Victoria government logo

This chapter presents the key Census results for respondents who indicated that they currently worked in The Orange Door (10%; n=160). This cohort primarily comprised specialist family violence workers (29%), child and family services workers (14%), hub team leaders (10%), and men’s family violence workers (9%).

  • Compared to other respondents, those who worked in The Orange Door were:

    • more likely to hold full-time roles (66% versus 57% of those who did not work in the Orange Door), and be employed in an ongoing capacity (78% versus 72%);
    • more likely to report that they worked in excess of their ideal hours in the past fortnight (21% versus 17%);
    • less likely to indicate that they were often paid to work after hours on weekdays (9% versus 20%), and on weekends (2% versus 12%); and
    • less likely to report that they often worked additional unpaid hours (24% versus 32%).
  • Those who worked in The Orange Door were:

    • more likely than others to be satisfied with the quality of support provided to them by their supervisor / direct manager (80%, compared to 74% of those who did not work in the Orange Door); and
    • slightly more likely than others to be satisfied with the quality of professional supervision provided to them by external supervisors (94% versus 86%). Satisfaction did not vary in regard to the quality of internal supervisors.

  • In relation to family violence response, 62% of respondents who worked in The Orange Door indicated that they were confident that they have had enough training and experience to perform their role(s) effectively (in line with 61% of those who did not work in the Orange Door).

    Those who worked in The Orange Door reported:

    • substantially higher usage of MARAM tools in identifying or assessing family violence risk, compared to those who did not work in the Orange Door (80% versus 59%); and
    • considerably higher understanding of information sharing responsibilities (94% versus 80%).

    This cohort also reported higher levels of information sharing activity – 94% had undertaken at least one activity in the past year, compared to 81% of those who did not work in the Orange Door.

    The top three topics which respondents working in The Orange Door felt they required further training in were:

    • legal issues for family violence (62%);
    • working with people with disabilities (58%); and
    • sexual assault in family violence (58%).

    The training topics completed by respondents working in The Orange Door and felt to be the most helpful were:

    • RAMP (93%);
    • trauma-informed practice (90%);
    • identifying and screening family violence (89%); and
    • working with adolescents (89%).

    In terms of barriers to accessing further training and development, those who worked in The Orange Door were more likely than others to indicate that they were unable to access further training and development due to the location of the training facility (42% versus 31%), as well as a lack of flexible options (35% versus 22%). In contrast, they were less likely to identify cost of study as a barrier (32% versus 43%).

  • Those who worked in The Orange Door reported a similar, though slightly higher, level of overall satisfaction with their current role than those who did not work in the Orange Door (79%, versus 75%). However, this cohort was less likely to feel that their work makes a significant difference to people affected by family violence (60%, compared to 67% of those who did not work in The Orange Door).

  • When asked about their future intentions, respondents working in The Orange Door were less likely than others to have plans to leave their current role (32%, compared to 40% of those who did not work in The Orange Door). This cohort was also more likely to indicate that they would consider a role in the primary prevention workforce in the future (92% versus 79%).

Reviewed 02 July 2021

Was this page helpful?