vic_logo
fvrim.vic.gov.au

Perpetrator accountability

An analysis of progress since the Royal Commission towards more effectively and systemically holding perpetrators to account.

Background

This chapter outlines progress since the Royal Commission into Family Violence towards more effectively and systemically holding perpetrators to account, across the following themes:

  • police and justice system responses
  • perpetrator risk assessment and management
  • perpetrator interventions
  • working towards a ‘web of accountability’

Royal Commission findings 

The Royal Commission found an insufficient breadth and diversity of perpetrator interventions and too few interventions to meet demand. It suggested program quality needed improvement, program completion should be monitored, and that there needed to be a more integrated approach among government and non-government agencies to overcome the ‘fragmented and episodic response to perpetrators’. The Royal Commission also noted that holding perpetrators to account is a basic function of the family violence and justice systems and that this ‘entails keeping the perpetrator in view and responding appropriately and consistently to their conduct’.115 

Perpetrators in Victoria 

A substantial number of people perpetrate family violence in Victoria each year. The number of distinct family violence perpetrators recorded by Victoria Police has increased by 10% between 2015–16 and 2019–20.116 The number of perpetrators involved in five or more incidents has increased from 1,687 in 2015–16 to 2,086 in 2019–20 (Figure 6.1). 

50,635 distinct ‘other parties’ in 2015-16, 49,960 in 2016-17, 49,891 in 2017-18, 53,221 in 2018-19 and 55,745 in 2019-20. Of the 55,745 in 2019-20, 39,493 were involved in 1 incident, 9,099 were involved in 2 incidents, 1,651 were involved in 4 incidents and 2,086 were involved in 5+ incidents.

Police and justice system responses

The Royal Commission recognised the significant role that police and the courts play in responding to family violence and in ensuring perpetrator accountability. The Expert Advisory Committee on Perpetrator Interventions also identified Victoria Police’s efforts to improve the supervision of family violence intervention order compliance and the rollout of case management trials by the Magistrates’ Court as critical to improving the management and monitoring of high-risk perpetrators.117

Victoria Police 

Victoria Police has substantially changed its family violence response model since the Royal Commission. This has included introducing Family Violence Investigation Units in each police division and a Case Prioritisation and Response Model to guide allocation of the most serious and highest- risk cases to Family Violence Investigation Units, ensuring consistency of practice across units. While acknowledging that organisational change is a long-term process, and there is more work to be done, submissions to the Monitor highlighted the work Victoria Police has undertaken and the improvements being seen, particularly as a result of introducing Family Violence Investigation Units.118 

Victoria Police can issue family violence safety notices to a perpetrator to offer immediate protection to a victim survivor and can apply to the Magistrates’ Court for a family violence intervention order. Victoria Police practice guidance is clear that such notices and orders ‘must be strictly enforced…and police must lay charges for any contravention’.119 It acknowledges that ‘a lack of attention conveys to the [perpetrator] and the [victim survivor] that the order is not taken seriously’ and could risk the family’s safety. 

There were 48,071 family violence–related breaches of orders in 2019–20.120 Between 2008 and 2020, the number of breaches of family violence orders increased from 8,261 to 48,071, demonstrating an increased willingness to report and for police to record breaches. However, stakeholders report continued concern that enforcement of these orders continues to be ‘inconsistent and unreliable’121 and that ‘perpetrators are still allowed to conduct horrific violence and continually breach [family violence intervention orders] with often very little response from the justice system’.122 This suggests that policing and justice system responses to breaches may be a specific topic where further attention is required. For example, a 2015 examination of sentencing outcomes for family violence intervention order and family violence safety notice breaches found, and expressed concern about, an overwhelming reliance on fines.123 More up-to-date data on outcomes would be helpful. 

Stakeholders raise two complex issues:

  • Victims are continuing to be misidentified as perpetrators,124 and there are difficulties with remedying this in official Victoria Police records. More attention to this issue may be required between Victoria Police and the family violence and legal assistance sector, who have a role in identifying and raising misidentification for rectification.
  • Some victim survivors face extremely difficult circumstances where the perpetrator is a police officer. Victoria Police explicitly  acknowledged this issue in its submission to the Monitor and has committed to undertaking further work to strengthen its response as part of the next phase of the reform.125 The Monitor looks forward to seeing the progress of Victoria Police’s work to address this issue.

Magistrates’ Court response

A range of expert practitioners are working with perpetrators to provide advice on court processes, connect perpetrators with relevant services, and improve accountability. For example, there are Family Violence Applicant and Respondent practitioners at all headquarter courts, as well as the Specialist Family Violence Courts, including practitioners for Aboriginal perpetrators through the Umalek Balit program, and LGBTIQ family violence practitioners have been trialled at selected courts and the Neighbourhood Justice Centre. A number of submissions to the Monitor raised concerns about perpetrators’ understanding of the conditions of family violence intervention orders,126 contributing to breaches of orders and further family violence offending. Respondent practitioners, in communicating the process and outcome of court proceedings, represent an important contribution to perpetrator accountability. 

The Law Institute of Victoria127 noted in its submission that its members are reporting that the ‘holistic’ Specialist Family Violence Court model is having ‘marked improvements’ for their clients — both for perpetrators and victim survivors. 

The Magistrates’ Court of Victoria has been able to issue counselling orders to perpetrators of family violence under section 130 of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 for some time. For example, magistrates at Specialist Family Violence Courts can order a respondent to attend a men’s behaviour change program.128 Court Services Victoria partnered with the Centre for Innovative Justice129 to develop the Court Mandated Counselling Order Program to replace the two previous counselling order programs. The Court Mandated Counselling Order Program began operating in January 2020 and is available at five Specialist Family Violence Court sites. In 2019–20 the Magistrates’ Court made 884 counselling orders, representing only a fraction of cases involving family violence perpetrators. Stakeholders have expressed concern130 at the limited use of mandated men’s behaviour change programs by the Specialist Family Violence Courts and insufficient monitoring of program attendance. Continued implementation of the new program and integrated model will substantially strengthen the court response to perpetrators.

Perpetrators in the corrections system 

The then Department of Justice and Regulation’s 2018–2021 family violence strategy for the Victorian corrections system highlighted that 63% of male and 51% of female prisoners and offenders had been recorded as perpetrators by Victoria Police at some point in the last ten years, and acknowledged that the ‘corrections system has a unique opportunity to provide interventions to change perpetrator behaviour’.131 Principle 3 of the strategy is that ‘perpetrators are held to account, engaged and connected’. The two objectives associated with this principle are: identifying family violence perpetrators; and delivering targeted family violence programs and services to perpetrators. 

In community correctional services, a new service model was introduced in 2017, offering more intensive case management and greater access to targeted rehabilitation and support services to help reduce reoffending.132 For the prison system, the Responding to Family Violence in Prisons Guideline was released on 1 July 2018, along with three new incident categories on the Prisoner Information Management System. In prisons and community correctional services, perpetrators can be referred to a range of programs based on their criminogenic needs and specific circumstances, including men’s behaviour change programs. Given the high prevalence of family violence among offenders, the number participating in behaviour change programs as part of their community corrections order remains low at only 359 in 2019–20, compared with 1,576 referrals in that year (see also Figure 1.1 in Chapter 1).133 Demand for these programs exceeds the available places, and further investment in the service sector is required to increase capacity and sustainability.

Perpetrator risk assessment and management 

Central Information Point and information sharing

Stakeholders have described the Family Violence Information Sharing Scheme and Central Information Point as ‘game changers’ in improving access to information to understand and manage risk and to improve the visibility of perpetrators within the system.134 

The Family Violence Information Sharing Scheme ministerial guidelines include specific guidance on ‘sharing information about perpetrators and alleged perpetrators of family violence’ and the 2020 Family Violence Information Sharing Scheme review found clear evidence of ‘increased sharing of perpetrator information which in turn has led to an increase in the extent to which perpetrators are kept in view’.135 

The Central Information Point, launched in April 2018, was established by Family Safety Victoria in partnership with Victoria Police, the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, Corrections Victoria and the Department of Health and Human Services. Staff from all these agencies are working together to provide consolidated reports of information about perpetrators and alleged perpetrators for the purpose of risk assessment and management.136 The Central Information Point is also available to Berry Street Northern Region as a pilot. There is evidence of the positive impacts of the Central Information Point, as highlighted in Figure 6.2.

Figure 6.2: Positive impacts of the Central Information Point (CIP)

  • “I can list 5 cases where the CIP has saved a woman’s life.” — Practitioner at The Orange Door (June 2019)
  • 72% of practitioners responding to a survey said that the CIP report changed their risk assessment level
  • 85% of practitioners responding to the survey said the CIP report was either significant or essential to the current case

Family Safety Victoria CIP Survey, 30 September – 8 November

Source: Adapted from Family Safety Victoria (December 2019): PowerPoint presentation: Central Information Point, Case study demonstration

The Monitor understands there are challenges associated with the ongoing implementation of the Central Information Point, including budget uncertainty, but that Family Safety Victoria and partner agencies are leading work to refine the Central Information Point operating model to improve efficiency and respond to increasing demand. Central Information Point reports are currently only available to practitioners at The Orange Door (previously Support and Safety Hubs) and to some Risk Assessment and Management Panels; however, it will be important to consider how access can be expanded to Safe Steps and the Men’s Referral Service, as suggested by the Royal Commission.

The Family Violence Multi-Agency Risk Assessment and Management (MARAM) Framework

One of the MARAM Framework’s objectives is to ‘keep perpetrators in view and hold them accountable for their actions and behaviours’.137 Principle 9 in the framework is that: 

Perpetrators should be encouraged to acknowledge and take responsibility to end their violent, controlling and coercive behaviour, and service responses to perpetrators should be collaborative and coordinated through a system-wide approach that collectively and systematically creates opportunities for perpetrator accountability.138 

While perpetrator practice guides and risk assessment tools were still being developed and finalised during the monitoring period, the MARAM Framework legislative instrument and policy document provides high-level guidance around perpetrator risk assessment and management. The training and support provided to workforces to understand and operationalise the guidelines, once released — particularly among universal and justice workforces (hospitals, alcohol and other drug, mental health services and custodial workforces) — will be critical to their successful implementation.

The Orange Door

Where The Orange Door is operational, it is designed as the entry point to perpetrator services.139 A practice guide, developed in consultation with a range of key stakeholders, was released in 2018 to outline how The Orange Door would manage perpetrators. It outlines their responsibility for keeping perpetrators in view and holding them to account by ‘challenging them to take responsibility for, and support them to choose to end, their violent behaviours and attitudes’.140 However, the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office’s finding that ‘there is a lack of agreed understanding among hub practitioners on what it means to hold perpetrators accountable for their violence’141 must be addressed. Robust data on the number of perpetrators receiving a service through The Orange Door is not currently available. However, in 2019–20, 39% of adult clients referred to The Orange Door were identified as perpetrators (noting that this data includes a small number of victim survivors who were misidentified as perpetrators through the referral process to The Orange Door).

Risk Assessment and Management Panels 

Risk Assessment and Management Panels are formally and regularly convened meetings of key agencies and organisations in local service areas for the very highest risk family violence cases. They ‘develop coordinated action plans across participating agencies to lessen or prevent serious and imminent threat to an individual’s life, health, safety or welfare’.142 In October 2020, the Monitor met with a group of panel coordinators and chairpersons who described the panels as maturing significantly over the past four years, with an increased focus on perpetrators while keeping victim survivor safety as the central goal. They see opportunities for further improvements including:

  • a need for additional responses outside of the justice system that can engage men early in taking responsibility for their behaviour, including stronger visibility and risk assessment of perpetrators in the child protection system
  • a need for system-level monitoring and case management for higher risk perpetrators
  • greater integration between the panels and the police Family Violence Investigation Units

The Monitor will be keen to watch the progression of these improvement opportunities in 2021, particularly as part of the implementation of the whole of Victorian Government work program to strengthen perpetrator accountability articulated in the Rolling Action Plan 2020–23.

Approaches to perpetrator intervention 

Men’s behaviour change programs 

The primary intervention for perpetrators of family violence is engagement in men’s behaviour change programs. These programs focus on improving victim survivor safety by addressing the drivers of perpetrators’ use of violence and abuse and through regular contact with affected family members to monitor risk. While the Victorian Government has made a series of investments since the Royal Commission to improve access, waiting lists have continued to be an issue, and this became even more challenging during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic (as discussed in Chapter 9). The  Department of Justice and Community Safety advised that there can be upwards of 500 offenders on the waiting list for men’s behaviour change programs in the community and it is not uncommon for some men to have their Community Corrections Order expire before being able to complete a program. No to Violence’s survey of 16 Victorian member organisations in August 2020 found there were 1,100 clients on waiting lists, with an average wait time of more than 13 weeks, and the longest wait time 40 weeks. The need for more perpetrator programs was raised in a number of submissions to the Monitor. 

Revised minimum standards for men’s behaviour change programs were released in 2017, with key changes including compliance with the Family Violence Information Sharing Scheme, higher level of facilitator qualification, increased program duration (from 10 to 20 weeks), and new reporting requirements including keeping records of attendance, referrals to other services and risk assessment. Additional funding was provided to support the delivery of 20-week programs and to maintain access levels. 

Completion rates for voluntary men’s behaviour change programs in the community are not currently available but they represent an important program metric that should be monitored and reported. 

Trial interventions

Other interventions, including some targeted to diverse communities, are being trialled, with funding initially provided through a dedicated perpetrator intervention package in the 2017/18 Victorian Budget, and subsequent funding allocated through the 2019/20 Victorian Budget.. For example, the Living Free From Violence 15-week group program has been delivered at Dame Phyllis Frost Centre by Drummond Street Services and is designed for  women, trans and gender diverse people who have caused harm or used violence in their relationships. It also offers individual support before and after the group program. 

A perpetrator case management trial began in 2018, offering an average of 20 hours of tailored, individualised support, including through referrals to appropriate services and brokerage funding of up to $2,000 to purchase products or services to stabilise perpetrators so they can engage in programs. An evaluation of the two-year trial was completed in November 2019, finding that ‘providing one-on-one support that is tailored has reportedly assisted in meeting the needs of people using violence, particularly those who have more complex needs’ and that it was improving perpetrators’ readiness for group programs.143 Perpetrator case management will continue to operate and should draw on lessons from the trial evaluation, which made a series of recommendations for ongoing case management.144 

Consideration of the evaluation findings of these trials will help build important evidence about which interventions work for which perpetrators, and under what circumstances.

Accommodation

Providing accommodation to perpetrators is an important development, given the significant disruption experienced by victim survivors when they are forced to relocate for their own safety. A lack of stable housing for perpetrators is often used as an excuse for breaches of intervention orders (thereby increasing risk to victim survivors) and is recognised as a barrier to behaviour change and a factor that increases the likelihood of reoffending.145 In August 2020 the Premier announced a $20 million investment in a range of perpetrator initiatives, including perpetrator accommodation. We understand that of this funding, $1.67 million was allocated to No to Violence to deliver the Perpetrator Accommodation and Support Service for 12 months. No to Violence is partnering with the Salvation Army’s Crisis Support Service to find accommodation for perpetrators and to ensure perpetrators receive tailored support based on an assessment of their risk and needs. The package also includes funding for longer term perpetrator accommodation options. The implementation of and outcomes from this work will provide important lessons for future strategies around removing perpetrators from the home into alternative accommodation. 

Working towards a web of accountability

Expert Advisory Committee on Perpetrator Interventions

The Expert Advisory Committee on Perpetrator Interventions was established in November 2016 to advise government on the suite of family violence perpetrator interventions that should be available in Victoria to ensure the safety of women and children. Its report was delivered to government in October 2018 and released publicly in October 2019. The report acknowledged the significant reform underway in Victoria but found that many challenges remain. It made 22 recommendations, ideally to be implemented within two years. The committee’s report has been used in various ways; for example, its principles informed the revised minimum standards for men’s behaviour change programs and guided development of the perpetrator case management model. 

Strengthening the system approach to perpetrator accountability 

While we have seen evidence of ongoing conversations about perpetrator accountability (including approaches to address the committee’s recommendations) since the release of the report, some stakeholders expressed frustration with the slow pace of progress in responding to the committee’s recommendations and indicated that they were unsure what had been done to implement the recommendations in the two years since the report was delivered. 

Consultation relating to perpetrators as part of developing the Family Violence Reform Rolling Action Plan 2020–2023 gave stakeholders a more explicit opportunity to understand and provide feedback on the proposed actions that would respond to the committee’s recommendations. A whole of Victorian Government perpetrator accountability work program is now articulated in the internal perpetrator accountability plan and the Family Violence Reform Rolling Action Plan 2020–2023. These plans articulate a web of accountability (depicted in Figure 6.3), involving all parts of the service system working together to deliver the roles and responsibilities relating to perpetrator accountability and victim survivor safety as set out in the MARAM Framework and the Family Violence Information Sharing Scheme. 

Priority must now be given to the timely delivery of the work program. This will require appropriate cross-government governance, which will be critical to ensure integrated whole of system responses. The ongoing inclusion of sector stakeholders in a meaningful way — as envisioned by the committee — will also be important for achieving the intended outcomes of the work program.

Figure 6.3: Web of accountability for perpetrators

Source: Victorian Government (2020): Family Violence Reform Rolling Action Plan 2020–2023
Figure 6.3: Web of accountability for perpetrators

Perpetrator is surrounded by web of accountability

Community reinforces messages: Family members, Friends, Community networks (e.g. faith-based), Workplaces, By-standers, Neighbours, Media, Sporting & social clubs.

Workforces with opportunities to identify, respond & refer: Health, Disability, Multicultural & ethno-specific, Gambling & financial counselling, Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD), Aboriginal Services (non-Family Violence), Youth & youth justice services, Schools & other education, Maternal & child health, LGBTIQ, Aged care, Out of home care, Mental health.

Workforces providing a specialise response, core support or intervention: Specialist Family Violence victim survivor services, Aboriginal Family Violence services, Risk Assessment and Management Panels (RAMPS), Housing and homelessness services, Legal, Corrections, Courts, Police, Sexual assault support services, Child Protection, Child & Family services (including Child FIRST), The Orange Door, Perpetrator interventions.

Outer layer: mutually reinforcing messages & responses; ensuring victim survivor safety and wellbeing.

Download Figure 6.3: Web of accountability for perpetrators

Case study: Dardi Munwurro’s healing success

Dardi Munwurro is a specialist Aboriginal family violence service. Its holistic, culturally driven programs are underpinned by the understanding that the social and emotional wellbeing of Aboriginal people is based on their connection to country, community, family and culture. A key focus of its model is supporting people to heal first to enable them to change their behaviour. The service runs Ngarra Jarranounith Place, an intensive 16-week residential, culturally appropriate, healing and behaviour change program for men who perpetrate, or who are at risk of perpetrating, family violence. The program has an 82% completion rate*. It centres around one-on-one case management, structured group work, volunteering and community engagement, supported by a case manager and a range of practitioners and professionals. After participants complete the residential program, Dardi Munwurro provides ongoing support as they transition back into the community. A Family Support and Engagement program has also been set up to provide support to the women and children affected by family violence perpetrated by men and young people participating in the Dardi Munwurro programs. 

Deloitte Access Economics found that Dardi Munwurro’s men’s healing programs deliver a range of benefits to individuals, families and the community.  

Benefits able to be monetised (from largest to smallest) were:

  • reduced rates of incarceration
  • increased employment resulting in reduced welfare expenditure and increased tax revenue
  • fewer community corrections orders

Areas where there were significant measurable, positive changes included:

  • decreased misuse of alcohol and other drugs
  • decreased homelessness
  • increased engagement in education
  • an increase in gaining employment

A cost-benefit analysis highlights that every dollar invested in a Dardi Munwurro program results in $1.50 to $2.90 of benefits — a return on investment of between 50 and 190%. 

Dardi Munwurro has also established the culturally safe Brother-to-Brother 24/7 Aboriginal Men’s Crisis support line on 1800 435 799 to engage and  support Aboriginal men who are at risk of, or who are, perpetrating family violence. It is the only hotline in Australia specifically created to assist Aboriginal men seeking help. Since it launched in March 2020, demand for the helpline has almost tripled (Figure 6.4). Significantly, the program has attracted callers from across Australia. 

March 2020: 95 = Victoria; 1 = sum of the rest of Australia, April 2020: 109 = Victoria; 2 = sum of the rest of Australia, May 2020: 80 = Victoria; 7 = sum of the rest of Australia, June 2020: 101 = Victoria; 3 = sum of the rest of Australia, July 2020: 168 = Victoria; 46 = sum of the rest of Australia, August 2020: 98 = Victoria; 174 = sum of the rest of Australia, September 2020: 140 = Victoria; 102 = sum of the rest of Australia, October 2020: 188 = Victoria; 77 = sum of the rest of Australia

* Completion rates for general community men’s behaviour change programs are not available for comparison.

Looking forward 

Since the Royal Commission there has been a significant shift to recognise that addressing perpetrator behaviour and risk is central to ensuring victim survivor safety. Among submissions to the Monitor, the increased visibility of perpetrators was a commonly cited change in the system. 

While there have been substantial improvements over the past five years, many of the issues identified by the Royal Commission remain. There are still insufficient intervention options to cater to the diverse needs of perpetrators,146 demand for programs continues to be unmet, and not enough is known about the effectiveness of interventions.147 Responses to perpetrators across the justice and family violence systems also remain somewhat siloed, resulting in perpetrators continuing to move ‘in and out of view’. Within these limitations, dedicated workforces continue to do their best to manage risk and hold perpetrators to account and to promote behaviour change to keep victim survivors safe. 

To date there has not been a focused and coordinated strategy to drive a systemic response to perpetrator accountability and management. The whole of Victorian Government work program for strengthening perpetrator accountability articulated in the Rolling Action Plan 2020–2023 represents a valuable opportunity to progress integrated work in this critical area. In progressing the planned perpetrator accountability work, we suggest that responsible agencies give attention to the following: 

  • Action the whole of Victorian Government perpetrator work program as a matter of urgency, maximising its effectiveness through meaningful and ongoing sector engagement and cross-government governance.
  • Find opportunities to coordinate the management of higher risk perpetrators beyond the existing Risk Assessment and Management Panels, and better connect the growing range of approaches to perpetrator management across the system.
  • Seek to understand stakeholders’ concerns about the enforcement of family violence intervention orders and family violence safety notices, from the perspectives of policing and sentencing.
  • Build on the outcomes of the perpetrator accommodation initiative to consider ongoing options to support removing perpetrators from homes.
  • Reconsider the differing needs of the young adult cohort (18- to 25-year-olds) within perpetrator interventions — they most likely require a different response. 
  • Learn from the broader intervention response of the holistic approach taken by Dardi Munwurro in working with Aboriginal men who use violence.

References

115   State of Victoria (2014–2016): Royal Commission into Family Violence: Report and Recommendations, Parl Paper No 132, Vol 3, Chapter 18, p. 28.
116   Unpublished data provided to the Monitor by the Crime Statistics Agency, December 2020.
117   Expert Advisory Committee on Perpetrator Interventions (2019): Expert Advisory Committee on Perpetrator Interventions: Final Report, November 2019.
118   Victorian Council of Social Service, submission 41; Individual — Grampians Community Health, submission 6.
119   Victoria Police (2019): Code of Practice for the Investigation of Family Violence, edition 3, Vol 4, p. 34.
120   Unpublished data provided to the Monitor by the Crime Statistics Agency, December 2020.
121   Domestic Violence Victoria, submission 121, p. 18.
122   Annie North, submission 98, p. 3.
123   Sentencing Advisory Council (2015): ‘Increased penalties imposed for breach of family violence orders in Victoria’, media release, 3 December 2015.
124   Victoria Legal Aid, Federation of Community Legal Centres and Women’s Legal Service Victoria, submission 66; Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (2020): Improved accountability: The role of perpetrator intervention systems, June 2020, p. 134; Women’s Legal Service Victoria (2018): “Officer she’s psychotic and I need protection”: Police Misidentification of the ‘Primary Aggressor’ in Family Violence Incidents in Victoria.
125   Victoria Police, submission 79.
126   Office of the Public Advocate, submission 52; Youthlaw, submission 27; Mental Health Legal Centre, submission 80.
127   Law Institute of Victoria, submission 86, p. 4.
128   For more information, visit the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria website: mcv.vic.gov.au/about/familyviolence-courts-and-counselling-orders.
129   Centre for Innovative Justice (2018): Beyond Getting Him to a Program: Toward Best Practice for Perpetrator Accountability in the Specialist Family Violence Court Context.
130   For example: WEstjustice Western Community Legal Centre, submission 93.
131   Department of Justice and Regulation (2018): Enhancing Safety: Family Violence Strategy for the Victorian Correctional System 2018–2021, pp. 15–16.
132   Premier of Victoria (2017): ‘Stronger community corrections system to keep Victorians safe’, media release, 16 January 2017.
133   Unpublished data provided to the Monitor by the Department of Justice and Community Safety.
134   For example: Victorian Council of Social Service, submission 44; Law Institute of Victoria, submission 86; Elizabeth Morgan House, submission 47; Family Life Ltd, submission 45.
135   Monash University (2020): Family Safety Victoria Review of the Family Violence Information Sharing Legislative Scheme, May 2020, p. 129.
136   For more information visit: vic.gov.au/family-violence-recommendations/establish-secure-centralinformation-point.
137   Family Safety Victoria (2018): Family Violence Multi-Agency Risk Assessment and Management Framework: A shared responsibility for assessing and managing family violence risk, p. 5.
138   Ibid., p. 11.
139   Family Safety Victoria (2019): The Orange Door Service Model. Available at: vic.gov.au/orange-doorservice-model (accessed 28 October 2020).
140   Family Safety Victoria (2018): Support and Safety Hubs: Perpetrator Practice Guidance, p. 10.
141   Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (2020): Managing Support and Safety Hubs, p. 45. Available at: audit.vic.gov.au/report/managing-support-and-safety-hubs (accessed 28 October 2020).
142   Department of Health and Human Services (2016): Victorian Risk Assessment and Management Panel Program Operational Guidelines, p. 15. Available at: thelookout.org.au/sites/default/files/RAMPOperational-Guidelines.pdf (accessed 28 October 2020).
143   Deloitte Access Economics (2019): Evaluation of New Community-based Perpetrator Interventions and Case Management Trials: Final Evaluation Report, p. 86.
144   For more information visit: vic.gov.au/family-violence-recommendations/research-trial-and-evaluateinterventions-perpetrators.
145   Expert Advisory Committee on Perpetrator Interventions (2019): Expert Advisory Committee on Perpetrator Interventions: Final Report, November 2019.
146   Monash Gender and Family Violence Prevention Centre, submission 38; Family Life Ltd, submission 45.
147   Monash Gender and Family Violence Prevention Centre, submission 38; Ballarat Health Services, Mental Health Services, submission 41.

Reviewed 05 May 2021

Was this page helpful?