from CALD

backgrounds

Qualitative evidence only

Younger women

Qualitative evidence only


The Department of Education funds the delivery of the PDHPE curriculum in NSW public schools. Some

additional funding may be required to support implementation of this recommendation (e.g. funding

for teacher support and resource development).

The implementation of these prevention activities needs to consider nuances in local areas (particularly rural

regions), both in design and for resourcing roll-out of activities. Design and delivery should also be informed by

the specific needs of at-risk groups.

Rationale

There are limited primary prevention initiatives in NSW, which is a missed opportunity to stop DFV before crises

occur. More targeted primary prevention efforts aim to prevent individuals and families more likely to experience

DFV from: (i) ever experiencing or perpetrating DFV, or; (ii) experiencing escalating violence, which would

eventually require crisis support and recovery services (which are more costly).

Better targeting of primary prevention efforts aims to maximise the potential benefit, by reaching a

disproportionate number of people who may experience or perpetrate DFV with limited funds. This

recommendation outlines four geographical regions and/or segments of the NSW population that experience a

disproportionate amount of DFV for the reasons outlined below:

High priority LGAs: The 46 high priority LGAs outlined in Figure 6 account for a disproportionate

proportion of total DFV incidents (see Appendix D).

At-risk cohorts: Evidence shows some groups of people are more at-risk of DFV. This recommendation

targets primary prevention activities at four victim cohorts who are either over-represented in the

system and/or more vulnerable to experiencing DFV. The aim is to reach a group of people more likely

to experience DFV than the general population.

NSW schools in high priority LGAs: This cohort provides an opportunity to provide primary prevention

education early in life, with the aim of reducing the likelihood of someone experiencing or perpetrating

DFV. Research indicates that the early years

are a critical time to help children to develop

positive life pathways and prevent anti-social

behaviour.43

Evaluations of school prevention

programs in NSW and other jurisdictions

showed they effectively targeted primary

prevention efforts early in life and gave

schools the flexibility to determine the type of

program they provide.44

There have been no

long-term evaluations on the program’s

43

J Guy, L Feinstein, A Griffiths, Early Intervention in Domestic Violence and Abuse, Early Intervention Foundation, United

Kingdom, 2014, date viewed 10 October 2016, available at: http://www.eif.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Early-

Intervention-in-Domestic-Violence-and-Abuse-Full-Report.pdf; New South Wales Auditor General's Report Performance Audit:

Responding to DFV, Audit Office of NSW, 2011; RMIT University, Opportunities for Early Intervention: Bringing perpetrators of

family violence into view ,Centre for Innovative Justice, RMIT March 2015, date viewed 10 October 2016, available at:

http://mams.rmit.edu.au/r3qx75qh2913.pdf ; C Gleeson, S Kearney, L Leung, J Brislane, Respectful Relationships Education in

Schools, Our Watch Evidence Paper December 2015, date viewed 10 October 2016, available at:

https://www.ourwatch.org.au/getmedia/4a61e08b-c958-40bc-8e02-30fde5f66a25/Evidence-paper-respectful-relationships-

education-AA-updated.pdf.aspx . This last evaluation is specific to Victoria, but of a similar program 44

Bislane, C. Gleeson, S. Kearney and L. Leung, Respectful Relationships: Education in Schools, Our WATCH, Australia, 2015. M.

Flood and V. Kendrick, LOVEBiTES: An evaluation of the LOVEBiTES and respectful relationships programs in a Sydney School,

University of Wollongong Faculty of Law, Humanities and Arts, Australia, 2012.

Peter, 39 years old

Peter was with his ex-wife for 21 years. They have 2 kids together. He had never been violent towards his partner before, until one day outside the kid’s school when an incident happened. He now as an ADVO and is not allowed to see his kids.

He has participated in parenting courses and behaviour change programs. ‘The biggest learning was about how to express yourself and put it into practice. I also learnt about different forms of abuse... psychological, financial. They should teach these things earlier, in schools’.


impact on one’s risk of experiencing or perpetrating DFV.45

If efforts are successful at preventing DFV or reducing the number of people affected by DFV, a significant

potential benefit is a reduced or slowed DFV growth rate. Prevention of DFV incidents would potentially result in

lower demand on crisis and recovery services (which already are unable to meet demand). Demand on the DFV

service system is projected to continue to grow over the next five years. Projected growth in demand over the

next five years from 2015 to 2020 is 18% (163,000 incidents).46

Recommendation 3: Target the significant financial investment of the Domestic and Family Violence Innovation

Fund towards funding primary prevention and early intervention.

The Blueprint identified the need for an increased focus on primary prevention and early intervention activities to

achieve a significant and sustained reduction in the rate of DFV. To achieve this, the NSW government

announced a $20 million Domestic and Family Violence Innovation Fund in the 2016-17 Budget.47

The Innovation Fund will provide financial investment over four years for innovative initiatives in prevention,

early intervention and the delivery of crisis services. Women NSW called for Expressions of Interest (EOIs) from

service providers in late December 2016 (closing February 2017).

This recommendation suggests expanding the criterion Women NSW use to appraise EOIs and proposals to

prioritise those focused on primary prevention and early intervention (in future rounds). This is in recognition of

the limited investment currently targeted towards primary prevention and early intervention. Potential strategies

to prioritise proposals include:

using a higher weighting for EOIs and proposals that focus on primary prevention or early intervention

solutions

prioritising proposals that:

outline solutions targeted at primary prevention and early intervention in regional and rural areas

(recognising the gap in services in some areas)

address overall service system gaps (such as accommodation and case management)

relate to critical supporting infrastructure, such as information sharing between service providers

and improved data collection and evaluation.

outline innovative technological solutions to identify victims and perpetrators who may need to

access DFV services. For example, this could involve collaborating with analytics companies (such as

Google) to identify when someone conducts a DFV-related search online and develop a pop-up box

that provides information on how to access services.

Rationale

In 2016-17, the NSW government investment targeted most of its investment on response services for victims.

Based on the most recent data, 94% of investment was in response services (74% in crisis services and 20% in

recovery services) and 6% in primary prevention and early intervention.48

45

Bislane, C. Gleeson, S. Kearney and L. Leung, Respectful Relationships: Education in Schools, Our WATCH, Australia, 2015. M.

Flood and V. Kendrick, LOVEBiTES: An evaluation of the LOVEBiTES and respectful relationships programs in a Sydney School,

University of Wollongong Faculty of Law, Humanities and Arts, Australia, 2012. 46

Nous calculated this growth rate based on actual five-year historical growth in the number of DFV incidents for each LGA,

thus taking into account differential growth rates of each LGA. This is far greater than the project demand used in the

Blueprint analytical model, which resulted in a conservative growth in overall demand of 7% (147,000 incidents in 2020). The

approach taken to calculate five-year projected growth in demand in the Blueprint analytical model used population growth

rates, by LGA, and applied it to the current number of DFV incidents in that LGA to get a projected overall demand figure. 47

Women NSW, Domestic and Family Violence Innovation Fund, 2016, accessed online 1 February 2017, available at:

<http://www.women.nsw.gov.au/violence_prevention/innovation-fund/> 48

Based on total NSW government investment in mainstream and specialist DFV programs and services in 2015-16 and 2016-

17. These figures are preliminary estimates. Nous and Women NSW are working to finalise the figures to ensure accuracy (i.e.

http://www.women.nsw.gov.au/violence_prevention/innovation-fund


Many stakeholders in Stage 1 consultations agreed that there should be more investment in primary prevention

and early intervention initiatives. They agreed the government should not withdraw funds from response

activities, given the significant level of unmet demand in this part of the service system.

The recently released NSW Domestic and Family Violence Prevention and Early Intervention Strategy 2017-2021

also acknowledges that addressing underlying causes and drivers of DFV is essential to reduce the rate of DFV

and the demand for crisis services. 49

The focus on prevention is demonstrated in other jurisdictions. For example, in New Zealand, the new Ministry

for Vulnerable Children Oranga Tamariki will be child-centred and have an emphasis on long-term outcomes for

children and young people. It will partly focus on prevention and intensive intervention.50

3.3.3 Recommendations: Intervening early and crisis response and recovery

The recommendations in this section are group into three categories, recognising the differential response

required within each:

vulnerable families and help-seekers: recommendations in this category aim to improve the response

for: (i) victims, perpetrators and families that are at-risk of DFV, and; (i) the significant cohort of victims

who do not report DFV to police and/or seek help from the service system.

‘first time’ incidence: recommendations aimed at improving the ‘first time’ response for victims and

perpetrators (recognising that the first time DFV is reported to Police may not be the first time DFV has

occurred).

long-term, repeat incidents: recommendations aimed at improving the response and outcomes for

victims, perpetrators and families who have long-term experiences of DFV and require longer-term

support.

Vulnerable families and help seekers


implication

4. Strengthen non-statutory, alternative entry points,

pathways and service coordination for victims,

perpetrators and families.

FACS

Women NSW


Short

term Medium

5. Improve the capacity of actors within communities and

society to recognise and respond to DFV. Women NSW Women NSW

Medium

term Medium

6. Improve access for victims, families and perpetrators by

better integration of helplines and improved pathways

for people to access services and information.

Women NSW

FACS

NSW Health

Dept. of Justice

Medium

term Low

that programs/services have been categorised as primary prevention, early intervention and response as per the

categorisations for the Blueprint business case). 49

Women NSW, NSW Domestic and Family Violence Prevention and Early Intervention Strategy 2017-2021, Women NSW, 2017,

Sydney. 50

Ministry of Social Development, ‘Investing in New Zealand’s Children and Their Families’, 2016, date viewed 10 February

2017, accessed at: https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/work-programmes/investing-in-children/new-

childrens-agency-

established.html#NewchildrenrsquosagencyestablishedndashtheMinistryforVulnerableChildrenOrangaTamariki3

https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/work-programmes/investing-in-children/new-childrens-agency-established.html#NewchildrenrsquosagencyestablishedndashtheMinistryforVulnerableChildrenOrangaTamariki3





One Blueprint action relates to vulnerable families (Action 2: Intervening early with vulnerable communities).

Commitments that the recommendations build on are the:

Development of a NSW prevention and early intervention strategy to set a coordinated agenda for

prevention and early intervention activities.

Rollout of targeted ethical bystander initiatives for high-risk communities.

Recommendation 4: Strengthen non-statutory, alternative entry points, pathways and service coordination for

victims, perpetrators and families.

This recommendation outlines a new, non-statutory entry point and pathway for victims, perpetrators and

families. This entry point would be an alternative entry point, other than a police report. This recognises that

many victims and perpetrators do not request help and support because they choose not to engage with police

or statutory services.

FACS should establish a Safe Family Network to act as non-statutory, alternative entry points. The Safe Family

Network aims to establish appropriate mechanisms and referral pathways to support victims, children, families

and perpetrators who seek information on or referral to services and supports. The Safe Family Network would:

offer an alternate entry point and pathway to services to reduce the burden on the statutory system. It

also aims to encourage those who are not willing to report DFV to Police to have easier and timelier

access to services. The Safe Family Network would treat the family as a ‘family unit’, as opposed to the

victim, perpetrator and child separately, to provide more holistic support. An important consideration

will be the establishment of processes and policies that ensure the safety of victims (and their children)

if they are accessing information from the same Safe Family Network as the perpetrator.

provide information and advice on how to access DFV services to local organisations (e.g. community

groups, general practitioners) and victims, perpetrators, bystanders and other community members.

undertake risk assessments of DFV clients to determine the appropriate service system response (in line

with the common risk assessment framework,

see Recommendation 1).

undertake safety planning with victims and their

families to help keep them safe.

facilitate coordinated access to the services

each client requests. This may include taking on

the responsibility for ‘warm referrals’ to service

providers on a case-by-case basis. 51

It is

important to note that a core role of the Safe

Family Network is coordination of information

and services for clients who are not interacting

with the statutory system. When a client’s risk or

level of need escalates, and a client requires or

chooses to engage with legal or statutory

services, the Safe Family Network should have a

mechanism to refer clients (who chose to be

referred) to LCPs, which under

51

A ‘warm referral’ is a referral made by a service provider on behalf of a victim. Warm referrals involve contacting a service

provider for a victim, rather than providing the victim with information and recommending that they contact the service

provider directly. Warm referrals also involves a certain amount of follow-up, in which the initial service provider checks to

make sure that the referral has been successful and the victim is receiving the required support from the service provider to

which they have been referred.’ (Source: NSW government 2014, Safety Action Meeting manual).

Emma, 30 years old

At 20, Emma moved to Australia to be with her new partner. She was dependent on him, financially and socially. He started to become controlling as she became more successful at her studies and started making friends.

The control and abuse escalated, but family and friends she disclosed to didn’t recognise the seriousness of the situation.

One of the most difficult decisions was deciding how to leave – she didn’t have anywhere to live or enough money to support her and her children without her partner.

After Emma left her partner, she interacted with over 15 services, from Police and Centrelink to her doctor and the courts. Some people in the system were fantastic. ‘They hear you, they get back to you. She’s on the case and is available’.

Others in the system were less helpful. ‘The power dynamic between you and institutions…. they are paid to be there and interrogate you, but this is your life. You feel empowered to come forth, but then you become a product of the process.’

The most helpful things for Emma would have been more practical support (like respite care for the kids occasionally and printing services for court documents) and having someone who is a phone call away when she needed it.


Recommendation 7 will have an expanded role that includes a system navigator function. 52

strengthen the capacity of local communities and organisations to respond to DFV in a way that is

culturally informed and responsive to local needs and contexts. This may include specialist services for

Aboriginal communities and communities with a significant population of people with a CALD

background.

The Safe Family Network should sit within existing service providers that become accredited through a standard

accreditation process (e.g. existing Women’s Health Centres or other community health or family centres). FACS

should use standard criteria to assess whether applicants should be accredited. These criteria could potentially

include appropriateness of the provider, geographical distribution (e.g. whether they are located in areas where

DFV is highly prevalent and/or growing) and knowledge of the sector and specialist capability. In recognition

that some communities in NSW may already have similar services in place, establishment of Safe Family Network

should allow for local variations (whilst still meeting minimum standards) and build on what already exists in

local communities (and has been proven effective).

Based on Nous’ analysis of the geographical distribution of DFV across NSW, Nous recommends that FACS

prioritise establishment of the Safe Family Network in the LGAs shown in Figure 8 overleaf. These high priority

LGAs have either a:

high prevalence and high incidence of DFV. The volume of DFV incidents in these LGAs in greater than

the average for all LGAs.

high prevalence of DFV and a higher than the state average growth rate.53

By targeting these LGAs, the Safe Family Network would service:

42% of the total NSW population (2,911,721 people)

59% of the total DFV reported incidents (17,044 incidents)

54% of victims (143,483 victims)

54% of perpetrators (113,240 perpetrators). 54

Figure 8: High priority LGAs recommended for establishment of Safe Family Network55

52

This should complement the expansion and promotion of referrals sources feeding into Safer Pathway. 53

BOCSAR 2014 incident data by LGA; Nous analysis. These 46 LGAs are the same LGAs outlined under Recommendation 2,

which outlines targeted prevention activities. 54

BOCSAR 2014 incident data by LGA; Nous analysis.. 55

These are the same high priority LGAs shown in Figure 8, which referred to the LGAs that targeted prevention activities

should be rolled out in.


Appendix D provides a detailed list of these LGAs.

The anticipated caseload of the Safe Family Network is around 220,000 cases per year.56

The cost implication of this recommendation is medium. The Safe Family Network should exist within current

service providers and likely not require additional physical infrastructure. They may require additional human

resources. For example, upfront funding would be required to establish and train additional staff in accredited

service providers to undertake the functions of the community centre. Longer-term, the service coordination role

of Safe Family Network services should be an explicit requirement of service agreements for any service that

interacts with people who may experience or perpetrate DFV (e.g. DFV services, child protection services and

services that provide programs for vulnerable families).

The change management and communication about the establishment of Safe Family Network will be an upfront

cost. Development and ongoing management of the accreditation process will also incur a cost.

Rationale

Two key pieces of evidence provide the rationale for this recommendation:

1. Use of non-statutory entry points to access services is currently limited. The majority of victims

currently enter the system through a statutory entry point (56% of incidents are reported through

Police).57

Other major service system entry points are through NSW Health programs/services (20%) or

FACS programs/services (24%). Analysis from Nous’ Stage 1 Report also showed that victims are less

56

This is based on the annual number of incidences in LGAs in Figure 10, scaled for under-reporting (using an underreporting

rate of 67% from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Personal Safety Survey, Australia, 2012.) 57

Nous 2016, DFV Service System Redesign: Stage 1 Report for Women NSW, 4 November 2016.

2

1

3

Areas with a high incidence and prevalence of DFV

Areas with a high DFV prevalence and high DFV growth rate

Areas that fall into both category 1 and 2

KEY


likely to engage with the statutory system because of several reasons, such as not knowing that DFV is a

crime or distrust in Police.

2. A high underreporting rate means many people who experience or perpetrate DFV may not

access the service system. The majority of people who experience DFV do not report the incident to

Police (the underreporting rate is 67%).58

It is anticipated that by facilitating easier access to services

through improved non-statutory entry points and pathways, more people will access the services

required to keep them safe and/or help them recover.

South Australia and the ACT have developed similar networks to strengthen support and referral pathways for

people experiencing family violence. South Australia established the Multi Agency Protection Services in 2014.

The ACT announced the Family Safety Hub in 2016. Both services are multiagency models intended to improve

and build on existing resources to improve responses, particularly for low risk family violence cases.59

Recommendation 5: Improve the capacity of actors within communities and society to recognise and respond to

DFV.

The DFV response is a complex landscape made up of many components that can be more or less visible to

government. Many victims or perpetrators first seek help or advice from people they know and trust within their

local surroundings. The response for victims and perpetrators can be improved by building greater awareness

within immediate support network to recognise, support and refer victims and perpetrators to appropriate help.

This recommendation proposes to target initiatives that build community capacity to regions or key population

segments.

Women NSW should improve the capacity of actors within communities and society to recognise DFV and know

where to refer people to seek help. This should be done through roll-out of initiatives to target groups who are

likely to interact with victims and perpetrators of DFV, or those at-risk.60

Women NSW should consult with non-government service providers and peak bodies to identify the highest

priority community groups or organisations in which initiatives under this recommendation should start. This

may be groups who face more barriers to accessing services or who have more difficulty recognising DFV.

This initiative should upskill people to recognise DFV, inform them of the available referral mechanisms and train

them on the appropriate personal safety requirements. Initiatives should also strengthen the capacity of

communities and organisations to respond to DFV in a way that is culturally informed in CALD communities and

responsive to Aboriginal communities’ local needs.

In the longer term, FACS and Women NSW should expand initiatives to other community groups and

professional associations who interact with at-risk cohorts.

Women NSW should implement this recommendation in the medium term. This recommendation is medium

cost. It requires design, delivery and roll-out of the initiatives to target groups across NSW. As a starting point,

the initiatives could be rolled-out in high priority LGAs (see Appendix D).

Rationale

Consultations with government agencies and service providers showed there is an opportunity to strengthen the

linkages between the visible service system (government and service providers) and communities, workplaces

and society.

Many actors within communities and society do not have adequate information about how people can access

DFV services (based on analysis from Nous’ Stage 1 Report and workshops with service providers). For example,

58

Australian Bureau of Statistics, Personal Safety Survey, Australia, 2012. 59

Social Development Committee 2015, Inquiry into Domestic and family Violence – Submission from the South Australian

Government, February 2015. ACT Government 2016, ACT Government response to family violence, June 2016. 60

New initiatives should align with existing work undertaken by the Department of Justice's Diversity Services Team.

Multicultural NSW may have a role in working in partnership with CALD community groups and peak bodies.


friends and families of victims, community organisations and bystanders may not be well equipped to know how

to help (e.g. where a victim can go to access information and services).61

This may be due to limited

understanding of what DFV is or limited knowledge of how to access services (based on stakeholder

consultations).

Improving general knowledge about where DFV victims can go to access information and services within priority

communities and workplaces should increase the likelihood of victims accessing the support they need to

remain safe, in a timely manner and before violence escalates.

Recommendation 6: Improve access for victims, families and perpetrators by better integration of helplines and

improved pathways for people to access services and information.

This recommendation aims to strengthen the pathway for victims, families and perpetrators to access

information and services through better integrating helplines. Helplines provide an important non-statutory

service system entry point for victims and perpetrators. For example, for victims (or perpetrators) who choose

not to report an incident to Police, but do not know where or how to access services.

This recommendation has two components:

Firstly, FACS, Health and Justice, led by Women NSW, should review existing helplines to assess

opportunities to integrate helplines to ensure they offer adequate coverage and are responsive to

people’s needs (e.g. potential integration back-end functions). For example, there may be a single

phone number victims and/or perpetrators to call to seek information and support. A central helpline

call centre may then triage their call to different service providers/call centres to provide a particular

type of support or information (e.g. legal advice versus crisis accommodation information).62

Secondly, the pathway for people to access services after contacting a helpline should be improved. To

do this, staff working at helplines need the ability to better assess the type and timing of services a

caller chooses and better knowledge of the network of service providers (e.g. in the client’s local area

and for their specific situation). In the long-term, adoption of the common risk assessment framework

(see Recommendation 1) would enable helpline staff to better assess the risk and needs of callers.

Helplines should operate to a set standard and use the common risk assessment framework as one tool

(noting this is not the sole tool many will use). The non-statutory entry points (Safe Family Network, see

Recommendation 4) should provide a location for helpline staff to refer clients.

This recommendation does not suggest integration of all DFV-related helplines. Some helplines that provide

highly specialised advice may need to remain separate (e.g. those for legal advice, child protection and men’s

counselling, such as Men’s Referral Services).63

All helplines should comply with best practice in safety and confidentiality considerations (e.g. phone numbers

not appearing on bills).

The integration of helplines is expected to benefit:

individuals and their families who experience DFV. It aims to provide a clearer (non-statutory) entry

point to access services. The ease of access may also incentivise more victims and perpetrators to seek

support.

helpline service providers. A streamlined helpline system aims to enable them to provide more timely

and tailored support to victims and perpetrators.

government agencies that fund helplines. There are opportunities for efficiency gains if duplication of

functions across helplines is integrated into a single helpline.

61

Nous 2016, DFV Service System Redesign: Stage 1 Report for Women NSW, 4 November 2016. 62

Women NSW should also consider potential opportunities to streamline state helplines with Commonwealth helplines. 63

Child protection helplines would continue to use the existing risk assessment framework (not adopt the common DFV risk

assessment framework outlined in Recommendation 1).


This recommendation is medium-term, given that the integration of helplines is often complex. It also allows

time for linked recommendations, such as the common risk assessment framework (Recommendation 1) and the

strengthened non-statutory entry points (Recommendation 4), to begin.

The cost implication of this recommendation is low, as it does not require additional resources. It would likely

result in longer-term cost savings due to reduced duplication in service delivery.

Rationale

Nous’ initial analysis of the DFV service system showed there are opportunities to improve the use of helplines

and their link to services. Relevant key findings included:

Victims and perpetrators, mostly from at-risk groups, had limited awareness of the available help, which

included DFV helplines or other available services.

Numerous helplines exist, some of which may serve the same purpose, although more detailed analysis

of the specific type of services and support they provide is required. For example:

NSW DV Line, DFV Counselling and 1800RESPECT provide counselling, information and support for

victims.

Law Access NSW, Women’s Legal Services NSW and Women’s Legal Contact Line provide legal

information.

Most victims and perpetrators enter the service system due to a police report (56%), which is relatively

late in the cycle of violence (e.g. after a violence event has already occurred).64

There is an opportunity

to provide more easily accessible and visible non-statutory entry points, such as through helplines. This

increases the likelihood of an earlier, less costly response.

Victims and perpetrators may be more likely to use helplines if they have a better understanding of the

helplines that are available or their first experience using them is simple. This potentially reduces the

cost and consequence of DFV, if victims are more easily able to access support earlier (before violence

escalates).

‘First time’ incidents


implication

7. Strengthen the capacity for system navigation for

victims and families through an enhanced role of LCPs. Women NSW

Women NSW

Dept. of

Justice (Legal

Aid)

Long-

term High

8. Continue to roll-out the SAMs as a response to victims

and families at serious threat. Women NSW

NSW Health,

Police, FACS,

Dept. of

Justice

Medium

term Low

9. Expand perpetrator and Men’s Behaviour Change

Programs, increase access to existing programs and

explore alternative service system response options.

Women NSW

Women NSW,

Dept. of

Justice

Long

term Medium

64

Nous Group, DFV Service System Redesign: Stage 1 Report (not published), 4 November 2016.



Recommendations in this section build the following Blueprint actions:

Action 3: Supporting victims: commitments include increased support for Women’s Domestic Violence

Advocacy Service (WDVCAS) and continuing the state-wide roll-out of Safer Pathway.

Action 4: Holding perpetrators accountable: commitments include Police High Risk Offender Teams, and

behavioural insights trials to reduce ADVOs breaches.

Action 5: Delivering quality services: commitments include Review the Minimum Standards for Men’s

Behaviour Change programs.

Recommendation 7: Strengthen the capacity for system navigation for victims and families through an enhanced

role of LCPs.

Women NSW and the Department of Justice (Legal Aid) should strengthen the role of LCPs to act as a system

navigator for victims and families.65

LCPs currently play a critical role in the DFV service system.66

Currently LCPs:

assist women victims who experience DFV to obtain legal protection through applications for ADVOs

facilitate access to legal and other support services for women victims.

This recommendation proposes LCPs expand their role to take on a

system navigator function. A system navigator function would act as a

single contact point for a victim and coordinate their access to

services. LCPs would support victims (and their families) to find and

access their preferred support services. LCPs would work with the

multiple service providers, such as housing, legal, financial support

and others to facilitate streamlined access to the services for each

client. For example, LCPs could provide assistance for victims and

families through support services that expedite Family Court system

processes.

Initially, LCPs should be available to provide the system navigator

function for women victims who enter through the statutory system.67

Once established state-wide, this could be up to 135,000 cases per

year, based on the number of DFV incidents reported to Police.68

Women victims who enter through a non-statutory entry point should

also be eligible to access the system navigator function if required. For

example, a victim may access services through the new non-statutory

entry point outlined in Recommendation 4 (the Safe Family Network).

65

LCPs are part of the Safer Pathway initiatives. They provide a coordinated approach to refer people to support services. LCPs

sit within WDVCASs for female victims and within Men’s Referral Services for male victims. This recommendation does not

suggest that Men’s Referrals Services establish a system navigation function. Overleaf, the longer-term implementation of the

recommendation is discussed, which includes consideration of the most appropriate place or mechanism to provide system

navigation for men and perpetrators. 66

In 2014, the NSW government announced that the 28 WDVCAS in NSW will operate as the Local Coordination Points as part

of a new service delivery model. 67

Nous understands that LCPs currently take referrals from statutory and non-statutory services. This recommendation

prioritises providing the system navigator function to clients referred through the statutory system first, before rolling it out

more broadly. This recommendation should also complement the expansion and promotion of referrals sources feeding into

Safer Pathway. 68

BOCSAR 2014 incident data by LGA; Nous analysis.

Julie, 23 years old

Julie’s first contact with services was with Police. She didn’t feel they took it seriously at first and didn’t follow up with her. ‘You need that follow up call when you’re vulnerable’.

A year later, she was still in the violent relationship, but the Police response had significantly improved. She felt like she had someone on her side, who followed up to see how she was going and who she was then willing to share information with. ‘Having someone on your side makes all the difference’.

Now, she is still going through the court system, but feels like she has strong support from and great relationships with Police, WDVCAS and Victims Services.


A Safe Family Network may assess a victim as higher risk and in need of more intense coordination or a statutory

intervention (such as an ADVO). For these cases, they would refer the client to the LCP to act as the system

navigator.

It is important to recognise that in some communities, services other than LCPs may already provide a system

navigator-type function. This recommendation does not suggest that these services are discontinued or that

system navigation is only conducted by LCPs. In local communities that have already established a mechanism or

service that provides effective system navigation for victims, this should continue.

In the first phase of implementation of system navigator functions in LCPs, Women NSW should establish the

system navigator function in high priority LGAs that are already covered by LCPs and SAMs (which is 19 of the 46

high priority LGAs as at March 2017, see Figure 9 overleaf).69 70

In subsequent phases of implementation, Women NSW should establish the system navigator function in line

with the planned roll-out of LCPs under Safer Pathway, preferably in the remaining high priority LGAs first.

In the long-term, Women NSW should establish the system navigator function in LCPs state-wide for women

victims. As the DFV service system becomes more mature, Women NSW should explore which part of the system

is best placed to provide a system navigation function for men and perpetrators.

69

There are 28 WDVCAS services across NSW that play a role as LCPs. SAMs currently cover 30 LGAs in NSW. This is based on

SAM location data obtained from Women NSW as of March 2017. 70

Nous mapped WDVCASs to LGAs based on data provided by Legal Aid in 2016. Some WDVCASs covered more than one

LGA. The data presented is a rough estimate of the coverage of LCPs, based on the location of WDVCASs in which they have

been established as at March 2017. Nous mapped SAM locations to LGA based on data provided by Women NSW in 2016.

LCPs exist within WDVCASs for female victims or Men’s Referral Services for male victims.


Figure 9: High priority LGAs recommended for establishment of system navigators (through LCPs only)71

The cost implication of this recommendation is high. Implementation would require initial design of the system

navigator function within LCPs. It would then involve additional funding to support the increased scope of each

LCPs role across NSW.

The implementation of the system navigators will extend to the long-term. This timeframe recognises the time

that will be required for designing the function and increasing resources within LCPs. It also allows for sufficient

time for the initial transition phase, which will include engagement with the sector.

Rationale

There is an opportunity to improve the experience of clients who interact with the DFV service system.

Within the current system, victims are more likely to stop engaging with the system when they are in contact

with statutory services. Some victims stop engaging with services when they have to take responsibility for

navigating multiple services. Given the limited information sharing and coordination across many parts of the

service system, some victims continue to tell their story multiple times, which increases their ongoing trauma.

This may cause them to disengage with services.72

The development of a system navigator function aims to reduce the likelihood of a victim disengaging with the

system. A victim would not need to navigate the complex service system with relatively limited support. They

would also be far less likely to need to re-tell their stories to multiple service providers, if their access is

facilitated through a central contact point (the system navigator).

71

Eleven LGAs have both LCP and SAM coverage, but are not high-priority LGAs (based on incident, prevalence of growth

rates of DFV incidents). These are Bega Valley, Bombala, Bourke, Broken Hill, Deniliquin, Eurobodalla, Manly, Queanbeyan,

Singleton, Waverley and Wollongong. The system navigator function should be rolled out in these LCPs in subsequent phases

on implementation. Nous recognises that some communities may already have an existing service/mechanism that provides

effective system navigation. This recommendation does not suggest discontinuing these services where they already exist and

work well. 72

Nous 2016, DFV Service System Redesign: Stage 1 Report for Women NSW, 4 November 2016. Reasons for disengaging

include services that are not culturally sensitive. LCPs should also be culturally sensitive to enable tailored access to all victims

of DFV.

Priority LGAs serviced by Safer Pathway (SAMS) and WDVCAS as of March 2017(19 LGAs):• Bankstown (Major city)• Blacktown (Major city)• Campbelltown (Major city)• Cessnock (Major city) • Coffs Harbour (Regional) • Greater Taree (Regional• Griffith (Major city)• Lismore (Major city)• Maitland (Major city)• Muswellbrook(Regional)• Newcastle (Major city) • Orange (Regional) • Parramatta (Major city)• Shoalhaven (Regional) • Sydney (Major city)• Tamworth Regional (Regional)• Tweed (Regional) • Wagga Wagga (Regional)• Wyong (Regional)


There is also an opportunity to improve the experience of victims and families who have particularly complex

needs (e.g. cases with a child protection issue). In consultations, government agencies and service providers

agreed that high needs individuals and families need greater clarity on how to access the services they need,

preferably through a single point of contact (regardless of the complexity of the response that sits behind that

door).

This recommendation does not outline a revised approach to supporting perpetrators to navigate the service

system. Currently, Men’s Referral Services (a telephone line) provides advice to perpetrators on the services

available to them. This would continue in the redesigned service system.

Recommendation 8: Continue to roll-out the SAMs as a response to victims and families at serious threat.

This recommendation recognises the need for an intensive, timely response that ensures the safety of victims

who are at serious threat.

NSW Health, Police, FACS and the Department of Justice, led by Women NSW, should continue the planned

(mandated) expansion of Safer Pathway’s SAMs as a response offer to victims and families at serious threat.

The roll-out should consider opportunities for improving the efficiency and/or effectiveness of current processes,

based on recommendations from the BOCSAR evaluation (particularly where there are inconsistencies across

different locations). Women NSW should continue to explore options to improve the efficiency of the SAMs

through continued monitoring and evaluation of SAM processes. In the longer term, this includes conducting a

service user evaluation to understand people’s experiences of being involved in the SAM process and any

potential improvements in outcomes.

Women NSW should maintain the existing timeframe for the roll-out of Safer Pathway. This is to 21 additional

locations in 2017 (see Appendix D). The anticipated case load for SAM’s as part of the redesign system is around

13,500 cases per year.73

This recommendation is low cost. It is not anticipated to incur additional costs on top of existing resources in

place for Safer Pathway.

Rationale

Most key government agencies agreed SAMs have helped to determine and coordinate an immediate crisis

response for victims at serious threat (based on consultations with government agencies). A progress evaluation

of Safer Pathway shows stakeholders see value in SAMs as a forum to exchange information and coordinate a

holistic response to victims.74

Stakeholders noted SAMs were an effective mechanism for the following reasons:

relationships between agencies have developed and trust has improved

accountability has increased as each agency is responsible for preparing and providing key information

targeted information sharing agencies allows agencies to see a more comprehensive picture of risk to

the victim and the family, resulting in a more tailored and targeted response.

A few stakeholders in consultations suggested SAMs could be more effective if they were tailored to the context

and issues of each local community. For example, including immigration officials in SAMs in areas that have a

high representation of CALD people (Bankstown, Parramatta and Auburn). They indicated this would help fill

some information gaps during the meeting, rather than waiting for follow-up. Findings of the BOCSAR

evaluation of Safer Pathway supported this view from stakeholders; however, the evaluation also noted the

meetings were labour-intensive for those involved. The final BOCSAR evaluation findings are pending as at

March 2017.

73

This is based on the approximate annual case load of current SAM locations, extrapolated to account for the planned roll-

out of SAMs. 74

NSW Bureau of Crime and Statistics Research, Safer Pathway Program: Process Evaluation (not for publication), submitted to

FACS Analysis and Research on 28 April 2015, approved by DFV Evaluation Advisory Board on 7 July 2015.


Recommendation 9: Expand perpetrator and Men’s Behaviour Change programs, increase access to existing

programs and explore alternative service system response options.

This recommendation recognises the need to explore alternative responses for men who perpetrate DFV.

Men are the perpetrators of the vast majority of DFV incidents in NSW (4 in five in 2016).75

The main services

available for male perpetrators are Men’s Behaviour Change Programs. To date, there has been limited evidence

on effective methods of stopping men’s pattern of violence.

Women NSW and the Department of Justice should:

expand existing perpetrator and Men’s Behaviour Change Programs (where there is a strong evidence

base on their effectiveness).

explore alternative service system response options. This includes both statutory and non-statutory

services and supports for perpetrators.

Future decisions about any expansion of existing programs or implementation of alternative responses should

be evidence-based (recognising the difficulty of this given the limited evidence base at present). The evaluation

of the Men’s Behaviour Change Programs and the Behavioural Insights trial to reduce ADVO breaches should

function as foundational evidence to inform new developments. 76

The development of new initiatives should leverage knowledge and experiences from existing specialist networks

and evaluation groups, such as:

Men’s Behaviour Change Network.

Men’s Behaviour Change Evaluation Steering Committee.

National Outcome Standards for Perpetrator interventions (NOSPI) Implementation working group.

Women NSW and Corrective Services NSW should ensure there is sufficient availability of perpetrator programs

and facilitate access to them. Women NSW should work with Corrective Services NSW to identify any learnings

from other successful offender programs that may be applicable for DFV offender programs. For example,

Corrective Services NSW indicated behaviour change programs for offenders have a different focus and have

been proven relatively more effective.77

This presents an opportunity to rethink the focus and purpose of DFV

offender behaviour change programs.

Women NSW and the Department of Justice should implement this recommendation in the long term. This

recommendation is medium cost. This is due to the cost to: gather and analyse evidence on what works; design

and trial of innovative approaches (e.g. behavioural insights initiatives), implement; and evaluate new initiatives.

Rationale

It is challenging to understand the impact of Men’s Behaviour Change Programs without comparison or

longitudinal data. 78

It can be difficult to prove a participant has become less violent over time, and even more

difficult to attribute this to the program. The validity of the evidence relies on individuals to report their own

75

NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics Research (BOCSAR), Recorded Crime Statistics Jul 2015 Jun 2016, 2016. 76

The interventions under this initiative include: Make a Plan (trialling an early intervention model for DV defendants, to

ensure they understand their ADVO and help them to make a plan to comply); Digital App (the development of a digital app

for DV perpetrators, to provide information, tools and prompts to support behaviour change and improve compliance with

ADVOs); and Plain English ADVOs. 77

Based on a Nous consultation with Corrective Services in February 2017. 78

T Fletcher, S Wendt, To stop domestic violence, we need to change perpetrators’ behaviour, Online newspaper article, The

Conversation, five October 2016, viewed 10 October 2016, available at: https://theconversation.com/to-stop-domestic-

violence-we-need-to-change-perpetrators-behaviour-44844


behaviour (or partners to report the behaviour) in a context where those perpetuating violence, and those who

are victims of violence, are often in denial.79

Nevertheless, there is growing evidence on the effectiveness of behaviour change programs, particularly for risk-

need-responsivity (RNR) and Cognitive Behavioural Therapy-based programs.80

The most recent is a large-scale

evaluation of the Corrective Services’ Domestic Abuse Program (DAP), completed in 2014 and Lynn Stewart’s

work incorporating the RNR principles of effective corrections to partner abuse interventions.81

In terms of existing initiatives in NSW, analysis in Nous’ Stage 1 Report showed:

There is a gap in interventions for perpetrators (e.g. the absence of programs in the community (or

those that are available, are only available in certain locations e.g. the Men’s Behaviour Change

Programs) and the difficulty providing programs to those in custody).

Many Men’s Behaviour Change Programs are still being developed and fully implemented. They are only

available in some locations (mainly along the East Coast).82

There are existing (unlinked) data sets that may be useful

for informing the development of new initiatives, such as

Men’s Behaviour Change Programs minimum dataset and

the Men’s Referral Service data set.

There are some examples of good practice in Australia.

Examples include Room4Change in the Australian Capital

Territory and the Men’s Domestic Violence Education and

Intervention Program and ‘Go Far’ in Queensland.

79

T Brown and R Hampson, An Evaluation of Interventions with Domestic Violence Perpetrators, Monash University, Melbourne,

2009. 80

McGuire, J. (2008). A review of effective interventions for reducing aggression and violence. Philosophical Transactions of the

Royal Society Bulletin, 1-21; Cluss, P., Bodea, A. (2011), The Effectiveness of Batterer Intervention Programs (A literature review

and recommendations for next steps), University of Pittsburgh, accessed online five December 2016, available at <

http://fisafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/BIPsEffectiveness.pdf> ; Maxwell, C.D, Davis, R.C and Taylor, B.G.

(2010) The impact of length of domestic violence treatment on the patterns of subsequent intimate partner violence, Journal of

Experimental Criminology, 6, pp 165-197. 81

Stewart, L, et al. (2015), Applying Effective Corrections Principles (RNR) to Partner Abuse Interventions, Research Gate,

accessed online five December 2016, available at:

<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272275194_Applying_Effective_Corrections_Principles_RNR_to_Partner_Abuse_Inte

rventions> 82

FACS, NSW DFV Service Re-alignment Review: Phase 1 Report, NSW government, Sydney, 2014.

John, 34 years old

John was in a relationship for 15 years and has four children with his ex-partner. He has committed many offences related to domestic violence and has spent time in prison. He knew the relationship was going bad years before it ended, but no one really provided help early on. ‘Nobody ever pointed me in the direction to get the help I needed. Over the years as I matured, I started reaching out myself’.

John has interacted with Police and FACS over many years. ‘My case worker at FACS is really good. She’s nice to my kids. She pointed my in the direction of drug and alcohol counselling and my doctor’.

He does not have a good relationship with Police, but it’s changed over the past few years [how they deal with DFV]. ‘Jail doesn’t help people change. [The behaviour change program] helped me to step into my kids shoes, to empathise with my ex-partner and my children’.

http://fisafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/BIPsEffectiveness.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272275194_Applying_Effective_Corrections_Principles_RNR_to_Partner_Abuse_Interventions

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272275194_Applying_Effective_Corrections_Principles_RNR_to_Partner_Abuse_Interventions


Long-term, repeat incidents


implication

10. Prioritise data collection for the victims and

perpetrators who repeatedly cycle through the DFV

system.

Women NSW Women NSW FACS

Short

term High

11. Provide more intensive, long-term case management

for victims, their families and perpetrators who

repeatedly cycle through the DFV system over a long

period.

Women NSW

FACS

Department of

Justice

Medium

term High

12. Explore innovative ways to increase substantially the

range, availability and suitability of housing options for

victims of DFV.

FACS FACS Medium

term Medium


The recommendations in this section relate to two Blueprint actions: Action 3: Supporting victims and Action 4:

Holding perpetrators accountable. Commitments include:

Continuing the rollout of Safer Pathway, while continuing evaluation

Increasing WDVCAS frontline support to meet growing demand

Investing in Social Housing to ensure victims have accommodation options when they leave violent

relationships and advocating for ongoing Commonwealth funding for homelessness services.

The Department of Justice and NSW Police are also doing significant work on perpetrator accountability.

Examples include:

Police High Risk Offender Teams, which target recidivist offenders and investigative DFV incidents.

Suspect Planning Management Teams, which monitor high-risk offenders to attempt to intervene before

violence occurs.

ADVO compliance checks, which aims to increase ADVO and court order compliance.

Perpetrator-focused responses are also being strengthened through the Premier’s Priority to Reduce Domestic

Violence Reoffending. Under this program of work, 21 medium and high impact perpetrator interventions are

being delivered. This includes new interventions being trialled to develop the evidence base of what works for

different perpetrator cohorts.

Given the existing work on perpetrator accountability, the recommendations below focus on improving the

response for victims who have multiple interactions with services (and interactions over a long period). The

recommendations focus on improving:

how and what data is collected on victims and perpetrators who have multiple interactions with the

system

how this data is used to track their journeys through the service system and attempt to reduce the

number of times they cycle through the service system.


Recommendation 10: Prioritise data collection for the victims and perpetrators who repeatedly cycle through the

DFV system.

Victims and perpetrators of DFV require timely access to supports and are often experiencing trauma or a risk of

resurfacing trauma when seeking support. Better information sharing between agencies is required to coordinate

supports to victims their children and family and perpetrators of DFV.

This recommendation aims to improve the ability for agencies to identify individuals who may experience or

perpetrate DFV over a long period and/or have complex needs. This recommendation links with

Recommendation 17 (the integrated data platform).

Key government agencies who interact with DFV victims and perpetrators should establish a mechanism that

allows for automatic alerts when an individual’s circumstances require an escalated response. This may be clients

who have multiple Police or DFV-related Child Protection reports and/or reappear on the SAM agenda. In the

long term, and in line with implementation of the enhanced data platform (Recommendation 17), agencies

should consider mechanisms for capturing data on DFV victims and perpetrators who may be experiencing DFV

over a long period, but not interacting with statutory services. This would need to be done in consultation with

non-government service providers, which are more likely to be interacting with these victims or perpetrators.

An automatic alert mechanism should be built into the integrated information sharing platform. In the interim,

agencies should build on the existing Central Referral Point roll-out and ensure it has the function to collect

individual level data to identify clients who cycle through the system.

An improved mechanism to identify long-term victims and perpetrators would enable agencies/service providers

to provide an appropriately intense response. Potentially, agencies/service providers would be better equipped

to intervene quickly and limit the number of times a client cycles through the service system. This has the

potential for cost savings and a reduction in the likelihood of severe consequences for a victim.

Given this recommendation builds on existing work and systems, the cost of implementation is low. This

recommendation builds upon the Central Referral Point (CRP), which Victims Services currently manages. The

NSW government has invested significant resources in developing the CRP and it is important that future work

builds on it. Minor tweaks to the type of data collected and improving analysis of it are not expected to be high

cost.

Rationale

This recommendation recognises that:

a proportion of victims and perpetrators have multiple interactions with the NSW DFV service system

over a long-period of time.

very limited data exists (and existing data is often not used) to tailor a response for longer-term clients

of the DFV service system.

On average each year, 13% of DFV victims who report to police have previously reported a DFV incident. This

figure is 1.7 times higher for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander victims (22%).83

BOCSAR data on perpetrator reoffending rates also shows a proportion of perpetrators interact with the system

multiple times (see Figure 10 overleaf).

83

NSW BOCSAR, NSW Recorded Crime Statistics April 2009-2016, Number and percentage of distinct victims of DV related

assault recorded by NSW Police, 2015.


Figure 10: Perpetrator interactions with the DFV service system84

Currently, agencies do not consistently collect longitudinal data on individuals who interact with the DFV service

system. Existing data is often not comprehensive and thus it can be difficult to identify an individual who may be

cycling through the system. For example, there is limited information on an individual client’s socio-demographic

or other characteristics, which would enable more insightful analysis of the types of victims and perpetrators who

cycle through the system. The data that does exist is often not easily comparable, as agencies do not always

collect the same data items or data in the same formats.

This means there is an opportunity for agencies to improve the consistency of data they collect, but also to use it

more effectively to inform service delivery. For example, agencies could share data to identify victims and

perpetrators who are interacting with the different parts of the service system over time. If the data was

comprehensive, agencies could analyse the common locations, socio-demographics and other characteristics of

victims or perpetrators. Agencies could use this type of analysis to inform more targeted or tailored service

delivery.

Agencies should ensure design and implementation of this recommendation complies with relevant privacy, data

sharing and confidentiality laws when designing and implementing this recommendation (including informed

consent).

Recommendation 11: Provide more intensive, long-term case management for victims, families and perpetrators

who repeatedly cycle through the DFV system over a long period.

This recommendation aims to improve the response provided to victims, families and perpetrators who

experience DFV over a long period and/or have complex needs. It builds on the principle that long-term victims

and perpetrators may need a more active response and support from the system to start their recovery

journey.85

Recommendation 10 outlined an improved mechanism to: a) identify these types of victims and perpetrators,

and b) alert agencies when risk escalates and victims choose to access a more intensive and longer-term

response.86

This recommendation, Recommendation 11, outlines the more intense support these types of victims

and perpetrators likely require.

The aim of the service system should be to support these victims and their families to remove themselves from

the cycle of violence and ultimately out of the DFV service system. It should support perpetrators to stop using

violence and change their behaviour.

For victims identified as cycling through the system over a long period, the service system should provide

intense, long-term case management. The case management should focus on both:

providing the immediate services required to keep a victim (and their family) safe.

building resilience and capability over the longer-term to enable a victim to rebuild their life and reduce

the likelihood of entering into another violent relationship.

84

This figure is based on information from the following data sources: J Trevena and S Poynton Does a prison sentence affect

future domestic violence reoffending? Crime & Justice Bulletin, BOCSAR, no, 190, 2016; R Fitzgerald and T Graham, Assessing

the risk of domestic violence recidivism, Bureau Brief no. 189, BOCSAR, Sydney, May 2016; BOCSAR, Recorded Criminal

Statistics, July 2015-June 2016, 2016. 85

This refers to both victims who have children and victims who do not have children. 86

Recommendation 17 outlines an improved data sharing platform for agencies, which will also support the ability of agencies

to implement this recommendation (i.e. identify victims, families and perpetrators who may require more intensive case

management).

1 in 5

1 in 3

1 in 10

People who are given a prison sentence reoffend within 1 year of release

People who are given a prison sentence reoffend within 3 years of release

People who are convicted of a non-custodial penalty re-offend within 2 years of conviction


For example, the types of services case managers may coordinate could be legal, health, housing, employment

and education, potentially over a three to five year period.

The number of victims who may require intensive case management is estimated to be approximately 12,000 per

year.87

The Department of Justice is already working to improve support for perpetrators identified as cycling through

the service system over a long period. It has invested $200 million into community management programs for

offenders, much of this targeted at DFV offenders. It is also exploring the provision of more intensive case

management for offenders who enter the justice system after mid-2017, again with a target on DFV offenders. In

the future, the Department of Justice should continue to leverage opportunities to strengthen the case

management response provided to perpetrators (based on evidence of what works).

FACS should be responsible for implementation of the more intensive case management approach for victims

and families, given their role in funding and delivering case management services. During the detailed design of

this recommendation, FACS should explore the overlap and any potential conflicts of interest/issues that arise

from performing case management for victims and providing a statutory response for victims (and their children

and families). This recommendation requires a minor change in scope for case management. The scope would

only change for victims identified as needing this longer-term, intense support.

In the short-term, victims who reappear multiple times on a SAM agenda should be prioritised for intense case

management. In the longer-term, all those identified as cycling through the system multiple times should be

eligible. This includes victims and their families who interact with statutory services and those who may only

interact with non-statutory services (recognising the latter will be dependent on better data collection to be able

to identify these people e.g. through the Safe Family Network (Recommendation 4)).

Following the FACS statutory response, responsibility for continuing to support victims and their families may be

better placed elsewhere. The Safe Family Network (Recommendation 4) is an option and could take on

responsibility for providing ongoing support (although less intensive).

FACS should implement this recommendation in the medium term (two to five years). Given the need for

additional case management resources, this recommendation is high cost.

Rationale

The proportion of DFV victims who cycle through the service system more than once is relatively small; however,

they account for a disproportionate amount of the total cost of DFV in NSW.

To determine the approximate total cost of the clients who cycle through the DFV service system more than

once, Nous developed three scenarios. The scenarios reflect the potential circumstances and pathway of a victim

and perpetrator who may cycle through the system more than once (based on insights from the document

review and stakeholder consultations). The three scenarios reflect differing complexity and service use, to

provide a range for the cost estimate. The scenarios are:

1. Scenario 1: A victim (with no children) and a perpetrator who is not incarcerated and does not

participate in a Men’s Behaviour Change Program.

2. Scenario 2: A victim (with no children) and a perpetrator who is incarcerated and participates in a Men’s

Behaviour Change Program.

3. Scenario 3: A victim with children and a perpetrator who is incarcerated and participates in a Men’s

Behaviour Change Program.

Figure 11 overleaf shows the key data and process Nous used to estimate the total cost of DFV incidents that

result in additional cycles through the DFV service system (including costs for victims and perpetrators). It shows:

87

Nous calculated the number of victims requiring intensive support each year based on percentage of 2015 victims who

reported a DFV incident to police who had previously reported victims to Police. This assumes that intensive case

management is provided to victims who interact with the system multiple times over a long period.


that the estimated total cost of one DFV incident that results in a victim and perpetrator using the

service system can range from $21,000 and $69,000 (depending on which scenario is used). This

includes the costs associated with a victim and a perpetrator, as a DFV incident always involves both

parties.

a victim who reports a DFV incident to police more than once cycles through the service system 2.4

times on average (or 1.4 additional cycles, not counting the first cycle).88

approximately 13% of all victims who report a DFV incident to police have previously reported a DFV

incident.

therefore, the total additional cost of DFV incidents that result in victims and perpetrators cycling

through the service system more than once ranges from $354 million (scenario 1) to $1.16 billion

(scenario 3).

88

There is limited data on the number of times victims cycle through the DFV service system. Based on BOCSAR data on

victims who report a DFV incident to police between 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015, 13.7% of victims who report a DFV incident

to police had previously reported a DFV incident to police. On average, within this group of victims, they had reported 2.4

DFV incidents. Nous assumed that a victim enters the DFV system each time they report a DFV incident. To strengthen this

data point, Nous has also examined FACS data on the number of women and children who cycle through homeless support

services, given that approximately 50% of women and children who access specialist homelessness services are experiencing

DFV. On average, it was found that DFV clients accessing homeless services received an average of 2.4 support periods, where

periods are episodes of assistance provided to clients. The homelessness data is taken from the following source:

Authoritative information and statistics to promote better health and wellbeing, Are there patterns of service use?, year n/a,

date viewed 10 January 2017, accessed at, <http://www.aihw.gov.au/homelessness/domestic-violence-and-

homelessness/service-use/>.

http://www.aihw.gov.au/homelessness/domestic-violence-and-homelessness/service-use/

http://www.aihw.gov.au/homelessness/domestic-violence-and-homelessness/service-use/


Figure 11: Additional cost of all additional cycles through the DFV service system89

The data in Figure 11 above refers only to the economic cost of a DFV incident. If economic and non-economic

cost of DFV incidents were counted, the total additional cost of additional cycles through the service system

more than once ranges from $650 million (scenario 1) to $1.4 billion (scenario 3). This is between 12% to 25% of

the total cost of DFV (assuming a total cost of $5.6 billion, as per the Blueprint analytical model).

The current crisis and post-crisis response does not provide long-term, holistic support required to empower

families to transform their situations. SAMs can reduce the risk of serious harm to victims, but they do not

facilitate a long-term solution that breaks the cycle of violence helps clients move out of the service system.90

If the service system was able to reduce the number of people who cycle through the service system, there is the

potential for large cost savings. For example, if the number of victims who cycled through the service system

more than once were halved, total economic and non-economic cost savings would be approximately between

$325 million to $700 million (this is half of the total costs in Figure 13 for the lower cost scenario 1 and the

higher cost scenario 3).91

89

These figures are approximate only. The ‘estimated total cost’ figure includes non-economic costs (based on the non-

economic costs included in the Blueprint). The ‘estimated total cost’ figure does not include the cost of a first cycle through

the system; it only counts potential subsequent cycles, based on an estimate that a victim cycles through an average of 2.4

times. See Appendix C for detailed costs, data sources and assumptions. 90

NSW government, Safety Action Meeting Manual, page 30, August 2014. 91

This is not a direct cost saving to government. It includes non-economic cost of DFV to the government and individuals.

Estimated cost of one cycle through the DFV

service system for each scenario (incl. victim

and perpetrator costs)

Estimated average number of additional

times a victim may cycle through the DFV

service system

Approximate number of victims cycling through the DFV

service system per year

Additional cost of additional cycles

(economic cost only)

$21,000 $354 million

$1.05 billion$62,000

…or…

A victim (with no children) and a perpetrator who is not incarcerated and does not participate in a MBCP.A victim (with no children) and a perpetrator who is incarcerated and participates in a MBCP.A victim with children and a perpetrator who is incarcerated and participates in a MBCP.

…or…

$69,000

…or…

$1.16 billion

…or…

1.4additional cycles per victim, on average

12,000victims cycling

through the service system

1

2

3

1

2

3

Scenarios:

Scenarios


Recommendation 12: Explore innovative ways to increase substantially the range, availability and suitability of

housing options for victims of DFV.

This recommendation builds on the Blueprint’s commitment to:

increase investment in social housing and homelessness services

encourage the Government to explore innovative housing options for victims of DFV.

Access to appropriate forms of housing is a significant barrier for people and families at-risk of or experiencing

violence. Currently, there are some examples of good practice in NSW; however, the ability to provide options is

a crucial element of the response, including:

options to support a victim remain safely in their own home

to house perpetrators including those exiting Corrective Services facilities.

To address the unmet need for housing and accommodation services, FACS should explore innovative ways to

increase substantially the range, availability and suitability of housing options for victims of DFV. Future housing

initiatives should consider the Start Safely subsidy (which provides short to medium term financial help to

eligible clients who have experienced DFV) and the work underway under the Future Directions for Social

Housing in NSW.

Innovative options should consider the accessibility and suitability requirements for different victims who may

use housing support. For example, victims with a disability, victims with children and victims who live in isolated

areas. FACS should prioritise establishment of additional housing options based on an assessment of existing

housing supply, client demand and unmet need in LGAs. FACS could consider prioritising roll-out in:

high priority LGAs based on demand (prevalence, incidence and growth of DFV based on Police reports,

see Appendix D).

regional, rural and remote areas, given alternative options in these areas may be severely limited (based

on stakeholder consultations).

FACS should consider a range of housing supports for victims and perpetrators at different stages of their

‘recovery’, from crisis through to long-term housing needs, particularly in small communities.

FACS should implement this recommendation in the medium term. It has a medium cost implication. Some

investment will be required to fund innovative options that have proven effectiveness and are selected for roll-

out in high need areas.

Rationale

There are limited long-term housing services across the state and not enough crisis housing services (as reported

in stakeholder consultations with government agencies and service providers).92

Nationally, of the 92,000 women

and children presenting to housing services in 2014-15, only 9% were accommodated.93

In 2012, an Inquiry by

the Standing Committee on Social Issues into domestic violence in NSW identified housing and emergency

accommodation as a significant service gap. 94

In addition, some crisis accommodation services use eligibility criteria that make it difficult for some victims to

access a service (e.g. a woman with a teenage son may find it difficult to locate a service). 95

Others may be

located too far from the victim’s home, which can make it challenging to access support when needed.96

92

Based on: (i) stakeholder consultations and (ii) data from AIHW, Clients experiencing DFV, AIHW 2016, accessed online at:

<http://www.aihw.gov.au/homelessness/specialist-homelessness-services-2014-15/domestic-violence/>. 93

Ibid. 94

Legislative Council of NSW, Standing Committee on Social Issues, Domestic violence trends and issues in NSW, 2012, p. 140. 95

Women NSW, Blueprint Consultation Report: Draft Cabinet in Confidence, unpublished, Sydney, March 2016; stakeholder

consultations conducted as part of this redesign project; FACS, NSW DFV Service Re-alignment Review: Phase 1 Report, NSW

government, Sydney, 2014.

http://www.aihw.gov.au/homelessness/specialist-homelessness-services-2014-15/domestic-violence/


3.3.4 Recommendations: Supporting mechanisms

Six supporting mechanisms underpin an effective response to DFV (see Figure 12).

Figure 12: Six mechanisms support an effective DFV response

Supporting

mechanism Recommendation Accountability Responsibility Timing

Cost

implication

Shared vision

13. Develop a common understanding

of the vision of the DFV service

system and a common policy

direction amongst key agencies.

Women NSW Women NSW Short

term Low

Governance

14. Education, FACS, NSW Health and

Justice should each develop a

specific whole-of-agency DFV

strategy and action plan and report

progress against agreed actions.

Women NSW

Dept. of

Education,

FACS, NSW

Health and

Dept. of

Justice

Short

term Low

Funding and

commissioning

practices

15. Allocate funding based on

performance, ongoing evaluation or

accreditation and adoption of

standard practices and systems.

NSW Treasury Women NSW Medium

term Low

16. Ensure future funding and

commissioning practices provide

long-term, outcomes based funding.

NSW Treasury Women NSW Long

term Low

Data collection

and evaluation

17. Build on existing data collection

tools to develop a DFV integrated

platform that collates information

about individuals and families

experiencing DFV.


High

18. Complete the Blueprint

commitments to establish service

quality standards and embed

evaluation practices.


Low

Coordination

and

information

sharing

19. Build on existing information

sharing platforms to establish a

shared system for both DFV and

vulnerable children/families service

providers.


Medium

96

As above and from stakeholder consultations.

Data collection and evaluation

Shared vision and goals

Coordination and information sharing

Governance and leadership

Funding and commissioning

practices

Workforce capability and

culture


Supporting

mechanism Recommendation Accountability Responsibility Timing

Cost

implication

20. Encourage more service providers

to provide integrated services for

across the child protection,

vulnerable families and DFV sectors.

Women NSW Women NSW

FACS

Short term

Low

Workforce

capability and

culture

21. Consider opportunities for skills

development and training for non-

government organisations to occur

alongside government workers.

Women NSW Women NSW

FACS

Medium term

Low


The Blueprint outlines commitments relevant to these five of the six supporting mechanisms (not ‘coordination

and information sharing’). These include commitments relating to:

‘shared vision and goals’: development of a prevention and early intervention strategy and

implementation of the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women & Their Children and the

Premier’s Priority to reduce re-offending.

‘governance and leadership’: strengthening governance and accountability through the DFV Reforms

Delivery Board, convening a Minister’s DFV Corporate Leadership Group and reviewing and improving

regional governance.

‘funding and commissioning practices’: the Innovation Fund, funding for housing and homelessness

services and the introduction of a streamlined procurements arrangement.

‘data collection and evaluation’: contained in all Blueprint actions.

‘workforce capability and culture’: contained under the Action 5: Delivering quality services.

The recommendations to strengthen the DFV system build on these Blueprint actions.

Recommendation 13: Develop a common understanding of the vision of the DFV service system and a common

policy direction amongst key agencies.

This recommendation seeks to ensure key agencies have a common understanding of the vision for NSW’s DFV

service system. Key agencies include Women NSW, FACS, Department of Justice, NSW Police, the NSW Health

and Department of Education.

A common understanding of the vision for the DFV response would ensure: a) key agencies share an

appreciation of how DFV clients should experience services, and b) a common policy direction across agencies.

This includes when responsibility for service provision transitions between service providers and agencies.

The vision should articulate:

the outcomes the DFV service system seeks to achieve

how the DFV service system is structured and each agency’s role in delivering the vision.

A potential working draft for the vision could be: The DFV service system enables women, men and children to

live safer lives through a multi-layered approach to service delivery, based on an individual’s level of need, risk,

the principle of choice and placing people’s safety first.

Women NSW should promote development of a shared vision in consultation with key agencies.

Establishment of a vision is a foundational recommendation and should be completed within the next two years

(and preferably early in this timeframe). It provides a fundamental backbone to help unify agencies and

coordinate their efforts to deliver on the vision and goals of the DFV response.


The cost implication of this recommendation is low. Existing Women NSW resources will be required to develop

the vision (and associated communication plan).

Rationale

The Blueprint is the first time the NSW government has documented a system-wide DFV strategy. Whilst

comprehensive, it does not articulate a clear, single vision for the DFV response in NSW.

Many agencies deliver DFV services and social services (such as other programs that target vulnerable families). It

is important agencies have a common understanding of an agreed vision for how to achieve the best outcomes

for victims and perpetrators and those at-risk. This helps to ensure clients receive the same quality of service

provision no matter which agency they interact with across NSW.

Recommendation 14: Education, FACS, NSW Health and Justice should each develop a specific whole-of-agency

DFV strategy and action plan and report progress against agreed actions.

The Department of Justice, FACS, NSW Health and the Department of Education should each develop an agency-

specific DFV strategy and action plan. It should link to the shared vision (see Recommendation 13). It should

articulate how the agency will implement its responsibilities in the Blueprint.97

The strategies and action plans

should align across agencies and with the redesign recommendations in this paper.

Women NSW should provide oversight of strategy development to ensure consistency between strategies and

with the overarching vision. Women NSW can also help to identify duplications in roles, overlaps in

responsibilities and potential opportunities for improved coordination.

The DFV strategies and action plans should be endorsed by the relevant Minister/s for each agency.98

Once

approved, each action plan should be shared across agencies. Each agency should meet regularly to discuss

progress towards outcomes and report annually to Ministers against their plan.

Agencies should agree on a regular reporting framework to report progress against agreed actions and

deliverables.

Agencies should develop the DFV strategies and action plans in the short term (noting this recommendation

requires completion of Recommendation 13). Overarching accountability for reporting on progress against the

agency-specific plans should sit with the Domestic and Family Violence Reforms Delivery Board. The Domestic

and Family Violence Reforms Delivery Board should have a strengthened role in providing oversight of progress

against implementation of the redesign recommendations.

The cost implication of this recommendation is low. No new resources are required. Agencies should use existing

resources to develop the DFV strategy and action plan.

Rationale

Across the DFV service system, most agencies have agency-specific strategies that relate to DFV activities.

Examples include:

Domestic Violence Justice Strategy (2013-2017), the Department of Justice.

DFV NSW Department of Family and Community Services Housing NSW Policy Statement 2014, FACS.

Responding to Family Violence in Aboriginal Communities Health policy 2011-2016, NSW Health.

Stakeholders in consultations reported that prior to the Blueprint, agencies had their own vision, goals, KPIs and

business plan targets to address DFV. They reported these goals and plans were not always aligned with other

97

This recommendation is based on the assumption that the Blueprint for Domestic and Family Violence is the overarching

strategy for the DFV response in NSW. The agency-specific actions plans should link with the Blueprint. Nous is not

recommending an additional state-wide action plan is developed, as the Blueprint is sufficient to ensure a coordinated state-

wide approach. 98

The relevant Minister/s for each agency should include: The Minister for Education, Health, Family and Community Services,

Justice and Police, Prevention of Domestic Violence and Women. It may also include the Premier.


agency documents or whole of government policies.99

Development of specific DFV strategies and actions plans

for each agency provides an opportunity to:

ensure clear alignment of each agency’s goals and strategies with an overarching vision for DFV (see

Recommendation 13). The ultimate outcome is better coordination and improved service delivery for

clients.

achieve potential efficiency gains through identification duplicated efforts.

improve coordination in data collection, information sharing and service delivery through more clearly

articulated roles, responsibilities and accountabilities.

Note: The following two recommendations, Recommendations 15 and 16, are linked. They both relate to funding

and commissioning practices. Recommendation 15 refers to how funding should be delivered, whilst

Recommendation 16 refers to the type of funding that should be available. The recommendations should apply

to both government and non-government service providers. It is important to note that full implementation of

these recommendations will take time (e.g. the time to develop and evaluate performance for some service

providers who currently do not have strong evaluation practices).

Recommendation 15: Allocate funding based on performance, ongoing evaluation or accreditation and adoption

of standard practices and systems.

This recommendation refers to the principles that should underpin DFV funding and investments.

The overarching principle is that Women NSW (and other agencies that fund DFV-related services) should

allocate funding based on provide performance, effectiveness and efficiency of a service provider.

Women NSW should establish new evidence-based guidelines, standards and processes for funding and

commissioning DFV services. Women NSW should explore the move to outcomes based funding in the specialist

homelessness and out of home care sector to leverage any lessons learned. Women NSW should prioritise DFV

investments in services that:

can demonstrate effectiveness and efficiency. Service providers should demonstrate they have

undertaken independent evaluations or reviews that show effective and efficient delivery of services.

Only services that are achieving agreed outcomes or KPIs should be considered for funding or

investment.

undertake regular monitoring and evaluation of service provision to support continuous improvement.

Service providers and agencies should consider engaging with the Centre for Program Evaluation,

established by Treasury. This builds on the commitments in the Blueprint that all services have a formal

evaluation process. There may also be a need to conduct Aboriginal specific service provision

evaluations in order to build an evidence base for these specialist service providers.

in service providers that adopt the standard practices and systems outlined in the recommendations in

this paper. This includes the integrated data platform (Recommendation 17) and the common risk

assessment framework (Recommendation 1). This builds on the commitments in the Blueprint to

implement quality service standards. Service providers should be accountable to meet service standards

and ensure continuous quality improvement in service delivery.

Women NSW, led by NSW Treasury, should develop the new funding and commissioning guidelines and

practices in the medium term. This timeframe is in recognition that service providers may need time to

implement more rigorous monitoring and evaluation practices. Full implementation may extend beyond this

timeframe.

The cost implication of this recommendation is low as it can be implemented within existing resources.

99

Stakeholder consultations conducted as part of the re-design.


Rationale

Currently, there is limited consistency in how agencies hold service providers accountable for the quality,

consistency and availability of their services.

There is also limited evidence on the effectiveness of the DFV response in NSW. This includes evidence on what

works at both the system-level and within individual programs and services. Existing reviews or evaluations of

programs/services are not typically longitudinal or outcome evaluations.100

This results in limited information to determine demand and estimate need, guide long-term planning and policy

reform, ensure consistency in service delivery and assess what interventions work and why. This further

complicates investments in DFV services and programs, as funding is not able to reflect service or program

performance.

Recommendation 16: Ensure future funding and commissioning practices provide long-term funding and

supports outcomes.

This recommendation refers to the type of funding Women NSW and other agencies should make available for

service providers.

Women NSW and other agencies that fund DFV services should move towards the provision of longer-term,

outcomes based funding. It is important to recognise there are some instances where outcomes based funding

may not be applicable, and the system should be flexible enough to accommodate this. Recommendation 21

refers to workforce training initiatives (for government and non-government staff), which will be important to

help equip the sector for the move to longer-term, outcomes based funding.

Improved funding and commissioning practice guidelines should:

provide longer-term funding agreements that offer greater predictability for service providers and

increases the opportunity to demonstrate outcomes.

provide flexible types of funding, such as outcomes-based or activity-based funding. This provides more

flexibility for service providers by allowing them to focus on ensuring better outcomes for victims

and/or perpetrators, rather than potentially feeling restricted by a ‘number of services provided’ target.

encourage greater collaboration across service providers who interact with people who may experience

or perpetrate DFV (such as service providers that provide child protection services or services for

vulnerable families). This is in recognition that there is an opportunity to improve outcomes for children

of victims and perpetrators (in addition to outcomes for the victim or perpetrator). Children exposed to

DFV are more likely to have a range of health, development and social problems, both during childhood

and later in life. They are also at a higher risk of perpetrating or being victims of violence themselves,

which continues the cycle of violence into the next generation.101

It is important to recognise that the collection of comprehensive data is a crucial precursor to enabling evidence-

based funding decisions and evaluating service delivery. Recommendation 17 outlines an improved data

collection tool and information sharing approach for agencies to support this.

Women NSW, led by NSW Treasury, should design and implement new funding and commissioning practices in

the long term. The cost implication of this recommendation is low. Women NSW and NSW Treasury should use

existing resources to develop and implement the new funding and commissioning practice guidelines.102

100

The evaluation framework for Safer Pathway has recently been reviewed as part of the 2015 Overarching Evaluation and

Monitoring Framework strategy. 101

M On, J Ayre, K Webster and L Moon (2016) Examination of the health outcomes of intimate partner violence against

women: State of knowledge paper, prepared by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare for Australia’s National

Research Organisation for Women’s Safety. Accessed April 2016 at

http://media.aomx.com/anrows.org.au/160324_1.7%20Burden%20of%20Disease%20FINAL.pdf 102

Nous recommends further consultation with NSW Treasury in design and implementation of this recommendation.


Rationale

Some requirements of current funding and commissioning practices that create additional burden on service

providers and reduce their capacity to focus on core delivery of DFV support. 103

These include:

competitive tendering, which hinders collaboration and innovation, and creates duplication and gaps in

the service system.

inconsistent timing of funds, which limits an organisation’s ability to undertake medium and long-term

planning.

funds limited to pre-set timeframes and pre-determined number of victims as an output, which prevents

services from adapting their offer to support based on demand (e.g. providing support for different

timeframes depending on each victim’s needs – this might be shorter or longer than the pre-

determined timeframes).

Having funds go through the Ministerial portfolio to Women NSW and then distributed to agencies also creates

additional complexities and inefficiencies (as reported in stakeholder consultations). Agencies commission work

and services separately, without any central coordination point or oversight. The Commissioning and

Contestability Unit, announced in June 2016, is yet to look at the DFV funding arrangements, but this process

may provide insights into more streamlined, competitive and better value for money commissioning practices.

Recommendation 17: Build on existing data collection tools to develop a DFV integrated platform that collates

information about individuals and families experiencing DFV.

This recommendation proposes development of an integrated information sharing platform. The platform would

improve collection, sharing and analysis of DFV-related data. This recommendation recognises the importance of

adequate data collection and reporting to inform system performance evaluation and future investment

decisions.

The aim of this recommendation is to enable better segmentation of DFV clients to provide the appropriate type,

timing and intensity of response. In particular, it would enable agencies to better identify individuals and families

who would benefit from early intervention and response services.

The platform should leverage existing web-apps, such as the FACS-led initiative Child Story.104

Given the

significant overlap between the DFV and child protection services, there is potential for the two platforms to be

integrated. Women NSW would need to explore the feasibility and benefits of doing this during development.

The information stored should be similar to content proposed for Child Story. This includes: client details (name,

date of birth, contact details, information on family members), list of services engaged in the past and currently,

upcoming important dates/deadlines (e.g. court dates). In the case of Child Story, clients can gain access to their

own profiles.

The platform should provide agencies with the ability to grade levels of risk, drawing on the DVSAT and other

common assessment tools (and eventually the common risk assessment framework, Recommendation 1). If an

individual’s level of risk increases, the platform should have the ability to recognise this and alert a specific

agency/service provider (see Recommendation 10). This would help service providers provide more timely

support when situations escalate and intervention is required.

Women NSW should be responsible for development and implementation of the integrated platform. Women

NSW should consider a staged rollout to test the functionality, before a complete roll-out to all service providers.

The first stage of the rollout could be for key agencies and/or in high priority LGAs (i.e. those LGAs with a high

demand for DFV services. See Appendix D for the list of the high priority LGAs).

103

Women NSW, Blueprint Consultation Report: Draft Cabinet in Confidence, unpublished, Sydney, March 2016 and

stakeholder consultations conducted as part of the re-design. 104

The implementation of this recommendation should take into account and build on any evaluations conducted of existing

FACS data platforms.


This is a longer-term recommendation as it requires significant consultation with providers and other

stakeholders to understand user needs, IT system development and change management.105

For these reasons,

represents a higher cost recommendation.

Rationale

Government agencies collect a significant amount of data on DFV clients. Currently, data sets are not linked nor

integrated effectively. They do not enable a consolidated picture of a client’s circumstance, experience and

engagement with the DFV service system.106

Stakeholders in consultations reported that some agencies use hard copy records to document the incident and

referral process, while others use an electronic platform. This makes it difficult for agencies and service providers

to share data and information and analyse client outcomes over time.

An integrated platform that alerts agencies as risk escalates, will better support service providers to deliver

earlier and more effective services that take into account the client, their environment and other interacting

influences (e.g. children, perpetrators, other family members).

In the most complex and high-risk DFV cases, greater communication and information sharing between service

providers and agencies could potentially prevent death. Case studies analysed as part of the redesign project’s

document review highlight that when an individual is experiencing DFV, a friend, family member, neighbour,

colleague and/or an individual service provider are often aware of the victim’s experience. 107

Yet, they do not

always refer the victim or alert other support services, which may be able to intervene in time to make a

difference (i.e. before further harm occurs).

Recommendation 18: Complete the Blueprint actions to establish service quality standards and embed

evaluation practices.

This recommendation relates to ensuring two specific Blueprint’s commitments are undertaken as a priority

(preferably prior to the awarding of Innovation Fund investments, which is due to happen in May 2017). The two

commitments are to:

co-design service quality standards with the non-government organisation sector for DFV services and

training requirements for mainstream services

embed evaluation into all NSW government funded DFV services.

A refresh of the standards and requirements of service delivery, training and evaluation prior to awarding

Innovation Fund investments is important. It ensures these critical features are included in new programs or

services funded through the Innovation Fund. It also sets a shared understanding among existing and new

programs/services of the standards and expectations for service provision.

The Innovation Fund selection criteria do not include requirements for evaluation. Ideally, service providers

across NSW would adopt the service standards to ensure greater consistency in the quality of service delivery.

This ensures individuals and families receive consistent support across NSW.

105

The Department of Finance, Services and Innovation should be consulted during the implementation of this

recommendation in order to understand existing work underway with the Social Innovation Council. 106

Women NSW, Item 5: Existing datasets v2, Unpublished, 2016. Some of the existing unlinked data sets include: Central

Referral Point data set; Men’s Behaviour Change Program minimum dataset; Men’s Referral Service data set; National

Community Attitudes on Violence Against Women Survey; NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research court data; NSW

Police Force Computerised Operational Policing System (COPS); Other relevant Department of Justice datasets (e.g.

Community corrections data, Corrective services data); Relevant FACS data sets; Relevant FACS databases (e.g. KiDS/Child

Story, Staying Home Leaving Violence, Integrated DFV Services, Start Safely); Victims Services’ data for male victims; Women’s

Domestic Violence Advocacy Services data sets. 107

NSW Domestic Violence Death Review Team, NSW Domestic Violence Death Review Team Annual Report 2013-15, NSW

Department of Justice, Sydney, 2015.


The service standards should reflect the needs of specific at risk groups, such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander communities, people with a CALD background, people with a disability and others. Service standards

should have flexibility to allow for alternative approaches, where appropriate.

Service standards and evaluation practices should align with the DFV service system performance metrics

framework, being developed by Women NSW in 2017.

This is a low cost recommendation. It should be implemented using existing Women NSW resources. Women

NSW resources will be required to develop and communicate the service standards and evaluation practices. This

will require consultation with staff from key agencies including the Centre for Program Evaluation, established by

NSW Treasury.

Rationale

As identified in the Blueprint, there are no system-wide service quality standards for the DFV sector to ensure a

consistent and high quality response.108

Currently, monitoring of and accountability for the DFV response occurs

mainly at the service or program level.

As at February 2017, Women NSW had almost completed development of the system-wide DFV Outcomes

Framework and the DFV service system performance metrics (developed in collaboration with service providers

and other agencies).109

This should improve the ability of government agencies to understand is effective in

responding to DFV, to help guide future investments.

Recommendation 19: Build on existing information sharing platforms to establish a shared system for both DFV

and vulnerable children/families service providers.

This recommendation aims to support better collaboration and information sharing between service providers

working with DFV clients.

Women NSW should explore opportunities that allow service providers to engage with other practitioners

working with DFV clients to share information. Women NSW should leverage existing information sharing

platforms that FACS are looking at to improve collaboration between practitioners.

The platform enables service providers to understand the DFV service landscape (rather than to document

information about their clients, see Recommendation 17). If service providers had a better understanding of the

DFV service landscape, they may be able to refer clients to the appropriate service more easily, regardless of

where they are located in NSW.

For example, a search function by location or service type could save time for practitioners and allow them to

coordinate referrals and support for clients more easily. The platform should comply with best practice in safety

and confidentiality considerations, laws and regulations to ensure the safety of victims, children and families

(including informed consent).

The types of service providers who would benefit from better information and knowledge about the type and

availability of services includes:

DFV service providers across NSW, both government and non-government

other specialist service providers, such as service providers who provide support or run programs for

vulnerable families or in the child protection sector

mainstream service providers who commonly interact with DFV clients (e.g. health screening programs)

the new system navigators proposed for WDVCAS (see Recommendation 7)

108

Women NSW, NSW DFV Blueprint for Reform 2016-2021: Safer Lives for Women, Men and Children, NSW MOH, Sydney,

2016 109

Women NSW provided Nous with draft versions of the DFV Outcomes Framework and the DFV service system performance

metrics logic model in late 2016.


staff in the newly proposed Safe Family Network (the proposed non-statutory entry points for victims

and perpetrators, see Recommendation 4).

Women NSW (or a nominated organisation) should moderate the platform to ensure it remains comprehensive

and up-to-date. Service providers should have the ability to update information about their service. Possible

information shared on the platform could include name of the practice/service, location, target client group,

availability and eligibility criteria.

Women NSW should take a staged approach to implementation. The platform should be rolled out for FACS and

NSW Health first and then for Education and other service providers.

The cost implication of this recommendation is medium. Design and development will require web/app design

and developer skills and expertise, which may not exist currently within NSW. Leveraging existing platforms

offers an opportunity to reduce the cost of design and development. Women NSW should use existing resources

to oversee and manage the development and design, including consultation with future users of the platform.

Rationale

Currently, there is no streamlined, system-wide approach for information sharing. No single mechanism or

consistent practices exist to support information sharing between agencies and/or service providers (as reported

in stakeholder consultations). This means service providers do not always have access to the information needed

to provide the best response and clients experience fragmented service delivery. Clients are required to navigate

different support services and often have to repeat their stories to numerous service providers.

Some information sharing occurs in a few locations, mainly through Safer Pathway, to coordinate crisis response

efforts. This recommendation encourages more effective information sharing at all stages of service delivery

(from early intervention to recovery services). This is particularly important at earlier stages of the service delivery

spectrum (i.e. early intervention), where information sharing is currently limited.

Recommendation 20: Encourage more service providers to provide integrated services for across the child

protection, vulnerable families and DFV sectors.

This recommendation calls for greater collaboration among service providers who operate in the child

protection, vulnerable families and DFV sectors. The aim is to provide integrated support for their shared clients,

who may interact with two or more of these service systems.

Figure 13 shows there are significant overlaps across these service systems. Despite this, participants in

stakeholder consultations and analysis from Nous’ document review showed there are limited services that

operate across these service systems (child protection, DFV and programs for vulnerable families).

Figure 13: Examples of overlap between DFV and other programs that target vulnerable families110

110

Nous used mainly 2014-15 data provided by NSW MOH and FACS to Women NSW for the Blueprint development.

Appendix A of the redesign Stage 1 Report provides the specific reference for each data point.

47% 24%45% 38%

…of women and children who access

specialist homelessness

services are experiencing DFV

46%

…of Joint Investigation

Response Team cases are related to DFV (and child abuse)

…ROSH reports are related to DFV

…of NSW Health’s Family Referral

Service presentations are related to DFV

…of NSW Health’s Child Protection

Counselling Service clients are

experiencing DFV


There is an opportunity to improve the coordination of service delivery to the clients who use services across

these systems. As a first step, Women NSW should acknowledge this overlap by encouraging more service

providers across DFV, child protection and programs for vulnerable families to provide integrated services for

clients. It is important to recognise that:

child protection responses should continue to take precedence over responses for vulnerable families

there are difficulties associated with providing integrated services in many regional, rural and remote

areas, given the limited range of services available in some areas. Improving the ability of providers to

provide integrated services in regional, rural and remote areas may first require identification of existing

resource or service gaps. Subsequently, it may then involve additional resources for these areas to help

fill absolute resource or service gaps,

Service providers would need the capability and capacity to respond to issues relating to DFV, but also issues

concerning child protection and vulnerable families. Figure 14 outlines the type of services that providers may be

required to deliver. This should inform future training and development plans for the DFV workforce (see

Recommendation 21).

Figure 14: The range of services that providers deliver to DFV clients

Service providers that deliver integrated services and support for DFV victims, perpetrators and children could

potentially be the physical location for the Safe Family Network services (see Recommendation 4).

Women NSW should lead implementation of this recommendation, but work closely with other key agencies

that fund or deliver child protection services or programs for vulnerable families. Women NSW and other key

agencies should consider a staged implementation of this recommendation, by prioritising rollout in high

priority LGAs (i.e. LGAs with a high demand for DFV services. See Appendix D). Women NSW should implement

this recommendation with consideration of recommendations 4, 5, 6 and 7, which will strengthen the LCPs entry

pathways into the DFV service system for vulnerable families from early intervention stages.

The implementation cost for this recommendation is low, as no new resources are required. Existing resources

within Women NSW should develop and action a communications plan that aims to encourage service providers

in the areas identified above to provide services that are more integrated.

Rationale

Much of the service system is designed to deliver programs (e.g. a refuge providing crisis accommodation, a

child protection service, or a counselling service), rather than to provide wrap-around, holistic support to victims

and families (as reported through stakeholder consultations).

As documented in the Blueprint consultations and further reported in the redesign project consultations, many

service providers are trained to address specific and narrow areas of need, without consideration of the broader


multi-dimensional nature of risks and complexity of an individual or family’s needs.111

This has resulted in many

clients having multiple touchpoints with services, sometimes limited coordination in service delivery, partial

solutions for some clients and some high needs families ‘falling between the cracks’.

From the service provider and government agencies perspective, the limited coordination between these service

responses can sometimes cause:

system-level inefficiencies (e.g. multiple working groups about similar issues with similar participants) .

duplication in service delivery. For example, some housing, DFV and child protection services may

currently provide similar types of support in similar areas and/or to the same families (based on

stakeholder consultations).

Greater and earlier collaboration across agencies and service providers could assist victims to access the support

they need to keep them safe more easily. This has the potential to improve outcomes for victims and potentially

reduce demand on response services (if victims are supported to leave high-risk environments earlier, before

violence escalates).

Recommendation 21: Consider opportunities for skills development and training for non-government

organisations to occur alongside government workers.

A capable workforce, with the right blend of specialist expertise, knowledge and skills, is a critical part of a high-

performing DFV service system. The state-wide service standards that will be developed as part of the Blueprint

commitments are part of enabling this. It also requires adequate workforce training and development

opportunities to ensure service providers understand service standards and can meet them. A capable, skilled

workforce also helps to improve outcomes of service delivery, thus helping to satisfy requirements as the sector

moves towards longer-term, outcomes-based funding requirements (see Recommendation 16).

Women NSW and FACS should consider opportunities for non-government service providers to participate in

training delivered to government service providers. This includes training opportunities for mainstream

government agencies/workers, specialist government workers (e.g. frontline FACS staff), non-government DFV

specialist services and other non-government service providers who interact with people experiencing DFV (such

as those working in mental health, drug and alcohol, child protection, vulnerable families service provision). The

purpose of the training should be to ensure service providers are equipped with an understanding of the service

standards (developed as part of the Blueprint) and the capability to implement them. This aim is to ensure a

consistent standard of service delivery for clients, regardless of where they access services across NSW.

Government and non-government service providers in the same locations could benefit from joint training and

development programs. This would help to ensure:

a highly trained, skilled and capable workforce across the state.

more streamlined and timelier service delivery, through service providers gaining a better understanding

of the availability and existence of different services in their local area.

It also has the potential to reduce the overall cost of training for the sector through combined training programs.

As at April 2017, FACS was in the process of finalising its DFV strategy. As part of this strategy, FACS will commit

to training all front line staff in how to recognise and appropriately respond to FACS clients who may be

experiencing DFV.

The cost implication of this recommendation is low, as this recommendation is not suggesting additional

training opportunities or activities are provided. The assumption is that by combining training for providers that

currently access training and development separately, there may be an overall cost saving.112

111

Women NSW, Blueprint Consultation Report: Draft Cabinet in Confidence, unpublished, Sydney, March 2016. 112

The Education Centre Against Violence (ECAV) could be the appropriate organisation to administer this training if

additional resourcing is provided, ECAV is a specialised state-wide unit that deliver workforce development and training

programs in the areas of adult and child sexual assault, domestic and Aboriginal family violence and physical an emotional

abuse and neglect of children.


Rationale

There are no state-wide service quality standards or integrated training across the DFV sector workforce. This has

contributed, in part, to inconsistent service delivery.113

Analysis of evaluation reports, redesign consultations and

service provider workshops showed staff working in the DFV sector would benefit from improved and

standardised training and development.114

Many agencies and organisations invest in their own training and support for their workforce. Depending on the

location or service-type, some staff with the broader DFV workforce may have different understandings of DFV

and varied capabilities. This can affect consistency and suitability of care and support provided to victims.115

Participants in the Blueprint consultations raised housing, police, child protection, family support services and

health as areas where staff capability varies.116

113

FACS, NSW DFV Service Re-alignment Review: Phase 1 Report, NSW government, Sydney, 2014; Women NSW, Blueprint

Consultation Report: Draft Cabinet in Confidence, unpublished, Sydney, March 2016; NSW Domestic Violence Death Review

Team, NSW Domestic Violence Death Review Team Annual Report 2013-15, NSW Department of Justice, Sydney, 2015. 114

Urbis, Evaluation of the State-wide Domestic Violence Pro Active Support Service: Final Report, Australia, 2013; Social Policy

Research Centre UNSW, Evaluation of Start Safely Private Rental Subsidy, UNSW Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, NSW,

2014. 115

Women NSW, Blueprint Consultation Report: Draft Cabinet in Confidence, unpublished, Sydney, March 2016. 116

Ibid.


4 Implementation plan

This section provides the implementation plan for the DFV service system redesign recommendations.

Implementation plan

Nous categorised the 21 recommendations into short, medium or long-term recommendations. Short-term

recommendations are those that either:

build on existing work that is already underway

are relatively simple and/or easier to implement (e.g. do not require extensive effort or cost)

are foundational recommendations that need to be implemented for a subsequent (medium or long-

term) recommendation to be implemented.

Figure 15 shows the implementation plan.

Figure 15: Implementation plan for the DFV service system redesign recommendations

Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7 overleaf provide the detailed implementation plan. Appendix E provides detail on

each key agency’s responsibilities and accountabilities. Agencies should develop detailed implementation plans

for the recommendations they are each responsible for.

Short term: In the 2 years from July 2017

Recommendation category

Medium term: July 2019 – July 2021

Long-term: After 5 years (July 2021

onwards)

R1

Develop a common risk assessment framework

R2

Implement targeted prevention activities

R3

Target Innovation Fund investments in primary prevention

R4

Strengthen non-statutory entry points andpathways

R11

Improve data on clients who cycle through the service system

R13Develop a common understanding of the vision and policy direction across agencies

R14

Develop whole of agency strategies and plans

R18

Complete the Blueprint actions on service quality standards and evaluation

R19

Establish a shared information sharing system for service providers

R20

Encourage service providers to provide integrated care for vulnerable families

R15

R16

R17

R21

R6 Better integrate helplines

R5 Improve the capacity of actors within the less visible service system

R8 Continue the planned roll out Safety Action Meetings

R9

Expand perpetrator programs and explore alternative options

R11Provide long-term case management for victims who cycle through the system

R12Explore innovative ways to improve the availability of accommodation

Make investments based on performance

Implement longer-term funding that supports outcomes

Develop a DFV integrated data platform

Consider opportunities for training for non-government service providers

R7 Strengthen the role of Local Coordination Points to act as system navigators

Responses based on assessment of risk


Prevention, early intervention and crisis response and recovery

Overarching recommendation: The NSW Government should adopt a more integrated approach for the DFV service system to improve outcomes for victims, perpetrators and those at-risk in NSW.


Table 5: Short-term recommendations

Recommendation Accountability Responsibility Cost implication

1. Develop a common risk assessment framework that integrates risk assessment tools to inform a service system response based on an individual’s level of risk.

Women NSW

NSW Police

NSW Health

FACS

Low

2. Target primary prevention activities towards at-risk cohorts and specific areas of NSW with a high prevalence and/or incidence of DFV.

Women NSW

Women NSW

FACS

Dept. of Justice

Education

Medium

3. Target the significant financial investment of the Domestic and Family Violence Innovation Fund towards funding primary prevention and early intervention initiatives.

FACS Women NSW Low

4. Strengthen non-statutory, alternative entry points and pathways for victims, perpetrators and families.

FACS

Women NSW


Medium


Women NSW Women NSW

FACS High

13. Develop a common understanding of the vision of the DFV service system and policy direction amongst key agencies.

Women NSW Women NSW Low

14. Education, FACS, NSW Health and Justice should each develop a specific whole-of-agency DFV strategy and action plan and report progress against agreed actions.

Women NSW Dept. of Education, FACS, NSW Health and Dept. of Justice

Low


Women NSW Women NSW Low

19. Build on existing information sharing platforms to establish a shared system for both DFV and vulnerable children/families service providers.

Women NSW Women NSW Medium

20. Encourage more service providers to provide integrated services for across the child protection, vulnerable families and DFV sectors.

Women NSW Women NSW

FACS Low

Table 6: Medium-term recommendations


6. Improve access for victims, families and perpetrators by better integrating helplines and ensuring helplines provide pathways for people to access services and information.

Women NSW

FACS

NSW Health

Dept. of Justice

Low


Women NSW Women NSW Medium




Women NSW NSW Health, Police, FACS, Dept. of Justice

Low

11. Provide more intensive, long-term case management for victims, their families and perpetrators who repeatedly cycle through the DFV system over a long period.

Women NSW FACS High

17. Build on existing data collection tools to develop a DFV integrated platform that collates information about individuals and families experiencing DFV.

Women NSW Women NSW High

21. Consider opportunities for skills development and training for non-government organisations to occur alongside government workers.

Women NSW Women NSW

FACS Low


FACS FACS Medium

15. Allocate funding based on performance, ongoing evaluation or accreditation and adoption of standard practices and systems.

NSW Treasury Women NSW Low

Table 7: Long-term recommendations

Recommendation Accountability Responsibility Cost

implication

7. Strengthen the capacity for system navigation for victims and families through an enhanced role of LCPs.

Women NSW

Women NSW

Dept. of Justice

(Legal Aid)

High

9. Expand perpetrator and Men’s Behaviour Change Programs, increase access to existing programs and explore alternative service system response options.

Women NSW Women NSW

Dept. of Justice Medium

16. Ensure future funding and commissioning practices should provide long-term, outcomes based funding.

NSW Treasury Women NSW Low

Women NSW should monitor implementation of the 21 recommendations and report on progress to the

relevant Minister/s on a six-monthly basis. Women NSW should regularly assess the relevance and accuracy of

the recommendations, as new evidence becomes available during implementation. As the evidence base on

what works in prevention, early intervention and crisis response and recovery improves, the recommendations

may require a shift in focus or reconsideration.

Potential pilot sites for key recommendations

The government has an opportunity to pilot a subset of key recommendations in selected LGAs, particularly

those that relate to direct service delivery. This provides an opportunity for agencies and service providers to

pilot design, assess implementation and determine the potential impact of a subset of key recommendations

before state-wide roll-out of all recommendations.

Nous selected a sub-set of the 21 recommendations that could be concurrently implemented in the ‘pilot LGAs’.

Nous recommends the following recommendations (at a minimum) are piloted in these LGAs:


Recommendation 1: Develop a common risk assessment framework that integrates risk assessment

tools to inform a service system response based on an individual’s level of risk.

Recommendation 2: Target primary prevention activities towards at-risk cohorts and specific areas of

NSW (based on the prevalence and incidence of DFV).

Recommendation 4: Strengthen non-statutory, alternative entry points, pathways and service

coordination for victims, perpetrators and families.

Recommendation 7: Strengthen the capacity for system navigation for victims and families through an

enhanced role of LCPs.

Recommendation 10: Prioritise data collection for the victims and perpetrators who repeatedly cycle

through the DFV system.

Recommendation 11: Provide more intensive, long-term case management for victims, their families and

perpetrators who repeatedly cycle through the DFV system over a long period.

Recommendation 19: Build on existing information sharing platforms to establish a shared system for

both DFV and vulnerable children/families service providers.

Recommendation 20: Encourage more service providers to provide integrated services for across the

child protection, vulnerable families and DFV sectors.

Nous identified 19 LGAs that could be appropriate for piloting the above recommendations (noting further

discussions with local agency staff and local providers would be required). The 19 LGAs are a mix of major cities

and metropolitan, regional and rural LGAs. Nous identified these LGAs based on:

Demand for services: LGAs are high priority LGAs because they have either a) a high incidence and

prevalence of DFV or b) DFV incidents that are growing at a faster than average rate and DFV is highly

prevalent

Existing services or infrastructure: LGAs that are already serviced by LCPs and Safety Action Meetings, so

provide a strong basis to build upon (as at March 2017).


Figure 16 overleaf shows the potential pilot sites for these recommendations.


Figure 16: Potential pilot sites for key recommendations to monitor implementation and assess impact

Women NSW and other key agencies should monitor implementation challenges and any impact on client

experiences and outcomes to inform subsequent state-wide roll-out of these recommendations.

Priority LGAs serviced by Safer Pathway (SAMS) and WDVCAS as of March 2017(19 LGAs):• Bankstown (Major city)• Blacktown (Major city)• Campbelltown (Major city)• Cessnock (Major city) • Coffs Harbour (Regional) • Greater Taree (Regional• Griffith (Major city)• Lismore (Major city)• Maitland (Major city)• Muswellbrook(Regional)• Newcastle (Major city) • Orange (Regional) • Parramatta (Major city)• Shoalhaven (Regional) • Sydney (Major city)• Tamworth Regional (Regional)• Tweed (Regional) • Wagga Wagga (Regional)• Wyong (Regional)


Appendix A Methodology

This appendix provides the methodology for the DFV service system redesign. It summarises the activities that Nous undertook to develop the Recommendations

Paper.

Nous also consulted with the Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Council in February 2017. Nous consulted with non-government representatives of the Domestic

Violence and Sexual Assault Council twice in February and March 2017.

Desktop researchConsultations with key government agencies

Discussion Paper and state-wide workshops

Pu

rpo

seP

arti

cip

ants

/so

urc

es

• To develop a foundational understanding of the structure and performance of the DFV service system

• To identify lessons from good practice in other jurisdictions

• To explore how the DFV service system could be strengthened to improve outcomes for clients

• To identify examples and supporting evidence on what is currently working well in NSW

• To share initial insights on current service system performance and key opportunities to improve

• To seek input on improvements to the DFV service system, across the spectrum of service delivery

Over 370 documents provided by: • Women NSW• The Ministry of Health • Department of Justice • Department of Education• Department of Family and

Community Services• Legal Aid• Department of • BOCSAR• NSW Police • Blueprint analytical model • Literature scan on good practice in

other Australian jurisdictions, Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States and New Zealand.

Interviews with key government agencies including: • Aboriginal Affairs• Department of Education

Department of Justice• FACS• Legal Aid NSW• BOCSAR• NSW Ministry of Health (MOH) –

Prevention and Response, Violence Abuse and Neglect – Health and Social Policy Branch

• NSW MOH – Women NSW• NSW Police• NSW TreasuryNous also observed a SAM meeting in Bankstown in December 2016.

Non-government and government service providers, peak body representatives and policy officers from key government agencies. Workshops were held across NSW in December 2016 in: • Bourke• Lismore • Orange• Parramatta• Sydney (x 2)• Wagga Wagga• Wollongong

Monthly meetings with the Domestic and Family Violence Service System Redesign Steering Committee from August 2016 to February 2017. Steering Committee members included representatives from: • Women NSW• The Ministry of Health• Department of Education • Department of Justice • Department of Family and

Community Services• Department of Premier and Cabinet• NSW Data Analytics Centre

• To test and refine developing insights on system structure and performance

• To test and seek input on emerging and final areas identified for improvement (recommendations)

Monthly steering Committee meetings

Individual interviews with victims and perpetrators who had interacted with the DFV service system. This included interviews in the metropolitan Sydney area with: • two victims, both of whom were

interacting with statutory services. • five perpetrators, all of whom had

participated in a behaviour change program.

Nous and Women NSW worked with service providers to attempt to recruit participants in regional locations, but were unsuccessful (likely given the very short timeframes).

• To understand client experiences, and journeys through the current DFV service system

Interviews with victims and perpetrators


Appendix B Process map of the redesigned service system

This appendix provides a process map for the redesigned DFV service system.

Key differences between the process map in the redesigned service system versus the current system are:

Primary prevention: People in high priority LGAs (see Appendix D) or who are a part of specific at-risk cohorts are more likely to have exposure to primary

prevention activities.

Community and society elements of the service system: Stronger links with communities and society should better equip community members and

bystanders to know where to refer people to access information and services (i.e. to the Safe Family Network).

Risk based approach to determining service provision: Agencies and service providers will determine the services a client requires based on their individual

level of risk, determined using the common risk assessment framework.

Alternative, non-statutory entry points and pathways: More obvious non-statutory entry points (Safe Family Network) and pathways should incentivise or

encourage more people who experience or at risk of DFV to seek help (hopefully earlier, before violence escalates).

System navigators: System navigators located in LCPs will coordinate services for clients who interact with statutory services.

More intense case management for some victims: SAMs will continue to provide an immediate response for victims at serious threat. For victims at serious

threat, who interact with the service system multiple times, or interact with services over a long time, service providers will provide more intense case

management. The case management will be provided over a long time (three to five years) and would focus on meeting the client’s immediate needs and

long-term rehabilitation (e.g. links to employment, education, etc).

Figure 17 overleaf shows the process map of the redesigned service system.

Figure 18 overleaf shows the process map of the current DFV service system for comparison.


Figure 17: Process map of the redesigned DFV service system

Non-statutory Statutory

Support services*

*This list is indicative only and not comprehensive of all services available to victims of DFV.

Housing services Counselling Financial services Health care

Helpline

1st incident reported to

Police

At serious threat


Local Coordination PointsCommunity

members

Workplaces

Safe Family Networks

Vulnerable families or

help seekers

Justice Police

Community organisations

Coordinated access to

information and services

System navigator

Intensive case

management

Community and society More visible

General practitioners

Victim

Perpetrator



Figure 18: Process map of the current DFV service system

Contact victim + complete DVSAT

Other specialist services(e.g. programs and services for vulnerable

children and families)

Network specialist centres

Training (re-skilling)

SAMs*Referral

to services

Statutory entry points

Key Non-statutory entry points

Prevention Early intervention

Response (crisis and post crisis support)

Public discourse

School programs

Help lines (e.g. 1800RESPECT, Men’s

Referral Service)

Community awareness campaigns

Housing and crisis accommodation

DFV health screening or routine check-up

Report or risk identified with a child

involved(e.g. Dep. of

Community Services Helpline)

POLICE REPORTPerson calls police Attend incident

Risk Assessment

(i.e. complete DVSAT)

Employment services (Centrelink)

Immigration services

Other employment or financial support services

Awareness campaign (The line)

Legal support and advice

(e.g. DV Unit)

Criminal charges

Police monitoring* (e.g. High Risk Offender Teams)

Court assistance (e.g. Safe rooms)

Court process (i.e. trial)

Compensation and counselling (e.g. Victim services )


Mental Health

Counselling

Financial assistance

Child protection

Family and parenting support

Perpetrator interventions

LegalCounselling

CALD specific services

Men’s behaviour change programs

Provisional ADVO served

ADVO application

WNSWHealthJusticeFACS C’th Govt EducationPoliceThe publicComm Orgs

Health care

Youth services

Aged care

Aboriginal community services

Disability services

Corrective services (i.e. imprisonment)

Women’s refuges

Men’s sheds and centres

Multiple agencies

REFERRAL TO

SERVICES

Central Referral

Point

WDVCAS

Local Coordination

Points

Access to partner’s criminal offenses*

(i.e. DV Disclosure Scheme)

*Initiatives with limited reach due to currently being rolled out or piloted.

Bystanders behaviour(e.g. ethical bystanders

initiatives*)

Police monitoring* (i.e. crime management; e.g. Suspect Target Management Plan)

REFERRAL TO

POLICE

Interim ADVO

ADVOor dismissed

ADVObreach

At serious threat

Digital app (e.g. Aurora)

Media

At threat


Appendix C Analysis of cost of additional cycles

through the system

This appendix provides the methodology Nous undertook to estimate the cost of people who cycle through the

DFV service system more than once.

It is important to note that:

Nous calculated the cost of additional cycles through the system; that is, Nous did not include the cost

of the first cycle through the system. This is because the recommendation this analysis relates to aims to

reduce the number of times someone cycles through the system, as opposed to preventing them ever

needing services.

Nous took a conservative approach to calculate the cost of all additional cycles through the service

system. This true cost of all people who cycle through the service system more than once is likely higher

than the final estimate Nous arrived at.

There was limited data available on the cost of service delivery. Nous defaulted to using data from the

Blueprint analytical model. Nous searched for other data sources if data was not available from the

Blueprint. The other primary data source was BOCSAR data.

Methodology

Nous developed three scenarios for use in the cost estimation exercise. These scenarios are based on the likely

pathways of victims who interact with the service system multiple times or over a long period. They are outlined

below:

Nous estimated the cost for each scenario using:

Blueprint analytical model data on the cost of a DFV incident. This included non-economic and

economic costs related to a DFV incident.

BOCSAR data on:

the number of victims who cycle through the DFV service system. Approximately 13% of all DFV

victims who report a DFV incident to Police have reported an incident previously (in the 12 months

to 30 June 2015). Nous assumed this proportion of victims were cycling through the service system

(i.e. each time they report an incident to police, they then interact with services).

the average number of times victims may cycle through the system. A victim who interacts with the

DFV service system multiple times will, on average, cycle through approximately 1.4 additional times

(after their first ‘cycle through the system’. To reach this figure, Nous assumed that the number of

times a victim reported a DFV incident to Police correlated with the number of times they cycled

through the service system. For example, if a victim reports a DFV incident to Police three times,

Scenario 1: A victim (with no children) and a perpetrator who is not incarcerated and does

not participate in a Men’s Behaviour Change program.

Scenario 2: A victim (with no children) and a perpetrator who is incarcerated and participates

in a Men’s Behaviour Change program.

Scenario 3: A victim with children and a perpetrator who is incarcerated and participates in a

Men’s Behaviour Change program.


they likely cycle through the system three times (or an additional two times after their first cycle

through the system).117

Table 8 lists the services Nous included in each of the scenarios and their per person cost. This is the cost of

delivering the service to one person, one time. Nous took a conservative approach and only included the

services that victims and perpetrators are most likely to use (based on insights from the document review and

consultations with service providers).

Table 8: List of inputs for the three scenarios

Pathway input Per person

cost

DFV Health Screening

Cost of a single screening $18

Report to Police

Cost to NSW Police for a single reported victim $477

Cost to NSW Police for a single reported perpetrator $604

Case to Central Referral Point, then WDVCAS / Local Coordination Point

Cost to Justice per victim referred through Central Referral Point $6

Average cost of LCP referral or WDVCAS service event $89

Legal advice and court processes

Average cost of legal information call or legal advice session (Justice LawAccess) $26

Cost to DDP of Court Attendance and Preparation for single finalised DFV matter $1,412

Cost to DDP of Witness Assistance Service for single finalised DFV matter $186

Cost to DDP of Administration for single finalised DFV matter $126

Other costs to DDP for single finalised DFV matter $77

Crisis accommodation and housing services

Average crisis accommodation and housing services cost per pathway $4,156

Counselling services

Cost of single application for DFV counselling (Justice Victim Services) $875

Financial Assistance

Average financial assistance / recognition per pathway $3,291

Safety Action Meeting (SAM)

Average cost of SAM per cycle $102

Children

Cost of evaluation by Child Wellbeing Unit $591

Cost of child protection counselling services for single client $6,141

Medical/health related

117

NSW BOCSAR, NSW Recorded Crime Statistics April 2009-2016, Number and percentage of distinct victims of DV related

assault recorded by NSW Police, 2015; Blueprint analytical model.


Pathway input Per person

cost

Cost of health sexual assault services per reported sexual assault $3,709

Cost of interpersonal violence hospitalisation per hospitalisation $5,959

Men’s Behavioural Change Program

Cost of single participant in Men’s Behaviour Change Program $7,709

Incarceration

Cost of average jail term for DFV $33,524

Cost of suffering and lost time / wages (not included in main calculations, for info only)

Cost of suffering per victim $13,451

Lost time / wages costs for a single victim $2,497

Lost time / wages costs for a single perpetrator harassing victim $1,208

Lost time / wages costs for a single perpetrator attending court $532

Table 9 is a summary of total pathway costs for the three scenarios.

Table 9: Summary of economic costs for each scenario

Pathway input Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Report to police $1,081 $1,081 $1,081

Case to Central Referral Point and then WDVCAS / LCP $95 $95 $95

Legal advice and court processes $1,827 $1,827 $1,827

SAM $102 $102 $102

Crises accommodation and housing services $4,156 $4,156 $4,156

Counselling services $875 $875 $875

Financial Assistance $3,291 $3,291 $3,291

Children NA NA $6,732

Medical/health related $9,668 $9,668 $9,668

Men’s Behavioural Change Program NA $7,709 $7,709

Incarceration NA $33,524 $33,524

Total $21,095 $62,328 $69,060


Table 10 provides the assumptions and data sources for each of the cost inputs shown in Table 8.

Table 10: Assumptions and data sources for DFV scenario inputs

Assumptions Cost Data source and notes

DFV Health Screening

Cost of single screening $18 Women NSW DFV Economic Model - unit cost for single screening of an eligible woman.

Report to police

Cost to NSWPF for a single reported victim $477 Women NSW DFV Economic Model - cost to NSWPF for a reported victim. The cost to NSWPF for single victim was arrived at by dividing total DFV related cost for BSWPF by number of reported victims.

Cost to NSWPF for a single reported perpetrator $604 Women NSW DFV Economic Model - cost to NSWPF for a reported perpetrator. The cost to NSWPF single victim was arrived at by dividing total DFV related cost for BSWPF by number of reported perpetrators.

Case to Central Referral Point and then WDVCAS / Local Coordination Point

Cost to Justice per victim referred through Central Referral Point $6 Women NSW DFV Economic Model

Cost of LCP (LCP) referral $96 Women NSW DFV Economic Model.

Number of LCP referrals 3,296 Women NSW DFV Economic Model - number for 2016

Cost of WDVCAS service event $89 Women NSW DFV Economic Model.

Number of service events 102,468 Women NSW DFV Economic Model - number for 2016

Legal advice and court processes

Cost of legal information call (Justice LawAccess) $16 Women NSW DFV Economic Model.

Number of legal information calls 3,481 Women NSW DFV Economic Model - number for 2016



Cost of legal advice session (Justice LawAccess) $40 Women NSW DFV Economic Model.

Number of legal advice sessions 2,426 Women NSW DFV Economic Model - number for 2016

Cost to DDP of Court Attendance and Preparation for single finalised DFV matter

$1,412 Women NSW DFV Economic Model - cost to DDP for single finalised DFV-related court appearance.

Cost to DDP of Witness Assistance Service for single finalised DFV matter $186 Women NSW DFV Economic Model - cost to DDP for single finalised DFV-related court appearance related to Witness Assistance Services.

Cost to DDP of Administration for single finalised DFV matter $126 Women NSW DFV Economic Model - cost to DDP for single finalised DFV-related court appearance related to administration.

Other costs to DDP for single finalised DFV matter $77 Women NSW DFV Economic Model - cost to DDP for single finalised DFV-related court appearance.

Safety Action Meeting (SAM)

Cost of a single SAM $3,249 Women NSW DFV Economic Model - unit cost of a single SAM

Average number of cases discussed at a SAM 32 Safer Pathway program - BOSCAR process evaluation report 2016-17. Average number of cases based on Orange and Waverly examples at page 17.

Crisis accommodation and housing services

Cost of single FACS referral received by Staying Home Leaving Violence Program

$2,330 Women NSW DFV Economic Model

Number of Staying Home Leaving Violence Program referrals 2,156 Women NSW DFV Economic Model - number for 2016

Cost of household accessing Start Safely rental subsidy $4,461 Women NSW DFV Economic Model

Number accessing Start Safely rental subsidy 1,815 Women NSW DFV Economic Model - number for 2016

Cost of temporary accommodation for single client presenting to Start Safely rental subsidy




Number clients presenting to Start Safely that require temporary accommodation

546 Women NSW DFV Economic Model - number for 2016

Cost of specialist homelessness clients experiencing family and domestic violence, per client


Number specialist homeless clients experiencing family and domestic violence

14,935 Women NSW DFV Economic Model - number for 2016

Cost of social housing provided to person experience DFV $26,108 Women NSW DFV Economic Model

Number of people provided social housing 834 Women NSW DFV Economic Model - number for 2016

Counselling services

Cost of single application for DFV counselling (Justice Victim Services) $875 Women NSW DFV Economic Model

Financial Assistance

Cost of financial assistance for economic loss per application (Justice Victim Services)


Number applications for economic loss 164 Women NSW DFV Economic Model - number for 2016

Cost of financial assistance for immediate need per application (Justice Victim Services)


Number applications for immediate need 501 Women NSW DFV Economic Model - number for 2016

Cost of recognition payment per application (Justice Victim Services) $3,342 Women NSW DFV Economic Model

Number applications for recognition 1,586 Women NSW DFV Economic Model - number for 2016

Children



Cost of evaluation by Child Wellbeing Unit $591 Women NSW DFV Economic Model

Cost of child protection counselling services for single client 6,141 Women NSW DFV Economic Model

Medical/health related

Cost of health sexual assault services per reported sexual assault $3,709 Women NSW DFV Economic Model

Cost of interpersonal violence hospitalisation per hospitalisation 5,959 Women NSW DFV Economic Model

Men’s Behavioural Change programs

Cost of a Men’s Behaviour Change Program $1,804,000 Women NSW DFV Economic Model

Number of men who go through the Men’s Behaviour Change Program 234 NSW Health Evaluation of the Men's Behaviour Change Programs - Request for Quote

Correctional services

Average term of imprisonment for a domestic violence offender convicted of common assault, in months

4.60 BOSCAR, 2010 (http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Pages/bocsar_media_releases/2010/bocsar_mr_bb48.aspx )

Number days per month 30 Based on 365 day year and 12 months per year.

Cost per day of person jailed in NSW $240 Justice data, Productivity Commission Report - for year 2013-14

Cost of suffering (not included in main calculations, for info only)

Total cost of suffering associated with domestic violence $1,883,594,328 Women NSW DFV Economic Model

Number of DFV incidents 140,034 Women NSW DFV Economic Model - number for 2016

Lost time and wages (not included in main calculations, for info only)



Total cost of victim absenteeism from paid work due to injury, emotional distress or attending court

$169,370,433 Women NSW DFV Economic Model

Total cost of victim absenteeism from paid work due to late to work or leaving early


Total cost of victim absenteeism from unpaid work because unable to perform household or voluntary work


Number of victims 88,845 Women NSW DFV Economic Model - number for 2016

Cost of single day perpetrator away from paid work due to harassing victim

$278 Women NSW DFV Economic Model

Total number of lost perpetrator days due to harassing victim 304,728 Women NSW DFV Economic Model

Number of perpetrators 70,118 Women NSW DFV Economic Model - number for 2016

Total cost of perpetrator absenteeism from paid work due to criminal justice processes



Appendix D LGAs identified for specific recommendations

This appendix provides identifies specific recommendations for implementation in each LGA.

The recommendations Nous recommended for implementation in specific LGAs are:

Recommendation 2: Target primary prevention activities towards at-risk cohorts and specific areas of NSW (based on the prevalence and incidence of DFV).

Recommendation 4: Strengthen non-statutory, alternative entry points, pathways and service coordination for victims, perpetrators and families.

Recommendation 7: Strengthen the capacity for system navigation for victims and families through an enhanced role of LCPs.

Recommendation 8: Continue to roll-out the SAMs as a response to victims and families at serious threat.

Table 11 shows key statistics for each recommendation, such as the proportion of the NSW population and reported DFV incidents, victims and perpetrators the

recommendation covers.

Table 11: Key statistics by recommendation118

Recommendation Number of LGAs Proportion of NSW

population covered

Proportion of total DFV

incidents


victims


perpetrators

Recommendation 2:

Targeted primary prevention 46 42% 54% 54% 54%

Recommendation 4: Safe

Family Network 46 42% 54% 54% 54%

Recommendation 7 and 8:

LCPs and SAMs119

17 27% 30% 30% 30%

118

Nous used data from the Blueprint analytical model. The model used reported incidents were based on data provided by BOCSAR, which captured both reported incidents where an

offence and no-offence has been recorded. NSW Population data has been sourced from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2015.

Note that the data shown under recommendations two and five have been scaled up to account for a 67% underreporting rate (estimated using the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013

and the Personal Safety Survey, Australia, 2012). 119

This includes 18 rolled out locations as at November 2016 that cover 17 LGAs (Blacktown is covered twice, by Mt Druitt and Blacktown). This analysis does not include LCP locations of

Men Referral Services (LCPs for men victims) due to data not being available (as at February 2017).


Table 12 provides a list of each LGA, key statistics for that LGA and shows which recommendations are applicable to it.

Table 12: Key statistics by LGA120

LGA Prioritisation

Group121

Recommendation applicable to LGA Key statistics for LGA

High priority

LGA

Targeted

primary

prevention

(Rec. 2)

Safe Family

Network

services (Rec.

4)

LCPs and

SAMs

(Rec. 7 and 8)

122

% of total

NSW

population

% of total

DFV

reported

incidents

% of total

victims

% of total

perpetrators

DFV

related

assault

growth

rate123

Albury 3 X X 0.67% 1.08% 1.08% 1.09% 8.27%

Armidale Dumaresq 2 X X 0.35% 0.51% 0.51% 0.51% 7.47%

Ashfield 0.60% 0.52% 0.52% 0.00% 0.56%

Auburn 1 X X 1.14% 1.62% 1.62% 1.63% 1.95%

Ballina 0.55% 0.67% 0.67% 0.68% 6.10%

Balranald 0.03% 0.13% 0.13% 0.13% NA

Bankstown 3 X X X 2.64% 2.21% 2.21% 2.23% 5.92%

Bathurst Regional 3 X X 0.56% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.14%

Bega Valley X 0.45% 0.49% 0.49% 0.49% -3.54%

Bellingen 0.17% 0.39% 0.39% 0.39% -4.09%

Berrigan 0.11% 0.05% 0.05% 0.05% -0.22%

120

Nous used data from the Blueprint analytical model. The model used reported incidents were based on data provided by BOCSAR, which captured both reported incidents where an

offence and no-offence has been recorded. NSW Population data has been sourced from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2015.

Note that the data shown under recommendations two and five have been scaled up to account for a 67% underreporting rate (estimated using the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013 and

the Personal Safety Survey, Australia, 2012). 121

These LGAS have been categorised as per the key presented in Figure 8 for the high priority LGAs in NSW. 122

This includes 26 scheduled and rolled out locations as at March 2017November 2016 that cover 30 LGAs This analysis assumes that LGAs that are serviced by SAM meetings are also

serviced by Men’s Referral Services (LCPs for men victims) as per guidance given by Women NSW.. 123

Nous calculated the growth rate of DFV incidents based on reported BOCSAR Domestic Violence assault incident data for the past 5 years to 2014 for each LGA.


LGA Prioritisation

Group121


Blacktown 1 X X X 4.48% 6.15% 6.15% 6.18% 0.86%

Bland 0.08% 0.14% 0.14% 0.14% 9.18%

Blayney 0.10% 0.09% 0.09% 0.09% 18.15%

Blue Mountains 1.08% 0.85% 0.85% 0.85% -6.76%

Bogan 2 X X 0.04% 0.18% 0.18% 0.18% 3.85%

Bombala X 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% NA

Boorowa 0.03% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% NA

Botany Bay 0.58% 0.72% 0.72% 0.72% -4.70%

Bourke X 0.04% 0.31% 0.31% 0.31% NA

Brewarrina 0.02% 0.47% 0.47% 0.47% NA

Broken Hill X 0.25% 0.60% 0.60% 0.61% 0.74%

Burwood 0.48% 0.36% 0.36% 0.36% -9.96%

Byron 2 X X 0.42% 0.28% 0.28% 0.28% 7.24%

Cabonne 0.18% 1.16% 1.16% 1.17% 7.71%

Camden 0.94% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% -1.44%

Campbelltown 1 X X X 2.14% 3.82% 3.82% 3.84% -1.78%

Canada Bay 1.13% 0.46% 0.46% 0.46% 7.61%

Canterbury 2.01% 1.56% 1.55% 1.56% 3.37%

Carrathool 0.03% 0.07% 0.07% 0.07% NA

Central Darling 0.03% 0.26% 0.26% 0.26% NA

Cessnock 3 X X 0.73% 1.95% 1.95% 1.96% 6.40%

Clarence Valley 0.69% 0.77% 0.77% 0.77% 5.13%

Cobar 2 X X 0.06% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.16%

Coffs Harbour 3 X X X 0.98% 1.54% 1.54% 1.55% 10.06%


LGA Prioritisation

Group121


Conargo 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% NA

Coolamon 0.06% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% -0.35%

Cooma-Monaro 0.14% 0.57% 0.57% 0.58% -10.83%

Coonamble 2 X X 0.05% 0.05% 0.05% 0.05% 11.36%

Cootamundra 0.10% 0.15% 0.15% 0.15% -5.14%

Corowa Shire 0.15% 0.11% 0.11% 0.11% 0.47%

Cowra 0.16% 0.40% 0.40% 0.40% -6.05%

Deniliquin X 0.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% -3.73%

Dubbo 1 X X 0.55% 0.06% 0.06% 0.06% 0.74%

Dungog 0.11% 0.07% 0.07% 0.07% 14.94%

Eurobodalla X 0.50% 0.55% 0.55% 0.55% -0.84%

Fairfield 2.70% 2.73% 2.73% 2.74% 0.69%

Forbes 0.12% 0.32% 0.32% 0.32% -1.34%

Gilgandra 2 X X 0.06% 1.43% 1.43% 1.44% 6.63%

Glen Innes Severn 2 X X 0.12% 0.22% 0.22% 0.22% 18.22%

Gloucester 0.07% 0.06% 0.06% 0.06% -9.84%

Gosford 2.28% 0.97% 0.97% 0.97% -3.52%

Goulburn Mulwaree 0.39% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% -2.15%

Great Lakes 0.48% 1.09% 1.09% 1.09% -3.80%

Greater Hume Shire 0.13% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 5.12%

Greater Taree 1 X X X 0.65% 0.77% 0.77% 0.78% -0.72%

Griffith 3 X X X 0.34% 0.69% 0.69% 0.70% 7.52%

Gundagai 0.05% 0.17% 0.17% 0.17% -5.97%

Gunnedah 0.17% 0.27% 0.27% 0.27% -2.48%


LGA Prioritisation

Group121


Guyra 2 X X 0.06% 0.09% 0.09% 0.09% 9.18%

Gwydir 0.06% 0.17% 0.17% 0.17% 5.88%

Harden 0.05% 0.05% 0.05% 0.05% -0.68%

Hawkesbury 3 X X 0.89% 0.88% 0.88% 0.88% 7.15%

Hay 0.04% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% NA

Holroyd 1 X X 1.45% 0.52% 0.52% 0.52% -0.09%

Hornsby 2.26% 0.86% 0.86% 0.86% -3.81%

Hunters Hill 0.19% 0.13% 0.13% 0.13% 4.56%

Hurstville 1.15% 0.57% 0.57% 0.58% -4.21%

Inverell 2 X X 0.22% 0.38% 0.38% 0.38% 3.62%

Jerilderie 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% NA

Junee 0.08% 0.11% 0.11% 0.11% -0.49%

Kempsey 1 X X 0.39% 0.78% 0.78% 0.78% 0.02%

Kiama 0.29% 0.16% 0.16% 0.16% 8.27%

Kogarah 0.82% 0.85% 0.85% 0.85% 4.47%

Ku-ring-gai 1.60% 0.24% 0.24% 0.24% 7.45%

Kyogle 0.13% 0.53% 0.53% 0.53% -4.08%

Lachlan 2 X X 0.09% 0.23% 0.23% 0.23% 2.49%

Lake Macquarie 2.65% 2.30% 2.30% 2.32% 1.79%

Lane Cove 0.47% 0.11% 0.11% 0.11% 9.68%

Leeton 2 X X 0.15% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 6.45%

Leichhardt 0.76% 0.76% 0.76% 0.76% -3.92%

Lismore 1 X X X 0.60% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.70%

Lithgow 2 X X 0.27% 0.43% 0.43% 0.43% 2.58%


LGA Prioritisation

Group121


Liverpool 3 X X 2.71% 2.88% 2.88% 2.90% 4.77%

Liverpool Plains 0.10% 0.08% 0.08% 0.08% -0.80%

Lockhart 0.04% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 8.44%

Maitland 3 X X X 0.99% 1.50% 1.50% 1.51% 3.40%

Manly X 0.59% 0.19% 0.19% 0.19% -1.69%

Marrickville 1.12% 0.77% 0.77% 0.77% -2.49%

Mid-Western Regional 0.31% 1.11% 1.11% 1.11% 0.08%

Moree Plains 3 X X 0.18% 0.84% 0.84% 0.85% 9.53%

Mosman 0.40% 0.14% 0.14% 0.14% 10.65%

Murray 0.10% 0.27% 0.27% 0.27% 23.76%

Murrumbidgee 0.03% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% NA

Muswellbrook 2 X X X 0.22% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 11.42%

Nambucca 0.26% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.72%

Narrabri 0.18% 0.34% 0.34% 0.35% -6.78%

Narrandera 0.08% 0.34% 0.34% 0.34% -1.16%

Narromine 2 X X 0.09% 0.22% 0.22% 0.22% 4.05%

Newcastle 3 X X X 2.14% 2.37% 2.37% 2.38% 5.35%

North Sydney 0.93% 0.28% 0.28% 0.29% 4.67%

Oberon 0.07% 0.09% 0.09% 0.09% 9.62%

Orange 3 X X X 0.54% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 7.20%

Palerang 0.21% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% -11.98%

Parkes 0.20% 0.34% 0.34% 0.34% 1.70%

Parramatta 3 X X X 2.49% 3.05% 3.05% 3.07% 3.55%

Penrith 1 X X 2.61% 3.82% 3.82% 3.84% 2.08%


LGA Prioritisation

Group121


Pittwater 0.84% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% -2.25%

Port Macquarie-Hastings 1.03% 0.97% 0.97% 0.97% -3.79%

Port Stephens 3 X X 0.94% 0.67% 0.67% 0.67% 7.55%

Queanbeyan X 0.57% 0.04% 0.04% 0.04% -6.09%

Randwick 1.91% 0.91% 0.91% 0.92% 1.37%

Richmond Valley 0.31% 0.94% 0.94% 0.94% 1.80%

Rockdale 1.44% 1.14% 1.14% 1.15% 3.68%

Ryde 1.54% 0.58% 0.58% 0.58% 3.53%

Shellharbour 0.92% 1.73% 1.72% 1.73% 4.02%

Shoalhaven 1 X X X 1.30% 1.67% 1.67% 1.68% -6.71%

Singleton X 0.32% 0.28% 0.28% 0.28% 2.83%

Snowy River 0.10% 0.09% 0.09% 0.09% -15.73%

Strathfield 0.52% 0.13% 0.13% 0.13% 0.47%

Sutherland Shire 3.03% 1.65% 1.65% 1.66% -3.48%

Sydney 1 X X X 2.62% 2.47% 2.47% 2.48% 1.22%

Tamworth Regional 1 X X 0.79% 1.43% 1.43% 1.44% -3.24%

Temora 0.08% 0.08% 0.08% 0.08% 4.47%

Tenterfield 0.09% 0.13% 0.13% 0.13% 1.35%

The Hills Shire 2.56% 0.82% 0.82% 0.83% -2.78%

Tumbarumba 0.05% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 2.80%

Tumut Shire 2 X X 0.15% 0.20% 0.20% 0.20% 10.00%

Tweed 3 X X X 1.22% 1.22% 1.22% 1.23% 9.66%

Upper Hunter Shire 0.19% 0.08% 0.08% 0.08% -9.40%

Upper Lachlan Shire 0.10% 0.42% 0.42% 0.43% 14.67%


LGA Prioritisation

Group121


Uralla 0.08% 0.06% 0.06% 0.06% 8.58%

Urana 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% NA

Wagga Wagga 3 X X X 0.84% 1.20% 1.20% 1.21% 6.34%

Wakool 0.05% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 3.69%

Walcha 0.04% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% -6.56%

Walgett 0.09% 0.38% 0.38% 0.39% -5.59%

Warren 0.04% 0.12% 0.12% 0.12% NA

Warringah 2.04% 1.05% 1.05% 1.06% -0.36%

Warrumbungle Shire 0.13% 0.29% 0.29% 0.30% -0.15%

Waverley X 0.94% 0.61% 0.61% 0.62% -0.94%

Weddin 0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.64%

Wellington 2 X X 0.11% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 5.06%

Wentworth 0.09% 0.20% 0.20% 0.20% -0.06%

Willoughby 0.99% 0.44% 0.44% 0.44% 2.95%

Wingecarribee 0.62% 0.52% 0.52% 0.53% 4.41%

Wollondilly 0.62% 0.72% 0.72% 0.72% -4.20%

Wollongong X 2.75% 2.64% 2.64% 2.65% 4.97%

Woollahra 0.77% 0.18% 0.18% 0.18% 2.75%

Wyong 3 X X X 2.14% 3.21% 3.21% 3.22% 2.25%

Yass Valley 0.22% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 7.83%

Young 2 X X 0.17% 0.26% 0.26% 0.26% 6.99%

Unincorporated NSW 0.01% 0.00% 0.04% 0.00% NA


Appendix E Recommendations mapped to government agencies

This appendix summarises the recommendations by government agency.

Table 13 outlines the recommendations each government agency is accountable and responsible for. It also identifies whether the timing for the recommendation. The

categories for timing are:



Long-term: 5+ years

Table 13: Recommendations by government agency

Government

agency Recommendation

Timeframe

Short Medium Long

Women NSW

Accountabilities

1. Develop a common risk assessment framework that integrates risk assessment tools to inform a service system response

based on an individual’s level of risk.

2. Target primary prevention activities towards at-risk cohorts and specific areas of NSW with a high prevalence and/or

incidence of DFV.

4. Improve access for victims, families and perpetrators by better integration of helplines and improved pathways for people to

access services and information.




9. Expand perpetrator and men’s behaviour change programs, increase access to existing programs and explore alternative

service system response options.



11. Provide more intensive, long-term case management for victims, their families and perpetrators who repeatedly cycle

through the DFV system over a long period.

13. Develop a common understanding of the vision of the DFV service system and a common policy direction amongst key

agencies.

14. Education, FACS, NSW Health and Justice should each develop a specific whole-of-agency DFV strategy and action plan

and report progress against agreed actions.

17. Build on existing data collection tools to develop a DFV integrated platform that collates information about individuals and

families experiencing DFV.


19. Build on existing information sharing platforms to establish a shared system for both DFV and vulnerable children/families

service providers.

20. Encourage more service providers to provide integrated services for across the child protection, vulnerable families and

DFV sectors.

21. Consider opportunities for skills development and training for non-government organisations to occur alongside

government workers.

Responsibilities


incidence of DFV.

3. Target the significant financial investment of the Domestic and Family Violence Innovation Fund towards funding primary

prevention and early intervention initiatives.







13. Develop a common understanding of the vision of the DFV service system and a common policy direction amongst key

agencies.


15. Allocate funding based on performance, ongoing evaluation or accreditation and adoption of standard practices and

systems.


17. Build on existing data collection tools to develop a DFV integrated platform that collates information about individuals and

families experiencing DFV.


19. Build on existing information sharing platforms to establish a shared system for both DFV and vulnerable children/families

service providers.


DFV sectors.


government workers.

Health

Responsibilities



4. Improve access for victims, families and perpetrators by better integrating helplines and ensuring helplines provide

pathways for people to access services and information.

8. Continue to roll-out the SAMs as a response to victims and families at serious threat.



Department

of Education

Responsibilities


incidence of DFV.



FACS

Accountabilities

3. Target the significant financial investment of the Domestic and Family Violence Innovation Fund towards funding primary

prevention and early intervention initiatives.




Responsibilities




incidence of DFV.











DFV sectors.


government workers.

NSW

Treasury

Accountabilities

15. Allocate funding based on performance, ongoing evaluation or accreditation and adoption of standard practices and

systems.


Department

of Justice

Responsibilities













NSW Police

Responsibilities




Documents

Domestic and Family Violence Service System …...Domestic and Family Violence Service System Redesign Recommendations Paper Nous was commissioned by Women NSW to review the Domestic