The questionnaire (to request full questionnaire please email the Centre for Workforce Excellence at cwe@familysafety.vic.gov.au) was developed by ORIMA Research and the FSV project team, with content informed by the previous Census. The questionnaire was designed as a single instrument, with screening questions at the start to categorise respondents into one of the three workforces and route them through to the applicable survey questions.

Learnings from the 2017 Census led to the following changes being implemented in the current Census:

• Changes to workforce definition to improve data quality.
  • In 2017, respondents were categorised into four “tiers”. For the 2019-20 Census, this approach was carefully revised and replaced with the three workforce categories outlined earlier in Table 1.
  • It should be noted that the current Census results for the specialist family violence response workforce are unable to be benchmarked against results from the 2017 Census, due to the substantial changes in the way workforces were defined in 2019-20.
• Extensive consultation with the sector to accurately inform the design and development of the questionnaire.
  • ORIMA Research and FSV conducted a series of consultative workshops, meetings and interviews with representatives from the target workforces between August and October 2019.
  • The survey dissemination method and elements of the survey design, including the initial screening questions, were tested amongst the target workforces and iteratively refined.
  • A consultation summary report was prepared in November 2019, summarising participants’ feedback and recommendations regarding survey communication, design and dissemination.
  • Sector consultation was made possible with the assistance of the Victorian Council of Social Services, Domestic Violence Victoria and No to Violence.

Ethics approval was granted for this project by the ORIMA Research Human Research Ethics Committee on Thursday 31 October 2019 (Approval Number: 0112019). Research approvals were also granted by the Victoria Police Research Committee and the Victorian Department of Education and Training Research in Victorian Government Schools and Early Childhood settings committee, to conduct research with their staff.

The survey was administered using an online self-completion methodology. As part of the questionnaire finalisation process, a pilot was conducted between Monday 11 November and Friday 15 November 2019, to assess the suitability of survey design and content, and to test the online system and survey length.

Pilot participants were volunteers recruited by the FSV project team, and included individuals representing each of the three workforces. A total of n=16 individuals completed the pilot survey, from a pilot contact list of N=30.

Participants were asked to provide feedback via email. Comments made within the survey were also analysed and feedback was clarified directly with participants as required. Overall, the pilot was assessed as being successful as there were no substantial difficulties raised or improvement suggestions provided in relation to any aspect or question of the survey, and no critical survey issues were uncovered. A pilot testing outcome summary was provided to the FSV project team which detailed some suggestions for improvement primarily in relation to optimising the clarity of some response options. Some valuable feedback was also provided in relation to accessibility, and some programming changes were made prior to full launch to optimise accessibility of the survey.

Following the pilot survey, the online survey was revised to incorporate pilot feedback, and was finalised in consultation with the FSV project team in preparation for the main fieldwork phase. The online survey underwent comprehensive internal testing by the ORIMA project team, as well as User Acceptance Testing by the FSV project team, prior to launch.

The main survey was conducted between Monday 18 November 2019 and Friday 28 February 2020. A small extension was also granted for certain workforces until Friday 13 March 2020 in order to boost final response numbers. Participation in the survey was voluntary, and responses to the survey were private and confidential.

Survey dissemination (via Survey Coordinators)

The Victorian workforce intersecting with family violence is vast, and there is no central or reliable record of contact details for all individuals employed in this sector. Therefore, in order to conduct the Census, ORIMA Research and the FSV project team relied on sector, departmental, and organisational (or similar) representatives to assist in a controlled dissemination of a generic Census survey link.

These representatives, known as Survey Coordinators, were carefully recruited to ensure good coverage of all areas of the workforces that intersect with family violence in Victoria. Coordinators were asked to either email the survey link directly to their contacts, or act as an intermediary, by asking their contacts to share the link to relevant cohorts within their extended network.

A total of 22 Survey Coordinators assisted in promoting and disseminating the Census across the three workforces. Coordinators were provided with support materials to assist them in both identifying in-scope workforces and participants, and to share with these individuals. This ensured that a consistent and clear invitation and message was communicated across the sector.

Pre-registration

Prior to the main survey period, a Census pre-registration page was set up by ORIMA Research to support survey dissemination. This page allowed individuals to voluntarily register their email address to receive an invitation to the survey upon launch.

Response rate

In advance of fieldwork, the FSV project team undertook an extensive data collection exercise to estimate the population size for each of the relevant workforces for this project. Figures were collated via consultation with various organisational representatives across the sector. Estimated headcounts and/or full-time equivalent (FTE) figures were provided by key occupation groups. These figures were used to monitor response rates and are the basis for response rate figures below. Potential limitations regarding these estimates are outlined on the following page.

Overall, a total of 5,021 responses were received for the Census, including 1,575 from the specialist family violence response workforce (see Table 2).

Response numbers were monitored by area throughout the fieldwork period to ensure good coverage was achieved across the state. Targeted communications were utilised as necessary to boost numbers in areas with fewer responses.

The following should be noted regarding the population size used to calculate the overall response rate:

Population figures that were used to calculate response rates are estimates of the true population size.

• These figures were collated by the FSV project team in consultation with other government departments and workforce contacts. These estimates do not represent the estimated overall headcount at a single point in time (as different workforce contacts provided figures at different points over 2019) and do not consider vacancy rates. Although the available population figures are assumed to provide a good estimate of the size of the workforce, in the absence of any single and reliable source of data it cannot be known how closely these figures mirror that of the true population.
• A key consideration regarding the estimated figures is that there is likely to have been some employee turnover or restructuring of roles / organisations since this estimate was collated. There is also a small risk that the original estimates may not have covered all in-scope areas of the workforce (though it should be noted that the FSV project team undertook a substantial amount of work to ensure all areas of the workforce were covered).

Respondents were responsible for classifying themselves into the correct survey (by answering the screening questions), hence there is a risk that incorrect self-classification may have occurred for some.

• The project teams very carefully designed the screening questions in collaboration with the sector and provided a range of key roles as examples to assist respondents in classifying themselves correctly. The risk of incorrect self-classification was further mitigated where possible at the data processing stage, with any respondents who were identified as clearly answering the wrong survey (through their role and organisation type) were allocated back to the correct cohort.
• It should be noted that respondents’ interpretation of their own role may also be misaligned to FSV’s understanding / classification. Role examples were provided to mitigate this however some respondents may have disagreed with their classification.

As this survey was an attempted census of the specialist family violence workforce within Victoria (i.e. all those in scope for the survey were assumed to have been invited to participate, via either a personalised or generic survey link), the survey results are not subject to sampling error.

However, the survey is subject to potential non-sampling error, including coverage error and non-response error. Unlike sampling error, non-sampling error is generally not mathematically measurable. ORIMA Research uses several strategies to address sources of non-sampling error to the extent possible, including careful questionnaire construction and data processing quality control.

Percentages in this report are based on the total number of valid responses made to the particular question being reported on. In most cases, results reflect those participants who expressed a view and for whom the questions were applicable. ‘Don’t know / can’t say’ and ‘prefer not to answer’ responses are included only where they aid in the interpretation of results. Results presented as percentages throughout the report may not add up to 100% (particularly where displayed in chart form) due to rounding, or where participants were able to select more than one response.

Results for demographic cohorts

This report presents the results for the specialist family violence response workforce at an aggregate/overall level.

A snapshot of results for key questions are provided for the following demographic cohorts:

• Organisation type – presented in tabular format in the body of the report.
• Location – presented in tabular format in Appendix D.

In order to succinctly report the findings, results for other demographic cohorts (e.g. age, gender, years of experience, organisation size, etc.) are only presented in the body of this report where notable differences are observed. 

Suppression rules have been implemented throughout this report whereby groups of individuals with fewer than 10 respondents have not been reported on to protect respondent confidentiality. 

Please note that all results are self-reported by respondents and have not been verified against any external secondary data.

Respondents were asked about the frequency with which they worked on a number of family violence response related activities as part of their role. As shown in Figure 1 overleaf, overall, respondents undertook these activities more frequently (20%-70% daily or weekly) compared to the ‘other’ non-response related activities discussed later in this chapter (8%-54% daily or weekly).

Over 3-in-5 respondents reported that they frequently conducted the following activities at least weekly:

• identification of family violence (70%)
• screening for family violence risk (66%)
• monitoring on-going risk / changes in risk for a client (61%).

Conversely, over one-third of respondents (35%) indicated that they never worked on activities related to providing or requesting family violence secondary consultation externally.

Figure 2 illustrates the frequency with which family violence response specialists reported that they undertook various other activities as part of their role. Respondents most frequently worked on case-related activities, including case advocacy (54% indicated that they worked on this at least weekly) and case management (47%). At least two-in-five also indicated that they frequently developed partnerships and fostered integration (42%) and provided counselling services (40%).

In contrast, respondents were most likely to report that they never undertook the following:

• provide clinical supervision (69%)
• facilitate group work with clients (63%)
• facilitate communities of practice (58%)

Employment conditions differed by some demographic cohorts, as follows:

• Age – compared to the overall workforce, younger respondents aged under 35 were more likely to hold full-time roles (64% versus 58%), and less likely to report that they often worked additional unpaid hours (24% versus 31%).
• Gender – although a small proportion of the overall workforce (12%), males were substantially more likely to be employed on a full-time basis (73% versus 58% overall). Furthermore, while males were more likely to report that they were often paid to work after hours on weekdays (27% versus 19%), they were less likely to indicate that they often worked additional unpaid hours (24% versus 31%).
  • It should be noted that males were also most likely to work in perpetrator services / men’s behaviour change, and the work undertaken in such roles often occurs after hours (see below).
• Organisation type
  • Full-time roles (58% overall) were most likely to be held by those working in courts and court services (81%), Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations (73%), and multicultural or settlement services (71%).
  • Fixed-term contracts (23% overall) were most likely to be held by those employed in LGBTIQ services (60%) and peak bodies (48%).
  • Paid work outside of normal business hours (often undertaken by 11%-19% overall) was most frequently reported by those working in sexual assault services (24%-25%).² Furthermore, those specialising in perpetrator services / men’s behaviour change also reported that they were often paid to work after hours on weekdays (29%), and those employed in specialist family violence victim survivor services were frequently paid to work on weekends (18%).
  • Additional unpaid work (often undertaken by 31% overall) was most frequently reported by those working in women’s health (43%), family safety contact³ (42%) and community health (40%).

Satisfaction with the quality of supervisory / managerial support differed by some demographic cohorts:

• Age – younger members of the workforce (aged under 35) were generally more satisfied with the quality of support provided by their supervisor or direct manager than their colleagues aged 35 years or older (77% versus 68%-75% of those aged 35-54 and 55+).
  • A similar trend was reflected in relation to years of experience, with a general reduction in overall satisfaction reported as years of experience in their current role increased.
• Organisation type – see Table 3 for details.

For the purposes of the Census, professional supervision is defined as:

• supervision aimed at developing a practitioner’s clinical awareness and skills in recognising and managing personal responses, value clashes and ethical dilemmas
• 69% of the specialist family violence response workforce reported that they receive professional supervision in their current role
• 26% indicated that they were responsible for providing such supervision.²

Professional supervision was most commonly provided by this workforce through individual / one-on-one sessions (70% of those who provided supervision did so in this way), while 28% provided both individual and group supervision. Just 2% provided supervision for groups only.

Most respondents who indicated that they provide professional supervision had been trained to provide such supervision (80%), though one-in-five had not received such training (20%). Furthermore, the majority provided supervision to either 1-5 staff (56%) or 6-10 staff (32%). A relatively small but notable proportion provided supervision to over 11 staff (12%).

Professional supervision was most commonly received by this workforce via a line manager (73%), though several also received professional supervision from an individual other than their line manager, with:

• 37% indicating that they received supervision from an external supervisor from outside their organisation; and
• 27% indicating that they received supervision from another internal supervisor. 

Responses also suggested that all three supervisor cohorts were most likely to provide supervision through individual / one-on-one sessions (62%-98%), though external supervisors from outside of the organisation were more likely than internal supervisors to provide group sessions (55% of external supervisors, versus 14%-36% of line managers and other internal supervisors).

When asked about how often they received professional supervision, most indicated that this occurred at least every 2 months (93%).

• Respondents were most likely to report that this occurred between once a fortnight and once a month (41%) or between once a month and once every two months (36%). Thirteen percent also received supervision weekly to fortnightly.

As illustrated in Figure 8, this workforce was most satisfied with the quality of professional supervision provided by external supervisors (from outside of their organisation). However, it should be noted that satisfaction with internal supervisors was also high for many respondents (76%-78% were satisfied with line managers or other internal supervisors).

Results differed by years of experience – as was the case regarding satisfaction with their direct supervisor/manager, there was a general reduction in overall satisfaction with professional supervision as years of experience in respondents’ current role increased

Confidence levels varied across some demographic cohorts, including:

• Age – confidence increased with age (59% for those aged under 35, 62% for those aged 35-54, and 66% for those aged 55+).
• Years of Experience – a similar trend was found in relation to years of experience. Respondents with 1 year of experience or less were substantially less confident than those with more experience.
• Gender – although a small proportion of the overall workforce (12%), males were considerably less confident compared to females (49% versus 63%).
• Organisation type – see Table 4 (on page 28) for details

Understanding and usage levels differed across certain demographic cohorts, including:

• Organisation size – those working in large organisations (200 or more employees) generally reported lower understanding and usage compare to those working in small (1-49 employees) or medium (50-199) sized organisations.
• Level of remoteness – those working in regional locations reported higher usage of MARAM tools in identifying or assessing family violence risk, compared to those in metropolitan locations.
• Organisation type – see Table 4 for details.

By organisation type⁵, the level of information sharing activity was:

• highest among those working in specialist family violence victim survivor services (89% had undertaken at least one activity in the past year), and courts and court services (88%)⁶; and
• lowest among those employed in legal services (43% had not conducted any of the listed activities in the past year), and hospitals (40%).

Results also differed by employment basis – those holding ongoing full-time roles reported higher levels of information sharing activity (85% undertook at least one activity in the past year), while those in casual or sessional roles reported the lowest activity (69%).

Key results by organisation type are shown in Table 4 below.

*n= indicates the range of the sample sizes across the four key questions.
^Result suppressed due to low sample size (n<10).

Reported barriers differed across certain demographic cohorts, including:

• Age – respondents aged under 35 were more likely than older respondents to indicate that they were unable to access further training and development due to lack of time, lack of awareness about the training available, and resourcing issues.
• Gender – female respondents were more likely than male respondents to identify cost of study as a barrier, while males were more likely than females to indicate that they were not aware of any training that exists.
• Level of remoteness – those working in regional locations were substantially more likely than those in metropolitan locations to indicate that location of training facility was a barrier (45% versus 15%).

Work-related stress is an important consideration when exploring the health and wellbeing of staff, and there are various elements of an individual’s role that may contribute to such stress.

78% of the specialist family violence response workforce reported that they experienced at least moderate work-related stress, and 33% experienced high, very high or severe levels.1

84% of those who experienced at least high levels of stress reported that this was due to a high volume of work / high demands of their role, whilst 48% also cited poor management or organisational issues.²

Figure 16 illustrates the frequency at which this workforce had experienced a range of factors that may contribute to workplace stress. Positively, over eight-in-ten respondents indicated that they:

• felt safe in performing their role (85% always or often); and
• received the respect they believed they deserved from colleagues at work (81%).

However, it should be noted that 15% also reported that they only felt safe sometimes, or less often, and 19% felt that they received the respect they deserved only sometimes, or less often.

In contrast, only half of this workforce (50%) reported that they usually had sufficient time to complete their tasks (consistent with the high volume of work / role demands noted earlier).

Figure 16: Frequency of various workplace wellbeing metrics. Base: All respondents

As outlined earlier, although high volume of work and poor management were the most cited causes of workplace stress, 43% of those who experienced at least high levels of stress also mentioned vicarious trauma.

For the purposes of the Census, vicarious trauma is defined as:

The experience of trauma that stems from indirectly living the experiences, thoughts, and emotions of those undergoing or recounting traumatic events.

59% understood that their organisation had processes or policies and procedures in place to recognise and manage vicarious trauma.³

35% felt that these measures were very or extremely effective in assisting them to recognise that they are experiencing vicarious trauma. A further 47% felt that they were moderately effective.⁴

31% felt that these measures were very or extremely effective in assisting them to manage vicarious trauma. Again, 47% felt that they were moderately effective.⁵

Overall, three-quarters of the specialist family violence response workforce indicated that they were satisfied in their current role (75% – see Figure 17). Positively, only a minority expressed dissatisfaction (10%), whilst 15% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied in their role.

Figure 17: Overall satisfaction with current role

Base: All respondents (n=1,406)

Overall satisfaction did not differ substantially by various demographic cohorts such as age, gender, number of roles held, organisation size or tenure. Results split by organisation type are presented in Table 6 overleaf.

Respondents were additionally asked to comment on how much difference they believe their work makes to people affected by family violence.

66% indicated that they felt that their work makes a significant difference to people affected by family violence, whilst 32% felt their work makes a moderate difference.[1]

There was not a strong correlation between overall role satisfaction and whether one felt that their role made a positive difference to people affected by family violence, suggesting that differences in satisfaction levels were driven by other factors.

[1] Q67. How much difference do you think your work makes to people affected by family violence? (n=1,352)

Perceptions of the difference their work made differed by some demographic cohorts, as follows:

• Gender – Females were more likely than males to feel as though their work made a significant difference to people affected by family violence (68% versus 53% of males).
• Organisation size – perceptions that their work made a significant difference to people affected by family violence reduced as organisation size increased: 69% of those in smaller organisations (1-49 staff) indicated that they felt this way, compared to 57% of staff in organisation with more than 200 staff.
• Organisation type – see Table 6 for details.

Key results by organisation type are presented in Table 6  

Table 6: Key results by organisation type

*n= indicates the range of the sample sizes across the three key questions.

When asked about various elements of their roles, the results suggested that the specialist family violence workforce were most satisfied with the nature of the work that they perform and working conditions (87% and 80% respectively – see Figure 18).

In contrast, the main areas for improvement where respondents indicated that they were least satisfied included:

• opportunities for advancement (48% satisfied, 27% dissatisfied)
• pay / compensation (56% satisfied, 28% dissatisfied)
• support and mentoring (61% satisfied, 18% dissatisfied)

In order to determine what was most important in influencing overall levels of role satisfaction, regression analysis was undertaken. The results suggest that the key drivers were having positive perceptions of:

• team leader / management support
• the nature of the work performed
• recognition for expertise
• working conditions
• workload and hours

Respondents were asked to explain what they felt to be the three most important changes that could be made to enable them to carry out their work more effectively. Free-text comments were coded into themes, with the main themes illustrated in Figure 19.

51% of respondents did not have plans to leave their current role at this stage, whilst 40% did have plans to leave their current role. A further 10% were unsure.¹

Of those who did intend to leave their current role, 44% were planning to leave for another role within the specialist family violence response workforce. A similar proportion (40%) were planning to leave their current role for another role outside of this workforce.

Figure 21 illustrates the broad range of reasons that had driven respondents to consider leaving their role in the next 12 months. Although 26% cited an end of contract, other key reasons included career prospects or lack of advancement opportunities (24%- 29%); and stress / pressure or the role having a negative effect on respondents’ health and wellbeing (24%-28%). On a positive note, few cited vicarious trauma or backlash / resistance.

Furthermore, most specialist respondents indicated that they would consider taking on a role in the primary prevention of family violence workforce in the future (81%)², suggesting that there is an opportunity for shared resources across the specialist family violence response and primary prevention workforces.

Results differed by some demographic cohorts, as follows:

• Age – younger respondents (aged under 35) were more likely than their older colleagues to:
  • have plans to leave their current role (49% versus 38% of those aged 35-54, and 32% of those aged 55+); and
  • be open to a role in the primary prevention of family violence workforce (86% versus 80% of those aged 35-54, and 74% of those aged 55+).
• Gender – females were more likely than males to indicate that they would consider a role in the primary prevention workforce (82% versus 71%).
• Years of experience – those with fewer years’ experience in their current role were more likely than those with greater experience to be open to considering a role in the primary prevention workforce (85% of those with 4 years’ experience or less, versus 70-73% of those with 5-10 years or over 10 years’ experience in their current role).
• Level of remoteness – those working in metropolitan locations were slightly more likely than those in regional locations to indicate that they had plans to leave their current role (44% versus 39%).
• Organisation type – see Table 7 for details.

Key results by organisation type are shown in Table 7.

*n= indicates the range of the sample sizes across the two key questions.

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%).