Screening for family violence

4.27 Screening is the first step in a risk assessment process. Screening is ‘the systemic application of a test or enquiry (a series of questions) to identify individuals at sufficient risk of violence to benefit from further investigation or direct preventative action’.^[33] Screening is therefore a safety precaution and not only helps identify those at risk but may also enable early intervention through immediate identification of supportive resources and referrals.^[34] Screening is not seeking evidence or truth in relation to the existence of family violence; it is seeking to elicit a victim’s fear or disclosure of violence, or to elicit whether there is a risk of violence in the future to a customer or their children.^[35]

4.28 Importantly, to be beneficial, screening must be followed by a positive and appropriate response—generally, risk assessment and risk management. These concepts are discussed later in this chapter.

Strengths and limitations of screening

4.29 Screening for family violence can have a positive effect on the victim, on service providers, and the wider community. Screening can improve the identification of people experiencing violence, increase the rate of disclosure, promote help-seeking by victims of violence, and thereby enable better advice and referrals for the victim. For service provision agencies, it can improve the knowledge base and practice of professionals about family violence, foster interagency collaboration and may, in turn, educate the community about the seriousness and prevalence of family violence.^[36]

4.30 However, there are also commonly identified limitations of screening, including that it is a relatively new practice requiring more evaluation and research in order to inform good practice. Screening tools themselves suffer limitations, tending to rely on very few questions which, in turn, does not produce a very sophisticated diagnostic assessment.^[37] Further, screening may emphasise physical and sexual violence, and may not identify other forms of family violence.^[38] Currently, there is no accepted effective tool for screening for family violence, nor is there an established best-practice length of time to devote to screening.^[39]

4.31 There are also problems surrounding the implementation of any screening tool, including the use of staff time and increased workloads, lack of sustainable training regimes, lack of privacy to conduct screening, and problems when partners are present.^[40]

4.32 A related concern is that the mere application of a screening tool does nothing to protect the victim—rather, disclosure during the screening process should act as a trigger for an effective response.

4.33 Despite these limitations, as noted by Elly Robinson and Professor Lawrie Moloney, the ‘detection of, and responses to family violence cannot wait until the gold standard research has been completed’.^[41]

Screening for family violence by Centrelink, CSA and the FAO

4.34 Centrelink, the CSA and the FAO rely on self-disclosure of family violence and do not screen routinely for family violence.

4.35 Application and information forms for various social security payments do not appear to include specific information about family violence, such as how family violence may form the basis for an exemption from participation, activity or Employment Pathway Plan requirements, or from providing original proof of identity or tax file numbers.

4.36 The CSA’s Change of Assessment form asks whether the person has a restraining, intervention or other order involving the other parent. However, the ALRC also understands that the CSA asks for this information to assist it with deciding how best to arrange the parents’ separate conferences with the decision maker, rather than for any other broader purpose.^[42]

4.37 The ALRC understands that the Attorney-General’s Department is developing a screening and risk assessment tool, recently releasing a tender for its development.^[43]

Submissions and consultations

4.38 In the Social Security Issues Paper and the Child Support and Family Assistance Issues Paper, the ALRC asked in what circumstances, if any, should Centrelink and CSA staff be required to enquire about the existence of family violence and whether Centrelink and CSA application forms—including electronic forms, correspondence and telephone prompts—should directly seek information about family violence.^[44]

4.39 Stakeholders who responded to these questions recognised that ‘family violence is seriously underreported’^[45] and that there was a need for improvement in the way in which family violence is disclosed. The Ombudsman submitted that service delivery agencies such as Centrelink

have an obligation to, wherever possible, actively seek information from customers about any circumstances which might affect their capacity to actively engage with government, or which might affect the type, rate or conditions of payments or services they are, or may be eligible for.^[46]

4.40 Similarly, the Council of Single Mothers and their Children (CSMC) considered that agencies such as Centrelink ‘need to acknowledge that they have a responsibility to ensure that they act in a manner that protects vulnerable people from harm to the extent they are able’.^[47] The Homeless Persons Legal Service considered that ‘Centrelink staff should employ a principle of trauma-informed care … which takes as its starting point the likely presence and long-term effects of family violence’.^[48]

4.41 Most stakeholders recommended that Centrelink^[49] and the CSA^[50] should: screen for family violence or safety concerns as this would increase the chances of disclosure;^[51] ensure customers are aware that specific provisions exist in relation to family violence;^[52] and indicate that these agencies are willing to discuss and deal with these matters.^[53] The Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse (ADFVC) considered that screening was particularly important due to the relevance of family violence to the administration of child support (in terms of the collection of payments, privacy of personal information and applicants’ knowledge of and decisions to utilise the exemption),^[54] and better identify and refer customers affected by family violence to appropriate services.^[55]

4.42 However, some stakeholders did not consider screening by Centrelink and the CSA appropriate.^[56] The Welfare Rights Centre Inc Queensland submitted that ‘[r]outine screening is neither appropriate nor practicable’^[57] and Centrelink and CSA staff should not inquire about family violence directly’,^[58] while the Australian Association of Social Workers Queensland Branch (AASW) considered that ‘Centrelink staff should not inquire about family violence directly unless the customer reports behaviour that is consistent with domestic and family violence at which time the Centrelink staff member would refer the person to social workers’.^[59]

How should screening occur?

4.43 Most stakeholders agreed that Centrelink and CSA application forms, correspondence and telephone prompts should directly seek information about family violence^[60] as this would ‘facilitate victims of family violence overcoming their reluctance to disclose’.^[61]

4.44 However, stakeholders were divided as to how screening should occur. On the one hand, some stakeholders recommended that agency staff should provide information about the relevance of family violence to social security, child support and family assistance to allow for self-disclosure,^[62] while others considered that a question, or series of questions, about family violence was the best way to screen for family violence.^[63]

Direct questioning

4.45 The ADFVC submitted that standard screening questions should be used and that ‘[d]irect questioning is known to be more effective in eliciting disclosures than more oblique invitations to self identify’.^[64] Similarly, the National Council for Single Mothers and their Children (NCSMC) and Women Everywhere Advocating Violence Elimination (WEAVE) recommended ‘a routinized question about whether the person has any current concerns for their own safety or the safety of members of their household’.^[65]

4.46 Some stakeholders added that including questions about family violence on forms may not be regarded as enough for screening since many will answer ‘no’^[66] due to the inability of a victim of family violence to be able to complete a form or contact a service agency via telephone in private.^[67]

Control is a central element in family violence. Clients have spoken about the perpetrator supervising all contact with Centrelink, ensuring the victim reported to Centrelink exactly as instructed.^[68]

4.47 The North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency (NAAJA) raised concerns ‘about a positive duty on Centrelink workers to inquire about the presence of family violence, especially given that a customer is likely to be going through the application process in a Centrelink office (or in a remote community on a phone in a public space or with a remote service team in a public space)’.^[69]

4.48 Accordingly, the Welfare Rights Centre Inc Queensland submitted that, if questions about family violence were to be included on forms, the ‘absence of an affirmative answer’ should not ‘be taken as an indication that family violence is not occurring’.^[70]

4.49 An alternative, proposed by Welfare Rights Centre Inc Queensland, was for a short statement on claim forms about family violence and the assistance available from Centrelink, such as:

Centrelink recognises that domestic and family violence is a significant issue in our society and has specialist staff that offer help in a discrete and confidential setting. You can ask for an appointment to our social workers by …^[71]

4.50 NAAJA made a similar recommendation and submitted that such a statement ‘has the double benefit of informing customers of what’s available and allowing people to maintain their privacy’.^[72]

4.51 The AASW recommended that enquiries about family violence should only be made if staff ‘suspect or detect violence during the relaying of the circumstances by the victim’.^[73]

4.52 Other stakeholders recommended that information about family violence should be included on CSA and Centrelink forms—either in addition to, or as an alternative to, direct questioning.^[74]

4.53 The AASW and the Welfare Rights Centre Inc Queensland did not support routine screening, both considered it more preferable that agency staff ‘provide information about how domestic and family violence is defined by the department and inquire about whether the person would like a referral to a social worker to discuss the options available’,^[75] and about the provisions and services available, so that a person can make a decision to disclose or not.^[76] The AASW recommended that such information also be included in application forms and other forms.^[77]

4.54 The ADFVC also considered that information provided to customers should include

a definition of family violence and common types of abuse, information about disclosure of family violence and why it is important in the context of applying for Centrelink entitlements (e.g. around eligibility for certain payments and exemptions, access to social workers); a package of information about family violence victim’s rights and entitlements to Centrelink services; contact details for local family violence services.^[78]

4.55 The CSMC recommended that information about family violence should be displayed in offices; contained in printed material; readily accessible on the website; and on recorded messages—as well as available in all community languages and in a culturally appropriate means to reflect the diversity of customers.^[79] The Welfare Rights Centre NSW added that information to customers that they can obtain help, support or financial assistance or referral if they are affected by family violence should be included on ‘all forms of communication (claim forms and payment booklets; face-to-face interviews; posters and brochures in Centrelink offices; recorded ‘scripts’ for call waiting; specific publications for client groups (eg News For Seniors, The Journey; Pulse: website)’.^[80]

Two-stage approach

4.56 The Commonwealth Ombudsman proposed a two-stage process. First, information should be included on letters and forms to explain how family violence might be relevant, for example, to a person’s obligation to apply for and collect child support. The information should be designed to encourage the person to contact the CSA to discuss what measures the CSA can take to reduce the risk that seeking child support would precipitate violence.^[81]

4.57 Secondly, where a person identifies that they have a fear of violence, a more detailed screening should be conducted by asking questions about the general indicators of violence (for example, controlling behaviour regarding finances).^[82]

4.58 The Ombudsman considered that it should be up to the person experiencing the family violence to decide how he or she wants to declare themselves to Commonwealth agencies and any information sought about family violence should be voluntary. The Ombudsman submitted that forms, letters and other publications should all provide clear and consistent information to enhance customers’ understanding that family violence is relevant to their case, it may be in their interests to disclose, where relevant, so staff may provide them with information about their choices.^[83]

What to screen for

4.59 The ADFVC strongly recommended that standard screening questions be used, while the Multicultural Disability Advocacy Association (MDAA) considered that forms should have multiple questions regarding behaviour, rather than a single question about family violence.^[84]

4.60 Stakeholders generally considered that screening should enquire about: the presence of violence;^[85] the safety of both the individual and any children involved’;^[86] about non-physical as well as physical abuse;^[87] the general indicators of violence (for example, controlling behaviour regarding finances); and a number of vulnerability indicators—including homelessness, disability, illiteracy and mental illness—because often these indicators occur in combination,^[88] and be developed in close consultation with workers and organisations that support victims of family violence.^[89]

When should screening occur?

4.61 Those stakeholders who considered that Centrelink and the CSA should screen for family violence indicated that screening should occur on first contact^[90] or initial assessment,^[91] routinely,^[92] or in all circumstances.^[93] Chapters 5, and Chapters 9–11 discuss specific trigger points for screening within the social security system and child support and family assistance systems.

4.62 On the other hand, the AASW submitted that ‘[r]outinely screening for domestic and family violence is problematic … and should not be conducted in a situation where there is no expert support immediately available’. The AASW questioned the value of routine screening for domestic violence as screening questions are not

able to encapsulate the broader definitions of violence and therefore have the potential to screen out people who are subject to coercively controlling tactics whose experience do not match the screening tool domains. Research using tools to discriminate violence from non-violence use detailed questionnaires that often include some 35 questions. This type of process in practice is not workable, cumbersome and of little value if the person has not self identified. It is our view that people need the opportunity to see examples of the coercive controlling tactics that make up the broader definition of violence to then be able to make an informed decision about where their experience fits or not. It is our experience that this process for some takes time. Many domestic violence services define violence and then under each heading provide brief examples of what these might mean. This has been an effective strategy for women’s domestic violence services for over 30 years.^[94]

Manner and environment

4.63 The manner and environment in which family violence is screened for was also considered by stakeholders to be important.

4.64 The Homeless Person’s Legal Service recommended that Centrelink staff enquire with appropriate sensitivity,^[95] and in a non-judgemental manner,^[96] about the existence of family violence. The ADFVC considered that, where the information is included in forms, online, over the phone or in person, there needs to be an explanation as to why this information is sought, that it is routine, how information will be used and what protections might be offered if family violence is disclosed—such as privacy of personal information. Stakeholders also recommended appropriate training and supervision for staff about family violence screening techniques,^[97] in order not to re-traumatise affected customers.^[98] The AASW noted that ‘training and support have been shown to reduce the risk of vicarious traumatisation and burn-out in staff populations who work with trauma’.^[99]

4.65 The Welfare Rights Centre NSW considered it essential that ‘Centrelink provide an environment where clients are encouraged and feel comfortable to raise such personal and sensitive issues’.^[100] The ADFVC also recommended ‘conducting screening in a private space, without partners present’.^[101]

ALRC’s views

Should the CSA, FAO and Centrelink screen for family violence?

4.66 Stakeholders identified that customers were often not aware of how family violence would affect their social security, child support or family assistance eligibility and entitlements. Most stakeholders recommended that some form of screening for family violence by the agencies was necessary—either by providing relevant information or through direct questioning.

4.67 The ALRC acknowledges the difficulties of screening by service delivery agencies such as Centrelink, CSA and the FAO. The first point of contact a customer has is often with front staff who are not currently trained to screen for family violence. They also have a number of other roles.

4.68 However, the ALRC understands that Centrelink customer service advisers are currently able to place a vulnerability indicator on a customer’s file if they suspect, among other things, a customer has recently experienced a relationship breakdown. CSA staff may also place a ‘sensitive issue indicator’ on a customer’s file.^[102] These indicators are discussed in further detail below. Arguably, therefore, a level of screening is occurring by Centrelink and CSA staff.

How should screening occur?

4.69 Stakeholders were divided as to whether screening for family violence should take the form of direct questioning or through the provision of information to all customers. While direct questioning may encourage disclosure of family violence, the ALRC recognises that there are a number of concerns with such an approach, for example:

• one or two questions about family violence or safety may not elicit a response;
• it may lead to an assumption that every person is subject to family violence;
• customer service staff do not have the time to ask numerous questions to ensure thorough screening for family violence; and
• there is a lack of privacy at Centrelink, CSA and FAO offices.

4.70 In light of such concerns, the ALRC does not consider that direct questioning about family violence would be the most effective response. Yet the the barriers to disclosure of family violence need to be addressed. One such barrier is lack of knowledge on the part of the customer—both of what constitutes family violence and how family violence is relevant to a person’s entitlements.

4.71 In the ALRC’s view, agency staff should make a short statement which recognises that family violence is a significant issue in society and may be relevant to the customer’s entitlements and indicates the availability of Centrelink social worker. This addresses a number of stakeholder concerns:

• it allows for individual choice by the customer as to whether to disclose family violence or not;
• it does not assume that everyone is a victim of family violence; and
• it is less labour-intensive on front staff.

When should screening occur?

4.72 In the ALRC’s view, screening for family violence should occur on first contact with the service agency. This addresses the overarching concerns of a lack of awareness about family violence and its relevance to a person’s entitlements. However, as a person may not always be experiencing family violence at the time of first contact, routine screening for family violence is also necessary at identified trigger points. These additional trigger points are considered in Chapter 5 for social security and Chapters 9–11 for child support and family assistance.

Training

4.73 The ALRC considers that Centrelink, CSA and FAO staff should be provided with training on the impact of family violence on a customer’s social security, child support and family assistance arrangements and to ensure referrals to Centrelink social workers who can discuss a customer’s circumstances in more detail.

Monitoring and evaluation

4.74 In light of the limitations of screening identified earlier, and as screening for family violence by Centrelink, CSA and the FAO will be a new process, it is important that the impacts of screening arrangements are monitored and evaluated. The ALRC considers that monitoring and evaluation should be built into the process to ensure that screening is increasing the disclosure of family violence, and positively assisting victims of family violence and not causing further harm. Monitoring and evaluation should also be conducted routinely, and the outcomes made publicly available.

Information pack

4.75 To address the concern that persons who experience family violence do not always identify that they are experiencing family violence, or how it might be relevant to their social security, child support or family assistance case, an information pack should be provided to all customers that contain this information. This information pack would provide detail about family violence, including examples of its nature, features and dynamics, and how family violence is relevant to social security, child support and family assistance. In particular, such information would include how family violence is relevant to:

• exemptions;
• entitlements;
• information protection;
• support and services provided by the agencies;
• referrals; and
• income management.

4.76 In order to ensure that all customers receive this information, it should be provided, where possible, orally—either in person or by telephone, and in writing and online. The information should be tailored to each individual customer, in particular recognising the impact of family violence on particular customers such as Indigenous peoples; those from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds; lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex; children and young people; older persons; and people with disability.

4.77 This information should be provided to all customers upon, or directly following, an application for child support or social security and routinely at periodic intervals and specified trigger points.

4.78 Child Support Agency and Family Assistance Office staff, Centrelink customer service staff, social workers, Indigenous Service Officers (ISOs) and Multicultural Service Officers (MSOs) should receive regular and consistent training in relation to how family violence is relevant to a customer’s circumstances and the requirement to provide all customers with such information.

4.79 Providing such information to customers in this way will allow customers to make their own decisions as to whether to disclose family violence, which ties in with the theme of self-agency discussed in Chapter 2.