Keeping people safe from domestic and family violence

Domestic and family violence is a serious, complex, and widespread issue for society, and a great deal of work and effort has gone into responding to it. As such, it has been our intention to audit the effectiveness of public sector entities in addressing this problem. We first included this audit on our forward work plan (strategic audit plan) in 2016 and have consulted widely and monitored performance information since then.

The government and non-government entities who carry out this work and effort are overloaded and under pressure, which at times has contributed to poor responses and, even tragic, outcomes. These have led to reviews and coronial inquests, increased efforts, funding, and new initiatives, including changes to legislation.

Since 2015 the Queensland Government has committed more than $600 million in programs, services and strategies to address domestic and family violence. It has spurred efforts to improve how we deal with domestic and family violence, raise awareness about it in the community, and encourage people to recognise and report it. Some efforts have also been made to co-locate different services and to cooperate on specific issues.

Despite all of this, and the fact that every review has recommended more information‑sharing and more collaborative efforts, the various government and non‑government entities that deal with domestic violence are still not working together as much as they need to.

Domestic and family violence is not just a matter of a victim and a perpetrator, and it is more than just crisis management. Government needs to take a holistic approach to dealing with it. This means considering everyone in the family or relationship unit, particularly children.

It means focusing on prevention, and on helping young people who have lived through domestic and family violence to not follow that path themselves. It means managing perpetrators, giving them alternatives, and providing useful rehabilitation and meaningful deterrents.

It means knocking down the silos that exist in the relevant entities, ensuring that everyone who needs to make decisions or take action has the full picture. They need to deliver a seamless and coordinated service response to tackle this challenge. It is not happening at present.

In this performance audit, we identify opportunities to understand the results of existing efforts, by monitoring, evaluating and reporting on the outcomes. We highlight the need for entities to take account of everyone in family and relationship units.

And we stress the need for them to ensure all the various services and responses – prevention, enforcement, justice, education, health, corrective services, and rehabilitation – work together to effectively deal with domestic and family violence.

During the conduct of our audit, the state government established the Independent Commission of Inquiry into Queensland Police Service responses to domestic and family violence (the Commission). We have liaised with the Commission as well as various other reviewers during the conduct of our audit. In forming our recommendations, we have incorporated the results of our consultation and considered existing recommendations from these various other reviews and inquiries into domestic and family violence. Some of the recommendations I have made complement or build on some recommendations from these other reviews and inquiries. 

Brendan Worrall
Auditor-General

Domestic and family violence (DFV) is a complex societal problem that needs a comprehensive, coordinated response. The complexity arises because of the mix of victims, perpetrators, types of violence, involvement of children, and the sheer scale of the problem.

This audit examined how effectively state public sector entities keep people safe from DFV, prevent it from occurring, and rehabilitate perpetrators to minimise re-offending. We also assessed how they coordinate with non-government DFV services.

A holistic approach and more education and rehabilitation are needed

The Queensland Government recognises the size of the domestic and family violence challenge and is taking steps to deal with it, but more training, more information-sharing, and more monitoring of efforts is required. This, together with a holistic focus and a concerted, coordinated approach, will help the entities involved to make a difference. At present, no entity has overall responsibility for coordinating case information and management. Each manages cases independently and focuses on its specific role.

The number of young people under supervision for DFV offences has increased by 57 per cent, yet minimal services and programs are available for them. The Department of Education’s Respect program (formerly the Respectful Relationships Education program), which is a preventative measure, is not measured in terms of use, detail, or outcomes. The Department of Justice and Attorney‑General has limited knowledge of the rehabilitation programs it funds, and few rehabilitation programs and services are available for adult DFV perpetrators in prison and community settings. Prisons are also limited in how they monitor the behaviour of DFV offenders.

Responses to domestic and family violence

The system that responds to DFV in Queensland is under pressure. As first responders, the Queensland Police Service (QPS) recorded over 139,000 DFV occurrences in 2021–22 – an increase of nearly 48 per cent in the last 6 years. The QPS is assigning a lower-priority response category (requiring a reduced police response) to more DFV calls, and is not responding within the target time frame to all of those calls it assesses as urgent. The police’s job of responding is complicated by a lack of consistent access to relevant and accurate information, such as warning flags, partly because limited information is shared across the DFV sector. At a time when demand is increasing, there are significant gaps in the quality and coordination of responses and services. Responders lack training, are missing information or not using it, and are not adequately assessing risk.

It is positive that QPS is referring more people for support. It is also applying for more domestic violence orders on behalf of victims. Police applications have a higher chance of being granted than those victims apply for, indicating victims need more support from the courts.

Recommendations

We have made 21 recommendations. Many are aimed at enhancing responses, training, case management, interagency coordination, and preventing domestic and family violence. We have also made recommendations to better support young people and tackle intergenerational violence.

In most cases, the relevant public sector entities and service providers help keep people safe from domestic violence. But the entities are under pressure and not always as effective as they should be, which can lead to unacceptable and even tragic consequences. Much more needs to be done, including a shift in focus from incident response to case management.

The government needs to strengthen its prevention, education, and early intervention services to ensure action occurs before risk escalates. More coordination is needed – in terms of the case management of victims, perpetrators, and children – to prevent the recurrence of violence. The overall approach needs to shift from relying mostly on a reactive incident response, to a holistic case management approach catering for all members of a family or relationship unit.

The relevant public sector entities are not effectively rehabilitating perpetrators of domestic violence, largely because they have not developed nor invested in adequate or sufficient rehabilitation programs. They are also failing to proactively address the intergenerational transmission of violence, providing few support services for children and adolescents exposed to domestic violence. The Respect program available to all Queensland schools is a small but positive step in educating children and adolescents, but more needs to be done to ensure it is effective. At present, entities rely too heavily on this program, yet they do not monitor its effectiveness and it is not compulsory for non-public schools.

The state government has invested considerable effort and funds in improving its response, and there are some early signs of progress. Police are doing more in terms of referrals to DFV support services, and in applying for and issuing protection orders and notices. QPS is also acting more on breaches of orders and using new laws relating to strangulation offences (although neither QPS nor the Department of Justice and Attorney-General have yet evaluated how effective these are). Some interagency coordination is also happening.

Significant gaps also exist in coordination between response entities and DFV service providers. Police need to improve the ways in which they respond, and other entities could provide more support to help them in this. Better coordination and timely sharing of information across entities is needed to close gaps in service delivery. Entities also need to review and improve the performance of those responses that are coordinated across entities. By doing this, those entities can help ensure people experiencing domestic and family violence will get the right support, at the right time. ​

Police and other DFV response workers need to be trained in how to work together to provide complete, seamless, and effective case management. In addition, many of the people involved – including police first responders and specialists – lack job-specific DFV training.

The Queensland Government recognises the size of the domestic and family violence challenge and is taking steps to deal with it, but more training, more information-sharing, and more monitoring of efforts is required. This, together with a holistic focus and a concerted, coordinated approach, will help the entities involved to make more of a difference.

Reference to comments

In accordance with s. 64 of the Auditor-General Act 2009, we provided a copy of this report to relevant entities. In reaching our conclusions, we considered their views and represented them to the extent we deemed relevant and warranted. Any formal responses from the entities are at Appendix A.

In this chapter we report on government entities’ effectiveness in responding to domestic and family violence incidents. We focus on the Queensland Police Service (QPS), because of its frontline role.

This chapter also details our findings and recommendations about these issues.

Crisis and incident response

As first responders to domestic and family violence occurrences, police perform an important role, and they do so 24 hours a day, 365 days per year. These occurrences usually represent a crisis point for the victim, who often feels at risk and in immediate need of assistance.

The demand on police is increasing

In 2021–22, the QPS recorded 139,135 DFV occurrences. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (Personal Safety, Australia survey, 2016), up to 80 per cent of DFV occurrences are not reported to police. Eighty-two per cent of women and 97 per cent of men who report experiencing DFV from a current partner did not report it to police.

Between 2015–16 and 2021–22, the number of reported occurrences increased by 47.8 per cent. The state government cannot determine if this indicates an increase of DFV in the community, or a greater willingness of people to report it.

In 2019, the Queensland Treasury Corporation and the QPS reviewed demand for police services. They identified that it takes almost 12 hours on average to investigate a domestic violence occurrence. This includes completing an application for a domestic violence order (DVO – a document issued by the court to stop threats or acts of domestic violence). The QPS estimates that about 40 per cent of all of its recorded occurrences relate to DFV.

In the Queensland Audit Office’s Forward Work Plan 2022–25, we have an audit on deploying police resources, which we intend to table in parliament in 2022–23. It will examine in detail how effectively the QPS manages demand for its services.

First responders to domestic and family violence incidents

Matching the response to the urgency

The QPS prioritises calls for service (including for DFV occurrences) depending on the urgency, with Code 1 classified as ‘very urgent’ and Code 2 considered ‘urgent’. The QPS only classifies 24 per cent of DFV calls for police assistance as Code 1 or 2. Figure 3A shows the percentage classification of codes between 2015–16 and 2021–22.

Source: Queensland Police Service Operational Procedures Manual (OPM) 9.3.1, Chapter 14, sections 14.22.1 and 14.24.2.

When the QPS does classify a call as urgent, it often fails to respond within its targeted time frames. The percentage of calls categorised as Code 3 has decreased each year, from 72.9 per cent in 2015–16 to 68 per cent in 2021–22. There has been a slight increase in calls categorised as Code 2, but a more significant increase in Code 4 calls (from 4 per cent in 2015–16 to 8.2 per cent in 2021–22).

This indicates police are responding to an increasing percentage of DFV calls by alternate resolution rather than direct response. In 2021–22, 8,318 DFV calls were responded to by alternate resolution.

The QPS has not assessed:

• why there is such a significant increase in this type of response to DFV
• whether these calls are being appropriately classified
• the effectiveness of alternate resolution in DFV cases.  

Responding quickly

Before 2021–22, the QPS aimed to respond to 80 per cent of Code 1 and 2 calls for service within 12 minutes. The time is measured from when the call taker creates the task requiring police to attend, to when police arrive on scene. (This does not count the 2 minutes and 44 seconds it takes to create the task for Code 1 and Code 2 calls.) In 2021–22, it increased its target to 85 per cent.

Figure 3B shows our analysis of Code 1 and 2 calls specific to DFV occurrences. The QPS has consistently met or exceeded its 80 per cent 12-minute response target for DFV Code 1 calls over this period, but its performance has declined since 2019–20. In 2021–22 it fell just short of meeting the increased 85 per cent target.

The QPS has not met its target for responses to DFV Code 2 calls for service and has been well below its 80 per cent target in each of the 7 years (see Figure 3B).

The median time for the QPS to respond to Code 3 calls is 36 minutes and 25 seconds. As the QPS has no target for responding to these, it is difficult for us to assess timeliness. However, we found it responds to 80 per cent of Code 3 calls within 1 hour and 38 minutes. Given that Code 3 calls require a direct police response to an incident that is occurring and/or may escalate, this is not timely.

Police need accessible and accurate information

First responders need readily accessible, up-to-date, and accurate information in order to effectively assess risks to safety and make informed decisions. At a minimum, they require access to national criminal and domestic violence‑related history, warning flags, warrants, and court information such as current and past domestic violence orders.

Officers can assign a range of warning flags to records within QPRIME, including to:

• identify a domestic and family violence victim
• highlight the existence of various types of domestic violence notices and orders
• identify locations with DFV history or relevance.

They are meant to provide responding officers with accurate information when attending a scene, so they must be applied consistently and in a timely way.

The QPS provides instructions for staff in its QPRIME user guide on how to apply a flag to a record. However, it does not provide criteria or guidance on when a flag should be applied or to which record, potentially leading to inconsistencies in application, or records being missed. For example, the user guide provides no instructions on how or when to apply the domestic violence flag for victims.

Most domestic violence flags must be assigned manually. Officers need to use their professional judgement on this, and also remember to assign them. The only exception is the domestic violence order flag. It is automatically applied to the perpetrator’s record in the system when court details are electronically transferred to police.

There are no flags to show people who are being managed by high-risk teams (which means they may be at risk of imminent harm or death – see Chapter 4). Officers can use existing warning flags for them, but they may not convey the extent of the risk, and there is no process for applying them. Only 7.8 per cent of people who were identified as victims in the QPRIME system had a domestic violence flag on their record.

This means that, if the victim faces a subsequent DFV incident, they may not receive the appropriate priority and police may not recognise the significant risk when they make decisions.

Coroners have previously reported on failures and inconsistencies in flags being applied to at‑risk victims.

The QPS operational procedures manual says officers receiving a report of DFV should check various information systems, including the national (CRIMTRAC/NPRS) system (to identify nationally recognised interstate orders). This does not always happen. The QPS needs to ensure its officers know how to access critical DFV information – and do so as a matter of routine.

Case study 1 provides an example of how not accessing information can have serious consequences.

Acting to provide immediate protection for victims

When criminal offences occur, police can investigate the matter and lay charges where appropriate. But they have various other tools available to them as well.

Protection orders and notices

Police can refer people to DFV support services, issue police protection notices (PPNs), or apply to a court for a temporary protection order or a domestic violence order.

In 2016, the Queensland Government amended the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (the Act), to extend police powers to issue PPNs, include conditions and use them in applications to the courts for domestic violence orders. Since then, the number of PPNs issued has increased by over 2,000 per cent, from 726 issued in 2015–16 to 18,813 in 2021–22.

The number of domestic violence orders has fluctuated over the period, with a decrease in 2019–20 most likely due to the impacts of COVID-19. The number of temporary protection orders has remained stable.

Figure 3D shows the number of orders and notices for each year between 2015–16 and 2021–22.

Victims can apply for a domestic violence order themselves (referred to as a private application throughout this report) or police can lodge an application on their behalf. In a small number of cases, a court may apply for an order on behalf of a victim. Between 2015–16 and 2021–22, police made the most applications, and the percentage has increased recently, from just over 70 per cent in the years prior to 2019–20, to 81 per cent in 2021–22.

Applications made by police have on average a 97 per cent success rate of being granted, while the success rate for private applications has declined significantly from around 75 per cent in 2015–16 to 63 per cent in 2021–22 (see Figure 3E).

The much greater success rate of police applications may be due to various factors, including the ability of police to better present a case to the courts, and victims feeling safer, supported, and more confident in seeing their application through than when making the application themselves. Police prosecutors do provide support to victims making private applications. However, this data suggests that victims making private applications need more support than they currently receive.

Responding to breaches of domestic violence orders

The operational procedures manual is clear that, when officers suspect a person in a DFV occurrence has committed an offence against the Act, they must take appropriate action to address the DFV occurrence – not just arrest the person.

In October 2015, the government increased the maximum penalties for first-time and subsequent breaches of domestic violence orders to 3- and 5-years’ imprisonment respectively. A breach occurs when a court finds a perpetrator has violated the terms of an order.

Reported breaches have increased by 67.6 per cent from 29,501 in 2015–16 to 49,446 in 2021–22. However, the QPS is solving a decreasing percentage of these, from 73.3 per cent in 2015–16 to around 51.4 per cent in 2021–22 (see Figure 3F).

The number of domestic violence order breaches finalised as ‘unfounded’ has decreased since 2015–16. In 2017 we tabled our report Criminal justice system—reliability and integration of data (Report 14: 2016–17). In that report, we identified that some areas of the QPS had adopted questionable practices for classifying occurrences as ‘unfounded’ to improve clearance rates. We recommended that QPS strengthen its data quality assurance practices, including ‘monitoring the data and data trends to identify and check for changes which may indicate poor practice or manipulation’.

We observed that, over the past 2 years, the percentage of ‘unfounded’ DFV occurrences has increased, from 8.6 per cent (3,018) to 10.9 per cent (5,382) in 2021–22. This 78.3 per cent increase is greater than the 31.6 per cent increase in reported DFV occurrences over the past 2 years. The QPS should investigate why this has occurred.  

Charging perpetrators for breaching domestic violence orders

The number of perpetrators convicted of a breach increased by 59.6 per cent between 2015–16 and 2021–22. Figure 3G shows that since 2015–16, the percentage increase in police lodging charges for breaches of domestic violence orders and the percentage change in people found guilty of breaching a domestic violence order have increased at a greater rate than DFV occurrences and reported breaches of domestic violence orders.

It also shows that these increases are greater than population growth. This indicates police are acting on reports of breaches more often than previously.

Reports and convictions for choking, suffocation, or strangulation offences

The introduction of ‘choking, suffocation, or strangulation in a domestic setting’ is now a specific offence in the criminal code. No entity has measured how effective it has been in preventing subsequent violence, and to date, the QPS has had low conviction rates for this offence.

Recommendation 120 of the Not now, not ever: Putting an end to domestic and family violence reform report (by the 2015 Special Taskforce on Domestic and Family Violence in Queensland) highlighted the need for non-fatal strangulation to be made a specific offence. The government introduced legislation to the parliament, and in May 2016, included it in the Criminal Code Act 1899 section 315A, with a maximum penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment.

Figure 3H shows the QPS has acted on this offence since its introduction in 2016.

The impacts of COVID-19 are most likely the reason for the lower number of charges lodged finalised in 2019–20 and 2020–21. Apart from in these 2 years, lodgement finalisation rates have been between 800 and 900 per year. (Due to the lag in time between lodgement and conviction, they do not present a direct link between the number lodged and the number convicted in any given year.)

Of the finalised charges for this offence, 51 per cent have resulted in a conviction, of which 1.4 per cent have not resulted in the court recording a conviction against the perpetrator. Almost half do not result in a finding of guilt.

Neither the QPS nor the Department of Justice and Attorney-General has evaluated the effectiveness of the charges and prosecutions in inhibiting subsequent violence against victims, nor evaluated the reasons for the many unsuccessful prosecutions.

Police are making more referrals to domestic and family violence services

Police are offering more people referrals to DFV support services than they were. They are also using reforms to refer people in some circumstances without the person’s consent, which is positive. Unfortunately, not all people are able to access the services.

Offering referrals with consent

Where appropriate, police responding to DFV occurrences may offer to refer victims, perpetrators, children, or other parties to a DFV support service. Not all people accept the offer. 

Figure 3I shows that between 2015–16 and 2021–22, referral offers made by the QPS increased by 2,500 per cent, from 9,261 to 240,860.

While police are offering more referrals and more people are accepting the referral, less than 30 per cent of those people have subsequently accepted the offer of support when contacted by a DFV support service. In fact, as shown in Figure 3J, the percentage of people declining the offer of support once contacted has increased from 13.3 per cent in 2015–16 to 35.4 per cent in 2021–22.

DFV support service providers are timelier in making a first attempt to contact people referred to them by police. The median time it takes for a service to contact an individual after they have accepted the referral has decreased from 2.5 days in 2015–16 to one day in 2021–22 (see Figure 3K).

Making referrals without consent

In May 2017, the government introduced reforms that allowed police to refer victims and perpetrators to specialist DFV services without their consent. Officers can do this if there is a threat to a person’s safety, or if the officer believes the person has committed DFV.

Police have been increasingly using this to refer people to services. Between 2017–18 and 2021–22, non-consent referrals increased by 445 per cent.

Figure 3L shows that, although a high percentage of people referred without consent have either declined the services or could not be contacted by the service, more than one in 5 people subsequently accepted. This is good, as these people may not otherwise have received support services.

Barriers to people accessing support services

Despite the increased numbers of referrals, a number of factors make it difficult for people to access these services, including:

• wait times for services. Service providers and departments have indicated that some services and programs have lengthy wait times
• a lack of services in some regional areas (according to the police we spoke with). People in those areas are not referred. Due to limited data, we were unable to identify the level of services and referrals for each police region or district. The QPS and the Department of Justice and Attorney‑General have not identified where additional services are most needed.

The government does not collect data from service providers, so does not have a clear picture of wait times for services or programs, attendance rates, or completion rates. It also does not know how many people are continuing to commit DFV while waiting for a service.

More domestic and family violence training is needed

On 29 June 2022, a Queensland coroner recommended the QPS include in its annual operational skills training a face-to-face module on domestic violence that is mandatory for all officers.

Police first responders to DFV occurrences are usually general duties officers. They are often (but not always) less experienced officers. Given the wide range of situations general duties officers are required to attend, they need a broad range of knowledge and training across many policing areas. But they also need specific training to be able to identify and respond appropriately to DFV occurrences.

All police officers receive training in DFV as a part of their recruit training, and all first-year constables receive DFV training facilitated by the Domestic, Family Violence and Vulnerable Persons unit (a police unit established to deliver efficient policing strategies and responses to drive the response to incidents of DFV). In 2017, a ‘Vulnerable Persons’ training package was developed and delivered as compulsory training for all police officers up to the rank of inspector, as well as selected non-sworn employees. However, general duties officers do not receive ongoing DFV training.

To be able to identify and respond to DFV, they need to be trained in how to access the support and guidance available to them from supervisors, DFV specialist officers, external services, and multidisciplinary teams. QPS and DFV entities also need to make sure all of these resources are available to general duties officers when and where needed. At present, this is not the case. We discuss this further in our section on high-risk teams in Chapter 4.

The current gap in training for general duties officers will become even more marked as the government implements the Women’s Safety and Justice Taskforce recommendations on coercive control. The QPS has developed training packages in preparation.

Need for supervisors and specialist DFV police to be trained

The QPS developed a ‘Domestic and Family Violence Specialist’ course and delivered it in 2019, but not in 2020 or 2021 due to COVID-19-related impacts. It was due to restart in the 2022–23 financial year.

The QPS has increased its number of domestic and family violence coordinator and officer positions from 47 in 2020, to 77 in 2022. We expected that those police assigned to specialist DFV roles (those officers whose core day-to-day role is dealing with DFV and high-risk DFV) would be more highly trained and have a higher level of experience and expertise. This is not the case.

Numerous reviews and inquiries have identified and made recommendations on the need for more, or better, training for police officers. Some have also recommended that specialist DFV officers be extensively trained as a matter of urgency.

Involved entities need training in multidisciplinary responses

Almost all of those reviews and inquiries have identified gaps in service coordination across entities, and recommended enhancing coordination, communication, and multidisciplinary approaches. Yet they have identified training needs for individual entities, rather than making it clear that staff in all DFV-related entities need to be specifically trained in providing multidisciplinary services and responses.

For multidisciplinary, cross-boundary approaches to succeed, the staff of each entity must be trained in a multidisciplinary setting. Entities must understand each other’s role, legislative requirements (where applicable), capability, practices, and approaches. This will allow them to operate more effectively and efficiently, provide a more complete appreciation of the risk to safety, and minimise the toll on victims. It will not only broaden their understanding of the capabilities and resources of other staff and entities, but also allow them to better understand their own role. 

Currently, the Department of Justice and Attorney-General delivers training to its high-risk teams on information sharing, and on screening and assessing for risk. This brings entities together and provides an element of multidisciplinary training. However, this needs to be broader to cover all services working as part of an integrated service response. Outside of high-risk teams, entities deliver their own training, separate from others.

Effective approaches to domestic and family violence must go further than immediate responses to crisis incidents. Entities need to also offer longer-term support that ensures:

• the needs of all people within, and associated with, the family/relationship are addressed. These can include children, extended family, and close friends directly or indirectly affected by the DFV
• perpetrators are held accountable for their behaviours and the broader effects of their actions – not just the immediate and visible effects
• all underlying or contributing issues are identified and appropriate measures are taken to reduce the likelihood of further violence.       

Queensland’s approach does not have the coordination, structure, and systems necessary to support family and relationship units.

Holistic case management is needed

People experiencing DFV often have complex needs and require ongoing support from multiple services. This could include trauma counselling, drug and alcohol treatment, legal or housing assistance, and financial support.

The need for case coordination

At present, the departments and service providers involved with DFV liaise with each other and work together to address it. This occurs only in a limited way and in response to individual initiative. The cooperation tends to be operational and task-oriented, and focuses almost exclusively on individuals or specific incidents. No entity has taken responsibility or accountability for coordinating responses, support and services across the various entities and service providers.  

Information is documented in different systems, with little or no interface between those from partner organisations. Consequently, any sharing relies mainly on requests for information and is largely a manual process. This prevents entities from quickly sharing concerns about risks to a victim or family.

Different services sometimes manage individuals within the same family unit – as separate cases. This may create duplication of work, and means that context relating to the severity of DFV could be missed if the information is not shared. For example, in 2018–19 the Death Review and Advisory Board reported a lack of critical information sharing contributed to the death of a child. 

Some areas of coordination and co-location of services are emerging in Queensland, but not everywhere. They largely consist of discrete voluntary partnerships between government and non-government organisations.

No entity has overall responsibility for coordinating case information and management. Each manages cases independently and focuses on its specific role.

High-risk teams provide some coordinated support

The government has established 8 high-risk teams (HRTs) across the state to coordinate care for high‑risk victims. It trialled HRTs in 3 locations in 2017, and the current 8 HRTs have been operational since 2018–19.

Combined referrals across the 8 HRTs have increased by 12.4 per cent, from 1,383 in 2018–19 to 1,554 in 2020–21. HRTs have responded to 4,911 unique cases since they were rolled out in 2017.

While they provide some coordination, there are gaps, particularly in terms of information. Infoxchange (the system used to record referrals and case information) only allows each HRT to access its own information.

This is problematic because victims and perpetrators may live in locations covered by different HRTs. It could be important for HRTs to have access to both sets of information.

Similarly, when a victim moves from one HRT area to another, the information is not readily accessible. DJAG has advised that in such cases, the information should be packaged and sent to the new HRT. However, it is unable to confirm that this always occurs.

Not all people at high risk have access to high-risk teams

HRTs are only available to people living in the Logan-Beenleigh, Mt Isa, Cherbourg, Cairns, Brisbane, Ipswich, Mackay, and Caboolture areas (approximately 52 per cent of the Queensland population), which means some people who may be at risk of imminent harm or death have no access to them. 

The QPS, departments, and service providers in some areas such as the Gold Coast, Whitsundays, and Scenic Rim have established their own version of HRTs to partly fill this gap.

Since 2017, 4.1 per cent (228) of referrals into HRTs have been rejected for varying reasons, including:

• the victim residing outside the HRT catchment areas
• insufficient information being provided in the referral
• not meeting eligibility criteria (for example, assessed to be not at risk of imminent harm or death)
• other reasons (for example, duplicate referrals, or not meeting the criteria for a DFV relationship as per the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (the Act)). For example, not being in a relevant relationship (family, care, or intimate personal relationship).

Other high-risk victims have likely not been referred to HRTs at all because they lived outside HRT catchments.

DJAG has not reviewed the placement of HRTs since 2016, and it does not analyse data to determine which local government areas most need them.

In 2020–21, 51.4 per cent (61,956) of all reported DFV occurrences occurred outside HRT boundaries, and some areas with the highest DFV rates do not have HRTs. Figure 4A shows the location of HRTs and the areas with the highest rates of DFV in Queensland (per thousand people).

DJAG has advised that 3 additional HRTs will be established, with the first announced for Townsville, to start operating in 2023. No time frame has been established for the others.

Even if a high-risk victim is within an HRT boundary, they may not be referred to one for support. Between 2019–20 and 2020–21, 13 DFV homicides occurred within the Brisbane HRT boundary. None of the victims were being managed by the HRT at the time of death, nor was there any record of them being referred to the HRT. In some cases, the victim had numerous prior DFV interactions with police. Coronial inquests identified that in some of these cases, information indicating victims were high-risk was missed or overlooked by responders and service providers.

Resourcing can affect the accessibility and performance of HRTs. A 2019 consultant’s evaluation found it was a critical issue and recommended that DJAG review HRT resourcing.

It has not reviewed the funding and staffing levels of HRTs since 2016, but it is currently conducting an investment review of DFV services, including HRTs. This was due to be completed in September 2022 but is still in progress. No revised completion date has been provided.

At present, DJAG does not know if all HRTs are achieving their intended outcomes. It completed a trial and evaluation of 3 HRTs between 2017 and 2019 but has not evaluated the other 5. Overall, the evaluation found the trial has produced evidence of improvements in service integration.

Comprehensive risk assessments

At present, risk assessments are not coordinated or integrated to build an overall picture of the risk to a victim and their family. For example, while police risk assessments focus on the risk of the perpetrator continuing to commit violence, support services assess risks to the victim, but they do not routinely share information.

The individual assessments made by entities may be appropriate to specific needs and often overlap to a degree. However, they are usually not linked, and do not provide an overall risk assessment based on the combination of victim, perpetrator, children, and extended family members.

Other family members are also at risk. Between July 2006 and June 2021, 29 collateral DFV homicides (27 men and 2 women) occurred. In 2020–21, they made up 18 per cent of all DFV-related homicides.

An effective crisis response includes a collective risk assessment and safety management plan for all relevant members of a family unit. This enables DFV services and departments to be aware of all members who are at risk of harm.

A common risk and safety framework is available, but is not widely used

In 2017, the Queensland Government developed a common risk and safety framework to establish a shared approach for recognising, assessing, and responding to DFV risk. It also developed information‑sharing guidelines to help practitioners share information with one another.

Despite this, entities continue to use different methods to assess risk and do not have a clear understanding of what they can share.

They advised us that the framework is not suitable for some purposes. For example, Queensland Corrective Services has not implemented it within operational areas, because it believes the framework is not designed for a custodial setting. It does not provide a risk rating that can best tailor treatment to an individual or prioritise placement into limited program places. Only community corrections staff on HRTs use the framework. 

The framework is not mandated for use by specialist DFV non-government organisations, so they use their own tools to assess risk. Consequently, government and non-government organisations are all assessing risk differently.

High-risk teams need to better manage risk

In 2016, the government rolled out a multi-agency risk assessment and management framework (Level 3 tool) and mandated its use by high-risk teams. It was developed to enable HRTs to manage the safety of victims and their families appropriately and consistently. 

In 2019, a consultant’s evaluation of 3 HRTs identified that teams considered the Level 3 tool inflexible to meet their needs. Instead, they were using their pre-existing processes and tools to assess risk.

We found that HRTs are still using different approaches and tools to assess risk, and they do not always complete the Level 3 risk assessment tool in the HRT data management system. Between 2018–19 and 2020–21, there were 2,495 instances (42.6 per cent) where HRTs did not record multi-agency risk assessments as completed in the system (see Figure 4B).

In March 2021, DJAG engaged a consultant to review its risk assessment and management framework. It implemented the revised framework in July 2022 (3 years after the initial evaluation of HRTs in 2019).

The revised framework has addressed some of the deficiencies, including updating the Level 3 tool, but it will need to be evaluated to ensure HRTs are using it as intended, and that all necessary information is being captured and shared in the system.

Many victims must navigate the system themselves

Victims who cannot access HRTs may be referred to a range of individual support services, but many of these are at capacity. This puts the onus on victims to engage with the correct services. Their experience depends largely on where they live and the services that are available at the time.

For some, this can add stress to an already traumatic experience. It also means they can fall through the cracks, as there is no central coordination to help them navigate the system. Some measures have been taken that are starting to address this to some extent.

Co-location and co-responder models are a step in the right direction

The QPS has introduced new response models to coordinate and provide more tailored support to victims. It has established 8 Domestic, Family Violence and Vulnerable Persons units across Queensland, with 2 more police districts in the process of establishing them. The units work with victims and perpetrators at varying levels of risk of DFV, making and receiving referrals from other entities and high-risk teams, and performing components of case management. This includes collaborating with government and non-government DFV service providers, educating the victim and perpetrator on domestic violence orders, and performing follow-up activities such as home visits.

The South Brisbane, North Brisbane, Moreton, Sunshine Coast, and Logan police districts have partnered with non-government services to locate a domestic violence specialist worker with police in the unit, bringing DFV services together in the same building.

The QPS trialled and evaluated co-location of a DFV specialist worker at the Toowoomba police station in 2021. An evaluation found this enhanced support for victims and improved the police response, information sharing, communication, and efficiency. It also increased police awareness of the support services available to victims. According to the evaluation, police referrals to the Domestic Violence Action Centre (a specialist DFV service) increased by 16 per cent over the previous year. The trial was extended to June 2022, and the approach is being funded for another 3 years.

Through a joint partnership, QPS and DJAG are developing a broader co-responder model to trial in 2 locations. This model will build on the success of the other models with expansion of scope to include a response to perpetrators. It will be evaluated with a focus on cost/benefit comparison to the other models.

Specialist DFV workers also accompany police to follow up with victims in the Logan, Moreton, and South and North Brisbane police districts, providing victims with additional support.

Co-location and co-responder models need to expand and connect with a wider range of services to better meet the needs of victims and affected people. Other states – Victoria, Western Australia, and Tasmania – are establishing multidisciplinary centres to join services and drive better coordination. The services are located in the same building, and they provide holistic case management for all members of a family unit who require an integrated service approach.

Young people

Young people need a tailored response

Children who live with DFV can suffer long-term emotional and physical trauma, even if they are not the direct victims of violence. They may overhear threats and taunts, experience financial stress, comfort the victim, observe bruising, clean up property, or be present at a DFV incident attended by police.

Between 2016 and 2022, 31.7 per cent of all DFV occurrences involved children – and this figure only captures occurrences reported to police. The number is likely much higher.

The Act recognises children as being particularly vulnerable to DFV, stating that ‘children who are exposed to domestic violence can experience serious physical, psychological and emotional harm’. It provides them with some protections (such as not publishing information that identifies them).

Despite their vulnerability, children exposed to DFV incidents are usually considered to be witnesses or bystanders. In fact, as shown in Figure 4C, most children (202,971) involved in an occurrence from 2016 to 2022 were not recognised as a victim, perpetrator, or witness, meaning they were less likely to receive appropriate support.

The Department of Justice and Attorney-General provides funding to 26 organisations to deliver counselling across the state. Although this is a step in the right direction, there needs to be longer-term, post-crisis counselling, or therapeutic responses and dedicated support services available to support children and young people. The department cannot provide the number of children/young people who have accessed these support services.

Young people face unique risks

Children and adolescents need risk assessment and management approaches tailored to their vulnerabilities, but even high-risk teams do not receive training on how to manage children and adolescents who are referred to them.

The QPS’s risk screening tool is not specific to children and does not collect some information specifically related to them. For example, it does not ask if a child feels unsafe or scared or has ever been hurt.

DJAG has revised its common risk assessment and safety management planning framework to include a child-specific risk screening tool. While this has been made available online for all DFV services to use from July 2022, it does not have a child-specific risk assessment and safety management planning tool that can be used by HRTs and other departments. This is important when assessing needs and services specific to children.

The Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs delivers ‘Safe and Together’ training. Rather than considering DFV to be only incident-based, this training approaches it as a pattern of coercive behaviours, which gives a more holistic understanding of the abuse.

Currently, this training is not mandatory for HRTs. We were advised that most HRTs have received this training, but DJAG was unable to specify which HRT members have been trained.

Responding to DFV disclosures

Not all DFV victims report their experience to police. Victims or perpetrators may instead disclose it to hospital and health, legal, corrective, or child safety services.

They are likely to disclose their experience to a health professional

The Death Review and Advisory Board (set up under the Coroners Act 2003 to research and analyse data and make recommendations to government) has noted that victims and perpetrators often have high levels of contact with hospitals, general practitioners (GPs), and mental health services. Health workers need to know how to respond in the most appropriate way to ensure safety and wellbeing is considered for the victim and any children.

Training

Many health professionals receive limited or no training in recognising and responding to DFV, and Queensland Health has not mandated DFV training for its frontline health workers. In 2016, it implemented a toolkit of resources to support health workers in recognising, responding to, and referring suspicions and disclosures of DFV, but it has identified that health workers in medical and administrative roles in public and private hospitals and primary health settings do not know where to find the toolkit or resources.

In May 2020, it approved $2.07 million per annum over 4 years to provide specialist information and a DFV training program for frontline health workers, but this is still not mandatory. Between July and December 2021, 126 face-to-face DFV training events were delivered to 2,145 clinicians.

Screening

Queensland Health has not made risk screening tools widely available across the health system. In some instances, this has resulted in fatal consequences. For example, a coroner’s report in July 2022 detailed a DFV death where the victim and perpetrator had multiple contacts with the health system prior to the victim’s death. Health staff had not conducted any risk assessment or routine screening for DFV. At least 20 risk factors for the homicide of an intimate partner were present at the time of the victim’s death, and many of these were known to support services.

Preventing DFV is a complex challenge. It involves education, rehabilitation, a recognition of intergenerational patterns of violence, and a focus on working with perpetrators and possible perpetrators. Only by tackling all of these issues can the government bring about substantial and lasting changes.

Funding prevention initiatives

In 2015, the Special Taskforce on Domestic and Family Violence recommended the government provide resources and support for comprehensive and coordinated prevention of DFV.

In response, the government developed the Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Strategy 2016-2026 that incorporated a communication strategy focused on preventing DFV, and a funding and investment model to support investment decisions on services and initiatives. However, while the strategy provides a clear commitment to long-term prevention, the investment has mainly concentrated on responding to domestic violence, as shown in Figure 5A.  

In 2018–19, government spending on prevention measures accounted for only 4 per cent ($7.1 million) of its overall expenditure on DFV initiatives. Because the department stopped collecting expenditure data that year, it does not know how much money has been spent on DFV initiatives since 2019–20.

Some of the government’s expenditure on early intervention and recovery may include preventative elements. It also invests in prevention indirectly:

• by educating Queensland school students
• through the work of the DFV Prevention Council, whose role is to embed cultural change and encourage the community to take ownership of action to end DFV. 

Addressing intergenerational violence and helping children

Young people exposed to DFV may learn that violence is an appropriate way to resolve conflict in their relationships and carry this belief through into adulthood. Research reported by the Australian Institute of Criminology suggests that young people exposed to DFV are more likely to become victims or perpetrators of DFV themselves later in life.

Young people are being increasingly exposed to domestic and family violence

Around 32 per cent of reported DFV incidents between 2015–16 and 2021–22 involved young people as victims, witnesses, or perpetrators. Research shows that young people exposed to DFV are more likely to experience behavioural issues and poor mental and physical health, and to struggle with schooling. DFV is also the leading cause of homelessness for young people, and many children who perpetrate DFV have been victims themselves.

Between 2015–16 and 2020–21, the number of young people beginning a period of supervision in youth detention or the community for DFV offences increased by over 57 per cent, from 28 to 44.

Education helps to break the cycle

Educating children about DFV and respectful relationships is an important long-term way to address intergenerational violence.

In 2015, the Taskforce on Domestic and Family Violence recommended the Queensland Government facilitates programs for young people in state schools that emphasise:

• developing and maintaining respectful relationships
• respecting self
• gender equality.

In February 2016, the Department of Education developed an online Respectful Relationships Education program for all state and non-state schools. On 7 October 2022, this was renamed as the Respect program. It covers social and emotional learning about respect, inclusion, and power. The department advised us that all state schools are required to deliver health and wellbeing education, including respectful relationships education, either as part of the delivery of the Australian Curriculum or as part of the school's pastoral care program. It is unknown whether non-state schools provide similar respectful relationships education to students.

The Respect program provides resources and teacher guidelines that schools use across the year levels. The department does not know the use, detail, or outcomes of Respect education in Queensland state schools. As a result, it cannot demonstrate that the Respect program has been effective or is a useful resource.

Holding perpetrators accountable

Changing the behaviour of perpetrators is fundamental to addressing DFV in Queensland. Whether perpetrators are in prison or in the community, they need to stay engaged with DFV service providers to reduce their chance of reoffending.

There is limited information on perpetrators

The Department of Justice and Attorney-General needs detailed information about perpetrators to make informed decisions about the number and type of services needed in the community. At present, it does not have enough to be confident its programs and initiatives are effectively located and funded.

Better collection and sharing of information about perpetrators could also identify trends and allow for intervention before the risk of violence escalates. The Queensland Police Service has trialled initiatives to better monitor and intervene with perpetrators, as outlined in Case study 2.

More community-based perpetrator programs are needed

Community-based rehabilitation helps perpetrators who are ready and willing to change their behaviour. Unfortunately, not all of them can access it.

In 2015, the Special Taskforce on Domestic and Family Violence recommended that the Queensland Government increase access to intervention for perpetrators, and that it identify areas to prioritise, with a view to statewide coverage within 3 years.

In October 2019, the government reported that it had invested $10.3 million over 4 years in perpetrator interventions to provide coverage across the state, targeting high-need populations. The Department of Justice and Attorney-General became responsible for overseeing this investment following machinery of government changes in 2020, which has impacted its ability to clearly track the full distribution amount. It can only account for an investment of $8.94 million dollars.

It does not have a record of the number of programs being offered prior to the $8.94 million dollar investment to compare with its current number of programs, so cannot quantify the impact of the investment.

It also cannot provide an accurate list of the local government areas its funded programs are servicing or how many people are accessing these programs. It needs to know this so it can identify service gaps and improve rehabilitation outcomes.

Most programs have lengthy wait lists

The government does not collect data on waitlists for rehabilitation programs, which stakeholders advised us can be lengthy. While it is good that rehabilitation programs are available, perpetrators need immediate access to them. This is particularly important for those who seek help before committing DFV, as this is an opportunity to prevent it from occurring. 

Young perpetrators have unique needs

Very few support and rehabilitation services are tailored to the needs of young people who perpetrate DFV. As described in Case study 3, the Department of Justice and Attorney-General is trialling 2 programs in the Brisbane and Ipswich regions to meet their specific needs.

Beyond these programs, the Department of Justice and Attorney-General has no dedicated initiatives for community-based programs for young people perpetrating DFV. More programs are needed to effectively meet this growing need. 

Rehabilitation is limited for young people in detention

The Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs delivers one program aimed at male youths (aged 15 and above) in the Brisbane Youth Detention Centre. This is a DFV-specific behavioural change program. While 38 young people have completed the course in the past year, it is not available in all youth detention settings in Queensland.

Youth Justice is trialling the KIND program, a therapeutic initiative specifically designed for youth justice clients who use violence. Phase one of the trial is currently underway in Ipswich and South Brisbane, with plans to broaden it across other locations by the end of 2023.

It is not clear if rehabilitation programs are effective

The Queensland Government does not collect data on attendance rates, completion rates, and waiting lists for perpetrator rehabilitation programs. It also does not know how many perpetrators reoffend after rehabilitation efforts. Without this, it cannot have confidence that rehabilitation programs are reducing the risk of DFV.

The Department of Justice and Attorney-General provides ongoing funding to 17 organisations to deliver 134 perpetrator rehabilitation programs. It has not evaluated any of them, which means the department cannot be confident its investment in rehabilitation is delivering the desired results.

Existing rehabilitation services focus on male perpetrators

While existing rehabilitation programs are limited to male perpetrators, as they are the most prevalent perpetrator group, a wider range of programs is needed to respond to the diverse array of DFV scenarios. This includes:

• son to mother violence
• female to male violence
• intimate partner violence in lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, or queer communities.

Although these other types of domestic violence are less common than male to female violence, their incidence is increasing. Expanding the coverage and types of programs across the state should improve rehabilitation outcomes. 

The Women’s Safety and Justice Taskforce, in its 2021 Hear her voice report, made 4 recommendations to the government to provide a network of perpetrator rehabilitation programs and interventions statewide. The government has supported all of these.

More accommodation options are needed

Perpetrators are a greater risk to victims and their families if they do not have access to appropriate accommodation. Many will attempt to return to their family home after a DFV incident, often because they have nowhere else to go.

Other jurisdictions, such as Victoria, have identified accommodation for perpetrators as a key measure. In Queensland, neither the Department of Justice and Attorney-General nor the Department of Communities, Housing and Digital Economy provides crisis accommodation targeted to perpetrators of domestic and family violence.

There are no initiatives, programs, or actions specific to perpetrators in the Department of Communities, Housing and Digital Economy’s key strategic documents. If perpetrators need crisis accommodation, they must seek it through mainstream homelessness services. These may lack the right supports to reduce the risk of reoffending. The provision of accommodation options for perpetrators must be assessed within the context of safety of victims and risks the perpetrator poses. This can better be managed outside of mainstream homelessness services.

Accommodation options are likely to be increasingly needed to cater for the needs and circumstances of victims and perpetrators from the diverse range of relationships that exist in modern society.

The system loses sight of perpetrators

Perpetrators may engage with perpetrator rehabilitation services, drug and alcohol services, employment, or financial support services. These services are well-placed to identify changes in a perpetrator’s behaviour that may indicate a victim is at increased risk of DFV.

Currently, many of these services have limited ability to routinely share information about perpetrator risk with other DFV services. For example, high-risk teams (which bring together services to develop safety management plans for people) operate under a victim-centric framework. Safety planning includes consideration of the needs and risk factors relating to perpetrators, but the teams are not designed to coordinate the management of perpetrators at a heightened risk of DFV. That is not their role, but it is a gap in service delivery.

Perpetrator rehabilitation program providers are not funded as core members on high-risk teams. They have vital information about perpetrator risk and behaviour patterns including separation, alcohol and drug dependency, and mental health issues, but without systems to enable them to share this information, they may not. This means perpetrators are often not monitored until they commit another act of violence.

Greater collaboration between entities that work with perpetrators is needed to monitor them and their progress.

Prisons can do more to monitor and rehabilitate perpetrators

Queensland Corrective Services cannot confirm how many DFV perpetrators have been in Queensland’s prisons or under supervision in the community since 2015. While it currently identifies DFV perpetrators in its system, this is a manual process that has changed over time. It is currently reviewing how it identifies the DFV risks of individuals. This information is essential for rehabilitation programs.

Rehabilitation of perpetrators in prisons is needed

Queensland Corrective Services has no permanent programs for rehabilitating DFV perpetrators in Queensland prisons. In January 2019, it began an internally-funded, 18-month trial of a rehabilitation program at the Woodford, Wolston, and Maryborough correctional centres.

A process evaluation highlighted benefits from the trial program, but it noted significant limitations with the data and measures for assessing outcomes. In June 2021, the government granted Queensland Corrective Services an additional $402,000 to continue the trial for another 2 years and to perform an evaluation of the outcome.

The prisoner telephone system could better monitor perpetrators

DFV behaviour against a victim can continue and intensify when a perpetrator is in prison. The absence of physical abuse does not lessen the power and control perpetrators have over victims. The Queensland Corrective Services’ prisoner telephone system can provide a means for perpetrators to continue to contact their victims.

Queensland Corrective Services restricts prisoner telephone calls to victims if the victim requests no contact, and if a non-contact domestic violence order is known to be in place. However, it advised us that it does not have a process to confirm the identity of the receiver of a prisoner’s call, or if the phone number belongs to the receiver. Friends and family members have been known to assist prisoners to divert the prisoner telephone system call. These instances are managed on a case-by-case basis.

Currently, Queensland Corrective Services employs DFV intelligence analysts to manually review the prisoner telephone system for intended or possible breaches of domestic violence orders. It told us that Queensland prisoners make approximately 600,000 to 700,000 phone calls per month, and its analysts monitor less than 0.5 per cent of these – a significantly time- and resource-intensive task.

It is currently exploring the costs, operational impacts, and benefits of in-cell technology to improve its oversight of the prisoner telephone system.

It does not collect data relating to the number of breaches of domestic violence orders through the prisoner telephone system.