Upload
others
View
11
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 3 |
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.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 4 |
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.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 5 |
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.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 6 |
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
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 7 |
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
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.
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
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.
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).
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 8 |
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.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 9 |
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.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 10 |
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
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 11 |
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
Dept. of Justice (Legal Aid)
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
Supporting mechanisms
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
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 12 |
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.
Women NSW Women NSW Medium term
High
18. Complete the Blueprint commitments to establish service quality standards and embed evaluation practices.
Women NSW Women NSW Short term
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 Short term
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
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 13 |
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.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 14 |
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
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 15 |
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
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.
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
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.
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).
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 16 |
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.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 17 |
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
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 18 |
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
Australian Government Productivity Commission, Productivity Commission Inquiry Report: Overview and Recommendations,
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
Australian Government Productivity Commission, Productivity Commission Inquiry Report: Overview and Recommendations,
No 54, 2011. 16
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.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 19 |
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
Australian Government Productivity Commission, Productivity Commission Inquiry Report: Overview and Recommendations,
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.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 20 |
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
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. 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.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 21 |
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.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 22 |
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
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
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 23 |
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
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 24 |
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
Short term: within the next two years
Medium term: two to five years
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
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 25 |
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).
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 26 |
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
Recommendation Accountability Responsibility Timing Cost
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
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 27 |
Recommendation Accountability Responsibility Timing Cost
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
Alignment with Blueprint actions
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:
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 28 |
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
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 29 |
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
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 30 |
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’.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 31 |
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.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 32 |
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
Recommendation Accountability Responsibility Timing Cost
implication
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
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
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 33 |
Alignment with Blueprint actions
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.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 34 |
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.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 35 |
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
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 36 |
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.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 37 |
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).
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 38 |
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
Recommendation Accountability Responsibility Timing 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)
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.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 39 |
Alignment with Blueprint actions
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.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 40 |
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.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 41 |
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)
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 42 |
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.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 43 |
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
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 44 |
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’.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 45 |
Long-term, repeat incidents
Recommendation Accountability Responsibility Timing Cost
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
Alignment with Blueprint actions
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.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 46 |
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.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 47 |
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
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 48 |
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.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 49 |
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/>.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 50 |
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
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 51 |
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.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 52 |
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.
Women NSW Women NSW Medium term
High
18. Complete the Blueprint
commitments to establish service
quality standards and embed
evaluation practices.
Women NSW Women NSW Short term
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.
Women NSW Women NSW Short term
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
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 53 |
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
Alignment with Blueprint actions
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.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 54 |
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.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 55 |
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.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 56 |
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.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 57 |
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.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 58 |
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.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 59 |
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.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 60 |
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
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 61 |
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
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 62 |
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.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 63 |
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.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 64 |
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
Supporting mechanisms
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.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 65 |
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
Dept. of Justice (Legal Aid)
Medium
10. Prioritise data collection for the victims and perpetrators who repeatedly cycle through the DFV system.
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
18. Complete the Blueprint commitments to establish service quality standards and embed evaluation practices.
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
Recommendation Accountability Responsibility Cost implication
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
5. Improve the capacity of actors within communities and society to recognise and respond to DFV.
Women NSW Women NSW Medium
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 66 |
Recommendation Accountability Responsibility Cost implication
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
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
12. Explore innovative ways to increase substantially the range, availability and suitability of housing options for victims of DFV.
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:
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 67 |
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).
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 68 |
Figure 16 overleaf shows the potential pilot sites for these recommendations.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 69 |
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)
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 70 |
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
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 71 |
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.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 72 |
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
Safety Action Meetings
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
Children and families
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 73 |
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 )
Drug and alcohol 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
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 74 |
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.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 75 |
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.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 76 |
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
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 77 |
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
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 78 |
Assumptions Cost Data source and notes
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
$3,269 Women NSW DFV Economic Model
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 79 |
Assumptions Cost Data source and notes
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
$3,189 Women NSW DFV Economic Model
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)
$2,382 Women NSW DFV Economic Model
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)
$3,426 Women NSW DFV Economic Model
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
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 80 |
Assumptions Cost Data source and notes
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)
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 81 |
Assumptions Cost Data source and notes
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
$6,890,196 Women NSW DFV Economic Model
Total cost of victim absenteeism from unpaid work because unable to perform household or voluntary work
$45,592,162 Women NSW DFV Economic Model
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
$37,327,015 Women NSW DFV Economic Model
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 82 |
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
Proportion of total DFV
victims
Proportion of total DFV
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).
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 83 |
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.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 84 |
LGA Prioritisation
Group121
Recommendation applicable to LGA Key statistics for LGA
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%
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 85 |
LGA Prioritisation
Group121
Recommendation applicable to LGA Key statistics for LGA
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%
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 86 |
LGA Prioritisation
Group121
Recommendation applicable to LGA Key statistics for LGA
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%
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 87 |
LGA Prioritisation
Group121
Recommendation applicable to LGA Key statistics for LGA
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%
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 88 |
LGA Prioritisation
Group121
Recommendation applicable to LGA Key statistics for LGA
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%
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 89 |
LGA Prioritisation
Group121
Recommendation applicable to LGA Key statistics for LGA
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
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 90 |
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:
Short term: within the next two years
Medium term: two to five years
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.
6. Improve the capacity of actors within communities and society to recognise and respond to DFV.
7. Strengthen the capacity for system navigation for victims and families through an enhanced role of LCPs.
8. Continue to roll-out the Safety Action Meetings (SAMs) as a response to victims and families at serious threat.
9. Expand perpetrator and men’s behaviour change programs, increase access to existing programs and explore alternative
service system response options.
10. Prioritise data collection for the victims and perpetrators who repeatedly cycle through the DFV system.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 91 |
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.
18. Complete the Blueprint commitments to establish service quality standards and embed evaluation practices.
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
2. Target primary prevention activities towards at-risk cohorts and specific areas of NSW with a high prevalence and/or
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.
5. Strengthen non-statutory, alternative entry points, pathways and service coordination for victims, perpetrators and families.
6. Improve the capacity of actors within communities and society to recognise and respond to DFV.
7. Strengthen the capacity for system navigation for victims and families through an enhanced role of LCPs.
9. Expand perpetrator and men’s behaviour change programs, increase access to existing programs and explore alternative
service system response options.
10. Prioritise data collection for the victims and perpetrators who repeatedly cycle through the DFV system.
13. Develop a common understanding of the vision of the DFV service system and a common policy direction amongst key
agencies.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 92 |
15. Allocate funding based on performance, ongoing evaluation or accreditation and adoption of standard practices and
systems.
16. Ensure future funding and commissioning practices provide long-term, outcomes based funding.
17. Build on existing data collection tools to develop a DFV integrated platform that collates information about individuals and
families experiencing DFV.
18. Complete the Blueprint commitments to establish service quality standards and embed evaluation practices.
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.
Health
Responsibilities
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.
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.
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.
Department
of Education
Responsibilities
2. Target primary prevention activities towards at-risk cohorts and specific areas of NSW with a high prevalence and/or
incidence of DFV.
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.
FACS
Accountabilities
3. Target the significant financial investment of the Domestic and Family Violence Innovation Fund towards funding primary
prevention and early intervention initiatives.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 93 |
5. Strengthen non-statutory, alternative entry points, pathways and service coordination for victims, perpetrators and families.
12. Explore innovative ways to increase substantially the range, availability and suitability of housing options for victims of DFV.
Responsibilities
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 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.
10. Prioritise data collection for the victims and perpetrators who repeatedly cycle through the DFV system.
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.
12. Explore innovative ways to increase substantially the range, availability and suitability of housing options for victims of DFV.
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.
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.
NSW
Treasury
Accountabilities
15. Allocate funding based on performance, ongoing evaluation or accreditation and adoption of standard practices and
systems.
16. Ensure future funding and commissioning practices provide long-term, outcomes based funding.
Department
of Justice
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.
Nous Group | Domest ic and Fami ly V io lence Se rv ice Sy s tem Redes ign : R ecommendat ions Paper | 94 |
5. Strengthen non-statutory, alternative entry points, pathways and service coordination for victims, perpetrators and families.
7. Strengthen the capacity for system navigation for victims and families through an enhanced role of LCPs.
8. Continue to roll-out the SAMs as a response to victims and families at serious threat.
10. 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.
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.
NSW Police
Responsibilities
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.
8. Continue to roll-out the SAMs as a response to victims and families at serious threat.