Improving the Justice System Response to Sexual Offences: Report (html)

5. Working together to respond to sexual violence

Overview

• To be most effective and efficient, everyone needs to work together to respond to sexual violence.

• We should start by making sure that people experiencing sexual violence are connected with, or referred to, support services. While they have a right to be referred under the law, this right needs to be spelt out in a way that makes sure it happens in practice.

• While there are good examples of working together, such as multi-disciplinary centres, there needs to be good planning so that working together becomes common practice.

• An independent review should inform this planning by identifying the needs and opportunities for working better together. The review should include and go beyond expanding multi-disciplinary centres and other multi-agency models.

• This should build upon the work already being done to strengthen the relationship between the family violence and sexual assault services.

• We need to refresh and strengthen processes to improve joint responses to child sexual abuse.

Working together should be common practice

5.1 Everyone involved in responding to sexual violence agrees that they need to work together to be most effective and efficient. For people who experience sexual violence, this will make services more timely, accessible and less traumatising than they are now. For organisations, it will improve relationships, will make it easy for them to understand each other’s work and learn from each other, and will ensure regular feedback between partners.

5.2 This is especially important, as any poor experience can discourage someone who has experienced sexual violence from continuing to seek justice, and can undermine their healing and recovery.^[1] These poor experiences can also discourage others from seeking support or justice.

5.3 This chapter continues the discussion about how to rebuild the system begun in Chapter 4. While that chapter recommended rebuilding the architecture of the system for responding to sexual violence, this chapter focuses on strengthening relationships on the ground, and between the system for responding to sexual violence and other systems, such as child protection.

5.4 This chapter explores key opportunities for improving how services work together. Models for working together may be best thought of as lying on a spectrum of ‘integration’ (see Figure 7).^[3]

Figure 7: Diagram of continuum model.^[4]

5.5 In the past two decades there has been a strong push across the world towards models close to the end of the spectrum involving multiple agencies (‘multi-agency models’, also known as ‘integrated’, ‘multi-sectoral’ or ‘multi-disciplinary’ models).^[5] There is reasonable evidence that these models can improve outcomes for clients compared to standard models, although we still need robust research to identify which models work best, and why.^[6]

5.6 Victoria uses multi-agency models for sexual violence in the form of multi-disciplinary centres (MDCs). Multi-agency models are also a common feature of many recent reforms, including family violence, child sexual abuse, mental health and elder abuse.

5.7 Our inquiry found that while there had been significant improvements to the way organisations worked together, much more can and should be done.

5.8 We should move towards making working together common practice. In doing so, we can build on many related reforms. For example, the Multi-Agency Risk Assessment and Management Framework (MARAM), discussed in Chapter 1, makes working together a core responsibility for organisations involved in responding to family violence, including sexual assault services and organisations within the criminal justice system.^[8] We can also learn from the many models in related reforms, such as Orange Doors and health–justice partnerships.

5.9 We can start by making sure that people are connected to the services they need. We should then move to charting a path for working together into the future, including by expanding strong models such as multi-disciplinary centres. The work already being done to improve working together with family violence services should inform this path. Finally, we can build upon these lessons to move towards a stronger joint response to child sexual abuse.

Making the connection: people should always be offered support

5.10 As we discuss in Chapter 12, many people need support to get justice. This support reduces the trauma they experience in engaging with the criminal justice system, and supports are key to helping them stay engaged with it. Yet, too often, they are not being connected (referred to) the services that exist to support them.

5.11 The Victims’ Charter Act 2006 (Vic) provides that people affected by crime have the right to be given ‘clear, timely and consistent information about relevant support services’. They have the right, if appropriate, to be referred to relevant support services and legal assistance.^[9] In its Code of Practice, Victoria Police also sets out the obligations of police to refer people to centres against sexual assault.^[10]

5.12 Despite this, all too often people are still not getting connected to the support they need because of inconsistent practices. We heard that:

• Police were failing to refer people consistently to other services, especially centres against sexual assault (CASAs).^[12]

• Referrals do not always end up with someone being connected to a service, because of limits to the referral system used and because of competing pressures on police.^[13]

• Especially in regional areas, police sometimes failed to refer people to the Child Witness Service.^[14]

5.13 We also heard of many opportunities to improve referrals or pathways, including:

• between CASAs and the general victim services provided by the Department of Justice’s Victim Support Agency (discussed in Chapter 12)

• by giving independent third persons, who support people with cognitive disabilities in police interviews, a role in referring people (see Chapter 15)^[15]

• by supporting community legal centres to offer another referral pathway to the justice system and support services^[16]

• by in-patient mental health units to CASAs (see Chapter 7)^[17]

• by workers under the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS)^[18]

• from sexual assault services to child protection, through an online form^[19]

• from child protection to community and sexual assault support services.^[20]

5.14 These are not problems of law or policy, but of practice. It is about making sure that everyone knows when they should refer someone, how to refer someone, and who to refer them to.

5.15 For this reason, we have recommended that the multi-agency protocol in Chapter 4 should address referrals. While the protocol could include a requirement like that in the existing Code of Practice, it should also include clear referral pathways to and from other organisations, such as between victim support programs, from community legal centres or through community organisations.^[21] This protocol can be adapted for the different services in each area.

5.16 Organisations will have to develop codes of practice to ensure referrals are made consistently. These will depend on each organisation’s preferences and systems, and so we have not recommended a particular form of referral.

5.17 We also recommend in Chapter 4 changing the Victims’ Charter Act, so that the Victims of Crime Commissioner can use their powers to monitor compliance with the rights on referrals more effectively. While the Act already requires a general right of referral ‘if appropriate’ to relevant support services and to others that may provide access to entitlements and legal assistance, we recommend strengthening this reference.

5.18 Instead of a general right of referral ‘where appropriate’, we recommend that, for victim survivors of sexual offences, the right to be referred should require an agency to refer a person to the support services identified in the local protocol within the timeframe set out in the protocol. This will help keep people accountable.

5.19 We also recommend in Chapter 12 moving towards a model of victim advocates. This model would include a function of helping people to navigate services, including ensuring that people are referred to services.

Organisations can improve the way they work together

Multi-disciplinary centres are one way of working together

5.20 The most ‘integrated’ models for sexual violence in Victoria are multi-disciplinary centres (MDCs), which were established after our previous inquiry into sexual offences. There are seven centres in Victoria, with an eighth planned for Shepparton.^[22]

5.21 The aim of MDCs is to provide ‘a collaborative, wrap-around service that is trauma-informed and best practice, that offers an efficient and effective pathway’ for people experiencing sexual violence to access counselling, support and justice.^[23]

5.22 The centres are discreet and private. They are located away from police stations, and police officers in MDCs do not wear uniforms. The buildings have discreet signs. The centres have counselling and clinic rooms, evidence recording facilities and, in some cases, forensic medical suites.^[24]

5.23 All MDCs include:

• specialist police officers (the Sexual Offences and Child Abuse Investigation Teams, or SOCITs)

• counsellor advocates from CASAs

• child protection officers

• community health nurses.^[25]

5.24 Some MDCs include other partners, such as workers from the Victims Assistance Program (discussed in Chapter 12).^[26] The centre in Dandenong also includes family violence teams from Victoria Police.^[27] The Victorian Government is currently working to develop a ‘core’ MDC model, as part of its work to clarify the relationships between MDCs and Orange Doors.^[28]

5.25 Orange Doors (also known as support and safety hubs) are new and they work differently to MDCs. Orange Doors are the flagship reform of the Royal Commission on Family Violence, and have been built on the model of MDCs. These are still being established, with most of the 17 sites due to open by the end of 2022.^[29]

5.26 In Orange Doors, several organisations, including family violence services, child protection and Aboriginal services, work together to respond to the needs of victim survivors, perpetrators and families.^[30]

5.27 The Orange Door is a ‘front door’ into services. Partner agencies work together in multi-disciplinary teams to assess and prioritise the needs and goals of clients. People can receive crisis support from the Orange Door and be referred to other services.^[31]

5.28 The Orange Door model does not include police. In contrast, in MDCs Victoria Police are core partners and in most cases the lead agency. MDCs are also funded by the Department of Justice and Community Safety.

5.29 The MDC model aims to improve practice by locating agencies in the same place, rather than working together in teams.^[32] Services within MDCs work under their own protocols, funding arrangements and legislation, with processes for working together set out in a memorandum of understanding and local area agreements.^[33] Members of MDCs also have regular opportunities for shared training and learning.^[34]

5.30 The two models therefore differ in their approaches, with Orange Doors adopting a more multi-disciplinary and joint response to clients. In contrast, MDCs mainly focus on improving relationships through co-location, with more informal collaboration.

5.31 Sexual Assault Services Victoria (SAS Victoria) told us that there was ‘work to be done to reconcile the two different multi-agency models’.^[35] This was also reflected in a report on improving collaboration between family violence and sexual assault services, discussed below.

Multi-disciplinary centres are achieving their aims

5.32 Multi-agency models aim to reduce the need for people to re-tell their stories and navigate complex systems. They also aim to improve how people who respond to violence share information, skills and relationships.^[36]

5.33 Evaluations indicate MDCs are achieving these aims.^[37] People who had attended a centre were positive about their experience. MDCs were seen to offer more privacy and easy access to a range of services.^[38]

5.34 An early evaluation also found that these reforms could ‘significantly contribute to a cultural shift’ in attitudes of police involved in the pilot.^[39] It found that the MDCs had improved cooperation and changed practice. A second evaluation found much closer cooperation for joint investigations into child sexual abuse.^[40]

5.35 During this inquiry, we heard widespread support for multi-disciplinary centres.^[41] For people experiencing sexual violence, the centres improved availability, communication and continuity between services,^[42] and contributed to increased reporting and reduced the number of withdrawn reports.^[43]

5.36 Other benefits included:

• more opportunities for partners to come together early and regularly to discuss cases

• clear roles in relation to family violence police investigators and SOCITs

• clear protocols and processes for planning

• partners learning from and adopting each other’s knowledge and approaches.^[45]

There are opportunities to improve multi-disciplinary centres

The multi-disciplinary centre model should be expanded

5.37 Several people, including the Victims of Crime Commissioner, supported expanding MDCs across Victoria.^[46] Victoria Police and SAS Victoria both expressed powerful support for the model.^[47]

5.38 They also identified a need to extend services within MDCs. SAS Victoria suggested including mental health and drug and alcohol services, as well as the Office of Public Prosecutions.^[48] Victoria Police identified opportunities to extend MDCs and improve the diversity of services beyond its primary focus on women and children.^[49] The Gatehouse Centre also suggested that forensic paediatricians should be part of MDCs.^[50]

The Multi-Disciplinary Centre model could be strengthened

5.39 Integrated models face some common challenges. These include:

• power imbalances between agencies

• tensions in their purposes and goals, perspectives and disciplines

• information-sharing and privacy concerns

• being responsive and accessible to diverse and complex needs^[51]

• not enough resources.^[52]

5.40 These challenges were reflected in our inquiry. SAS Victoria told us that:

• In some centres approaches were still too ‘siloed’, with inadequate understanding of each other’s work and perspectives.

• There was not enough communication, possibly because of a lack of resources.

• There was a need to improve induction processes for new members.^[53]

5.41 The Gatehouse Centre supported reviewing the structure of the MDC model and the role of Victoria Police as the lead agency at most MDCs.^[54] It told us that:

Lead agencies … are the principal conduit for both funding and Victorian Government contract communication. This structurally advantageous position often causes lead agencies to exert an oversized influence over the management of the relevant project. This inequitable dynamic sits uncomfortably with a project designed to create and maintain cross-agency coordination and collaboration. For MDCs, this problem is exacerbated by the fact that Victoria Police is a workforce in constant churn. This churn results in frequent changes to SOCIT membership, which is disruptive to MDC leadership and the goal of creating a permanent culture of integration.^[55]

5.42 Associate Professor Gall recommended a review of the governance structure of MDCs, with transfer of management and funding to the then Department of Health and Human Services.^[56] As discussed in Chapter 16, he and the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine each said that forensic medical examinations should be conducted at hospitals, rather than MDCs.^[57]

5.43 There is also an opportunity to increase the level of collaboration within the MDCs and more broadly. Victoria Police, for example, said that, anecdotally, police and staff in MDCs and other support services saw ‘significant advantages to cross-agency, or multi-agency reflective practices’.^[58] This kind of practice can include regular sessions to reflect as a group, for example, on the ways they work together and how to improve their processes.

Multi-disciplinary centres should not be the only model used

5.44 Although MDCs are valuable, they should not be ‘seen as the solution to too many issues’.^[59] Research in the United Kingdom, which uses a similar model, suggests that there is a role for MDC-type models and for independent voluntary organisations.^[60]

5.45 One reason for this is that many people may not feel comfortable going to an MDC, because of the presence of police and child protection. For example, the fear of children being removed is strong in Aboriginal communities, given both past and present practices of removal.^[61] Djirra told us that this was ‘unfortunate, but the trust has gone in that regard’.^[62]

5.46 Springvale Monash Legal Service told us that some young people may not feel confident to come if police are involved, and encouraged us to explore integrated models in other settings.^[63] It gave as an example a partnership it has with schools in south-east Melbourne, with an onsite lawyer located close to wellbeing staff, as another way for people to disclose sexual violence and seek support.^[64]

5.47 A growing integrated response to family violence is the use of health justice services. These offer legal services (typically by community legal centres or legal aid commissions) within health services. This can take different forms, including:

• health justice partnerships, where legal help is embedded into a health care setting

• lawyers employed by health services

• outreach legal clinics

• legal and health care as part of a broader hub of services.^[65]

5.48 Women’s Legal Service Victoria, for example, has a health justice partnership with Monash Health for women who attend antenatal appointments.^[66] It is common in Aboriginal health or community support settings.^[67]

5.49 Another model is being established under elder abuse reforms. The Australian Government has funded trials since 2018–19 for elder abuse services, comprising lawyers, social workers, and specialist and support staff who develop a case plan to respond to the individual’s needs.^[68]

5.50 In Chapter 8, we recommend strengthening the role community organisations play in providing people with support and access to the justice system.

We recommend charting a path towards improving collaboration

5.51 We are at a point in the road where progress is stalling on improving the ways organisations work together. While there have been improvements to MDCs and protocols, we are still some way off realising the full benefits of working together.

5.52 The MDC model, while successful, has not fully resolved some tensions that are common to such models. There are lessons to be learnt from other integrated models that have not yet found their way into the MDC model. There are also new integrated models such as Orange Doors to consider.^[69]

5.53 We support expanding MDCs, but we also need to move beyond them. MDCs are just one part of the larger picture.

5.54 As we discuss below, a review has been recently completed identifying ways to strengthen collaboration between family violence and sexual assault services. This will form the foundation of a path towards improving collaboration.

5.55 We recommend a similar review across the system for responding to sexual violence, leading to a practical plan that will identify priorities for strengthening collaboration. An independent reviewer should conduct this so that everyone involved can speak freely. However, the report should be prepared with the input of those on the high-level statewide body, as with the review conducted for the family violence and sexual assault peak bodies.

5.56 We recommend a review as a first step, but it should not be the last step. Our recommendation is that this review informs a further investment in collaboration. It is not a substitute for that investment.

5.57 Reflecting what we heard in this inquiry, the review should consider:

• the key purposes and outcomes for MDCs

• the governance and funding structure of MDCs

• which partners should be located within MDCs, including the role of forensic services and (as discussed later) collaboration with other police units such as Family Violence Investigation Units

• the scope of other services within MDCs

• ways to strengthen collaborative practice within MDCs, such as cross-agency reflective practice

• the potential of other integrated models, such as health justice partnerships

• the relationship between MDCs and other integrated models

• the planning and sequencing of any expansion of MDCs, based on need and in close consultation with local communities and the relevant regional governance mechanisms.

5.58 The review of the purposes and outcomes of MDCs should be informed by the principles of reform we outline in Chapter 1, and by the Sexual Assault Strategy (see Chapter 1). For example, the aims of MDCs should be to support the choices of people experiencing sexual violence.

5.59 The review should consider what we can learn from other integrated models. For example, Orange Doors have:

• a manager within each site funded by Family Safety Victoria, and who is independent of the other partner agencies^[70]

• a lead position that focuses on developing collaborative practices

• ‘service system navigators’ who identify ways to connect to the broader community and create partnerships.

5.60 We note that a project plan is being developed to determine how MDCs interact with the Orange Door. This will help develop a consistent arrangement between sexual assault services and the Orange Door.^[71] The review should build upon this work.

5.61 There may also be ways to take advantage of the broader range of services in Orange Doors and the new local mental health and wellbeing centres. In Chapter 21, we also note that some Orange Doors will have remote witness facilities and these could be shared with those who experience sexual violence outside a family violence context.

5.62 There may also be opportunities flowing from what was learned during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic to improve ways of working together through videoconferencing and virtual teams.^[72]

5.63 While the involvement of police means that the model of working together in Orange Doors will not be appropriate, the review should also consider the value of joint meetings focused on the needs of clients. This model is used in the child and family advocacy centres in Western Australia (discussed later in this chapter), in risk assessment and management panels as part of the family violence reforms, and under the Enhanced Response Model (discussed below).

5.64 In planning the expansion of MDCs, care should also be taken to identify elements of best practice, such as locating MDCs near hospitals to increase access to forensic medical examinations.

Responses to sexual violence within family violence can be improved

5.65 There is widespread agreement that we need to improve responses to sexual violence within a family violence context. This is a theme throughout this report.

5.66 The Sexual Assault Strategy, which we discuss in Chapter 1, provides an excellent opportunity for Family Safety Victoria to review the family violence reforms to ensure that sexual violence within a family violence context is appropriately recognised. Throughout this report, we have also identified ways to embed sexual violence reforms within family violence reforms (see Chapters 5 and 18).

5.67 This chapter focuses on the significant overlap between the clients of family violence and sexual assault services.^[73]

5.68 Most CASAs have a relationship with local family violence services, such as being co-located with family violence services or having regular visiting arrangements.^[74]

5.69 Some regional CASAs operate as combined family violence and sexual assault services.^[75] However, these are mostly services that bring together staff members who work in either family violence or sexual violence. Few staff provide both services.^[76]

5.70 These services share similar principles in the way they work and in their understanding of their clients. However, there are key differences.

5.71 Family violence services are more focused on risk and on case management, while sexual assault services focus on counselling.^[77] Sexual assault services provide longer-term interventions while family violence services are more often responding to crisis. Family violence services also typically have a wider range of functions (including, for example, case management), and are part of a much larger sector. Their funding models also differ.^[78]

Family and sexual violence services can improve the way they work together

5.72 There is some data on how often sexual violence occurs within family violence. The Personal Safety Survey in 2016 reported that intimate partners were responsible for 46 per cent of the experiences of sexual violence among adult females, and family members were responsible for another 7 per cent.^[79] Domestic violence and sexual assault service providers estimate upwards of 70 per cent of their adult female clients experience sexual violence within a family violence context. These experiences are not, however, reported to police at the same rate. As Victoria Police have identified, over a third of sexual offences reported to police involve intimate partner sexual violence, child sexual abuse or other family violence.^[80]

5.73 The challenge is to make sure that family violence and sexual assault services work together to support people who experience sexual violence within family violence. While there has been much effort and progress in doing this (see box), we heard that there is still some way to go.

5.74 The Australian Association of Social Workers said that, while it commended the family violence reforms, its members continued to see ‘limited improvement in response to sexual offences within intimate partner relationships’. They continued to see ‘gaps in the system’, especially for women who faced greater barriers to support and justice, such as women on partner visas. It was ‘still difficult to get action taken by police and the courts’ on sexual offending within intimate partner relationships, even when these were reported.^[85]

5.75 Dr Patrick Tidmarsh and Dr Gemma Hamilton, who are researching the connection between family and sexual violence, saw the fields as ‘currently quite separate’. A lack of policy work on the similarities and differences has led to ‘much confusion in the sector and a lack of connection in service delivery’. They pointed out that child sexual abuse was ‘missing’ in many discussions of family violence. They saw a need for more ‘cross-pollination’ of family violence and sexual assault services, including more training and development and potentially co-location.^[86]

5.76 Project Respect identified a need to improve awareness and understanding within family violence services of the intersections in the sex industry between family violence, trafficking and sexual assault.^[88]

5.77 The Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency supported the need for further integration including joint training and a more collaborative practice between sexual assault and family violence services and Aboriginal community-controlled organisations. It told us that there was a need for sexual violence committed in and outside family violence contexts to be ‘afforded the same gravitas’ as other kinds of violence.^[89]

We commend the work on family violence and sexual assault service collaboration

5.78 Concerns about the need to connect responses between family violence and sexual assault services were reflected in a recent report reviewing the collaboration between family violence and sexual assault services. It found ‘significant variation’ in the ways the two sectors worked together, including referrals and working with joint clients.^[90]

5.79 This report was commissioned as part of implementing family violence reforms and was prepared by a consulting firm for the peak bodies of both sectors. Family Safety Victoria is working with these peak bodies to review and prioritise the 20 recommendations made by the report. This will be a key input into the Sexual Assault Strategy.^[91]

5.80 The report’s first recommendation was for Family Safety Victoria to ‘recognise and support each specialist sector in its own right, and support greater collaboration’. It found that the essentials for working together existed and that there was a willingness to work together more and improve the way they approached sexual violence within the family violence context.^[92]

5.81 The report’s main recommendations address:

• improving collaborative practice through improving referral pathways, co-located approaches, and developing a framework to guide and support joint client work

• flexible funding frameworks to better support integrated service delivery

• improving information between the two sectors about their services and how to access them

• case management within specialist sexual assault services (see Chapter 12)

• designing service models that clearly address sexual violence within a family violence context

• professional development opportunities

• research on effective service responses to sexual violence within the family violence context.^[93]

5.82 The report also recommended the need for further examination of the relationship between the two after-hours crisis services, the MDC and Orange Door models (discussed above), and family violence therapeutic counselling services.^[94] In this inquiry, both sexual assault and family violence peak bodies supported the recommendations in that report.^[95]

5.83 This joint report between the two sectors provides an excellent roadmap to address most of the concerns raised with us. It provides practical steps to make sure family violence services can better identify sexual violence and create better pathways to support for sexual violence. We commend the work that is being done to progress this and look forward to seeing this work reflected within the Sexual Assault Strategy.

5.84 In Chapter 7, we recommend significant investment to establish a new central website where people can access information and connect with support services. We recommend that this should build on existing services (such as the Sexual Assault Crisis Line) and be embedded in the service system structure. This can include a relationship with family violence services such as Safe Steps.

5.85 We also note that the lack of a referral protocol between Victoria Police and the after-hours Sexual Assault Crisis Line resulted in referrals being sent through to the Safe Steps line instead.^[96] This is identified as an issue to be addressed in the multi-agency protocol recommended in Chapter 4.

Police should build on their integration of family violence and sexual violence

5.86 Victoria Police has specialised police officers dealing with sexual violence (SOCITS) as well as family violence investigation units. While both sit under the family violence command within Victoria Police, we heard that more could be done to integrate this work.

5.87 Sexual Assault Services Victoria told us that Victoria Police could improve the way its family violence and sexual assault units worked together, including by clarifying the responsibilities of each unit.^[97] Dr Patrick Tidmarsh and Dr Gemma Hamilton supported more ‘cross-pollination’ between practitioners and regular collaboration between them.^[98] Associate Professor John Gall supported integrating the units.^[99]

5.88 Victoria Police has already begun work to integrate the work of family violence investigation units alongside SOCITs in three MDCs. It told us there were also plans to co-locate the units in Shepparton.^[100]

5.89 The lessons from these co-locations within MDCs should inform the broader review we recommend above. The review should identify the partners which should be within MDCs, including which police units should be present. It should also consider other ways to improve collaboration between police officers who work with sexual violence in a family violence context, such as joint training and case planning.

Child Protection and criminal justice processes could strengthen the way they work together

Joint Child Protection and criminal investigations can be at odds

5.90 Child Protection and the police may be involved in investigating cases of child sexual abuse. However, the purposes, evidence required, timeframes and outcomes of each investigation are different (see Table 6). The purpose of a Child Protection investigation is to establish if the child is in need of protection, and the child’s parents have not protected or are unlikely to protect them from harm, so Child Protection investigations can end earlier than a criminal investigation if Child Protection is satisfied that there are parents who are likely to protect the child.

5.91 This chapter deals with how to improve the interaction between Child Protection and criminal justice processes. We discuss barriers to reporting in Chapter 2, and ways to support children and young people in Chapter 12.

Table 6: Comparison of Child Protection and criminal investigations

5.92 This can cause tensions, as a paediatric forensic examiner observed:

Victims of family violence/sexual assault/abuse risk either being over investigated or under investigated. For example, a victim may be subjected to multiple interviews by different agencies regarding the same event. This may lead to differing accounts which may be detrimental to any case later heard in court. Repeated interviews by different agencies may also dissuade the victim from proceeding with their complaint due to perceived harassment. At the other end of the spectrum, the differing agencies may believe that the other agency has undertaken the investigation w[h]ere in fact it hasn’t leading to the case being under investigated and no prosecution or intervention proceeding.^[104]

5.93 Delays in investigations can also lead to children being stuck in unsafe situations or dropping out of justice processes. We also heard that criminal proceedings may discourage an accused from being involved in Child Protection risk assessments, or may mean that they cannot fully take part in a contested Child Protection case.^[105]

5.94 A formal protocol governs the relationship between Child Protection and police (see box). Another protocol sets out referral pathways in family violence incidents between Child Protection, Victoria Police and Family Safety Victoria.^[106]

Multi-agency approaches to child sexual abuse are becoming common

5.95 The move towards multi-agency models of responding to violence, discussed above, has also been a key theme of reforms in responding to child sexual abuse.^[110]

5.96 In Victoria, MDCs reflect this trend, with Child Protection and police co-located together with CASA counsellors. However, as discussed earlier, this is a co-located model rather than a more formal joint response by Child Protection and police.^[111]

5.97 A multi-agency approach is taken also to dealing with children using harmful sexual behaviour (discussed in Chapter 8). Police and Child Protection have also recently piloted a multi-agency model for reducing child sexual exploitation (see box).

5.98 As with other multi-agency models, there is a need for more research on their effectiveness for responding to child sexual abuse. A recent review of multi-agency models for child sexual abuse found:

• evidence that they increased the mental health and medical services clients received

• some evidence that Child Protection responses increased

• mixed evidence of higher satisfaction with these responses

• mixed evidence that these increased arrests or prosecutions.^[116]

5.99 As noted earlier, evaluations of MDCs have found that these have increased cooperation in Child Protection and criminal investigations.^[117] As we discuss next, there are ways to further strengthen these joint investigative responses.

We can learn from other multi-agency models in Australia

5.100 While most other Australian states and territories use a multi-agency model to respond to child sexual abuse, the most comprehensive models are used in New South Wales and Western Australia.^[118]

5.101 In New South Wales, the model (formerly known as the Joint Investigation and Response Team, JIRT)^[119] involves a longstanding partnership between the police, the Department of Family and Communities and NSW Health.

5.102 In contrast to the MDC model, the New South Wales model is statewide, with police and child protection co-located in about half the sites. Key features of this model include:

• a cross-agency intake process through a Child Protection Helpline, which screens cases for referrals

• the involvement of NSW Health as a full partner

• comprehensive protocols in Australia for joint investigations, joint decision making, including at the local level

• comprehensive training and professional development for cross-agency work.^[120]

5.103 The New South Wales Ombudsman recently reviewed the program, and recommended:

• strengthening the advocacy component of its response

• strengthening joint planning processes and compliance with these

• improving data collection and performance monitoring

• strengthening governance, including clearer processes for escalating disputes, more cohesive leadership, and reinstating a mechanism for executive leadership.^[121]

5.104 The Multiagency Investigation and Support Team (MIST) pilot in Western Australia co-locates police, specialist child interviewers within child protection and a child protection worker, a child and family advocate (see Chapter 12), and therapeutic support services. The model includes strategy meetings between police and child protection with information passed to the child advocate.^[122]

5.105 The MIST model is closer to the model of child advocacy centres used in the United States, although each centre is different and their services vary.^[123] The United States model typically uses independent interviewers, and a distinctive feature of the Western Australian model is the use of a joint team of police and child protection interviewers.^[124]

5.106 An evaluation of the MIST pilot found that there was no significant difference between the model and usual practice in terms of whether and how far cases progressed through the justice system.^[125]

5.107 However, it found that the model ‘was much quicker from the point of report to each of the key points of the policing response’. There was also high use of support services, although this data could not be compared to the standard process. The evaluation was also positive about its success in improving collaboration among professionals, including interviewers.^[126]

People told us there was a need to strengthen collaboration

5.108 The Children’s Court of Victoria reported that the protocol between police and Child Protection had improved the way they worked together.^[127] However, we heard that there was a need to strengthen collaboration to improve the response of the justice system and outcomes for children and young people.

5.109 The Commission for Children and Young People considered there needed to be more structure, formality and transparency, similarly to the New South Wales model.^[128]

5.110 Family violence practitioners within Victoria Police also considered there was benefit to looking at joint response models such as the Joint Child Protection Response Program. It said the benefit of the model:

is that each agency has a clear role, within its area of expertise, and the child or young person and their family receive support throughout the process, including immediate access to crisis counselling. Increased collaboration and information sharing also provides the opportunity to improve justice system responses, allowing for increased numbers of offenders to be identified and charged, enhanced standards of briefs of evidence, and more prosecutions.^[129]

5.111 Sexual Assault Services Victoria (SAS Victoria) and its specialist children’s services similarly identified a need for more planning and processes.^[130] They supported approaches such as extending co-location, implementing structures that were not dependent on people, and setting out protocols and standards of practice. They thought that current protocols and arrangements are not ‘interlocking or interconnected’, so there was no way to hold the system to account.^[131] The Gatehouse Centre also saw a need for better coordination of investigations.^[132]

5.112 SAS Victoria also pointed to a need for their workers ‘to contribute more fully to influence and ensure a child’s safety’. In its view, there was also a need to shift the focus away from children being forced to manage their own safety, and away from placing high levels of responsibility on the parent who was not offending.^[133]

5.113 SAS Victoria also supported regular meetings to discuss complex cases between Child Protection and sexual assault services, and more collaborative case planning to sustain children’s safety after a case was closed.^[134]

5.114 Dr Patrick Tidmarsh and Dr Gemma Hamilton noted joint investigations between Child Protection and police were not standardised, and depend on ad hoc relationships in certain areas, and that better connections were also needed with family violence investigators.^[135]

5.115 The Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency noted that while initial joint work between itself and SOCITs worked well, responsibilities to follow up with the child and family were not upheld as the case progressed through the system.^[136]

5.116 We also heard that there should be better pathways to support through other organisations. Elizabeth Morgan House, a peak Aboriginal women’s organisation, had many clients with children under Child Protection, but they had not been referred to Elizabeth Morgan House by Child Protection and Elizabeth Morgan House was not being used as a service to support mothers.^[137]

We recommend moving towards a partnership model

5.117 While the MDC model has clearly improved joint responses, there are opportunities to strengthen the model, including by learning from the lessons from the Enhanced Response Model and models in other states. These opportunities include:

• extending the benefits of the more integrated approaches used in MDCs across Victoria

• moving towards a partnership model that includes as key partners the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing and centres against sexual assault

• formalising processes and protocols to embed collaboration, including through regular joint case meetings

• improving governance and including stronger accountability mechanisms, learning from the New South Wales model

• increasing collaborative practice and joint training

• strengthening the role of child advocacy, learning from the Western Australian model (see Chapter 12)

• including data analysis, evaluation and review as core parts of the protocol.

5.118 In Chapter 4, we recommend developing a multi-agency protocol to clarify roles and set out clearly procedures and mechanisms of accountability between those responding to sexual violence.

5.119 We make a similar recommendation here. A separate protocol is needed because of the distinctive role of Child Protection and other legal obligations and relevant agencies.

5.120 This protocol should build upon the existing protocol between Victoria Police and Child Protection. The aim would be to build on the benefits of the MDC model and bring these into a broader partnership model. It should address the opportunities identified above.

5.121 As we discuss above, this shift does not need to rely on co-location as the key driver of reform. Elements such as joint case meetings and planning, child advocates, joint training, and relationship building across agencies can be achieved in other ways.

5.122 This work overlaps with both the work of developing the broader multi-agency protocol and the recommendation in this chapter for a broader plan to strengthen collaboration. Ideally, these recommendations would be developed in parallel, to ensure they ‘interlock and interconnect’.

5.123 It would also be valuable to consider how the Commission for Children and Young People could play a role in the protocol similar to the role we recommend for the Victims of Crime Commissioner in Chapter 4.

1. See Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse: Criminal Justice Report (Executive Summary and Parts I-II, 2017) 387–8.

   ↑

2. Victorian Law Reform Commission, Improving the Response of the Justice System to Sexual Offences: Summary of Responses to Online Feedback Form from People with Experience of Sexual Assault (Report, April 2021).

   ↑

3. See generally Australian Law Reform Commission, Family Violence—A National Legal Response (Report No 114, October 2010) ch 29 <https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/family-violence-a-national-legal-response-alrc-report-114/>; Jan Breckenridge et al, Meta-Evaluation of Existing Interagency Partnerships, Collaboration, Coordination and/or Integrated Interventions and Service Responses to Violence against Women (State of Knowledge Paper No 11/2015, ANROWS Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety, September 2015) 11–12 <https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/meta-evaluation-of-existing-interagency-partnerships-collaboration-coordination-and-or-integrated-interventions-and-service-responses-to-violence-against-women-key-findings-and-future-directions/>. See also James L Herbert and Leah Bromfield, National Comparison of Cross-Agency Practice in Investigating and Responding to Severe Child Abuse (CFCA Paper No 47, Australian Institute of Family Studies (Cth), February 2018) <https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/national-comparison-cross-agency-practice-investigating-and-responding>.

   ↑

4. Jan Breckenridge et al, Meta-Evaluation of Existing Interagency Partnerships, Collaboration, Coordination and/or Integrated Interventions and Service Responses to Violence against Women (State of Knowledge Paper No 11/2015, ANROWS Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety, September 2015) 10 <https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/meta-evaluation-of-existing-interagency-partnerships-collaboration-coordination-and-or-integrated-interventions-and-service-responses-to-violence-against-women-key-findings-and-future-directions/>. See also Karen Wilcox, ‘Connecting Systems, Protecting Victims: Towards Vertical Coordination of Australia’s Response to Domestic and Family Violence’ (2010) 33(3) UNSW Law Journal 1013, 1020.

   ↑

5. Jan Breckenridge et al, Meta-Evaluation of Existing Interagency Partnerships, Collaboration, Coordination and/or Integrated Interventions and Service Responses to Violence against Women (State of Knowledge Paper No 11/2015, ANROWS Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety, September 2015) 9, 28–9 <https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/meta-evaluation-of-existing-interagency-partnerships-collaboration-coordination-and-or-integrated-interventions-and-service-responses-to-violence-against-women-key-findings-and-future-directions/>.

   ↑

6. See, eg, ibid; James Herbert and Leah Bromfield, Components of Effective Cross-Agency Responses to Abuse—A Report for the NSW Ombudsman’s Office (No 2, Australian Centre for Child Protection, University of South Australia, August 2017) <https://www.unisa.edu.au/siteassets/episerver-6-files/global/eass/research/accp/components-of-effective-cross-agency-responses-to-abuse.pdf>; James L Herbert and Leah Bromfield, National Comparison of Cross-Agency Practice in Investigating and Responding to Severe Child Abuse (CFCA Paper No 47, Australian Institute of Family Studies (Cth), February 2018) <https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/national-comparison-cross-agency-practice-investigating-and-responding>; James Leslie Herbert and Leah Bromfield, ‘Better Together? A Review of Evidence for Multi-Disciplinary Teams Responding to Physical and Sexual Child Abuse’ (2019) 20(2) Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 214.

   ↑

7. Submission 14 (Gatehouse Centre, Royal Children’s Hospital).

   ↑

8. For a full list of organisations: see Family Violence Protection (Information Sharing and Risk Management) Regulations 2018 (Vic) s 17, Sch 3. A practice guide explains what is expected of organisations in fulfilling their responsibilities to collaborate under MARAM: Victorian Government, Responsibility 10: Family Violence: Collaborate for Ongoing Risk Assessment and Risk Management (Practice Guide, 2020) <https://www.vic.gov.au/maram-victim-survivor-practice-guides>.

   ↑

9. Victims’ Charter Act 2006 (Vic) s 7. These obligations apply to investigatory agencies, prosecuting agencies and victims’ services agencies (defined as agencies publicly funded or established by law to provide services to persons adversely affected by crime, or a public official responsible for providing such services): s 3.

   ↑

10. Victoria Police, Code of Practice for the Investigation of Sexual Crime (Policy, 2016) <https://content.police.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-01/Code-of-Practice-for-the-Investigation-of-Sexual-Crime-%282016%29.pdf>.

    ↑

11. Consultation 31 (Geraldine, Deputy Chairperson of the Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council).

    ↑

12. Submissions 17 (Sexual Assault Services Victoria), 27 (Victoria Legal Aid).

    ↑

13. Submission 41 (Office of the Public Advocate).

    ↑

14. Consultation 15 (Child Witness Service).

    ↑

15. Submission 41 (Office of the Public Advocate).

    ↑

16. Submissions 12 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria), 55 (Springvale Monash Legal Service).

    ↑

17. Consultation 66 (Consultation focused on people who have a lived experience of states of mental and emotional distress commonly labelled as ‘mental health challenges’).

    ↑

18. Consultation 11 (Family violence and sexual assault practitioners focusing on disability inclusion).

    ↑

19. Submission 17 (Sexual Assault Services Victoria).

    ↑

20. Consultation 53 (Elizabeth Morgan House and a victim survivor of sexual assault).

    ↑

21. Similarly, the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) requires Victoria Police to notify the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service within an hour when an Aboriginal person is taken into custody: s 464FA. The role of victim support programs is discussed in ch 12, and the role of community organisations in ch 8.

    ↑

22. Submissions 17 (Sexual Assault Services Victoria), 68 (Victoria Police); Victoria Police, Multidisciplinary Centres (MDCs) (Information Sheet, 16 October 2017) <https://msau-mdvs.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/MDC_Information_Sheet.pdf>. Existing MDCs are in Mildura and Seaford (opened 2007), Geelong (opened 2012), Dandenong (opened 2014), Morwell and Bendigo (opened 2015), Wyndham (opened 2018).

    ↑

23. Submission 17 (Sexual Assault Services Victoria).

    ↑

24. ‘Sexual Offences and Child Abuse Investigation Teams’, Victoria Police (Web Page, 5 July 2021) <https://www.police.vic.gov.au/sexual-offences-and-child-abuse-investigation-teams>.

    ↑

25. Submission 17 (Sexual Assault Services Victoria).

    ↑

26. Ibid.

    ↑

27. Premier of Victoria, ‘Family Violence Support under One Roof’ (Media Release, 21 April 2017) <http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/family-violence-support-under-one-roof/>. This MDC has also been evaluated, but this evaluation was not published and was not provided to the Victorian Law Reform Commission.

    ↑

28. Agreement about the ‘core services’ is recommended in Submission 10 (Carolyn Worth AM and Mary Lancaster).

    ↑

29. Victorian Government, ‘The Orange Door: Delivering a Statewide Network of Specialist Hubs for Family Violence Support and Services’, Engage Victoria (Web Page) <https://engage.vic.gov.au/family-violence-rolling-action-plan-2020-2023/the-orange-door>.

    ↑

30. Victorian Government, The Orange Door Service Model (Guide, December 2019) <http://www.vic.gov.au/orange-door-service-model>.

    ↑

31. Ibid.

    ↑

32. Victoria Police, Multidisciplinary Centres (MDCs) (Information Sheet, 16 October 2017) <https://msau-mdvs.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/MDC_Information_Sheet.pdf>. Tidmarsh and Hamilton observe that MDCs still need to move ‘from co-location to effective co-working’: Submission 44 (Dr Patrick Tidmarsh and Dr Gemma Hamilton).

    ↑

33. Victoria Police, Multidisciplinary Centres (MDCs) (Information Sheet, 16 October 2017) <https://msau-mdvs.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/MDC_Information_Sheet.pdf>.

    ↑

34. Submission 68 (Victoria Police).

    ↑

35. Submission 17 (Sexual Assault Services Victoria).

    ↑

36. See Jan Breckenridge et al, Meta-Evaluation of Existing Interagency Partnerships, Collaboration, Coordination and/or Integrated Interventions and Service Responses to Violence against Women (State of Knowledge Paper No 11/2015, ANROWS Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety, September 2015) 9, Table 1 (adapted from Fine, Pancharatnam and Thomson (2000)) <https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/meta-evaluation-of-existing-interagency-partnerships-collaboration-coordination-and-or-integrated-interventions-and-service-responses-to-violence-against-women-key-findings-and-future-directions/>.

    ↑

37. See Martine B Powell and Rita Cauchi, ‘Victims’ Perceptions of a New Model of Sexual Assault Investigation Adopted by Victoria Police’ (2013) 14(3) Police Practice and Research 228, 239–40; Martine B Powell and Rebecca Wright, ‘Professionals’ Perceptions of a New Model of Sexual Assault Investigation Adopted by Victoria Police’ (2012) 23(3) Current Issues in Criminal Justice 333, 338–43; Success Works and Department of Justice (Vic), Sexual Assault Reform Strategy (Final Evaluation Report, Department of Justice (Vic), January 2011) ii, 24–5 <https://trove.nla.gov.au/version/169811763>. We are aware of a second, unpublished, evaluation in 2015.

    ↑

38. Martine B Powell and Rita Cauchi, ‘Victims’ Perceptions of a New Model of Sexual Assault Investigation Adopted by Victoria Police’ (2013) 14(3) Police Practice and Research 228, 234–6, 238; note, however, that this evaluation also included the benefits of SOCITs. See also Monash Health and South Eastern CASA (Centre Against Sexual Assault & Family Violence), Keep Following the Yellow Brick Road. The Trials, Tribulations and Triumphs of Colocated Police, Child Protection and Sexual Assault Workers (Report, 21 February 2016) <https://www.casa.org.au/assets/Documents/keep-following-the-yellow-brick-road.pdf>. The second evaluation, in 2015, did not interview people who had experienced sexual violence.

    ↑

39. Martine B Powell and Rebecca Wright, ‘Professionals’ Perceptions of a New Model of Sexual Assault Investigation Adopted by Victoria Police’ (2012) 23(3) Current Issues in Criminal Justice 333, 350.

    ↑

40. This second evaluation has not been published. This summary is from Monash Health and South Eastern CASA (Centre Against Sexual Assault & Family Violence), Keep Following the Yellow Brick Road. The Trials, Tribulations and Triumphs of Colocated Police, Child Protection and Sexual Assault Workers (Report, 21 February 2016) <https://www.casa.org.au/assets/Documents/keep-following-the-yellow-brick-road.pdf>.

    ↑

41. Submissions 44 (Dr Patrick Tidmarsh and Dr Gemma Hamilton), 45 (Victims of Crime Commissioner), 55 (Springvale Monash Legal Service), 68 (Victoria Police); Consultation 25 (CASA senior counsellor/advocates). See also Consultation 8 (Family Violence Reform Implementation Monitor).

    ↑

42. Submissions 17 (Sexual Assault Services Victoria), 45 (Victims of Crime Commissioner), 55 (Springvale Monash Legal Service).

    ↑

43. Victoria Police, Policing Harm, Upholding the Right: Victoria Police Strategy for Family Violence, Sexual Offences and Child Abuse 2018-2023 (Policy, 2017) 15 <https://www.police.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-03/Policing-Harm-Upholding-The-Right.pdf>.

    ↑

44. Victorian Law Reform Commission, Improving the Response of the Justice System to Sexual Offences: Summary of Responses to Online Feedback Form from People with Experience of Sexual Assault (Report, April 2021).

    ↑

45. Submission 17 (Sexual Assault Services Victoria).

    ↑

46. Submissions 10 (Carolyn Worth AM and Mary Lancaster), 22 (knowmore legal service), 45 (Victims of Crime Commissioner).

    ↑

47. Submissions 17 (Sexual Assault Services Victoria), 68 (Victoria Police).

    ↑

48. Submission 17 (Sexual Assault Services Victoria).

    ↑

49. Submission 68 (Victoria Police).

    ↑

50. Submission 14 (Gatehouse Centre, Royal Children’s Hospital).

    ↑

51. Jan Breckenridge et al, Meta-Evaluation of Existing Interagency Partnerships, Collaboration, Coordination and/or Integrated Interventions and Service Responses to Violence against Women (State of Knowledge Paper No 11/2015, ANROWS Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety, September 2015) 21–6 <https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/meta-evaluation-of-existing-interagency-partnerships-collaboration-coordination-and-or-integrated-interventions-and-service-responses-to-violence-against-women-key-findings-and-future-directions/>; James Leslie Herbert and Leah Bromfield, ‘Better Together? A Review of Evidence for Multi-Disciplinary Teams Responding to Physical and Sexual Child Abuse’ (2019) 20(2) Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 214, 215, citing NSW Ombudsman, 2012. In a recent national study, the authors were unable to find any integrated responses targeting women with disability: Jan Breckenridge et al, Meta-Evaluation of Existing Interagency Partnerships, Collaboration, Coordination and/or Integrated Interventions and Service Responses to Violence against Women (State of Knowledge Paper No 11/2015, ANROWS Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety, September 2015) 25 <https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/meta-evaluation-of-existing-interagency-partnerships-collaboration-coordination-and-or-integrated-interventions-and-service-responses-to-violence-against-women-key-findings-and-future-directions/>.

    ↑

52. Jan Breckenridge et al, Meta-Evaluation of Existing Interagency Partnerships, Collaboration, Coordination and/or Integrated Interventions and Service Responses to Violence against Women (Research Report, ANROWS Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety, July 2016) 21 <https://d2rn9gno7zhxqg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/19025016/H4_3.2_IRME_WEB-270616.pdf>.

    ↑

53. Submission 17 (Sexual Assault Services Victoria). See also Monash Health and South Eastern CASA (Centre Against Sexual Assault & Family Violence), Keep Following the Yellow Brick Road. The Trials, Tribulations and Triumphs of Colocated Police, Child Protection and Sexual Assault Workers (Report, 21 February 2016) <https://www.casa.org.au/assets/Documents/keep-following-the-yellow-brick-road.pdf>; Martine B Powell and Rebecca Wright, ‘Professionals’ Perceptions of a New Model of Sexual Assault Investigation Adopted by Victoria Police’ (2012) 23(3) Current Issues in Criminal Justice 333, 350.

    ↑

54. Submission 14 (Gatehouse Centre, Royal Children’s Hospital). It gave as an example the Mallee MDC, where Mallee Sexual Assault Unit is the lead agency.

    ↑

55. Ibid.

    ↑

56. Submission 11 (Associate Professor John AM Gall).

    ↑

57. Ibid; Submission 61 (Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine).

    ↑

58. Submission 68 (Victoria Police).

    ↑

59. Submission 44 (Dr Patrick Tidmarsh and Dr Gemma Hamilton).

    ↑

60. Amanda Robinson and Kirsty Hudson, ‘Different yet Complementary: Two Approaches to Supporting Victims of Sexual Violence in the UK’ (2011) 11(5) Criminology & Criminal Justice 515.

    ↑

61. Consultation 53 (Elizabeth Morgan House and a victim survivor of sexual assault). See also Marcia Langton et al, Improving Family Violence Legal and Support Services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women (Research Report No 25, ANROWS Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety, December 2020) 64–6 <https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/improving-family-violence-legal-and-support-services-for-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-peoples-key-findings-and-future-directions/>.

    ↑

62. Consultations 20 (Members of Barwon South West RAJAC and Barwon South West Dhelk Dja Action Group), 30 (Djirra).

    ↑

63. Submission 55 (Springvale Monash Legal Service).

    ↑

64. Ibid.

    ↑

65. Health Justice Australia, Joining the Dots: 2018 Census of the Australian Health Justice Landscape (Report, 2018) 2–3 <https://www.healthjustice.org.au/joining-the-dots/>.

    ↑

66. Submission 12 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria).

    ↑

67. Twenty per cent of services target domestic violence, and 17 of the 38 health justice services were located in Aboriginal health or community support settings, 15 of them with Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations: Health Justice Australia, Joining the Dots: 2018 Census of the Australian Health Justice Landscape (Report, 2018) 2–3 <https://www.healthjustice.org.au/joining-the-dots/>.

    ↑

68. ‘Protecting the Rights of Older Australians’, Attorney-General’s Department (Cth) (Web Page) <https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/protecting-rights-older-australians>.

    ↑

69. The proposed new mental health system would also be an integrated service system: Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System (Final Report, 3 February 2021) 20–2, Recommendation 6 <https://finalreport.rcvmhs.vic.gov.au/>.

    ↑

70. A coordinator role was a recommendation of the second evaluation of MDCs: Monash Health and South Eastern CASA (Centre Against Sexual Assault & Family Violence), Keep Following the Yellow Brick Road. The Trials, Tribulations and Triumphs of Colocated Police, Child Protection and Sexual Assault Workers (Report, 21 February 2016) 3 <https://www.casa.org.au/assets/Documents/keep-following-the-yellow-brick-road.pdf>.

    ↑

71. Email from Family Safety Victoria to Victorian Law Reform Commission, 30 April 2021.

    ↑

72. Family Violence Reform Implementation Monitor, Report of the Family Violence Reform Implementation Monitor (Report, 1 November 2020) 128 <http://www.fvrim.vic.gov.au/fourth-report-parliament-1-november-2020-tabled-may-2021>.

    ↑

73. Domestic Violence Victoria and CASA Forum, Progressing Recommendation 31—Final Report (Report, September 2020) 20 <http://dvvic.org.au/publications/progressing-recommendation-31-final-report/>.

    ↑

74. Ibid 23.

    ↑

75. Mallee Sexual Assault Unit and Mallee Domestic Violence Services, ‘Home’, MDSAU MDVS (Web Page) <https://msau-mdvs.org.au/>; The Sexual Assault and Family Violence Centre (Web Page, 2021) <https://www.safvcentre.org.au/>.

    ↑

76. Domestic Violence Victoria and CASA Forum, Progressing Recommendation 31—Final Report (Report, September 2020) 22 <http://dvvic.org.au/publications/progressing-recommendation-31-final-report/>.

    ↑

77. Ibid 17–18.

    ↑

78. Ibid 19.

    ↑

79. This is calculated from Australian Bureau of Statistics, Personal Safety, Australia, 2016 (Catalogue No 4906.0, 8 November 2017) Table 3.1. The experiences of adult females are for the most recent incident of violence experienced in the past 10 years. The sample of sexual violence experienced by men is not statistically reliable enough for general use.

    ↑

80. Victoria Police, Policing Harm, Upholding the Right: Victoria Police Strategy for Family Violence, Sexual Offences and Child Abuse 2018-2023 (Policy, 2017) 7, 10 <https://www.police.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-03/Policing-Harm-Upholding-The-Right.pdf>.

    ↑

81. Royal Commission into Family Violence: Report and Recommendations (Final Report, March 2016) Recommendations 31–2. See also vol 2, 236–7 <http://rcfv.archive.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Report-Recommendations.html>.

    ↑

82. The Common Risk Assessment Framework (CRAF), established in 2007, was examined by the Royal Commission into Family Violence, which made key recommendations for improvement. The framework has been renamed the Multi-Agency Risk Assessment and Management Framework (MARAM): ‘Family Violence Multi-Agency Risk Assessment and Management Framework’, VIC.GOV.AU (Web Page, 29 June 2021) <https://www.vic.gov.au/family-violence-multi-agency-risk-assessment-and-management>.

    ↑

83. Victorian Government, ‘About the Information Sharing and MARAM Reforms’, VIC.GOV.AU (Web Page, 3 June 2021) <http://www.vic.gov.au/about-information-sharing-schemes-and-risk-management-framework>.

    ↑

84. Victorian Government, Creating Jobs, Caring for Victorians (Budget Paper No 3, May 2021) 51.

    ↑

85. Submission 13 (Australian Association of Social Workers).

    ↑

86. Submission 44 (Dr Patrick Tidmarsh and Dr Gemma Hamilton).

    ↑

87. Consultation 18 (Rodney Vlais).

    ↑

88. Submission 50 (Project Respect).

    ↑

89. Submission 21 (Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency).

    ↑

90. Domestic Violence Victoria and CASA Forum, Progressing Recommendation 31—Final Report (Report, September 2020) 35 <http://dvvic.org.au/publications/progressing-recommendation-31-final-report/>.

    ↑

91. Email from Family Safety Victoria to Victorian Law Reform Commission, 30 April 2021.

    ↑

92. Domestic Violence Victoria and CASA Forum, Progressing Recommendation 31—Final Report (Report, September 2020) 1–33 <http://dvvic.org.au/publications/progressing-recommendation-31-final-report/>.

    ↑

93. Ibid Recommendations 1–17.

    ↑

94. Ibid 37–8.

    ↑

95. Submissions 17 (Sexual Assault Services Victoria), 56 (Domestic Violence Victoria). Two areas raised by Sexual Assault Services Victoria’s submission which were also addressed by the report were: the need to improve training on identifying sexual assault within family violence services; and better coordination between the two sectors when working with shared clients.

    ↑

96. Submission 56 (Domestic Violence Victoria).

    ↑

97. Submission 17 (Sexual Assault Services Victoria).

    ↑

98. Submission 44 (Dr Patrick Tidmarsh and Dr Gemma Hamilton).

    ↑

99. Submission 11 (Associate Professor John AM Gall). Tidmarsh and Hamilton proposed a new relationship-based crime command, with co-location and ‘seamless training’ for family violence and sexual offences investigators: Submission 44 (Dr Patrick Tidmarsh and Dr Gemma Hamilton).

    ↑

100. The three MDCs were Geelong, Wyndham and Dandenong: Submission 68 (Victoria Police).

     ↑

101. Consultation 23 (Sexual Assault Services Victoria Specialist Children’s Services).

     ↑

102. Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (Vic) s 162.

     ↑

103. S Bright et al, Attrition of Sexual Offence Incidents through the Victorian Criminal Justice System: 2021 Update (Report, Crime Statistics Agency, 2021). This study focuses on child and adult sexual offences.

     ↑

104. Submission 11 (Associate Professor John AM Gall).

     ↑

105. Consultation 61 (Children’s Court of Victoria).

     ↑

106. Families, Fairness and Housing (Vic), Family Violence Referral Protocol between DHHS, Family Safety Victoria and Department of Justice and Regulation and Victoria Police (Report, 2018) <https://providers.dhhs.vic.gov.au/family-violence-referral-protocol-between-dhhs-family-safety-victoria-and-department-justice-and>.

     ↑

107. Department of Human Services (Vic), Victoria Police and Child Protection (Vic), Protecting Children (Protocol, June 2012) <https://www.cpmanual.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/Protecting-Children-CP-and-VicPol-protocol-2012-2825.pdf>. Under the Protocol, the police are required to notify Child Protection of all allegations of physical abuse, sexual abuse and child neglect, and if a child is harmed or at risk of harm. The police are also required to notify Child Protection if they are interviewing a child victim or witness involved with Child Protection, or if there is an alleged offender who is a Child Protection client. The Protocol requires Child Protection to notify the police if a child is in need of protection due to sexual abuse, physical abuse or serious neglect.

     ↑

108. Ibid ch 14.

     ↑

109. Department of Human Services (Vic) and Victoria Police, Addendum—Preventing Sexual Exploitation of Children and Young People in Out-of-Home Care (Addendum, 2014) <https://www.cpmanual.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/addendum%20to%20police%20protocol%20re%20SE_09.04.14.pdf>.

     ↑

110. See James L Herbert and Leah Bromfield, National Comparison of Cross-Agency Practice in Investigating and Responding to Severe Child Abuse (CFCA Paper No 47, Australian Institute of Family Studies (Cth), February 2018) <https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/national-comparison-cross-agency-practice-investigating-and-responding>.

     ↑

111. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse: Criminal Justice Report (Executive Summary and Parts I-II, 2017) 371.

     ↑

112. See Premier of Victoria, Protecting Children From Sexual Exploitation (Media Release, 1 July 2016) <http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/protecting-children-from-sexual-exploitation-0>.

     ↑

113. Submission 68 (Victoria Police).

     ↑

114. Ibid. All of the original sites continue to use this approach, and another 10–12 SOCIT sites use these practices or are considering them: Consultation 57 (Department of Health and Human Services).

     ↑

115. Commission for Children and Young People (Vic), Out of Sight: Systemic Inquiry into Children and Young People Who Are Absent or Missing from Residential Care (Report, 2021) 22 <https://ccyp.vic.gov.au/assets/Publications-inquiries/Out-of-sight-inquiry-report-Web.pdf>.

     ↑

116. James Herbert and Leah Bromfield, Components of Effective Cross-Agency Responses to Abuse—A Report for the NSW Ombudsman’s Office (No 2, Australian Centre for Child Protection, University of South Australia, August 2017) 6–7, 109–10 <https://www.unisa.edu.au/siteassets/episerver-6-files/global/eass/research/accp/components-of-effective-cross-agency-responses-to-abuse.pdf>. See also Nina Westera, Elli Darwinckel and Martine Powell, A Systematic Review of the Efficacy of Specialist Police Investigative Units in Responding to Child Sexual Abuse (Report, Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, 2016) <http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/getattachment/9f511ab0-c107-42b9-814c-b5e502b5fa4b/The-response-of-specialist-police-investigative-un>.

     ↑

117. Monash Health and South Eastern CASA (Centre Against Sexual Assault & Family Violence), Keep Following the Yellow Brick Road. The Trials, Tribulations and Triumphs of Colocated Police, Child Protection and Sexual Assault Workers (Report, 21 February 2016) <https://www.casa.org.au/assets/Documents/keep-following-the-yellow-brick-road.pdf>.

     ↑

118. James Herbert and Leah Bromfield, Components of Effective Cross-Agency Responses to Abuse—A Report for the NSW Ombudsman’s Office (No 2, Australian Centre for Child Protection, University of South Australia, August 2017) 67 <https://www.unisa.edu.au/siteassets/episerver-6-files/global/eass/research/accp/components-of-effective-cross-agency-responses-to-abuse.pdf>. See, eg, James Herbert, Leah Bromfield, and Australian Centre for Child Protection, Multiagency Investigation & Support Team (MIST) Pilot: Evaluation Report (Report, Australian Centre for Child Protection, July 2017); James L Herbert and Leah Bromfield, National Comparison of Cross-Agency Practice in Investigating and Responding to Severe Child Abuse (CFCA Paper No 47, Australian Institute of Family Studies (Cth), February 2018) <https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/national-comparison-cross-agency-practice-investigating-and-responding>.

     ↑

119. Following the Ombudsman’s review, this has been renamed the Joint Child Protection Response Program: ‘The Joint Child Protection Response Program (JCPRP)’, Communities and Justice (NSW) (Web Page, 24 December 2020) <https://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/providers/children-families/child-protection-services/joint-child-protection-response>.

     ↑

120. New South Wales Ombudsman, The JIRT Partnership—20 Years On (Report, August 2017) 21–2, 25–6, 37–8 <https://www.ombo.nsw.gov.au/news-and-publications/publications/reports/child-protection/the-jirt-partnership-20-years-on>.

     ↑

121. Ibid ix–x, xvi, xxi–xiii.

     ↑

122. James Herbert, Leah Bromfield and Australian Centre for Child Protection, Multiagency Investigation & Support Team (MIST) Pilot: Evaluation Report (Report, Australian Centre for Child Protection, July 2017) 8, 19–20. Strategy meetings are also held normally as part of the ‘practice as usual’ process: 19.

     ↑

123. See, eg, James Leslie Herbert and Leah Bromfield, ‘Evidence for the Efficacy of the Child Advocacy Center Model: A Systematic Review’ (2016) 17(3) Trauma, Violence & Abuse 341, 342, 352.

     ↑

124. See James Herbert, Leah Bromfield and Australian Centre for Child Protection, Multiagency Investigation & Support Team (MIST) Pilot: Evaluation Report (Report, Australian Centre for Child Protection, July 2017) 30.

     ↑

125. Ibid 110, 114.

     ↑

126. Ibid 114.

     ↑

127. Consultation 61 (Children’s Court of Victoria).

     ↑

128. This discussion related to the involvement of Child Protection, Victoria Police and relevant community organisations in responding to a child’s report of sexual offences: Consultation 65 (Commissioner for Children and Young People).

     ↑

129. Submission 68 (Victoria Police).

     ↑

130. Submission 17 (Sexual Assault Services Victoria); Consultation 23 (Sexual Assault Services Victoria Specialist Children’s Services).

     ↑

131. Consultation 23 (Sexual Assault Services Victoria Specialist Children’s Services).

     ↑

132. Submission 14 (Gatehouse Centre, Royal Children’s Hospital).

     ↑

133. Submission 17 (Sexual Assault Services Victoria).

     ↑

134. Ibid.

     ↑

135. Submission 44 (Dr Patrick Tidmarsh and Dr Gemma Hamilton).

     ↑

136. Submission 21 (Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency).

     ↑

137. Consultation 53 (Elizabeth Morgan House and a victim survivor of sexual assault).

     ↑