Victoria government logo

The family violence Multi-Agency Risk Assessment and Management (MARAM) framework provides guidance to organisations prescribed under regulations that have responsibilities in assessing and managing family violence risk.1 The framework is designed to ensure services are effectively identifying, assessing and managing family violence risk. A range of organisations were prescribed under MARAM in September 2018. Further information about the scope and timeline of MARAM reforms.

92% of respondents within the specialist family violence response workforce indicated that they had heard of the MARAM framework2; and of these,

81% understood that the organisation that they currently worked for was prescribed to align with the MARAM framework.3

Of those who worked for organisations prescribed to align with the MARAM framework, understanding of one’s professional responsibilities under the framework was widespread (79% – see Figure 11). Additionally, a majority (62%) consistently used MARAM tools (including a structured professional judgement approach) in identifying or assessing family violence risk.

Of those who worked for organisations prescribed to align with the MARAM framework, understanding of one’s professional responsibilities under the framework was widespread (79% ) and a majority (62%) consistently used MARAM tools (including a structured professional judgement approach) in identifying or assessing family violence risk.
Q44: It is understood that not all MARAM tools have been released to date. However, please answer the following in relation to identifying risk for victim survivors by indicating the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following.
  • 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.

81% of respondents within the specialist family violence response workforce felt that they had a ‘good’ or ‘very good’ understanding of their responsibilities to share information relating to family violence risk under relevant Information Sharing Schemes and privacy law.4

Reported understanding of information sharing responsibilities did not vary substantially across most demographic cohorts, but did differ slightly by organisation type (see Table 4 for details).

Figure 12 shows that conduct of information sharing activities under the Family Violence Information Sharing Scheme (FVISS) was moderate, with:

  • the most common activity undertaken in the past year being the request and receipt of information relating to family violence risk from another organisation (65%); and
  • just under one-in-five indicating that they had not undertaken any information sharing activities under the FVISS in the past year (18%).
65% requested and received information about family violence risk from another organisation; 59% proactively shared information with another organisation; only 50% provided infomration to another organisation in response to a request.
Figure 12: Information sharing relating to family violence risk. Base: Respondents who were responsible for sharing information relating to family violence risk under relevant Information Sharing Schemes and privacy law as part of their role (n=1,159)
Q47: In the past year, which of the following have you done (under the FVISS)?
  • 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.

    Table 4: Key results by organisation type
    Organisation type Confidence in level of training and experience (% confident at Q37) Understanding of responsibilities under MARAM (% agree at Q44a) Usage of MARAM tools (% agree at Q44b) Understanding of information sharing responsibilities (% good at Q46)

    Overall workforce (n=946-1,486)*

    61%

    79%

    62%

    81%

    Specialist family violence victim survivor services (n=448-570)

    72%

    82%

    64%

    87%

    Specialist family violence perpetrator services / Men's behaviour change (n=142-190)

    59%

    86%

    65%

    86%

    Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisation (n=27-36)

    58%

    96%

    74%

    85%

    Alcohol or other drug services (n=33-40)

    45%

    76%

    58%

    85%

    Victims assistance (n=26-38)

    53%

    67%

    58%

    71%

    Peak body (n=13-46)

    57%

    87%

    62%

    65%

    Women’s health (n=13-36)

    61%

    78%

    54%

    66%

    Child protection (n=9-14)

    79%

    91%

    Supressed (low sample size)

    93%

    Community health (n=70-108)

    50%

    80%

    64%

    79%

    Courts and court services (n=50-84)

    57%

    63%

    32%

    80%

    Family safety contact (n=31-37)

    70%

    84%

    65%

    88%

    Hospital (n=24-70)

    59%

    57%

    38%

    66%

    Housing / Social housing / Homelessness (n=38-53)

    58%

    79%

    50%

    73%

    Legal services (n=16-110)

    55%

    75%

    50%

    65%

    LGBTIQ services (n=13-23)

    61%

    86%

    85%

    86%

    Mental health services (n=27-42)

    52%

    67%

    48%

    70%

    Multicultural or settlement services (n=10-16)

    31%

    80%

    70%

    64%

    Older people (including elder abuse) services (n=5-15)

    60%

    Supressed (low sample size)

    Supressed (low sample size)

    75%

    Education and training provider (family violence) (n=16-38)

    71%

    78%

    69%

    75%

    Sexual assault services (n=55-72)

    57%

    81%

    55%

    80%

    Regional integration (n=8-13) 77% 82% Supressed (low sample size) 90%

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

Footnotes

  1. Family Violence Multi-Agency Risk Assessment and ManagementExternal Link
  2. Q42. Before today, had you heard of the Multi-Agency Risk Assessment and Management (MARAM) framework? (n=1,482)
  3. Q43. Is the organisation that you work for in your current role prescribed to align with the Multi-Agency Risk Assessment and Management (MARAM) framework? (n=1,356)
  4. Q46. Please rate your understanding of your responsibilities to share information relating to family violence risk under the Family Violence Information Sharing Scheme (FVISS), Child Information Sharing Scheme (CISS) and relevant privacy law. (n=1,343)
  5. FVISS enables prescribed Information Sharing Entities (ISEs) to share information with each other to assess and manage of family violence risk to children and adults. Some ISEs are prescribed for specific services, rather than the entire organisation. Further detail on the FVISS is available at www.vic.gov.au/about-information-sharing-schemes-and-risk-management-fr…External Link
  6. Those working in child protection also reported a high level of information sharing activity (90%), however this result should be treated with caution due to the low sample size (n=10).

Reviewed 19 July 2021