Risk assessment and management

4.80 ‘Risk assessment’ refers to ‘ongoing efforts to assess the degree of harm or injury likely to occur as a result of past, present or future family violence’,^[103] while ‘risk management’ aims to promote safety, accountability and healing for victims through referral to a range of services such as emergency and support services, counselling and support, accommodation and culturally specific services.

4.81 It is important that the person conducting the risk assessment has experience and expertise in interviewing victims of family violence; considerable knowledge of the dynamics of family violence; and uses risk assessment guidelines or tools accepted in the scientific and professional communities.^[104] Given the nature of risk assessment, often screening and assessment are conducted by different individuals. However, there are concerns with separating the screening and risk assessment processes, including:^[105]

• establishing trust—‘[r]evelations, even at the screening phase, are made by a client within the context of some level of trust in the competence and integrity of the individual conducting the screening’ which ‘will not always repeat itself with another individual’;^[106]

• dangers of screening in isolation from empathic engagement;^[107] and

• further traumatising the victim if screening is insensitively or incompetently handled.^[108]

4.82 Robinson and Moloney describe these problems as problems of ‘triage’ and that, arguably,

the person at the beginning of the triage process bears the greatest responsibility because a failure to detect violence or associated issues at this stage can reverberate through the service delivery system. At the same time, such an individual usually cannot take on the full burden of the case.^[109]

4.83 It is therefore acknowledged that ‘services still grapple with the most effective ways of identifying family violence issues with which clients present and, just as importantly, of taking appropriate actions once family violence has been accurately identified’.^[110]

4.84 Currently, referral to Centrelink social workers where family violence is disclosed is already provided for in the Guide to Social Security Law, Job Seeker Classification Instrument (JSCI) Guidelines and related Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) advices where family violence is self-disclosed. However, it is not consistently provided for in the Child Support Guide and Family Assistance Guide.

4.85 However, the CSA’s ‘Common Module—Family Violence’ (an internal CSA electronic resource) states that, where a parent or non-parent carer indicates that they are experiencing, or are at risk of family violence, referral to service support services should be made, including warm referrals^[111] to the Parent Support Service where the customer is significantly emotionally distressed or, warm transfer to the Family Relationships Advice Line or the family violence support web page.^[112]

4.86 In the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s report—Falling Through the Cracks—the Ombudsman recommended that Centrelink implement processes to collect information from customers who identify as having a disability (mental or physical) about the impact that disability has on their capacity to engage effectively with the social security system’ and that ‘Centrelink should consider implementing a standard process for recording any special needs or limitations associated with mental illness on a customer’s electronic file, as well as any instructions/strategies for accommodating those needs’.^[113] A variation of this is currently used by both Centrelink and the CSA—referred to as ‘vulnerability indicators’ and ‘sensitive issue indicators’, respectively.

Vulnerability indicators

4.87 In the social security system, a ‘vulnerability indicator’ may be placed on a customer’s record (accessible by Centrelink, DEEWR and the job seeker’s job services provider) in certain circumstances. The ALRC understands that these currently include recent psychiatric problem or mental illness, drug or alcohol dependence, homelessness and recent traumatic relationship breakdown (including relocation as a result of a recent family violence situation). Centrelink customer service advisers are required to consider at their initial engagement with a job seeker, and at subsequent engagements, whether a ‘vulnerability indicator’ should be placed on the customer’s record.^[114] The flag indicates to job service providers and Centrelink that a job seeker may have difficulty meeting their requirements for receiving social security payments or entitlements (such as activity test or participation requirements) due to vulnerability and to ensure that the vulnerabilities are taken into account when setting participation requirements for the job seeker and responding to failures to comply.

4.88 A ‘warm referral’ involves contacting another service on the customer’s behalf and may also involve writing a report or case history on the customer for the legal service and/or attending the service with the customer. This may be effective for customers who are hesitant to contact other services or who may not have the means—such as a telephone—to contact the other agency.

4.89 The Commonwealth Ombudsman has previously noted that ‘Centrelink staff struggle with the challenge of properly identifying these customers so that services can be appropriately tailored to their needs’.^[115]

Sensitive issue indicator

4.90 A similar mechanism exists in the child support system. The CSA’s Family Violence—Common Module states that where a customer advises that there is a risk of family violence, regardless of whether there is an Apprehended Violence Order (AVO) or Domestic Violence Order (DVO) in place, a ‘sensitive issue indicator’ should be placed on the customer’s file. The Module expressly states that the customer is not to be advised of the existence of the ‘sensitive issue indicator’ and that it is an internal customer management tool only.^[116] Conversations regarding family violence are also required to be documented in the CSA database.^[117]

Submissions and consultations

4.91 Stakeholders recommended a number of responses that should occur when family violence is disclosed, including the provision of information; referral to social workers and other support services such as Legal Aid, case or issues management, and mechanisms for the protection of personal information. Some stakeholders also recommended the establishment of a specialised team or case worker to coordinate these responses. These concepts are discussed below.

Provision of information

4.92 The Sole Parents’ Union submitted that it had received feedback that,

while many Centrelink staff are excellent, providing all information necessary and ensuring applicants are aware of their entitlements, others are not so diligent, sympathetic or even believing. Nor do they generally provide information about child support eligibility and requirements, often merely advising the victim to contact the Child Support Agency for all information.^[118]

4.93 In particular, the ADFVC recommended that customers who disclose family violence should be provided with information about their rights and entitlements.^[119] The National Children’s and Youth Law Centre emphasised the importance of this for young people experiencing family violence if ‘they are not aware that they are able to financially support themselves then young people may be forced to stay in the violent home, or become homeless’.^[120]

4.94 The CSMC stated

At a time when they are often at their most vulnerable, and needing additional financial resources, [victims] have to negotiate the complex, interacting systems that involve Child Support, Centrelink and family law. Family violence often commences or worsens during separation, and the main concern for women at this time is the safety of themselves and their children. To achieve this they often decide not to pursue child support, despite the financial impact. In our experience they are often not fully informed by the CSA or Centrelink of their rights and entitlements; nor do they have an advocate or support to assist them negotiate these complex systems.^[121]

Referral to support services

4.95 A number of stakeholders recommended that a person who discloses family violence should be referred to a social worker.^[122] The ADFVC considered that any person who discloses family violence should be referred to support available—‘whether that be to the national domestic violence helpline, Centrelink social workers or a domestic violence service’.^[123] Stakeholders considered that social workers were best placed to provide further assistance with a person’s claims and entitlements.^[124]

4.96 Stakeholders also recognised the need for additional training for social workers to ‘undertake any necessary assessment’,^[125] and to ensure that policies and practices support required referral to social workers where family violence is identified.^[126]

Specialist family violence team

4.97 Several stakeholders considered that a specialist family violence unit or team should be established.^[127] Stakeholders submitted that such a team would overcome a ‘range of structural, cultural and systemic issues’ such as:

• inconsistent responses to family violence, including differing information from CSA and Centrelink;
• the need to ask the ‘right’ questions in order to get the desired information;
• a lack of expertise in responding to family violence;
• the personal and intrusive nature of seeking an exemption for child support purposes;
• support and trust of agency staff;
• limited information provided to victims of family violence;
• barriers created by frequent reassessments;^[128] and
• the need to repeat a story to numerous workers in different agencies.^[129]

4.98 The CSMC submitted that a specialist family violence unit could work across both the CSA and Centrelink,^[130] staffed with highly skilled workers with extensive experience of family violence^[131] who utilise a sensitive case management approach.^[132] This team would be a specialist team with best practice screening tools and have a professional background and expertise in ‘domestic violence’. The team would have a complaint mechanism and processes of review consistent with current government agencies.^[133] Some stakeholders suggested that a member of the specialist team should be appointed to each person who discloses family violence.^[134]

4.99 Stakeholders suggested that this team could assume a range of responsibilities that could include, but are not limited to, the following:

• act as the first point of contact for victims of family violence;^[135]
• coordinate the provision of information and referral to support services;^[136]
• act as a conduit between the victim and government agencies; ^[137]
• critically discuss the various options available to them, and support them in their decisions and their negotiation through the system;^[138] and
• organise exemptions and reviews.^[139]

4.100 The ADFVC provided an example of best practice from New Zealand:

New Zealand’s Department of Work and Income … provides financial assistance and employment services. It offers a single point of contact for New Zealanders needing job search support, financial assistance and in-work support. In 2005, Work and Income piloted the Family Violence Intervention Programme that was rolled out nationally. Through the program, Family Violence Response Co-ordinators are appointed in each region to provide support to case managers and liaise with local support services. Co-ordinators provide training and support to enable case managers in screening clients for family violence and providing referrals to services.^[140]

‘Safety concern’ flag

4.101 The AASW considered that ‘measures be undertaken to minimize the number of times a person has to provide detail of the domestic and family violence experienced’.^[141]

4.102 The Welfare Rights Centre Inc Queensland referred to Centrelink’s ‘vulnerability indicators’ for homelessness and potential homelessness which leads to an ‘appropriate service delivery to the customer; tailored responses as well as internal and external referrals for addressing the needs and dealing with homelessness’. It recommended a ‘similar “flag” system be set up to better effect service delivery for customers with family violence, or risk of family violence concerns’.^[142]

4.103 Similarly, the Commonwealth Ombudsman considered that there would be ‘merit in expanding the use of vulnerability indicators (or some other visible “flag” on the customer’s record) to highlight the customer’s vulnerability to all staff handling their file’.^[143]

ALRC’s views

4.104 The ALRC recognises the need for an appropriate response by Centrelink, the CSA and the FAO, when family violence is disclosed. Such a response should be coordinated, informative and ultimately increase the safety of victims of family violence. The ALRC considers that there is merit in ensuring that, within an agency—and possibly across agencies—there is a signalling mechanism that family violence has been raised which prompts a privacy and a case-management response which includes risk assessment and risk management. Such a response could be facilitated through either referral to a Centrelink social worker or a specialist family violence team.

4.105 The ALRC understands that DHS is currently considering a portfolio-wide response and an alignment of CSA and Centrelink responses to family violence, as part of DHS integration and Service Delivery Reform. Such a portfolio-wide response may assist in ensuring a coordinated response from the Human Services portfolio agencies.

Provision of information

4.106 The ALRC notes with concern that when a person discloses family violence to a service agency, the person may not receive all the information relevant to their circumstances. The disclosure of family violence should act as a trigger for the provision of information discussed in Proposal 4–8 above. This will ensure that customers who disclose family violence are aware of how family violence may be relevant to their social security, child support, and family assistance case, and of the support networks that are available to them.

Confidentiality

4.107 The information about family violence is only a claim of family violence and does not go to evidence of its truth. To preserve procedural fairness and prevent the spread of unfounded allegations of family violence, information about family violence should be treated confidentially, including prohibiting disclosure of such information to individuals outside the relevant agency other than the customer without the express permission of the customer. The focus should be on managing safety issues and not to cause unintended consequences.^[144]

Referral to a Centrelink social worker

4.108 There are concerns about splitting the roles of screening and risk assessment. However, in light of the nature of the role of customer service staff and the agency environment, the ALRC considers that customer service staff should not conduct risk assessment, but that persons who disclose family violence be referred to a Centrelink social worker to perform this role. The ALRC notes in this regard that the Guide to Social Security Law, JSCI Guidelines and related DEEWR material already provide this. However, the ALRC considers that the Child Support Guide and the Family Assistance Guide should be amended to reflect this.

Specialist family violence team

4.109 Some stakeholders suggested the development of a specialist family violence team that would screen, support and address issues of exemptions and other family violence matters. The team would be the one point of contact for victims. Other stakeholders have recommended a specialist case manager to fulfil much the same role. The ALRC understands that, to some extent, Centrelink social workers currently fulfil this role.

4.110 In the ALRC’s view, the establishment of a specialist family violence team could potentially solve a number of problems related to multiple points of engagement within and across agencies. It would also constitute a shift from issues management to case management for family violence cases. The ALRC notes that if a specialist family violence team or case manager is established, many of the proposals n this Discussion Paper that refer to social workers will refer instead to the specialist family violence team or case manager.

Safety concern flag

4.111 The operation of a flag, similar to the ‘vulnerability indicator’ and ‘sensitive issue indicator’ currently used by Centrelink and the CSA, respectively, would assist in addressing the barrier of repeating information to numerous agency officers. The ALRC considers that the flag should be placed on a customer’s file when safety concerns are raised, to provide the relevant agency staff member an indication that the person may be eligible for different entitlements or exemptions.

4.112 The ALRC notes, however, that there would be some concerns as to how to keep the ‘safety concern flag’ current, to ensure that the flag is not used for some collateral purpose and to ensure procedural fairness is afforded to others who may be connected to the person’s file. There may also be concerns about who could access the ‘safety concern flag’. These concerns should be taken into consideration in developing the ‘safety concern flag’. The existing infrastructure must also be sufficient to host a ‘safety concern flag’ without allowing unintended access by various government departments and agencies.

4.113 Currently, the interface between the agencies—Centrelink, the CSA, and the FAO—and their customers may be best described as ‘issues management’. This is distinct from case management, which is ‘generally held to involve the handling of a customer by a dedicated case officer over an extended, if not indefinite, period of time’.^[145] While the ALRC acknowledges this distinction, the Discussion Paper refers to the agency-customer interface as case management, for simplicity.