Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 1
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence Companion report to Building from Strength: 10-Year Industry Plan
for Family Violence Prevention and Response
December 2017
2 INTRODUCTION
ABORIGINAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The Victorian Government proudly acknowledges Victorian Aboriginal people as the first peoples and Traditional Owners and custodians of the land and water on which we rely. We acknowledge and respect that Aboriginal communities are steeped in traditions and customs built on an incredibly disciplined social and cultural order. This social and cultural order has sustained up to 50,000 years of existence. We acknowledge the ongoing leadership role of the Aboriginal community in addressing, and preventing family violence and join with our First Peoples to eliminate family violence from all communities.
SUPPORT SERVICES
If you have experienced family violence or sexual assault and require immediate or ongoing assistance, contact 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732) to talk to a counsellor from the National Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence hotline. 1800 RESPECT can also provide support to workers.
For confidential support and information, contact Safe Steps’ 24/7 family violence response line on 1800 015 188. If you are concerned for your safety or that of someone else, please contact the police in your state or territory or call 000 for emergency assistance.
9 KEY RESULTS
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 3
The Royal Commission into Family Violence (Royal Commission) highlighted the need to ‘invest in people who work directly with victim survivors and perpetrators’ as ‘they are fundamental to our success in stopping family violence’.1 In order to do this, the Royal Commission recommended that the Victorian Government develop a 10 year industry plan for family violence prevention and response in Victoria.2
The Royal Commission also noted that a barrier to workforce planning was a lack of systematic collection of workforce data.3 The Centre for Workforce Excellence within Family Safety Victoria (then the Department of Premier and Cabinet) accordingly engaged KPMG to oversee the design and delivery of a census of these workforces (the census). The census was conducted to provide an evidence base to inform government decisions relating to workforce and sector development in relation to family violence prevention and response.
This census is the first of its kind in Victoria, and provides findings in relation to the range of workforces that intersect with family violence – from specialist family violence and primary prevention workforces through to mainstream and universal services.
1 Royal Commission into Family Violence, Report and Recommendations, Vol VI, p.197.2 Ibid, p.201.3 Ibid, p.197.
3 INTRODUCTION
119 ATTACHMENT 2: PROJECT GOVERNANCE8 PROFILE OF
WORKFORCES
122 ATTACHMENT 3: CENSUS SAMPLING STRUCTURE9 KEY RESULTS
29 ATTACHMENT 1: SECTOR PROFILES
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
This report summarises the key findings of the Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence completed by KPMG in 2017. It highlights key information that supports the actions in Building from Strength: 10-Year Industry Plan for Family Violence Prevention and Response and provides a high level overview of the census results in relation to:
• the profile of workforces who responded to the census
• workforce capabilities in relation to family violence prevention and response
• employment conditions and pathways
• workforce health and wellbeing.
The section on workforce capability covers the broad range of workforces that intersect with family violence, while the sections on employment conditions and workforce health and wellbeing primarily focus on practitioners whose core roles relate to family violence prevention and response.
A number of sector profiles are included at Attachment 1. These provide a more detailed view of the findings for use by peak bodies and organisations to inform their own workforce planning.
PROJECT GOVERNANCE, ETHICS APPROVAL AND CONSULTATION
The planning, design and conduct of the census was supported by two project governance groups and extensive consultation with key stakeholders. Ethics approvals were also gained for the census prior to its roll-out. A summary of the project governance structure, ethics approvals and outputs from the consultations is at Attachment 2.
Building from Strength: 10-Year Industry Plan for Family Violence Prevention and Response
4 INTRODUCTION
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 5
METHODOLOGY
Identifying the workforces
The Royal Commission provided high-level definitions of four workforce tiers that intersect with family violence. These tier definitions were refined into specific workforces for inclusion in the census sample.
In broad terms, the four workforce tiers are described as follows:
The Victorian Government provided population estimates of the identified workforces to KPMG to assist in estimating the population size for each tier. A detailed description of the four workforce tier definitions, estimated tier populations, their identified workforces and census response rates are summarised in Attachment 3.
Tier 1: Specialist family violence or sexual assault practitioners who spend the vast majority of their time working with victim survivors and perpetrators of family violence and specialist primary prevention practitioners who spend the vast majority of their time engaged in primary prevention activities.
Tier 2: Professionals whose core business is not directly related to family violence, but who spend a significant proportion of their time responding to victim survivors or perpetrators of family violence. The census also included professionals whose core role is not primary prevention, but who have responsibility for planning or overseeing prevention work in this tier.
Tier 3: Professionals within mainstream services that respond to early warning signs or the impacts of family violence, or are in sectors where disclosures of violence are more likely to occur.
Tier 4: Professionals within universal services for whom family violence is not a core function of their role, but who may encounter victim survivors and perpetrators through their day to day interaction with children, families and/or adults.
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 4
Tier 3
6 INTRODUCTION
Data collection tools
The information for the census was collected through two surveying tools:
• an online survey sent to employees across workforces represented in all four tiers
• a payroll data template filled out by organisations for employees in Tiers 1 and 2 only.
These data collection tools were developed through a co-design process with the sector and departmental representatives. Having two related, but distinct, data collection tools provides two views of the workforces – an individual’s perspective and an organisational perspective.
The Victorian Council of Social Service and Domestic Violence Victoria were engaged to help boost engagement and participation in both aspects of the census.
4 Survey respondents could select one of the following industries: Education, Emergency Services, Health, Human Services / Community / Non-Government, Justice or Local Government.
Capturing the views of individual employees
The online survey was designed to be completed by individual employees. A data collection tool that directly engages with the ‘voice’ of the workforce is important for gauging a range of factors that cannot be captured by payroll records, such as perceptions and attitudes regarding workload, confidence in identifying and responding to family violence and long term employment intentions.
To maximise response rates, the survey was widely distributed to the identified workforces through a variety of government and non-government channels and was open for a six-week period between 10 April and 19 May 2017. The total number of responses to the survey was 11,265 individuals.
The survey enabled respondents to self-select both their tier and industry.4 It is noted that not all respondents’ selections aligned with the expected tier definitions detailed previously. Survey response numbers and response rates by tier and industry can be found in Attachment 3.
In this report, results from the survey will be referred to as ‘survey results’ and responses from ‘survey respondents’.
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 7
Capturing the information held by organisations
The employer payroll data template was designed to capture empirical data held by organisational payroll records to assist in identifying more specific information on workforce demographics and employment conditions. Organisations were instructed to provide data only on employees that matched Tier 1 and Tier 2 workforce categories and to exclude employees classified against Tiers 3 and 4. This was done to provide a more nuanced understanding of the profiles for workforces more strongly focused on family violence prevention and response.
Completed responses were received from 150 organisations (out of 410 organisations approached to participate), which provided data for 24,120 employees across both tiers, with the majority of records relating to employees in Tier 2.
Due to variability in how organisations classify their employees and services, not all organisations’ classifications aligned with the expected tier definitions. Response numbers and response rates for the payroll data collection by industry can be found in Attachment 3.
In this report, results generated by the employer payroll data collection, will be referred to as ‘payroll data’, noting that this information only pertains to workforces in Tiers 1 and 2.
Limitations
Data collected from both the survey and the payroll data template have been used throughout this report. As with any large data collection project, there are limitations.
The confidence level and margin of error applicable to the results may differ based on whether the results are drawn from survey or payroll data. The ability for survey respondents and organisations to self-select into tiers has also influenced sample sizes and confidence levels.5
Where limitations have impacted the ability to draw definitive conclusions from the data, results are included for insight and the limitations have been noted.
The ‘Key results’ section of this report primarily relates to data at a tier or industry level. Data relating to all four tiers and the majority of industries has been drawn from survey samples that can be used with a minimum 95 per cent confidence level and +/- 2.5 per cent margin of error. Of the industries, Emergency Services and Local Government were not deemed sufficient for a +/- 2.5 per cent margin of error and 95 per cent confidence level. This report is also limited in the data that can be provided for some sectors or communities/demographics due to insufficient responses.
To protect individual privacy, segments with fewer than five respondents have not been labelled in the figures used in this report. Percentages used in the figures may not total 100 per cent owing to decimal point rounding.
5 A survey with a margin of error of +/- 2.5 per cent at a 95 per cent level of confidence means that if the survey were conducted 100 times, the actual data would be within the range of 2.5 per cent above or below the percentage reported in 95 of the 100 surveys. The margin of error tells us how much we can expect the survey results to reflect the views of the overall population.
8 PROFILE OF WORKFORCES RESPONDING TO THE CENSUS
PROFILE OF WORKFORCES RESPONDING TO THE CENSUS
Demographics
Across all tiers responding to the survey the overall workforce profile shows that approximately:
• 80.5 per cent were female
• 80.4 per cent were born in Australia, and English was the most commonly spoken language at both home and work6
• 2.1 per cent identified as Aboriginal
• 8.4 per cent identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex or queer (LGBTIQ)
• 3.1 per cent identified as having a disability.
In terms of age profiles, 29.0 per cent of Tier 1 survey respondents reported being between 25-34 years of age while 27.0 to 29.0 per cent of Tier 2, 3 and 4 survey respondents reported being between 45-54 years of age.
Location
In terms of locational information, analysis is largely limited to survey responses because organisations were only given the option of providing one address and in instances of large organisations, a head office metropolitan address was provided even though employees may be based in regional and rural areas.
Across all tiers, over 60.0 per cent of survey respondents indicated their nominated place of work within a metropolitan local government area.
This result may have been skewed by regional and rural workforces being harder to reach with the survey. That is, responses were lower for regional and rural workforces when compared to metropolitan Melbourne workforces because there are fewer workers in regional and rural areas who may also work in geographically dispersed locations making them difficult to engage.
6 It is acknowledged that diverse communities are under-represented in this census and that this will need to be addressed in future census work.
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 9
KEY RESULTS
This section outlines a number of key results drawn from the census in relation to workforce capability, employment conditions and career pathways and workforce health and wellbeing.
WORKFORCE CAPABILITIES
The Royal Commission heard of the positive impact of qualified, skilled and knowledgeable family violence workers on those affected by family violence, both in terms of specialist family violence services, as well as the broad range of other workforces who encounter people affected by family violence.7
The Royal Commission commented that all of the identified tiers of workforces need to be able to identify and appropriately respond to or manage family violence. It noted that a significant increase in capability across various service systems such as education and health, family lawyers and others is required so they are better able to identify family violence risk and respond accordingly.8
This section contains census results in relation to:
• training undertaken and views on further training required
• confidence in identifying and responding to family violence, including views on further support required
• qualifications and experience, with a focus on the Tier 1 workforce.
Training
Training undertaken
The survey collected data on the proportion of respondents (across all workforces that intersect with family violence) who have accessed informal or formal training regarding family violence response or primary prevention (termed ‘family violence related training’ through this report).9
Figure 1 below shows that family violence related training is currently concentrated among workforces that more closely intersect with family violence, with the proportion of survey respondents who have accessed training decreasing from 90.1 per cent for Tier 1 respondents to 41.4 per cent of Tier 4 respondents.
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Yes
41.42%
1,735
Yes
90.14%
1,445
Yes
77.26%
1,991
No
22.74%
586
Yes
62.65%
1,813
No
37.35%
1,081
No
58.58%
2,454
No
9.86%
158
Have TrainingNoYes
Figure 1: Proportion of respondents with family violence related training (all tiers)
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
7 Royal Commission into Family Violence (RCFV), Report and recommendations, Vol VI, p.171.8 Ibid, p.206.9 Formal training refers to training delivered by a registered training organisation. Informal training can be delivered through a range
of approaches, including unaccredited courses, professional development and workplace training.
10 KEY RESULTS
10 Responses for Emergency Services do not meet the minimum sample size for a +/- 2.5 per cent margin of error at a 95 per cent confidence level, and results are provided for insight only.
When considered by industry, respondents from Emergency Services and Human Services/Community/Non-Government are most likely to have undertaken family violence related training (84.1 per cent and 75.2 per cent, respectively), compared with respondents from Education and Health who are least likely (40.6 per cent and 52.2 per cent, respectively).10
The results collated from the survey also found that respondents from Tier 1 workforces were the most likely (75.2 per cent) to consider family violence related training as a requirement to undertake their roles, while respondents in Tier 4 (26.4 per cent) the least likely to consider training necessary to complete their roles (see figure 2 below). A potential reason for this result in Tier 4 may relate to perceptions among these workforces that family violence prevention and response is not a core part of their professional responsibilities.
Figure 2: Proportion of respondents who consider that they require family violence related training to perform their role (all tiers)
The survey results also showed that there is a variation in this perception across industries, with respondents from Education and Training being least likely (27.0 per cent) to consider family violence related training to be necessary to their role, followed by respondents in Health (39.0 per cent) and Justice (43.0 per cent).
Of employees who had accessed training and reported that it was helpful, the most helpful topics identified were:
• trauma-informed practice
• trauma counselling
• working with children exposed to family violence
• family violence safety planning
• clinical supervision.
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Yes
41.21%
1,175
Yes
75.22%
1,202
No
24.78%
396
Yes
56.10%
1,444
No
43.90%
1,130
No
58.79%
1,676
Yes
26.36%
1,088
No
73.64%
3,040
Require TrainingNoYes
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 11
Further training needs
The Royal Commission highlighted the need for both specialist family violence and universal service providers to be equipped with the skills in recognising and providing appropriate services to diverse cohorts and communities. The survey results indicate that respondents are interested in training in these areas. Figure 3 below summarises the preferences for training across all four tiers.
Survey respondents across all tiers were also asked to indicate areas they would benefit from further training in. About 50.0 per cent of respondents indicated an interest in additional training in areas such as:
• working with children exposed to family violence
• working with LGBTIQ communities
• working with perpetrators of family violence
• working with diverse communities
• family violence risk assessment and risk management.
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
% of respondents
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
% of respondents
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
% of respondents
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
% of respondents
Working with LGBTIQ communities
Working with diverse communities -disability awareness
Working with migrant and refugeecommunities
Working with perpetrators of familyviolence
Unconscious bias
Family violence risk assessment and riskmanagement CRAF
Trauma counselling
Working with children exposed to familyviolence
Legal issues
60.38%
55.11%
53.85%
53.53%
49.95%
49.21%
48.89%
48.37%
38.04%
54.54%
50.19%
48.13%
59.27%
48.97%
51.87%
47.83%
50.72%
42.11%
50.82%
47.89%
48.41%
62.08%
49.10%
55.12%
48.50%
57.52%
46.00%
50.33%
46.99%
52.78%
52.56%
46.44%
44.43%
49.11%
62.81%
49.44%
Figure 3: Further training required (respondents could choose more than one option) (all tiers)
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
12 KEY RESULTS
Barriers to training
Figure 4 below shows that approximately half of respondents across all tiers commonly cited lack of time, followed by cost of study as a barrier to engaging in training. Lack of time was also the most common barrier to training cited across all industries. Organisational inability to find backfill positions for staff on training was also commonly cited as a barrier, particularly for Tier 1 workforces.
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
0% 50%
% of respondents
0% 50%
% of respondents
0% 50%
% of respondents
0% 50%
% of respondents
Lack of time
Cost of study
Lack of suitable options
Inability for organisation to provide backfill formy role while I am on training
N/A I have good access to training
Lack of employer support
Distance to training venue / Lack of onlinestudy options
Child care
Unconvinced of benefits from training
Unware of options
Other
55.31%
38.08%
26.78%
20.10%
19.35%
18.54%
17.29%
5.56%
4.18%
0.56%
2.50%
55.38%
35.30%
25.17%
16.74%
20.08%
15.88%
16.93%
4.39%
5.40%
0.62%
2.02%
48.98%
40.34%
25.72%
15.35%
23.75%
17.28%
17.11%
4.11%
5.53%
0.83%
3.08%
41.89%
29.57%
20.69%
12.86%
30.29%
15.08%
13.13%
3.29%
7.26%
1.00%
2.63%
Figure 4: Barriers to training (all tiers)
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 13
Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Notcon�dent
Somewhatcon�dent
Con�dent Notcon�dent
Somewhatcon�dent
Con�dent Notcon�dent
Somewhatcon�dent
Con�dent0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
% o
f res
pond
ents
42%
1,074
31%
795
6%
141
12%
308
5%
135
30%
863
28%
803
7%
199
17%
485
14%
394
12%
495
23%
969
6%
259
6%
251
26%
1,099
26%
1,098
Have TrainingNoYes
Figure 5: Confidence to identify those experiencing family violence by training (Tiers 2, 3, 4)11
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
11 Segments with fewer than five respondents have not been labelled.
Confidence in identifying and responding to family violence
The survey included questions that asked respondents to gauge their ‘level of confidence’ in effectively performing their roles in relation to family violence prevention and response.
Figure 5 below depicts levels of confidence in identifying family violence for Tiers 2, 3 and 4. The proportion of respondents that are confident in identifying family violence progressively decreases from 48.0 per cent in Tier 2 to 18.0 per cent in Tier 4, regardless of training. Further, analysis of responses by level of training across the tiers indicates that the majority who were not confident in identifying family violence had not had any training.
14 KEY RESULTS
Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Notcon�dent
Somewhatcon�dent
Con�dent Notcon�dent
Somewhatcon�dent
Con�dent Notcon�dent
Somewhatcon�dent
Con�dent0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
% o
f res
pond
ents
49%
1,245
25%
625
7%
176
10%
264
5%
138
35%
1,011
23%
664
10%
281
16%
457
12%
335
18%
756
19%
785
13%
543
25%
1,030
21%
862
Have TrainingNoYes
Figure 6: Confidence in responding to family violence by training (Tiers 2, 3, 4)12
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
12 Segments with fewer than five respondents have not been labelled.13 Responses for Emergency Services do not meet the minimum sample size for a +/- 2.5 per cent margin of error at a 95 per cent
confidence level, and results are provided for insight only.14 Responses for Local Government do not meet the minimum sample size for a +/- 2.5 per cent margin of error at a 95 per cent
confidence level, and results are provided for insight only.
Respondents in Tiers 2 to 4 were also asked to assess their confidence in responding appropriately to an individual’s disclosure that they are at risk of, experiencing or perpetrating family violence. These results are depicted in figure 6.
In line with the results on confidence levels in identifying family violence, the proportion of respondents who were confident in responding decreased from Tier 2 to Tier 4 (from 56.0 per cent down to 31.0 per cent regardless of training). Similarly, the majority of respondents who are not confident in responding to a disclosure have not had any formal or informal training.
The survey also showed that there are differences in how employees respond to a disclosure of family violence across industries. Survey respondents working in:
• Emergency Services are most likely to follow standard formalised response procedures13
• Health and Education and Training are most likely to make an internal referral to a specialist
• Human Services/Community/Non-Government and Local Government are most likely to make an external referral to a specialist14
• Justice use a combination of responses, however those who have undertaken training are more likely to make a referral to an external specialist.
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 15
Managing the needs of children
Survey respondents were asked to assess their confidence in managing the needs of children at risk of or experiencing family violence. Across the tiers, the proportion of respondents who reported confidence decreases from Tiers 1 to 4 as shown in figure 7 below.
Figure 7: Confidence in managing the needs of children (all tiers)
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
0% 50% 100%
% of respondents
0% 50% 100%
% of respondents
0% 50% 100%
% of respondents
0% 50% 100%
% of respondents
Notconfident
Somewhatconfident
Confident 57.08% 911
30.58% 488
12.34% 197
40.55% 1,034
39.69% 1,012
19.76% 504
41.63% 1,196
29.73% 854
28.65% 823
40.12% 1,670
40.17% 1,672
19.70% 820
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Figure 8 below shows that a number of respondents employed by services that interact with children frequently were ‘not confident’ or only ‘somewhat confident’ in managing the needs of children.
Figure 8: Confidence in managing the needs of children affected by family violence by selected services (all tiers)15
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
15 This result is provided for insight only, since not all services listed had a sufficient response rate to enable definitive conclusions to be drawn. Care should be taken in extrapolating results to the population.
Child and Family Services Child Protection Early Childhood Education and.. Family Violence Services
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
% of respondents
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
% of respondents
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
% of respondents
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
% of respondents
Notconfident
Somewhatconfident
Confident
34.29% 382
11.40% 127
54.31% 605 65.12% 168
28.29% 73
6.59% 17
36.00% 153
49.18% 209
14.82% 63
32.32% 234
55.80% 404
11.88% 86
Community Health Maternal and Child Health Police and Law Enforcement School Education and Principals
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
% of respondents
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
% of respondents
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
% of respondents
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
% of respondents
Notconfident
Somewhatconfident
Confident
30.65% 236
39.87% 307
29.48% 227 36.69% 131
44.82% 160
18.49% 66
30.02% 136
59.38% 269
10.60% 48 22.97% 184
47.94% 384
29.09% 233
16 KEY RESULTS
Tier 1 Tier 2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
% of respondents
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
% of respondents
Information sharing and collaboration
Mentoring / Peer support
Organisation policies, procedures andpractice guidance
Shadowing experienced practitioners
Increased supervision
Training, development and furtherstudy
More staff and resources
N/A - I am sufficiently confident in myrole.
Other
53.97% 856
25.60% 406
18.16% 288
32.28% 512
23.46% 372
30.83% 489
1.95% 31
1.45% 23
4.85% 77
55.84% 1,424
15.06% 384
29.06% 741
33.73% 860
29.02% 740
15.25% 389
4.75% 121
0.39% 10
0.98% 25
Building workforce confidence
In addition to training as a way of building workforce confidence, figure 9 below provides further insight into the support that survey respondents feel would increase their confidence in performing their role. Across Tiers 1 and 2, information sharing and collaboration rate most highly. For Tier 1 respondents, the next most commonly cited support is further mentoring and peer support.
Figure 9: Further support required to increase confidence in their role (Tiers 1, 2)16
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
16 Respondents could select multiple responses.
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 17
Barriers to responding to family violence
While about a quarter of respondents indicated that there were no barriers to responding to family violence, the survey revealed some differences between Tiers 2 to 4 with the most commonly cited barriers being:
• lack of referral options (30.3 per cent) for Tier 2 respondents
• lack of training for Tier 3 (27.7 per cent) and Tier 4 (36.2 per cent) respondents.
The range of barriers cited are summarised in figure 10 below.
The survey also found a variation in the perceived barriers to responding to family violence across industries, including that:
• a lack of training featured for employees working in Education and Training and Health
• a lack of knowledge about referral options featured for employees working in Health and Justice
• cultural and language barriers featured for those working in Emergency Services 17
• a lack of referral options featured for those working Human Services/Community/Non-Government.
Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
0% 20% 40% 60%
% of respondents
0% 20% 40% 60%
% of respondents
0% 20% 40% 60%
% of respondents
Lack of referral options
Cultural and languagebarriers
Lack of training
Lack of knowledge ofreferral options
Lack of organisationalsupport
Family violence is not anissue that has arisen
Lack of response andsupport from referral
Difficult to identify
Other
N/A There are no barriers 23.17% 596
22.08% 568
24.18% 622
23.02% 592
30.29% 779
6.38% 164
8.86% 228
4.55% 117
2.37% 61
2.53% 65
22.59% 644
25.36% 723
27.71% 790
24.27% 692
21.64% 617
11.40% 325
6.35% 181
3.75% 107
2.03% 58
2.77% 79
28.83% 1,190
36.22% 1,495
12.21% 504
21.52% 888
22.51% 929
16.11% 665
6.76% 279
1.28% 53
1.99% 82
0.94% 39
Figure 10: Barriers to responding to family violence (Tiers, 2, 3, 4)
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
17 Responses for Emergency Services do not meet the minimum sample size for a +/- 2.5 per cent margin of error at a 95 per cent confidence level and results are provided for insight only.
18 KEY RESULTS
Qualifications and experience
Qualifications
Across all tiers, survey results indicate that around 70.0 per cent of respondents hold a Bachelor degree or higher qualification. Results across each tier are as follows:
• 70.1 per cent for Tier 1 workers
• 75.7 per cent for Tier 2 workers
• 72.3 per cent for Tier 3 workers
• 64.4 per cent for Tier 4 workers.
Qualifications by industry are shown in figure 11 below, with the most respondents with post graduate qualifications being in the health industry (36.0 per cent).
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Education andTraining
EmergencyServices
Health
Human Services /Community /
Non-government
Justice
Local Government
32%
1,215
27%
487
19%
126
36%
988
24%
914
14%
222
27%
177
16%
291
15%
67
17%
474
13%
513
11%
182
17%
115
31%
560
26%
117
30%
832
27%
437
26%
170
16%
290
31%
139
10%
280
22%
853
18%
296
4%
165
9%
149
9%
140
7%
110
9%
42
4%
66
3%
78
3%
20
3%
47
4%
71
9%
40
7%
32
3%
18
Highest EducationYear 11 or below (includes certificate I/II/NFD)Year 12Certificate ICertificate IICertificate IIICertificate IV
Diploma or Advanced DiplomaBachelor Degree
Graduate Diploma or Graduate CertificatePostgraduate Degree
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Figure 11: Highest level of education by industry (all tiers)18 19
It should be noted that many of the workforces intersecting with family violence may have requirements for minimum qualifications that also influence the proportions of qualifications observed.
Across all tiers, social work was the most commonly cited as their field of study. Notably, over 25.0 per cent of respondents in Tier 1 held social work qualifications. This lends weight to the Royal Commission’s recommendation of the inclusion of a subject ‘working with family violence’ as a core requirement for all social work undergraduate degrees as a means to embed family violence knowledge into pre-service qualifications for future workers.20
The Royal Commission also recommended the introduction of minimum qualifications for specialist family violence practitioners, so that by 2020 all funded services must require family violence practitioners to hold a social work or equivalent degree (within five years).21 Over 70 per cent of survey respondents who work in family violence services and men’s behaviour change programs (across all tiers) report their minimum level of education to be a Bachelor degree or higher.
18 Segments with fewer than five respondents are not labelled.19 Responses for Local Government and Emergency Services do not meet the minimum sample size for a +/- 2.5 per cent margin of error
at a 95 per cent confidence level and are provided for general insight only.20 Royal Commission into Family Violence, Report and recommendations, Vol. VI, p.203. 21 Ibid.
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 19
Experience
The Royal Commission heard that given the stressful, emotional and fatiguing nature of specialist family violence work, qualifications alone are unlikely to adequately prepare workers for the demands of their role.22 The Royal Commission also heard that experienced workers are required to both provide high quality services to individuals they work with, as well as support newer workers entering the sector. When there are too few experienced workers, those who are experienced may be required to spend much of their time providing newer staff members with training, support and supervision.23
As depicted in figure 12, there is a range of experience among respondents in Tier 1, with almost one third with more than eleven years of experience and just over a fifth (22.8 per cent) with less than two years of experience.
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% 11% 12% 13% 14% 15% 16% 17%
% of respondents
Less than 1
1 to 2
3 to 4
5 to 6
7 to 8
9 to 10
11 to 15
16 to 20
More than 20
13.38% 214
12.13% 194
11.01% 176
12.70% 203
14.51% 232
9.44% 151
9.44% 151
7.88% 126
9.51% 152
Figure 12: Years of experience in the sector (Tier 1)
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
22 Ibid, p.171.23 Domestic Violence Victoria (2015), Specialist Family Violence Services: The Heart of an Effective System, Domestic Violence Victoria
Submission to the Royal Commission into Family Violence, p.43.
20 KEY RESULTS
EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS AND CAREER PATHWAYS
The Royal Commission heard about the challenges faced by services in attracting and retaining staff because of the sector’s low remuneration, and tendency towards unstable or under employment, due to a prevalence of short term contracts and part time conditions. Other aspects of workplace experience that may impact staff retention and wellbeing can include frequency of unpaid and paid out-of-hours work, access to quality clinical supervision and organisational readiness with regard to vicarious trauma.
This section has a primary focus on Tier 1 respondents, and contains census results in relation to:
• employment conditions, including hours worked and activities undertaken
• career pathways, including motivation for working in the sector.
Employment conditions
The survey captured data on remuneration and work conditions for Tiers 1, 2 and 3. Payroll data on these categories was collected for Tiers 1 and 2 only and is considered more reliable for reporting against employment conditions.
Key findings from payroll data regarding employment conditions are as follows:
• Close to a third (36.3 per cent) of Tier 1 employees are employed on a part time basis.
• A median full time salary of $71,274 was reported for Tier 1 employees and $74,673 for Tier 2 employees.24
• Across Tier 1, payroll data confirms that government employees have a higher median salary than non-government employees.
• There is a gender pay gap within Tier 1, with male respondents receiving a higher salary than female respondents, on average.
• Across both Tiers 1 and 2, data captured on employee industrial classification was of poor quality, potentially reflecting a complex and varied industrial landscape.
Hours worked
The survey asked respondents to provide information on how often they were required to work outside normal business hours (paid work). Tier 1 respondents (43.0 per cent) most commonly reported working outside normal business hours ‘often and always’, as shown in figure 13 below.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
13%
203
13%
324
10%
290
30%
458
25%
611
19%
524
23%
351
21%
519
20%
559
21%
317
25%
614
27%
765
14%
208
17%
424
24%
659
Frequency of workingafter hours on weekdays
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Always
Figure 13: Frequency of working after hours by tier (Tiers 1,2,3)25
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
24 It should be noted that a third of Tier 1 employees work on a part time basis and receive a pro-rata salary.25 Respondents were provided the following guide for each option: Always (i.e daily); often (i.e at least once a week but not every day);
sometimes (i.e around once per month); rarely (i.e perhaps a few times per year); or Never.
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 21
Survey results were also considered on an industry basis. It was found that employees working in Emergency Services (41.0 per cent) most commonly reported working outside of normal business hours, likely reflecting shift work requirements. Other industries also reported high levels of working outside hours as shown in figure 14 below.26
26 Responses for Local Government and Emergency Services do not meet the minimum sample size for a +/- 2.5 per cent margin of error at a 95 per cent confidence level and are provided for general insight only.
27 Respondents were provided with the following guide for each option. Always (i.e daily); often (i.e at least once a week but not every day); sometimes (i.e around once per month); rarely (i.e perhaps a few times per year); or Never.
Figure 14: Frequency of working after hours by tiers (Tiers 1,2,3)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Education and Training
Emergency Services
Health
Human Services /Community /
Non-government
Justice
Local Government
18%
80
41%
153
14%
210
15%
160
21%
95
35%
130
21%
314
23%
700
27%
296
15%
48
18%
81
11%
43
19%
283
24%
726
19%
211
24%
74
24%
104
24%
358
28%
867
20%
214
35%
109
19%
82
21%
314
19%
599
19%
213
21%
64
6%
193
5%
16
9%
34
4%
16
Frequency of workingafter hours on weekdays
Always
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
22 KEY RESULTS
Activities
Tier 1 respondents commonly reported spending all or most of their time working on multiple activities, including family violence risk assessment and management (41.9 per cent), case management (37.5 per cent), family violence related information referral and advocacy (36.4 per cent), case planning and coordination (26.9 per cent) and secondary consultations (26.5 per cent). A breakdown of all reported activities can be found in figure 15 below.
Figure 15: Tasks employee respondents spend all or most of their time undertaking (Tier 1 only)28
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
% of respondents
Family violence risk assessment andmanagement
Case work / Case management
Family violence related information referral andadvocacy
Case planning andor coordination
Family violence specialist secondaryconsultation
Primary prevention
Intake Assessment
Crisis intervention
Staff management
Administration reporting or business support
Counselling
Developing partnerships and fosteringintegration
Policy development andor project management
Organisation leadership / Executivemanagement
Family violence community education
Cultural support
37.49% 526
16.82% 236
22.67% 318
20.17% 283
19.10% 268
17.68% 248
36.35% 510
25.66% 360
26.51% 372
12.97% 182
41.98% 589
22.02% 309
14.90% 209
13.47% 189
11.33% 159
26.87% 377
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
28 Survey respondents could select multiple answers.
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 23
Career pathways
Motivations and perceptions
Overall results for survey respondents indicate that workforces across all tiers display high levels of engagement and connection, with the majority of respondents indicating that they felt their work made ‘somewhat of a difference’ to a ‘significant difference’ in relation to family violence. This was strongly evident for Tier 1 respondents, with 56.2 per cent perceiving that their work makes a ‘significant difference’ and 37.3 per cent as ‘somewhat makes a difference.’
In relation to Tier 1 workforces directly working with victim survivors or perpetrators of family violence or engaged in primary prevention activities, survey respondents demonstrated a strong sense of altruism in choosing their profession. The top reasons cited for working in the sector are a commitment to prevention and/or responding to family violence (71.4 per cent), a desire to help others (62.4 per cent) and to do something worthwhile (58.4 per cent).
Factors such as pay, job security, flexibility of hours and career prospects were not commonly selected reasons for working in the family violence or primary prevention sectors.
Figure 16 below shows that the proportion of employee respondents within each tier who responded that their work makes ‘no difference at all’ to people affected by family violence increases from Tier 1 to Tier 4, as does the proportion of ‘unsure’ respondents.
Figure 16: Employee survey respondent perception of the difference their work makes to people affected by family violence (all tiers)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
% of respondents
Tier 1 Don’t know / Unsure
No difference at all
Somewhat makes a difference
Significant difference
Tier 2 Don’t know / Unsure
No difference at all
Somewhat makes a difference
Significant difference
Tier 3 Don’t know / Unsure
No difference at all
Somewhat makes a difference
Significant difference
Tier 4 Don’t know / Unsure
No difference at all
Somewhat makes a difference
Significant difference
56.18% 896
37.30% 595
3.82% 61
2.70% 43
53.07% 1,364
37.94% 975
5.64% 145
3.35% 86
51.37% 1,480
29.99% 864
12.46% 359
6.18% 178
43.23% 1,806
23.98% 1,002
18.26% 763
14.53% 607
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
24 KEY RESULTS
Pathways to current employment
An analysis of survey responses from Tier 1 employees indicates a wide range of pathways to their current workplace.29
• Around a third of respondents (33.9 per cent) had transferred into their current workplace from another agency doing similar work within the same sector.
• Approximately one quarter (24.8 per cent) of respondents had transferred into their current workplace from a related sector.
• Over one quarter of respondents (28.7 per cent) had previously worked in an unrelated sector.
• Approximately one quarter (26.5 per cent) of respondents had directly entered the family violence sector from studying, a student placement or volunteer position.
HEALTH AND WELLBEING
The Royal Commission commended family violence workers for their ongoing support of victim survivors and commitment to ending family violence, saying it was struck by contributing workforces’ dedication, knowledge and expertise, despite the ‘stressful, emotional and fatiguing’ nature of family violence work.30
The Royal Commission commented on the family violence sector’s high rates of burnout and vicarious trauma because of the nature of the work, pressures created by heavy demand, and frustration due to external factors that stop the client’s needs from being met.
Workplace experience
Survey respondents were asked to indicate the frequency of a range of health and wellbeing related aspects in their work, including direction, respect, safety and bullying.
As indicated in figure 17 below, the majority of Tier 1 survey respondents were more likely to report ‘often’ or ‘always’ feeling safe while performing their role (88.0 per cent) and that their cultural/faith identity (78.0 per cent) is recognised and respected in the workplace.31 However, an analysis of free text comments from the survey did reveal workplace bullying as an area of concern.
29 Survey respondents could select multiple responses 30 Ibid, p.17931 Whether the proportion of employees who feel their cultural or faith identity is recognised and respected at work varies depending on
demographics has not been reported due to under-representation of diverse communities in survey respondents.
Figure 17: Most frequently experienced aspects of work while performing duties (Tier 1)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
% of respondents
Feel safe in performingyour role
Receive the respect youbelieve to deserve from
colleagues at work
Your cultural / faith identityrecognised and respected
at work
Given clear direction aboutwhat your duties and
responsibilities are
Have a say about the wayyou work
38%
573
32%
481
49%
749
21%
315
21%
318
50%
760
48%
731
29%
434
47%
706
41%
621
ExtentOften
Always
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 25
The data shown in figure 17 does not distinguish the experiences of respondents from diverse backgrounds owing to under-representation of diverse communities in the survey sample.
Some other key findings in relation to workplace experience for Tier 1 survey respondents are as follows:
• 20.0 per cent of Tier 1 survey respondents reported they ‘rarely’ or ‘never experience’ sufficient time to complete their tasks, which is consistent with survey findings relating to the frequency of additional unpaid work undertaken by employee survey respondents.
• Tier 1 respondents commonly indicated they were either completely or mostly satisfied with the nature of the work they performed (76.0 per cent), their working conditions (70.0 per cent), and had overall work satisfaction (65.0 per cent).
• Tier 1 respondents commonly reported that they were either ‘not very satisfied’ or ‘not satisfied at all’ with opportunities for promotion and advancement (29.0 per cent), pay compensation (28.0 per cent), and time to collaborate (23.0 per cent).
Retention and future intentions
Employee retention refers to the ability of an organisation to retain its employees. Payroll data indicates that over 63.2 per cent of Tier 1 workforces have worked for their organisation for less than five years. This is considered consistent with labour force data indicating an average Australian job tenure of three years four months.32
Survey respondents were asked if they were considering leaving their current workplace. Results were fairly consistent across Tiers 1 to 3 with close to 35.0 per cent of respondents indicating they were considering leaving. For Tier 1, burn-out was the most commonly cited reason for considering leaving their workplace, followed by a lack advancement opportunities and career prospects. However, respondents in rural locations cited the end of contract as the most common reason for leaving a workplace, which did not feature highly for respondents in metropolitan or regional areas.
Burn-out
Burn-out is a psychological response to chronic stress, resulting in emotional exhaustion, detachment from clients, and reduced personal accomplishment. Burn-out is attributed to work-life imbalances, which includes an overload of work demands, lack of control, insufficient reward, value conflicts and a breakdown of sense of community.33
Figure 18 shows results for Tier 1 survey respondents who indicated they were considering leaving their job in the next 12 months. Almost one-third of them (28.7 per cent) nominated burn-out as the reason to anticipate leaving, followed by lack of career advancement opportunities (24.6 per cent).
As additional insight, Tier 1 respondents who work for an organisation with more than 100 employees reported that they are more likely to consider leaving due to burn-out (30.0 per cent) and lack of advancement opportunities (23.0 per cent), while Tier 1 employees who work for an organisation with 100 employees or less reported they are more likely to consider leaving their organisation due to income considerations (24.0 per cent) and career prospects (22.0 per cent).
32 Australian Government (2013), Australian Public Service Commission, Strategic Workforce Analysis and Reporting Guide.33 Leiter, M. P, and Maslach, C. (1997), The truth about burnout: How organizations cause personal stress and what to do about it.
26 KEY RESULTS
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20% 22% 24% 26% 28% 30% 32% 34%
% of respondents
Burn-out
Lack of advancement opportunities
Career prospects
Income
Lack of organisational resources toadequately undertake role
Pressure of the work environment
Organisation not valuing my work
End of contract
22.13% 108
28.69% 140
24.59% 120
23.98% 117
17.62% 86
14.34% 70
10.66% 52
15.78% 77
Figure 18: Most common anticipated reasons for leaving (Tier 1)34
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
34 Survey respondents could select multiple answers.
Clinical supervision
Supervision is defined in the survey as supervision aimed at developing a practitioner’s clinical awareness and skills in recognising and managing personal responses, value clashes and ethical dilemmas.
Across Tier 1, the majority of survey respondents receive supervision as shown in figure 19 below. Supervision is most commonly received monthly and provided by their line manager with the majority of Tier 1 respondents rating the quality of supervision they received highly.
However, 16.0 per cent of Tier 1 respondents indicated that they do not receive any supervision. When asked to provide some context for this, over half of these respondents (56.3 per cent) stated that supervision was not required or applicable to their role, while the remainder indicated that supervision was not provided due to funding and/or organisational capacity.
Both receive and provide Only provide supervision Only receive supervision No Supervision
Tier 1
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
% o
f res
pond
ents 31.21%
500
48.38%
775
15.98%
256
4.43%
71
Figure 19: Professional supervision across Tier 1
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 27
Vicarious trauma
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. The Royal Commission recommended that data be collected about how well this trauma is managed. This is important given the greater role some workforces will have in the prevention and response to family violence.
Across Tiers 1 to 3, approximately 61.0 per cent of respondents cited that their organisation has policies or procedures in place to recognise and manage vicarious trauma. This did not vary greatly across tiers, however there was some variation across industries. For example, survey respondents working in Emergency Services were more likely to respond that their organisation had vicarious trauma policies (69.0 per cent)35, while respondents working within the Health industry were least likely to respond that their organisation had vicarious trauma policies (53.0 per cent). A further breakdown of results is shown in figure 20 below.
35 Responses for Emergency Services do not meet the minimum sample size for a +/- 2.5 per cent margin of error at a 95 per cent confidence level and are provided for insight only.
36 Responses for Local Government and Emergency Services do not meet the minimum sample size for a +/- 2.5 per cent margin of error at a 95 per cent confidence level and are provided for general insight only.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Education andTraining
Emergency Services
Health
Human Services /Community /
Non-government
Justice
Local Government
64%
2,021
55%
249
69%
269
53%
818
62%
716
61%
200
19%
88
13%
49
20%
303
16%
521
15%
177
16%
52
25%
115
18%
70
27%
412
20%
638
22%
254
24%
78
Organisation hasvicarious traumaprocesses or policies
I don't know
No
Yes
Figure 20: Vicarious trauma policies by industry (Tiers 1, 2, 3)36
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
28 KEY RESULTS
Not all respondents, however, had confidence in the effectiveness of these policies and procedures as shown in figure 21 below. For example, respondents employed in the Human Services/Community/Non-government industry (41.0 per cent) were most likely to consider their organisation’s vicarious trauma policies and practices to be ‘very effective’ or ‘extremely effective’ while respondents in the Emergency Services and Justice industries were least likely to be aware of or to consider their organisation’s vicarious trauma policies and practices effective.
Figure 21: Effectiveness of vicarious trauma policies and practices by industry (Tiers 1, 2, 3)37 38
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Education andTraining
Emergency Services
Health
Human Services /Community /
Non-government
Justice
Local Government
28%
70
20%
55
27%
219
35%
708
23%
163
27%
53
41%
101
44%
118
44%
360
40%
817
43%
309
42%
82
13%
34
21%
52
19%
51
19%
154
13%
270
20%
146
24%
47
6%
116
5%
13
3%
26
5%
10
4%
10
6%
50
5%
98
9%
68
Policy EffectivenessI don’t know
Not effective at all
Not very effectiveSomewhat effective
Very effective
Extremely effective
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
37 Segments with fewer than five respondents are not labelled.38 Responses for Local Government and Emergency Services do not meet the minimum sample size for a +/- 2.5 per cent margin of error
at a 95 per cent confidence level and are provided for general insight only.
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 29
Attachment 1: Sector profiles
Profiles are provided for the following sectors to give insights into the experiences of their workforces and to inform sector-led workforce planning. These sectors were chosen because their response rates were sufficient to ensure a level of data reliability.
STRUCTURE OF PROFILES
Workforce profile
• gender
• age
• highest level of education
• employment status
• tenure at current organisation (only those that participated in the payroll data collection)
Capability and confidence in relation to family violence
• survey respondents’ perceptions regarding family violence related work
• proportion of workforce that has undertaken family violence/primary prevention training
Tier 1 Broader Tiers
• Family Violence Services • Child and Family Services
• Men’s Behaviour Change Services
• Community and Hospital-Based Mental Health
• Prevention of Violence against Women
• Corrections and Community Corrections
• Homelessness Services
• Hospital Services
• Parenting Services
• School Education
• proportion of workforce who do not consider they require family violence training
• confidence in having enough experience and training to perform role effectively
• confidence in identifying those who are experiencing family violence
• confidence in responding to a disclosure of family violence
• confidence in managing the needs of children affected by family violence
• barriers to training
Health and wellbeing
• proportion who receive clinical supervision
• satisfaction with clinical supervision
• organisational policies and procedures on vicarious trauma
• effectiveness of policies and procedures
The majority of information provided in the profiles is at least at an 80 per cent confidence level with a +/- 2.5 per cent margin of error. Where this level of data reliability is not possible, this is noted.
In some instances, a confidence level could not be obtained owing to sampling limitations. These results have still been provided for insight and planning purposes, and have been noted. Care should be taken with extrapolating these to the population.
Some survey questions were asked only of some tiers, and this is noted for each result. Payroll data was collected for only Tier 1 and 2 employees.
30 FAMILY VIOLENCE SERVICES
The number of survey respondents identifying as working in Family Violence Services was 729. Of these survey respondents 495, 123, 83, 28 self-selected into Tiers 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively.
The payroll data for organisations mapped to Family Violence Services collected records on 795 employees.
WORKFORCE PROFILE
Gender
Payroll data indicate that 97.0 per cent of employees in Family Violence Services are female and 3.0 per cent are male.
Age
Payroll data indicate that 28.9 per cent of employees who work in Family Violence Services are aged less than 35 years.
Figure 1: Age of employees working in Family Violence Services
Figure 2: Highest level of education of survey respondents working in Family Violence Services (all tiers)
Family violence specialists
20 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 39 40 to 44 45 to 49 50 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 64 65 or above0%
5%
10%
15%
% o
f em
plo
yees
11.63%
90
15.37%
119
12.53%
97 11.76%
91
12.66%
98 11.50%
89
12.66%
98
1.94%
15
6.33%
49
3.62%
28
Source: KPMG analysis of employer payroll data
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Qualifications
Survey results indicate that 71.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Family Violence Services across all tiers report that their highest level of education is a Bachelor Degree or higher.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Family ViolenceServices
25%
182
15%
106
31%
228
29%
213
Highest EducationYear 11 or below, Year 12, Certificate I to IVBachelor Degree
Graduate Diploma or Graduate Certificate
Postgraduate Degree
FAMILY VIOLENCE SERVICES
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 31
Employment status
Payroll data indicate that 57.0 per cent of employees in Family Violence Services are employed on either a part time, casual or sessional basis.
Figure 3: Employment status of employees working in Family Violence Services
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of employees
Family ViolenceServices
28%
222
15%
121
37%
297
14%
109
6%
46
Employment StatusCasual or Sessional
Fixed-term part time
Ongoing part timeFixed-term full time
Ongoing full time
Source: KPMG analysis of employer payroll data
Tenure at current organisation
Payroll data indicate that 69.4 per cent of employees who work in Family Violence Services have worked at their current organisation for zero to four years.
Family Violence Services
0 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 and above
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
% o
f em
plo
yees
69.43%
536
20.34%
157
6.48%
50 1.68%
13
2.07%
16
Figure 4: Tenure in years of employees working in Family Violence Services at current organisation
Source: KPMG analysis of employer payroll data
32 FAMILY VIOLENCE SERVICES
CAPABILITY AND CONFIDENCE IN RELATION TO FAMILY VIOLENCE
Survey respondents’ perceptions regarding family violence related work
Survey results indicate that 99.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Family Violence Services across all tiers report that they perceive their work ‘somewhat makes a difference’ or makes a ‘significant difference’ to people affected by family violence.
Figure 5: Perceptions of survey respondents who work in Family Violence Services regarding the difference their work makes to people affected by family violence (all tiers)39
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Family ViolenceServices
68%
474
31%
215
How much differencedo you think yourwork makes to people
Don’t know / Unsure
No difference at all
Somewhat makes a difference
Significant difference
39 Segments with fewer than five survey respondents are not labelled.40 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence
levels are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
Proportion of workforce that has undertaken family violence/primary prevention training
Survey results indicate that 88.9 per cent of survey respondents who work in Family Violence Services across all tiers have undertaken formal and/or informal training on family violence or primary prevention.
Proportion of workforce who do not consider they require family violence training
Survey results indicate that 31.2 per cent of survey respondents who work in Family Violence Services across all tiers do not consider a need for family violence or primary prevention training to perform their role.
Confidence in having enough experience and training to perform role effectively
Survey results indicate that 65.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Family Violence Services, and identifying as Tier 1 or 2, are confident that they have had enough training and experience to perform their role effectively, with regards to family violence and/or primary prevention.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Family ViolenceServices
65%
400
30%
184
5%
30
Confidence inperforming your role
Not confident
Somewhat confident
Confident
Figure 6: Confidence of survey respondents who work in Family Violence Services in having enough experience and training to effectively perform role (Tier 1 and 2 only)40
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 33
Confidence in identifying those who are experiencing family violence
Survey results indicate that 46.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Family Violence Services who did not identify as Tier 1 report that they are confident in identifying those who are experiencing family violence. Of these, the majority have received family violence training.
Figure 7: Confidence of survey respondents who work in Family Violence Services in identifying family violence (Tier 2, 3, 4)41
Family Violence Services
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
% of respondents
Not confident
Somewhat confident
Confident
10%
24
27%
61
42%
97
9%
20
4%
10
7%
17
Have TrainingYes
No
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Confidence in responding to a disclosure of family violence
Survey results indicate that 53.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Family Violence Services who did not identify as Tier 1 report that they are confident in responding to a disclosure of family violence. Of these, the majority have received family violence training.
Figure 8: Confidence of survey respondents who work in Family Violence Services in responding to family violence (Tier 2, 3, 4)42
Family Violence Services
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%
% of respondents
Not confident
Somewhat confident
Confident
11%
26
25%
58
47%
107
7%
15
6%
14
4%
10
Have TrainingYes
No
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
41 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
42 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
34 FAMILY VIOLENCE SERVICES
Confidence in managing the needs of children affected by family violence
Survey results indicate that 55.8 per cent of survey respondents who work in Family Violence Services across all tiers report that they are confident in managing the needs of children affected by family violence.
Figure 9: Confidence of survey respondents who work in Family Violence Services in managing the needs of children affected by family violence (all tiers)
Family Violence Services
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65%
% of respondents
Not confident
Somewhatconfident
Confident
32.32% 234
55.80% 404
11.88% 86
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 35
Barriers to training
Survey results indicate that 55.4 per cent of survey respondents who work in Family Violence Services across all tiers cite lack of time as a barrier to accessing training.
Figure 10: Barriers to training cited by survey respondents who work in Family Violence Services (all tiers)43 44
Family Violence Services
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
% of respondents
Lack of time
Cost of study
Lack of suitable options
N/A I have good access to training
Distance to training venue / Lack of onlinestudy options
Inability for organisation to provide backfillfor my role while I am on training
Lack of employer support
Child care
Unconvinced of benefits from training
Other
Unware of options
55.42% 404
26.61% 194
15.50% 113
20.85% 152
16.74% 122
42.39% 309
20.16% 147
6.31% 46
3.57% 26
2.61% 19
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
43 273 unique survey respondents answered this question. Respondents could provide multiple answers.44 Segments with fewer than five survey respondents are not labelled.
36 FAMILY VIOLENCE SERVICES
HEALTH AND WELLBEING
Proportion who receive clinical supervision
Survey results indicate that 10.4 per cent of survey respondents who work in Family Violence Services and identify in Tiers 1, 2 or 3 report that they do not receive any supervision in their role.
Family Violence Services
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70%
% of respondents
Both receive and provide
Only provide supervision
Only receive supervision
No Supervision
59.34% 416
26.11% 183
10.41% 73
4.14% 29
Figure 11: Supervision receipt and provision by survey respondents who work in Family Violence Services (Tier 1, 2, 3)45
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Satisfaction with clinical supervision
Survey results indicate that 34.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Family Violence Services and identify in Tiers 1, 2 or 3 report that the quality of the supervision received is ‘excellent’.
Figure 12: Quality of supervision received by survey respondents who work in Family Violence Services (Tier 1, 2, 3)46 47
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Family ViolenceServices
34%
202
42%
249
19%
116
Supervision QualityVery PoorPoor
Average
Good
Excellent
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
45 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
46 Segments with fewer than five survey respondents are not labelled.47 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels
are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 37
Organisational policies and procedures on vicarious trauma
Survey results indicate that 64.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Family Violence Services and identify as Tier 1, 2 or 3 report that their organisation has processes in place or policies and procedures to recognise and manage vicarious trauma.
Figure 13: Proportion of survey respondents who work in Family Violence Services whose organisations have processes or policies and procedures in place to recognise and manage vicarious trauma (Tier 1, 2, 3)48
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Family ViolenceServices
64%
451
17%
116
19%
134
Organisation hasvicarious traumaprocesses or policies
I don't know
No
Yes
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Effectiveness of policies and procedures
Survey results indicate that 45.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Family Violence Services and identify as Tier 1, 2 or 3 report that the organisation processes or policies and procedures to recognise and manage vicarious trauma are ‘very effective’ or ‘extremely effective’.
Figure 14: Quality of processes or policies and procedures in place to manage vicarious trauma reported by survey respondents who work in Family Violence Services (Tier 1, 2, 3)49 50
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Family ViolenceServices
11%
48
34%
154
36%
163
14%
62
4%
20
Policy EffectivenessI don’t know
Not effective at all
Not very effectiveSomewhat effective
Very effective
Extremely effective
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
48 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
49 Segments with fewer than five survey respondents are not labelled.50 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels
are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
38 MEN’S BEHAVIOUR CHANGE SERVICES
The number of survey respondents identifying as working in Men’s Behaviour Change Services was 160. Of these survey respondents 72, 40, 31, 17 self-selected into Tiers 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively.
The payroll data for organisations mapped to Men’s Behaviour Change Services collected records on 115 employees.
Figure 15: Age of employees who work in Men’s Behaviour Change Services52 53
WORKFORCE PROFILE
Gender
Payroll data indicate that 51.3 per cent of employees in Men’s Behaviour Change are female and 48.7 per cent male.51
Age
Payroll data indicate that 62.6 per cent of employees who work in Men’s Behaviour Change Services are aged 50 years or over.
Men's Behaviour Change
20 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 39 40 to 44 45 to 49 50 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 64 65 or above0%
5%
10%
15%
% o
f em
ploy
ees
11.30%
13
11.30%
13
20.87%
24
20.87%
24
11.30%
13
6.09%
74.35%
5
9.57%
11
Source: KPMG analysis of employer payroll data
51 Results are provided for insight only, since the payroll data did not yield a sufficient sample size to enable definitive conclusions to be drawn.
52 Results are provided for insight only, since the payroll data did not yield a sufficient sample size to enable definitive conclusions to be drawn.
53 Segments with fewer than five survey respondents are not labelled.
MEN’S BEHAVIOUR CHANGE SERVICES
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 39
Qualifications
Survey results indicate that 72.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Men’s Behaviour Change across all tiers report that their highest level of education is a Bachelor Degree or higher.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Men'sBehaviour
Change
31%
49
25%
40
16%
26
28%
45
Highest EducationYear 11 or below, Year 12, Certificate I to IVBachelor Degree
Graduate Diploma or Graduate Certificate
Postgraduate Degree
Figure 16: Highest level of education of survey respondents who work in Men’s Behaviour Change Services (all tiers)
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Employment status
Payroll data indicate that 78.0 per cent of Men’s Behaviour Change employees are employed on either a part-time, casual or sessional basis.
Figure 17: Employment status of employees in Men’s Behaviour Change Services54
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of employees
Men's BehaviourChange
13%
15
27%
31
45%
52
9%
10
6%
7
Employment StatusCasual or Sessional
Fixed-term part time
Ongoing part timeFixed-term full time
Ongoing full time
Source: KPMG analysis of employer payroll data
54 Results are provided for insight only, since the payroll data did not yield a sufficient sample size to enable definitive conclusions to be drawn.
40 MEN’S BEHAVIOUR CHANGE SERVICES
Tenure at current organisation
Payroll data indicate that 68.7 per cent of employees who work in Men’s Behaviour Change Services have worked at their current organisation for zero to four years.
Figure 18: Tenure in years of employees in Men’s Behaviour Change Services at current organisation55
Men'sBehaviour Change
0 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 and above
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
%of
emp
loye
es
68.70%
79
18.26%
21
7.83%
9 4.35%
5
Source: KPMG analysis of employer payroll data
55 Results are provided for insight only, since the payroll data did not yield a sufficient sample size to enable definitive conclusions to be drawn
56 Segments with fewer than five survey respondents are not labelled.
CAPABILITY AND CONFIDENCE IN RELATION TO FAMILY VIOLENCE
Survey respondents’ perceptions regarding family violence related work
Survey results indicate that 98.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Men’s Behaviour Change across all tiers report that they perceive their work ‘somewhat makes a difference’ or makes a ‘significant difference’ to people affected by family violence.
Figure 19: Perceptions of survey respondents who work in Men’s Behaviour Change Services regarding the difference their work makes to people affected by family violence (all tiers)56
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Men'sBehaviour
Change
47%
67
51%
73
How much differencedo you think yourwork makes to people
Don’t know / Unsure
Somewhat makes a difference
Significant difference
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 41
Proportion of workforce that has undertaken family violence/primary prevention training
Survey results indicate that 86.3 per cent of survey respondents who work in Men’s Behaviour Change across all tiers have received formal and/or informal training on family violence or primary prevention.
Proportion of workforce who do not consider they require family violence training
Survey results indicate that 44.3 per cent of survey respondents who work in Men’s Behaviour Change across all tiers consider that they do not require family violence or primary prevention training to perform their role.
Confidence in having enough experience and training to perform role effectively
Survey results indicate that 63.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Men’s Behaviour Change and identify as Tier 1 or 2 are confident that they have had enough training and experience to perform their role effectively, with regards to family violence and/or primary prevention.
Figure 20: Confidence of survey respondents who work in Men’s Behaviour Change Services in having enough experience and training to effectively perform role (Tier 1 and 2 only)57
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Men'sBehaviour
Change
63%
70
30%
33
7%
8
Confidence inperforming your role
Not confident
Somewhat confident
Confident
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
57 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
58 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
Confidence in identifying those who are experiencing family violence
Survey results indicate that 44.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Men’s Behaviour Change who did not identify as Tier 1 are confident in identifying those who are experiencing family violence. Of these, the majority have received family violence training.
Figure 21: Confidence of survey respondents who work in Men’s Behaviour Change in identifying family violence (Tier 2, 3, 4)58
Men's Behaviour Change
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
% of respondents
Not confident
Somewhat confident
Confident
32%
27
40%
34
8%
7
7%
6
9%
8
Have TrainingYes
No
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
42 MEN’S BEHAVIOUR CHANGE SERVICES
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Confidence in responding to a disclosure of family violence
Survey results indicate that 54.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Men’s Behaviour Change who did not identify as Tier 1 report that they are confident in responding to a disclosure of family violence. Of these, the majority have received family violence training.
Figure 22: Confidence of survey respondents who work in Men’s Behaviour Change in responding to family violence (Tier 2, 3, 4)59
Men's Behaviour Change
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%
% of respondents
Not con�dent
Somewhat con�dent
Con�dent
12%
10
12%
10
20%
17
49%
42
Have TrainingYes
No
59 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
Confidence in managing the needs of children affected by family violence
Survey results indicate that 52.9 per cent of survey respondents who work in Men’s Behaviour Change across all tiers report that they are confident in managing the needs of children affected by family violence.
Figure 23: Confidence of survey respondents who work in Men’s Behaviour Change in managing the needs of children affected by family violence (all tiers)
Men's Behaviour Change
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60%
% of respondents
Not confident
Somewhatconfident
Confident
26.11% 41
21.02% 33
52.87% 83
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 43
Barriers to training
Survey results indicate that 43.8 per cent of survey respondents who work in Men’s Behaviour Change across all tiers cite lack of time as a barrier to accessing training.
Figure 24: Barriers to accessing training cited by survey respondents who work in Men’s Behaviour Change (all tiers)60 61
Men's Behaviour Change
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
% of respondents
Lack of time
Cost of study
Lack of suitable options
N/A I have good access to training
Distance to training venue / Lack of onlinestudy options
Inability for organisation to provide backfillfor my role while I am on training
Lack of employer support
Unconvinced of benefits from training
Other
Child care
Unware of options
40.00% 64
15.00% 24
13.13% 21
26.88% 43
43.75% 70
31.25% 50
25.00% 40
5.00% 8
5.63% 9
3.13% 5
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
60 88 unique survey respondents answered this question. Respondents could provide multiple answers.61 Segments with fewer than five survey respondents are not labelled.
44 MEN’S BEHAVIOUR CHANGE SERVICES
HEALTH AND WELLBEING
Proportion who receive clinical supervision
Survey results indicate that 16.8 per cent of survey respondents who work in Men’s Behaviour Change and identify as Tier 1, 2 or 3 report that they do not receive any supervision in their role.
Figure 25: Supervision receipt and provision by survey respondents who work in Men’s Behaviour Change (Tier 1, 2, 3)62 63
Men's Behaviour Change
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
% of respondents
Both receive and provide
Only provide supervision
Only receive supervision
No Supervision
37.76% 54
16.78% 24
43.36% 62
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Satisfaction with clinical supervision
Survey results indicate that 28.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Men’s Behaviour Change and identify in Tier 1, 2 or 3 report that the quality of the supervision received is ‘excellent’.
Figure 26: Quality of supervision received by survey respondents who work in Men’s Behaviour Change (Tier 1, 2, 3)64 65
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Men'sBehaviour
Change
28%
33
47%
55
23%
27
Supervision QualityPoor
Average
Good
Excellent
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
62 Segments with fewer than five survey respondents are not labelled.63 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels
are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.64 Segments with less than two per cent of survey respondents are not labelled.65 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels
are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 45
Organisational policies and procedures on vicarious trauma
Survey results indicate that 73.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Men’s Behaviour Change and identify in Tier 1, 2 or 3 report that their organisation has processes in place or policies and procedures to recognise and manage vicarious trauma.
Figure 27: Proportion of survey respondents who work in Men’s Behaviour Change whose organisations have processes or policies and procedures in place to recognise and manage vicarious trauma (Tier 1, 2, 3)66
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Men's BehaviourChange
73%
104
10%
15
17%
24
Organisation hasvicarious traumaprocesses or policies
I don't know
No
Yes
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Effectiveness of policies and procedures
Survey results indicate that 51.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Men’s Behaviour Change and identify as Tier 1, 2 or 3 report that the organisation processes or policies and procedures to recognise and manage vicarious trauma are ‘very effective’ or ‘extremely effective’.
Figure 28: Quality of processes or policies and procedures in place to manage vicarious trauma reported by survey respondents who work in Men’s Behaviour Change (Tier 1, 2, 3)67 68
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Men'sBehaviour
Change
42%
44
28%
29
18%
19
9%
9
Policy EffectivenessI don’t know
Not very effectiveSomewhat effective
Very effective
Extremely effective
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
66 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
67 Segments with fewer than five survey respondents are not labelled.68 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels
are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
46 PREVENTION OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
The number of survey respondents identifying as working in Prevention of Violence against Women Services was 265. Of these survey respondents 110, 96, 43, 16 self-selected into Tiers 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively.
The payroll data for organisations mapped to Prevention of Violence against Women collected records on 178 employees.
WORKFORCE PROFILE
Gender
Payroll data indicate that 93.8 per cent of employees in Prevention of Violence against Women Services are female, and 6.2 per cent male.
Age
Payroll data indicate that 34.1 per cent of employees in Prevention of Violence against Women Services are aged 30 to 39 years.
Figure 29: Age of employees who work in Prevention of Violence against Women69
Prevention ofViolence againstWomen
20 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 39 40 to 44 45 to 49 50 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 64 65 or above0%
5%
10%
15%
% o
f em
plo
yees
11.36%
20
16.48%
29
17.61%
31
11.36%
20
13.07%
2311.36%
20
5.68%
10
7.39%
13
3.98%
7
Source: KPMG analysis of employer payroll data
69 Segments with fewer than five survey respondents are not labelled.
PREVENTION OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 47
Qualifications
Survey results indicate that 72.0 per cent of survey respondent who work in Prevention of Violence against Women Services across all tiers report that their highest level of education is a Bachelor Degree or higher.
Figure 30: Highest level of education of survey respondents who work in Prevention of Violence against Women Services (all tiers)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Prevention of Violenceagainst Women
32%
85
14%
36
26%
69
28%
75
Highest EducationYear 11 or below, Year 12, Certificate I to IVBachelor Degree
Graduate Diploma or Graduate Certificate
Postgraduate Degree
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Employment status
Payroll data indicate 62.0 per cent of Prevention of Violence against Women employees are employed on a part-time, casual or sessional basis.
Figure 31: Employment status of employees in Prevention of Violence against Women Services
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of employees
Prevention ofViolence Against
Women
22%
39
16%
29
29%
51
17%
30
16%
28
Employment StatusCasual or Sessional
Fixed-term part time
Ongoing part timeFixed-term full time
Ongoing full time
Source: KPMG analysis of employer payroll data
48 PREVENTION OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Tenure at current organisation
Payroll data indicate that 65.7 per cent of employees in Prevention of Violence against Women Services have been employed at their current organisation for between 0 and 4 years.
Figure 32: Tenure in years of employees in Prevention of Violence against Women Services at current organisation
Prevention of Violence Against Women
0 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 and above
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
% o
f em
plo
yees
65.73%
117
21.35%
38
6.18%
115.62%
10
Source: KPMG analysis of employer payroll data
70 Segments with fewer than five survey respondents are not labelled.
CAPABILITY AND CONFIDENCE IN RELATION TO FAMILY VIOLENCE
Survey respondents’ perceptions regarding family violence related work
Survey results indicate that 94.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Prevention of Violence against Women Services across all tiers report that they perceive their work ‘somewhat makes a difference’ or makes a ‘significant difference’ to people affected by family violence.
Figure 33: Perception of survey respondents who work in Prevention of Violence against Women regarding the difference their work makes to people affected by family violence (all tiers)70
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Prevention ofViolence against
Women
52%
128
42%
105
5%
13
How much differencedo you think yourwork makes to people
Don’t know / Unsure
No difference at all
Somewhat makes a difference
Significant difference
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 49
Proportion of workforce that has undertaken family violence/primary prevention training
Survey results indicate that 87.2 per cent of survey respondents who work in Prevention of Violence against Women Services across all tiers have received formal and/or informal training on family violence or primary prevention.
Proportion of workforce who do not consider they require family violence training
Survey results indicate that 44.3 per cent of survey respondents who work in Prevention of Violence against Women Services across all tiers consider that they do not require family violence or primary prevention training to perform their role.
Confidence in having enough experience and training to perform role effectively
Survey results indicate that 63.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Prevention of Violence against Women services who identified as Tier 1 or 2 are confident that they have had enough training and experience to perform their role effectively, with regards to family violence and/or primary prevention.
Figure 34: Confidence of survey respondents who work in Prevention of Violence against Women Services in having enough experience and training to effectively perform role (Tier 1 and 2 only)71
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Prevention ofViolence against
Women
63%
128
31%
64
6%
12
Confidence inperforming your role
Not confident
Somewhat confident
Confident
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
71 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
50 PREVENTION OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Confidence in identifying those who are experiencing family violence
Survey results indicate that less than 33.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Prevention of Violence against Women Services and who do not identify as Tier 1 report that they are confident in identifying those who are experiencing family violence.
Figure 35: Confidence of survey respondents who work in Prevention of Violence against Women Services in identifying family violence (Tier 2, 3, 4)72 73
Prevention of Violence against Women
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
% of respondents
Not confident
Somewhat confident
Confident
10%
15
42%
64
29%
45
8%
13
8%
12
Have TrainingYes
No
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
72 Segments with fewer than five survey respondents are not labelled.73 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels
are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 51
Confidence in responding to a disclosure of family violence
Survey results indicate that less than 43.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Prevention of Violence against Women Services and who do not identify as Tier 1 report that they are confident in responding to a disclosure of family violence. Of these, the majority have received family violence training.
Figure 36: Confidence of survey respondents who work in Prevention of Violence against Women Services in responding to family violence by training status (Tier 2, 3, 4)74 75
Prevention of Violence against Women
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
% of respondents
Not confident
Somewhat confident
Confident
12%
18
31%
47
41%
62
6%
9
9%
14
Have TrainingYes
No
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
74 Segments with fewer than five survey respondents are not labelled.75 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels
are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
52 PREVENTION OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Confidence in managing the needs of children affected by family violence
Survey results indicate that 38.6 per cent of survey respondents who work in Prevention of Violence against Women Services across all tiers report that they are confident in managing the needs of children affected by family violence.
Figure 37: Confidence of survey respondents who work in Prevention of Violence Against Women Services in managing the needs of children affected by family violence (all tiers)
Prevention of Violence against Women
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
% of respondents
Not confident
Somewhatconfident
Confident 38.64% 102
25.00% 66
36.36% 96
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 53
Barriers to training
Survey results indicate that 54.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Prevention of Violence against Women Services across all tiers cite lack of time as a barrier to training.
Prevention of Violence against Women
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
% of respondents
Lack of time
Cost of study
Lack of suitable options
N/A I have good access to training
Distance to training venue / Lack of onlinestudy options
Lack of employer support
Inability for organisation to provide backfillfor my role while I am on training
Unconvinced of benefits from training
Child care
Other
Unware of options
43.02% 114
53.96% 143
14.34% 38
22.64% 60
15.09% 40
18.49% 49
29.06% 77
4.15% 11
4.53% 12
3.40% 9
Figure 38: Barriers to training cited by survey respondents who work in Prevention of Violence against Women Services (all tiers)76
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
76 155 unique respondents answered this question. Respondents could provide multiple answers. Segments with fewer than five survey respondents are not labelled.
54 PREVENTION OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
HEALTH AND WELLBEING
Proportion who receive clinical supervision
Survey results indicate that 27.7 per cent of survey respondents who work in Prevention of Violence against Women Services and identify as Tier 1, 2, or 3 report that they do not receive any supervision in their role.
Prevention of Violence against Women
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
% of respondents
Both receive and provide
Only provide supervision
Only receive supervision
No Supervision
39.76% 99
27.71% 69
26.91% 67
5.62% 14
Figure 39: Supervision receipt and provision by survey respondents who work in Prevention of Violence against Women Services (Tier 1, 2, 3)77
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
77 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 55
Satisfaction with clinical supervision
Survey results indicate that 35.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Prevention of Violence against Women Services and identify as Tier 1, 2 or 3 report that the quality of the supervision received is ‘excellent’.
Figure 40: Quality of supervision received by survey respondents who workin Prevention of Violence against Women Services (Tier 1, 2, 3)78 79
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Prevention ofViolence against
Women
35%
58
47%
78
16%
27
Supervision QualityVery PoorPoor
Average
Good
Excellent
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Organisational policies and procedures on vicarious trauma
Survey results indicate that 64.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Prevention of Violence against Women Services and identify as Tier 1, 2 or 3 report that their organisation has processes in place or policies and procedures to recognise and manage vicarious trauma.
Figure 41: Proportion of survey respondents who work in Prevention of Violence against Women Services whose organisations have processes or policies and procedures in place to recognise and manage vicarious trauma (Tier 1, 2, 3)80
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of responde nts
Prevention ofViolence against
Women
64%
159
20%
49
16%
40
Organisation hasvicarious t raumaprocesses or policies
I don't knowNo
Yes
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
78 Segments with fewer than five survey respondents are not labelled.79 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels
are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.80 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels
are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
56 PREVENTION OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Effectiveness of policies and procedures
Survey results indicate that 49.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Prevention of Violence against Women Services and identify as Tier 1, 2 or 3 report that the organisation’s processes or policies and procedures to recognise and manage vicarious trauma are ‘very effective’ or ‘extremely effective’.
Figure 42: Quality of processes or policies and procedures in place to manage vicarious trauma reported by survey respondents who work in Prevention of Violence against Women Services (Tier 1, 2, 3)81
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Prevention ofViolence against
Women
11%
17
38%
60
32%
51
16%
25
4%
7
Policy EffectivenessI don’t know
Not very effectiveSomewhat effective
Very effective
Extremely effective
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
81 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 57
The number of survey respondents identifying as working in Child and Family Services was 1,121. Of these survey respondents 142, 494, 266, 219 self-selected into Tiers 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively.
The payroll data for organisations mapped to Child and Family Services collected records on 1,846 employees.
WORKFORCE PROFILE
Gender
Payroll data indicate that 85.7 per cent of employees in Child and Family Services are female and 14.3 per cent male.
Age
Payroll data indicate that 23.1 per cent of survey respondents who work in Child and Family Services are between the ages of 45 to 54.
Figure 43: Age of employees working in Child and Family Services82
Child andFamilyServices
19 or below 20 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 39 40 to 44 45 to 49 50 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 64 65 or above0%
5%
10%
15%
% o
f em
plo
yees
14.95%
27616.79%
310 13.54%
25012.95%
239
13.27%
245
1.79%
33
9.80%
181 8.45%
156
5.58%
103
2.71%
50
Source: KPMG analysis of employer payroll data
82 Segments with fewer than five survey respondents are not labelled.
CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES
58 CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES
Qualifications
Survey results indicate that 71.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Child and Family Services across all tiers report that their highest level of education is a Bachelor Degree or higher.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Child and FamilyServices
26%
297
15%
164
30%
331
29%
329
Highest EducationYear 11 or below, Year 12, Certificate I to IVBachelor Degree
Graduate Diploma or Graduate Certificate
Postgraduate Degree
Figure 44: Highest level of education of survey respondents who work in Child and Family Services (all tiers)
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Employment status
Payroll data indicate 50.0 per cent of Child and Family Services employees are employed on a part time, casual or sessional basis.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of employees
Child and FamilyServices
40%
733
10%
179
33%
612
12%
223
5%
99
Employment StatusCasual or Sessional
Fixed-term part time
Ongoing part timeFixed-term full time
Ongoing full time
Figure 45: Employment status of employees in Child and Family Services
Source: KPMG analysis of employer payroll data
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 59
Tenure at current organisation
Payroll data indicate that 61.3 per cent of employees who work in Child and Family Services have worked at their current organisation for zero to four years.
Figure 46: Tenure in years of employees in Child and Family Services at current organisation
Child and Family Services
0 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 and ab ove
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
% o
f em
plo
yees
61.29%
1,129
26.60%
490
7.71%
142 3.04%
561.36%
25
Source: KPMG analysis of employer payroll data
CAPABILITY AND CONFIDENCE IN RELATION TO FAMILY VIOLENCE
Survey respondents perceptions’ regarding family violence related work
Survey results indicate that 96.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Child and Family Services across all tiers report that they perceive their work ‘somewhat makes a difference’ or makes a ‘significant difference’ to people affected by family violence.
Figure 47: Perceptions of Child and Family Services survey respondents regarding the difference their work makes to people affected by family violence (all tiers)83
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Child and FamilyServices
45%
403
51%
455
How much differencedo you think yourwork makes to people
Don’t know / Unsure
No difference at all
Somewhat makes a difference
Significant difference
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
83 Segments with fewer than five respondents are not labelled.
60 CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES
Proportion of workforce that has undertaken family violence/primary prevention training
Survey results indicate that 82.3 per cent of survey respondents who work in Child and Family Services across all tiers have undertaken formal and/or informal training on family violence or primary prevention.
Proportion of workforce who do not consider they require family violence training
Survey results indicate that 41.3 per cent of survey respondents who work in Child and Family Services across all tiers do not consider a need for family violence or primary prevention training to perform their role.
Confidence in having enough experience and training to perform role effectively
Survey results indicate that 50.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Child and Family Services, and identify as Tier 1 or 2, are confident that they have had enough training and experience to perform their role effectively, with regards to family violence and/or primary prevention.
Figure 48: Confidence of survey respondents who work in Child and Family Services in having enough experience and training to effectively perform role training (Tier 1 and 2 only)84
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Child andFamily Services
50%
316
43%
272
7%
46
Confidence inperforming your role
Not confident
Somewhat confident
Confident
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
84 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 61
Confidence in identifying those who are experiencing family violence
Survey results indicate that 51.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Child and Family Services and identify as Tiers 2, 3 or 4 report that they are confident in identifying those who are experiencing family violence. Of these, the majority have received family violence training.
Figure 49: Confidence of survey respondents who work in Child and Family Services in identifying family violence (Tier 2, 3, 4)85
Child and Family Services
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
% of respondents
Not confident
Somewhat confident
Confident
11%
102
30%
288
47%
461
5%
50
4%
39
3%
31
Have TrainingYes
No
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
85 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
86 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
Confidence in responding to a disclosure of family violence
Survey results indicate that 60.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Child and Family Services and identify as Tier 2, 3 or 4 report that they are confident in responding to a disclosure of family violence. Of these, the majority have received family violence training.
Figure 50: Confidence of survey respondents who work in Child and Family Services in responding to family violence by training status (Tier 2, 3, 4)86
Child and Family Services
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60%
% of respondents
Not confident
Somewhat confident
Confident
23%
228
54%
523
4%
42
9%
86
6%
62
3%
30
Have TrainingYes
No
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
62 CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES
Confidence in managing the needs of children affected by family violence
Survey results indicate that 54.3 per cent of survey respondents who work in Child and Family Services across all tiers report that they are confident in managing the needs of children affected by family violence.
Figure 51: Confidence of survey respondents who work in Child and Family Services in managing the needs of children affected by family violence (all tiers)
Child and Family Services
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65%
% of respondents
Not confident
Somewhatconfident
Confident
34.29% 382
11.40% 127
54.31% 605
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 63
Barriers to training
Survey results indicate that 53.7 per cent of survey respondents who work in Child and Family Services across all tiers cite lack of time as a barrier to accessing.
Figure 52: Barriers to training cited by survey respondents who work in Child and Family Services (all tiers)87
Child and Family Services
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65%
% of respondents
Lack of time
Cost of study
Lack of suitable options
N/A I have good access to training
Distance to training venue / Lack of onlinestudy options
Lack of employer support
Inability for organisation to provide backfillfor my role while I am on training
Child care
Unconvinced of benefits from training
Other
Unware of options
53.66% 601
42.95% 481
24.91% 279
23.13% 259
12.41% 139
11.52% 129
20.98% 235
5.18% 58
3.39% 38
2.41% 27
0.45% 5
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
87 979 unique survey respondents answered this question. Respondents could provide multiple answers.
64 CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES
HEALTH AND WELLBEING
Proportion who receive clinical supervision
Survey results indicate that 9.6 per cent of survey respondents who work in Child and Family Services and identify as Tier 1, 2 or 3 report that they do not receive any supervision in their role.
Figure 53: Supervision receipt and provision by survey respondents who work in Child and Family Services (Tier 1, 2, 3)88
Child and Family Services
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65%
% of respondents
Both receive and provide
Only provide supervision
Only receive supervision
No Supervision
31.93% 288
54.32% 490
4.10% 37
9.65% 87
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Satisfaction with clinical supervision
Survey results indicate that 31.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Child and Family Services and identify in Tier 1, 2 or 3 report that the quality of the supervision received is ‘excellent’.
Figure 54: Quality of supervision received by survey respondents who work in Child and Family Services (Tier 1, 2, 3)89 90
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Child and FamilyServices
31%
241
45%
346
19%
146
Supervision QualityVery PoorPoor
Average
Good
Excellent
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
88 Confidence levels are unavailable as population size relevant to this question is unavailable due to the question not asking all tiers.89 Segments with fewer than five survey respondents are not labelled.90 Confidence levels are unavailable as population size relevant to this question is unavailable due to the question not asking all tiers.
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 65
Organisational policies and procedures on vicarious trauma
Survey results indicate that 69.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Child and Family Services and identify as Tier 1, 2 or 3 report that their organisation has processes in place or policies and procedures to recognise and manage vicarious trauma.
Figure 55: Proportion of survey respondents who work in Child and Family Services whose organisations have processes or policies and procedures in place to recognise and manage vicarious trauma (Tier 1, 2, 3)91
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Child and FamilyServices
69%
621
14%
124
17%
157
Organisation hasvicarious traumaprocesses or policies
I don't know
No
Yes
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Effectiveness of policies and procedures
Survey results indicate that 42.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Child and Family Services and identify as Tier 1, 2 or 3 report that the organisation processes or policies and procedures to recognise and manage vicarious trauma are ‘very effective’ or ‘extremely effective’.
Figure 56: Quality of processes or policies and procedures in place to manage vicarious trauma reported by survey respondents who work in Child and Family Services (Tier 1, 2, 3)92 93
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Child and FamilyServices
37%
231
41%
256
12%
77
5%
29
Policy EffectivenessI don’t know
Not effective at all
Not very effectiveSomewhat effective
Very effective
Extremely effective
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
91 Confidence levels are unavailable as population size relevant to this question is unavailable due to the question not asking all tiers.92 Segments with fewer than five survey respondents are not labelled.93 Confidence levels are unavailable as population size relevant to this question is unavailable due to the question not asking all tiers.
66 COMMUNITY AND HOSPITAL-BASED MENTAL HEALTH
The number of survey respondents identifying as working in Community and Hospital-Based Mental Health was 672. Of these survey respondents 38, 141, 405, 88 self-selected into Tiers 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively.
Payroll data was not collected for Community and Hospital-Based Mental Health employees.
WORKFORCE PROFILE
Gender
Survey results indicate that 79.1 per cent of survey respondents who work in Community and Hospital-Based Mental Health across all tiers are female and 20.9 per cent male.
Age
Survey results indicate that 23.9 per cent of survey respondents who work in Community and Hospital-Based Mental Health across all tiers are less than 35 years in age.
Figure 57: Age of survey respondents who work in Community and Hospital-Based Mental Health (all tiers)
20 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 39 40 to 44 45 to 49 50 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 65 66 or above0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
%of
resp
ond
en
ts 11.15%
68
12.46%
76
13.93%
85
17.21%105
12.30%75
10.49%
64
3.11%
19
9.67%
597.70%
47
1.97%12
Community and Hospital-based Mental Health
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
COMMUNITY AND HOSPITAL-BASED MENTAL HEALTH
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 67
Qualifications
Survey results indicate that 80.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Community and Hospital-Based Mental Health across all tiers report that their highest level of education is a Bachelor Degree or higher.
Figure 58: Highest level of education of survey respondents who work in Community and Hospital-Based Mental Health (all tiers)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of responde nts
40%
242
14%
87
26%
159
20%
122
Community andHospital-basedMental Health
Highest EducationYear 11 or below, Year 12, Certi�cate I to IV
Bachelor Degree
Graduate Diploma or Graduate Certi�cate
Postgraduate Degree
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Employment status
Survey results indicate that 57.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Community and Hospital-Based Mental Health and identify as Tier 1, 2 or 3 are employed on a full time basis.
Figure 59: Employment status of survey respondents who work in Community and Hospital-Based Mental Health (Tier 1,2,3)94 95
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Community andHospital-based
Mental Health
44%
239
13%
72
28%
152
11%
60
Employment StatusCasual or Sessional
Fixed-term part time
Ongoing part timeFixed-term full time
Ongoing full time
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
94 Segments with fewer than five survey respondents are not labelled.95 Confidence levels are unavailable as population size relevant to this question is unavailable due to the question not asking all tiers.
Tenure at current organisation
Data relating to tenure at current organisation is not available for Community and Hospital-Based Mental Health employees as this sector did not participate in the payroll data collection.
68 COMMUNITY AND HOSPITAL-BASED MENTAL HEALTH
CAPABILITY AND CONFIDENCE IN RELATION TO FAMILY VIOLENCE
Survey respondents’ perceptions regarding family violence related work
Survey results indicate that 88.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Community and Hospital-Based Mental Health across all tiers perceive their work ‘somewhat makes a difference’ or makes a ‘significant difference’ to people affected by family violence.
Figure 60: Perceptions of Community and Hospital-Based Mental Health survey respondents regarding the difference their work makes to people affected by family violence (all tiers)96 97
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Community andHospital-based
Mental Health
30%
160
58%
310
8%
45
How much differencedo you think yourwork makes to people
Don’t know / Unsure
No difference at all
Somewhat makes a difference
Significant difference
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
96 Segments with fewer than five survey respondents are not labelled.97 Confidence levels are unavailable as the service doesn’t have sufficient sample size, but results are provided for insight purposes.98 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels
are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
Proportion of workforce that has undertaken family violence/primary prevention training
Survey results indicate that 59.9 per cent of survey respondents who work in Community and Hospital-Based Mental Health across all tiers have undertaken formal and/or informal training on family violence or primary prevention.
Proportion of workforce who do not consider they require family violence training
Survey results indicate that 60.5 per cent of survey respondents who work in Community and Hospital-Based Mental Health Service employees across all tiers do not consider a need for family violence or primary prevention training to perform their role.
Confidence in having enough experience and training to perform role effectively
Survey results indicate that 43.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Community and Hospital-Based Mental Health, and identify as Tier 1 or 2, are confident that they have had sufficient training and experience to perform their role effectively, with regards to family violence and/or primary prevention.
Figure 61: Confidence of survey respondents who work in Community and Hospital-Based Mental Health in having enough experience and training to effectively perform role training (Tier 1 and 2 only)98
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Community andHospital-based Mental
Health
43%
63
38%
56
18%
27
Confidence inperforming your role
Not confident
Somewhat confident
Confident
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 69
Confidence in identifying those who are experiencing family violence
Survey results indicate that 38.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Community and Hospital-Based Mental Health and identify as Tier 2, 3 or 4 report that they are confident in identifying those who are experiencing family violence. Of these, the majority have received family violence training.
Figure 62: Confidence of survey respondents who work in Community and Hospital-Based Mental Health in identifying family violence (Tier 2, 3, 4)99
Community and Hospital-based Mental Health
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
% of respondents
Not confident
Somewhat confident
Confident
11%
66
21%
123
26%
150
29%
171
9%
54
3%
19
Have TrainingYes
No
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
99 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
100 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
Confidence in responding to a disclosure of family violence
Survey results indicate that 46.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Community and Hospital-Based Mental Health and identify as Tier 2, 3 or 4 report that they are confident in responding to a disclosure of family violence. Of these, the majority have received family violence training.
Figure 63: Confidence of survey respondents who work in Community and Hospital-Based Mental Health in responding to family violence by training status (Tier 2, 3, 4)100
Community and Hospital-based Mental Health
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
% of respondents
Not confident
Somewhat confident
Confident
12%
67
19%
110
11%
63
20%
118
35%
201
3%
20
Have TrainingYes
No
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
70 COMMUNITY AND HOSPITAL-BASED MENTAL HEALTH
Confidence in managing the needs of children affected by family violence
Survey results indicate that 30.6 per cent of survey respondents who work in Community and Hospital-Based Mental Health across all tiers report that they are confident in managing the needs of children affected by family violence.
Figure 64: Confidence of survey respondents who work in Community and Hospital-Based Mental Health in managing the needs of children affected by family violence (all tiers)
Community and Hospital-based Mental Health
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
% of respondents
Not confident
Somewhatconfident
Confident
43.71% 264
25.66% 155
30.63% 185
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 71
Barriers to training
Survey results indicate that 54.4 per cent of survey respondents who work in Community and Hospital-Based Mental Health across all tiers cite lack of time as a barrier to accessing training.
Figure 65: Barriers to training cited by survey respondents who work in Community and Hospital-Based Mental Health (all tiers)101
Community and Hospital-based Mental Health
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
% of respondents
Lack of time
Cost of study
Lack of suitable options
Lack of employer support
N/A I have good access to training
Distance to training venue / Lack of onlinestudy options
Inability for organisation to provide backfillfor my role while I am on training
Unconvinced of benefits from training
Child care
Other
Unware of options
18.72% 114
54.35% 331
31.03% 189
46.80% 285
18.88% 115
18.88% 115
16.26% 99
7.22% 44
3.45% 21
4.93% 30
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
101 608 unique survey respondents answered this question. Respondents could provide multiple answers. Segments with fewer than five survey respondents have not been labelled.
72 COMMUNITY AND HOSPITAL-BASED MENTAL HEALTH
HEALTH AND WELLBEING
Proportion who receive clinical supervision
Survey results indicate that 11.1 per cent of survey respondents who work in Community and Hospital-Based Mental Health and identify as Tier 1, 2 or 3 report that they do not receive any supervision in their role.
Figure 66: Supervision receipt and provision by survey respondents who work in Community and Hospital-Based Mental Health (Tier 1, 2, 3)102
Community and Hospital-based Mental Health
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%
% of respondents
Both receive and provide
Only provide supervision
Only receive supervision
No Supervision
35.74% 193
46.85% 253
11.11% 60
6.30% 34
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
102 Confidence levels are unavailable as population size relevant to this question is unavailable due to the question not asking all tiers.103 Segments with fewer than five survey respondents are not labelled.104 Confidence levels are unavailable as population size relevant to this question is unavailable due to the question not asking all tiers.
Satisfaction with clinical supervision
Survey results indicate that 36.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Community and Hospital-Based Mental Health and identify as Tier 1, 2 or 3 report that the quality of the supervision received is ‘excellent’.
Figure 67: Quality of supervision received by survey respondents who work in Community and Hospital-Based Mental Health (Tier 1, 2, 3)103 104
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Community andHospital-based
Mental Health
36%
159
42%
188
17%
74
Supervision QualityVery PoorPoor
Average
Good
Excellent
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 73
Organisational policies and procedures on vicarious trauma
Survey results indicate that 59.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Community and Hospital-Based Mental Health and identify as Tier 1, 2 or 3 report that their organisation has processes in place or policies and procedures to recognise and manage vicarious trauma.
Figure 68: Proportion of survey respondents who work in Community and Hospital-Based Mental Health whose organisations have processes or policies and procedures in place to recognise and manage vicarious trauma (Tier 1, 2, 3)105
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Community andHospital-based
Mental Health
59%
318
18%
97
23%
125
Organisation hasvicarious traumaprocesses or policies
I don't know
No
Yes
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Effectiveness of policies and procedures
Survey results indicate that 40.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Community and Hospital-Based Mental Health and identify as Tier 1, 2 or 3 report that their organisation’s processes or policies and procedures to recognise and manage vicarious trauma are ‘very effective’ or ‘extremely effective’.
Figure 69: Quality of processes or policies and procedures in place to manage vicarious trauma reported by survey respondents who work in Community and Hospital-Based Mental Health (Tier 1, 2, 3)106 107
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Community andHospital-based
Mental Health
35%
110
41%
130
13%
42
5%
15
5%
17
Policy EffectivenessI don’t know
Not effective at all
Not very effectiveSomewhat effective
Very effective
Extremely effective
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
105 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
106 Segments with fewer than five survey respondents are not labelled.107 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels
are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
74 CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
The number of survey respondents identifying as working in Corrections and Community Corrections was 718. Of these survey respondents 149, 177, 134, 258 self-selected into Tiers 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively.
The payroll data for organisations mapped to Corrections and Community Corrections collected records on 4,118 employees.
WORKFORCE PROFILE
Gender
Payroll data indicate that 38.6 per cent of employees in Corrections and Community Corrections are female and 61.4 per cent are male.
Age
Payroll data indicate that 39.7 per cent of employees who work in Corrections and Community Corrections are between 45 and 59 years old and that 49.5 per cent are between 20 and 44 years old.
Figure 70: Age of employees working in Corrections and Community Corrections108
Corrections
19 or below 20 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 39 40 to 44 45 to 49 50 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 64 65 or above0%
5%
10%
15%
% o
f em
plo
yees
10.78%
444
11.87%
48911.58%
477
12.38%
510
14.89%
61313.04%
537 11.78%
485
2.84%
117
6.90%
284
3.89%
160
Source: KPMG analysis of employer payroll data
108 Segments with fewer than five have not labelled.
CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 75
Qualifications
Survey results indicate that 38.0 per cent of survey respondents working in Corrections and Community Corrections report that their highest level of education is a Bachelor Degree or higher.
Figure 71: Highest level of education of survey respondents who work in Corrections and Community Corrections (all tiers)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Corrections25%
181
61%
437
9%
68
4%
32
Highest EducationYear 11 or below, Year 12, Certificate I to IVBachelor Degree
Graduate Diploma or Graduate Certificate
Postgraduate Degree
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Employment status
Payroll data indicate that 74.0 per cent of Corrections and Community Corrections employees are employed on an ongoing full time basis.
Figure 72: Employment status employees in Corrections and Community Corrections109
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of employees
Corrections74%
3,063
15%
635
6%
243
Employment StatusCasual or Sessional
Fixed-term part time
Ongoing part timeFixed-term full time
Ongoing full time
Source: KPMG analysis of employer payroll data
109 Segments with fewer than five survey respondents are not labelled.
76 CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
Tenure at current organisation
Payroll data indicate that 53.6 per cent of Corrections and Community Corrections employees have worked at their current organisation for zero to four years.
Figure 73: Tenure in years of employees working in Corrections and Community Corrections at current organisation
Corrections
0 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 and above
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
% o
f em
plo
yees
53.55%
2,205
18.94%
78012.92%
532 8.57%
353 6.02%
248
Source: KPMG analysis of employer payroll data
CAPABILITY AND CONFIDENCE IN RELATION TO FAMILY VIOLENCE
Survey respondents’ perceptions regarding family violence related work
Survey results indicate that 76.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Corrections and Community Corrections across all tiers report that they perceive that their work ‘somewhat makes a difference’ or makes a ‘significant difference’ to people affected by family violence.
Figure 74: Perceptions of Corrections and Community Corrections survey respondents regarding the difference their work makes to people affected by family violence (all tiers)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Corrections20%
91
56%
258
12%
53
12%
56
How much differencedo you think yourwork makes to people
Don’t know / Unsure
No difference at all
Somewhat makes a difference
Significant difference
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 77
Proportion of workforce that has undertaken family violence/primary prevention training
Survey results indicate that 55.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Corrections and Community Corrections across all tiers have undertaken formal and/or informal training on family violence or primary prevention.
Proportion of workforce who do not consider they require family violence training
Survey results indicate that 60.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Corrections and Community Corrections across all tiers do not consider a need for family violence or primary prevention training to perform their role.
Confidence in having enough experience and training to perform role effectively
Survey results indicate 34.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Corrections and Community Corrections, and identify as Tier 1 or 2, are ‘confident’ that they have had enough training and experience to perform their role effectively with regards to family violence and/or primary prevention
Figure 75: Confidence of survey respondents who work in Corrections and Community Corrections in having enough experience and training to effectively perform role (Tier 1 and 2 only)110
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Corrections34%
108
41%
133
25%
80
Confidence inperforming your role
Not confident
Somewhat confident
Confident
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
110 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
78 CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
Confidence in identifying those who are experiencing family violence
Survey results indicate that 23.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Corrections and Community Corrections and identify as Tier 2, 3 or 4 report that they are confident in identifying those who are experiencing family violence. Of these survey respondents, the majority have received family violence training.
Figure 76: Confidence of survey respondents who work in Corrections and Community Corrections in identifying family violence (Tier 2, 3, 4)111
Corrections
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
% of respondents
Not confident
Somewhat confident
Confident
19%
110
21%
121
31%
173
16%
90
7%
39
6%
33
Have TrainingYes
No
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
111 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 79
Confidence in responding to a disclosure of family violence
Survey results indicate that 33.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Corrections and Community Corrections and identify as Tier 2, 3 or 4 are confident in responding to a disclosure of family violence. Of these, the majority have received family violence training.
Figure 77: Confidence of survey respondents who work in Corrections and Community Corrections in responding to family violence by training status (Tier 2, 3, 4)112
Corrections
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
% of respondents
Not confident
Somewhat confident
Confident
17%
98
21%
119
23%
129
24%
135
9%
52
5%
31
Have TrainingYes
No
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
112 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
Confidence in managing the needs of children affected by family violence
Survey results indicate that 18.4 per cent of survey respondents who work in Corrections and Community Corrections across all tiers report that they are confident in managing the needs of children affected by family violence.
Figure 78: Confidence of survey respondents who work in Corrections and Community Corrections in managing the needs of children affected by family violence (all tiers)
Corrections
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
% of respondents
Not confident
Somewhatconfident
Confident
39.97% 283
18.36% 130
41.67% 295
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
80 CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
Barriers to training
Survey results indicate that 38.4 per cent of survey respondents who work in Corrections and Community Corrections across all tiers cite lack of time as a barrier to accessing training.
Figure 79: Barriers to training cited by survey respondents who work in Corrections and Community Corrections (all tiers)113
Corrections
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
% of respondents
Lack of time
N/A I have good access to training
Lack of employer support
Lack of suitable options
Inability for organisation to provide backfillfor my role while I am on training
Cost of study
Distance to training venue / Lack of onlinestudy options
Unconvinced of benefits from training
Child care
Other
Unware of options
38.44% 276
34.54% 248
16.71% 120
17.41% 125
13.37% 96
13.37% 96
6.13% 44
1.95% 14
2.51% 18
6.96% 50
0.84% 6
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
113 569 unique survey respondents answered this question.
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 81
HEALTH AND WELLBEING
Proportion who receive clinical supervision
Survey results indicate that 27.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Corrections and Community Corrections and identify as Tier 1, 2 or 3 report that they do not receive any supervision in their role.
Figure 80: Supervision receipt and provision by survey respondents who work in Corrections and Community Corrections (Tier 1, 2, 3)114
Corrections
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
% of respondents
Both receive and provide
Only provide supervision
Only receive supervision
No Supervision
26.96% 124
26.52% 122
42.83% 197
3.70% 17
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Satisfaction with clinical supervision
Survey results indicate that 19.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Corrections and Community Corrections and identify as Tier 1, 2 or 3 report the quality of the supervision received as ‘excellent’.
Figure 81: Quality of supervision received by survey respondents who work in Corrections and Community Corrections (Tier 1, 2, 3)115 116
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Corrections19%
59
48%
152
26%
83
5%
15
Supervision QualityVery PoorPoor
Average
Good
Excellent
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
114 Confidence levels are unavailable as population size relevant to this question is unavailable due to the question not asking all tiers.115 Segments with fewer than five survey respondents are not labelled.116 Confidence levels are unavailable as population size relevant to this question is unavailable due to the question not asking all tiers.
82 CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
Organisational policies and procedures on vicarious trauma
Survey results indicate that 61.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Corrections and Community Corrections and identify as Tier 1, 2 or 3 are aware of their organisations processes, policies and procedures to recognise and manage vicarious trauma.
Figure 82: Proportion of survey respondents who work in Corrections and Community Corrections whose organisations have processes or policies and procedures in place to recognise and manage vicarious trauma (Tier 1, 2, 3)117
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Corrections61%
282
13%
59
26%
119
Organisation hasvicarious traumaprocesses or policies
I don't know
No
Yes
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Effectiveness of policies and procedures
Survey results indicate that over 24.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Corrections and Community Corrections and identify as Tier 1, 2 or 3 report that their organisation’s processes, policies and procedures to recognise and manage vicarious trauma are ‘very effective’ or ‘extremely effective’.
Figure 83: Quality of processes or policies and procedures in place to manage vicarious trauma reported by survey respondents who work in in Corrections and Community Corrections (Tier 1, 2, 3)118 119
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Corrections24%
69
45%
126
17%
49
9%
25
Policy EffectivenessI don’t know
Not effective at all
Not very effectiveSomewhat effective
Very effective
Extremely effective
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
117 Confidence levels are unavailable as population size relevant to this question is unavailable due to the question not asking all tiers.118 Segments with fewer than five survey respondents are not labelled.119 Confidence levels are unavailable as population size relevant to this question is unavailable due to the question not asking all tiers.
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 83
The number of survey respondents identifying as working in Homelessness Services was 724. Of these survey respondents 99, 150, 396, 79 self-selected into Tiers 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively.
The payroll data for organisations mapped to Homelessness Services collected records on 1,327 employees.
WORKFORCE PROFILE
Gender
Payroll data indicate that 73.1 per cent of employees in Homelessness Services are female and 26.9 per cent are male.
Age
Payroll data indicate that 30.5 per cent of employees in this service line are between 25 and 35 years of age.
Figure 84: Age of employees working in Homelessness Services120
HomelessnessServices
19 or below 20 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 39 40 to 44 45 to 49 50 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 64 65 or above0%
5%
10%
15%
% o
f em
plo
yees
13.26%
176
17.26%
229
12.13%
161
13.56%
180
11.61%
15410.17%
135
10.17%
135
2.86%
38
6.48%
86
2.41%
32
Source: KPMG analysis of employer payroll data
120 Segments with fewer than five survey respondents are not labelled.
HOMELESSNESS SERVICES
84 HOMELESSNESS SERVICES
Qualifications
Survey results indicate that 63.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Homelessness Services across all tiers report that their highest level of education is a Bachelor Degree or higher.
Figure 85: Highest level of education of survey respondents who work in Homelessness Services (all tiers)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Homelessness18%
129
13%
95
32%
235
37%
265
Highest EducationYear 11 or below, Year 12, Certificate I to IVBachelor Degree
Graduate Diploma or Graduate Certificate
Postgraduate Degree
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Employment status
Payroll data indicate that 53.0 per cent of Homelessness Services employees are employed on a part time, casual or sessional basis.
Figure 86: Employment status of employees working in Homelessness Services
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of employees
HomelessnessServices
41%
548
34%
452
13%
166
6%
84
6%
77
Employment StatusCasual or Sessional
Fixed-term part time
Ongoing part timeFixed-term full time
Ongoing full time
Source: KPMG analysis of employer payroll data
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 85
Tenure at current organisation
Payroll data indicate that 55.4 per cent of employees who work in Homelessness Services have worked at their current organisation for zero to four years.
Figure 87: Tenure in years of employees working in Homelessness Services at current organisation
Homelessness S ervices
0 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 and above
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
% o
f em
plo
yees
55.39%
735
26.53%
352
8.82%
117 5.58%
743.69%
49
Source: KPMG analysis of employer payroll data
CAPABILITY AND CONFIDENCE IN RELATION TO FAMILY VIOLENCE
Survey respondents’ perceptions regarding family violence related work
Survey results indicate that 96.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Homelessness Services across all tiers perceive their work ‘somewhat makes a difference’ or makes a ‘significant difference’ to people affected by family violence.
Figure 88: Perceptions of Homelessness Services survey respondents regarding the difference their work makes to people affected by family violence (all tiers)121
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Homelessness48%
308
48%
308
How much differencedo you think yourwork makes to people
Don’t know / Unsure
No difference at all
Somewhat makes a difference
Significant difference
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
121 Segments with fewer than five survey respondents are not labelled.
86 HOMELESSNESS SERVICES
Proportion of workforce that has undertaken family violence/primary prevention training
Survey results indicate that 77.2 per cent of survey respondents who work in Homelessness Services across all tiers have undertaken formal and/or informal training on family violence or primary prevention.
Proportion of workforce who do not consider they require family violence training
Survey results indicate that 46.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Homelessness Services across all tiers do not consider a need for family violence or primary prevention training to perform their role.
Confidence in having enough experience and training to perform role effectively
Survey results indicate that 58.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Homelessness Services, and identify as Tier 1 or 2, are confident that they have had sufficient training and experience to perform their role effectively, with regards to family violence and/or primary prevention.
Figure 89: Confidence of survey respondents who work in Homelessness Services in having enough experience and training to effectively perform role (Tier 1 and 2 only)122
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Homelessness58%
144
35%
87
6%
16
Confidence inperforming your role
Not confident
Somewhat confident
Confident
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
122 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 87
Confidence in identifying those who are experiencing family violence
Survey results indicate that 50.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Homelessness Services and identify as Tier 2, 3 or 4 report that they are confident in identifying those who are experiencing family violence. Of these, the majority have received family violence training.
Figure 90: Confidence of survey respondents who work in Homelessness Services in identifying family violence (Tier 2, 3, 4)123
Homelessness
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
% of respondents
Not confident
Somewhat confident
Confident
12%
74
28%
172
44%
273
7%
44
6%
40
3%
20
Have TrainingYes
No
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Confidence in responding to a disclosure of family violence
Survey results indicate that 55.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Homelessness Services and identify as Tier 2, 3 or 4 report that they are confident in responding to a disclosure of family violence. Of these, the majority have received family violence training.
Homelessness
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%
% of respondents
Not confident
Somewhat confident
Confident
13%
78
25%
153
47%
292
5%
31
8%
49
3%
20
Have TrainingYes
No
Figure 91: Confidence of survey respondents who work in Homelessness Services in responding to family violence by training status (Tier 2, 3, 4)124
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
123 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
124 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
88 HOMELESSNESS SERVICES
Confidence in managing the needs of children affected by family violence
Survey results indicate that 41.3 per cent of survey respondents who work in Homelessness Services across all tiers report that they are confident in managing the needs of children affected by family violence.
Figure 92: Confidence of survey respondents who work in Homelessness Services in managing the needs of children affected by family violence (all tiers)
Homelessness
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
% of respondents
Not confident
Somewhatconfident
Confident
18.30% 131
41.34% 296
40.36% 289
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 89
Barriers to training
Survey results indicate that 51.5 per cent of survey respondents who work in Homelessness Services across all tiers cite lack of time as a barrier to accessing training.
Figure 93: Barriers to training cited by survey respondents who work in Homelessness Services (all tiers)125
Homelessness
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60%
% of respondents
Lack of time
Cost of study
Lack of suitable options
N/A I have good access to training
Distance to training venue / Lack of onlinestudy options
Inability for organisation to provide backfillfor my role while I am on training
Lack of employer support
Unconvinced of benefits from training
Child care
Other
Unware of options
44.81% 324
16.04% 116
19.09% 138
23.51% 170
51.45% 372
16.46% 119
26.97% 195
3.18% 23
2.77% 20
4.01% 29
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
125 625 unique respondents answered this question. Segments with fewer than five survey respondents are not labelled.
90 HOMELESSNESS SERVICES
HEALTH AND WELLBEING
Proportion who receive clinical supervision
Survey results indicate that 11.3 per cent of survey respondents who work in Homelessness Services and identify as Tier 1, 2 or 3 report that they do not receive any supervision in their role.
Figure 94: Supervision receipt and provision by survey respondents who work in Homelessness Services (Tier 1, 2, 3)126
Homelessness
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65%
% of respondents
Both receive and provide
Only provide supervision
Only receive supervision
No Supervision
56.12% 362
27.75% 179
11.32% 73
4.81% 31
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
126 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
127 Segments with fewer than five survey respondents are not labelled.128 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels
are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
Satisfaction with clinical supervision
Survey results indicate that 30.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Homelessness Services and identify as Tier 1, 2 or 3 report that the quality of the supervision received is ‘excellent’.
Figure 95: Quality of supervision received by survey respondents who work in Homelessness Services (Tier 1, 2, 3)127 128
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Homelessness30%
163
43%
234
20%
109
4%
20
Supervision QualityVery PoorPoor
Average
Good
Excellent
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 91
Organisational policies and procedures on vicarious trauma
Survey results indicate that 64.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Homelessness Services and identify as Tier 1, 2 or 3 report that their organisation has processes in place or policies and procedures to recognise and manage vicarious trauma.
Figure 96: Proportion of survey respondents who work in Homelessness Services whose organisations have processes or policies and procedures in place to recognise and manage vicarious trauma (Tier 1, 2, 3)129
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Homelessness64%
414
18%
116
18%
115
Organisation hasvicarious traumaprocesses or policies
I don't know
No
Yes
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Effectiveness of policies and procedures
Survey results indicate that 47.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Homelessness Services and identify as Tier 1, 2 or 3 report that the organisation processes or policies and procedures to recognise and manage vicarious trauma are ‘very effective’ or ‘extremely effective’.
Figure 97: Quality of processes or policies and procedures in place to manage vicarious trauma reported by survey respondents who work in Homelessness Services (Tier 1, 2, 3)130 131
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Homelessness41%
169
36%
150
12%
48
6%
26
4%
17
Policy EffectivenessI don’t know
Not effective at all
Not very effectiveSomewhat effective
Very effective
Extremely effective
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
129 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
130 Segments with fewer than five survey respondents are not labelled.131 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels
are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
92 HOSPITAL SERVICES
The number of survey respondents identifying as working in Hospital Services was 1,166. Of these survey respondents 29, 183, 280, 674 self-selected into Tiers 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively.
Payroll data was not collected for Hospital services employees.
HOSPITAL SERVICES
Figure 98: Age of survey respondents who work in Hospital Services (all tiers)
Hospital
20 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 39 40 to 44 45 to 49 50 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 65 66 or above0%
5%
10%
15%
% o
fre
spon
de
nts
11.41%
13311.23%
131
13.55%
158
14.32%
16714.24%
166 13.04%
152
3.17%
37
9.95%
116
7.46%
87
1.63%
19
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
WORKFORCE PROFILE
Gender
Survey results indicate that 87.7 per cent of survey respondents who work in Hospital Services across all tiers are female and 12.3 per cent are male.
Age
Survey results indicate that 13.6 per cent of survey respondents who work in Hospital Services across all tiers report their age as 40 to 44 years.
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 93
Qualifications
Survey results indicate that 82.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Hospital Services report that their highest level of education is a Bachelor Degree or higher.
Figure 99: Highest level of education of survey respondents who work in Hospital Services (all tiers)
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Hospital32%
374
15%
176
35%
404
18%
212
Highest EducationYear 11 or below, Year 12, Certificate I to IVBachelor Degree
Graduate Diploma or Graduate Certificate
Postgraduate Degree
Employment status
Survey results indicate that 46.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Hospital Services report that they are employed on a part time, casual or sessional basis.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Hospital41%
203
13%
62
33%
163
9%
43
4%
21
Employment StatusCasual or Sessional
Fixed-term part time
Ongoing part timeFixed-term full time
Ongoing full time
Figure 100: Employment status of survey respondents who work in Hospital Services (Tier 1, 2, 3)132 133
132 Segments with fewer than five survey respondents are not labelled.133 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels
are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
94 HOSPITAL SERVICES
CAPABILITY AND CONFIDENCE IN RELATION TO FAMILY VIOLENCE
Survey respondents perceptions regarding family violence related work
Survey results indicate that 79.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Hospital Services perceive their work ‘somewhat makes a difference’ or makes a ‘significant difference’ to people affected by family violence.
Figure 101: Perception of survey respondents who work in Hospital Services regarding the difference their work makes to people affected by family violence (all tiers)134
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Hospital28%
136
51%
251
13%
64
8%
37
How much differencedo you think yourwork makes to people
Don’t know / Unsure
No difference at all
Somewhat makes a difference
Significant difference
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
134 Segments with less than four per cent survey respondents are not labelled
Proportion of workforce that has undertaken family violence/primary prevention training
Survey results indicate that 57.3 per cent of survey respondents who work in Hospital Services across all tiers have received formal and/or informal training on family violence or primary prevention.
Proportion of workforce who do not consider they require family violence training
Survey results indicate that 68.4 per cent of survey respondents who work in Hospital Services across all tiers consider that they do not require family violence or primary prevention training to perform their role.
Confidence in having enough experience and training to perform role effectively
Survey results indicate that 31.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Hospital Services and identify in Tier 1 or 2 are confident that they have had sufficient training and experience to perform their role effectively, with regards to family violence and/or primary prevention.
Tenure at current organisation
Data on tenure at current organisation is not available for Hospital services employees as the sector did not participate in the payroll data collection.
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 95
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Figure 102: Confidence of survey respondents who work in Hospital Services in having enough experience and training to effectively perform role (Tier 1 and 2 only)135
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Hospital31%
66
41%
86
28%
60
Confidence inperforming your role
Not confident
Somewhat confident
Confident
Confidence in identifying those who are experiencing family violence
Survey results indicate that 18.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Hospital Services and identify as Tier 2, 3 or 4 report that they are confident in identifying those who are experiencing family violence. Of these, the majority have received family violence training.
Figure 103: Confidence of survey respondents who work in Hospital Services in identifying family violence (Tier 2, 3, 4)136
Hospital
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
% of respondents
Not confident
Somewhat confident
Confident
30%
336
24%
275
22%
247
13%
148
5%
51
7%
74
Have TrainingYes
No
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
135 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
136 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
96 HOSPITAL SERVICES
Confidence in responding to a disclosure of family violence
Survey results indicate that 27.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Hospital Services and identify as Tier 2, 3 or 4 report that they are confident in responding to a disclosure of family violence. Of these, the majority have received family violence training.
Figure 104: Confidence of survey respondents who work in Hospital Services in responding to family violence by training status (Tier 2, 3, 4)137
Hospital
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
% of respondents
Not confident
Somewhat confident
Confident
27%
299
23%
254
18%
205
18%
202
9%
105
6%
62
Have TrainingYes
No
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
137 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
Confidence in managing the needs of children affected by family violence
Survey results indicate that 18.5 per cent of survey respondents who work in Hospital Services report that they are confident in managing the needs of children affected by family violence.
Figure 105: Confidence of survey respondents who work in Hospital Services in managing the needs of children affected by family violence (all tiers)
Hospital
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%
% of respondents
Not confident
Somewhatconfident
Confident 18.51% 214
45.93% 531
35.55% 411
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 97
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Barriers to training
Survey results indicate that 48.8 per cent of survey respondents who work in Hospital Services across all tiers cite lack of time as a barrier to accessing training.
Figure 106: Barriers to training cited by survey respondents who work in Hospital Services (all tiers)
Hospital
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60%
% of respondents
Lack of time
Cost of study
Lack of suitable options
N/A I have good access to training
Inability for organisation to provide backfillfor my role while I am on training
Lack of employer support
Distance to training venue / Lack of onlinestudy options
Unconvinced of benefits from training
Child care
Other
Unware of options
19.21% 224
27.10% 316
35.85% 418
48.80% 569
16.04% 187
23.58% 275
19.30% 225
8.83% 103
1.20% 14
4.29% 50
2.74% 32
98 HOSPITAL SERVICES
HEALTH AND WELLBEING
Proportion who receive clinical supervision
Survey results indicate that 20.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Hospital Services and identify as Tier 1, 2 or 3 report that they do not receive any supervision in their role.
Figure 107: Supervision receipt and provision by survey respondents who work in Hospital Services (Tier 1, 2, 3)138
Hospital
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
% of respondents
Both receive and provide
Only provide supervision
Only receive supervision
No Supervision
28.51% 140
41.14% 202
10.39% 51
19.96% 98
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Satisfaction with clinical supervision
Survey results indicate that 27.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Hospital Services and identify as Tier 1, 2 or 3 report that the quality of the supervision received is ‘excellent’.
Figure 108: Quality of supervision received by survey respondents who work in Hospital Services (Tier 1, 2, 3)139 140
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Hospital27%
92
52%
177
15%
52
5%
16
Supervision QualityVery PoorPoor
Average
Good
Excellent
138 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
139 Segments with fewer than five survey respondents are not labelled.140 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels
are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 99
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
141 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
142 Segments with fewer than five survey respondents are not labelled.143 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels
are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
Organisational policies and procedures on vicarious trauma
Survey results indicate that 53.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in a Hospital Services and identify as Tier 1, 2 or 3 report that their organisation has processes in place or policies and procedures to recognise and manage vicarious trauma.
Figure 109: Proportion of survey respondents who work in Hospital Services whose organisations have processes or policies and procedures in place to recognise and manage vicarious trauma (Tier 1, 2, 3)141
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Hospital53%
262
18%
91
28%
139
Organisation hasvicarious traumaprocesses or policies
I don't know
No
Yes
Effectiveness of policies and procedures
Survey results indicate that more than 21.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Hospital Services and identify as Tier 1, 2 or 3 report that their organisation’s processes or policies and procedures to recognise and manage vicarious trauma are ‘very effective’ or ‘extremely effective’.
Figure 110: Quality of processes or policies and procedures in place to manage vicarious trauma reported by survey respondents who work in hospitals (Tier 1, 2, 3)142 143
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
Hospital21%
56
44%
115
24%
64
7%
19
Policy EffectivenessI don’t know
Not effective at all
Not very effectiveSomewhat effective
Very effective
Extremely effective
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
100 PARENTING SERVICES
PARENTING SERVICES
The number of survey respondents identifying as working in Parenting Services was 272. Of these survey respondents 42, 114, 66, 50 self-selected into Tiers 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively.
Payroll data was not collected for Parenting Services employees.
WORKFORCE PROFILE
Gender
Survey results indicate that 82.8 per cent of survey respondents who work in Parenting Services across all tiers are female, and 17.2 per cent are male.
Age
Survey results indicate that 38.2 per cent of survey respondents who work in Parenting Services across all tiers report their age as over 50 years.
Figure 111: Age of survey respondents who work in Parenting Services (all tiers)144
Parenting Services
19 or below 20 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 39 40 to 44 45 to 49 50 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 65 66 or above
0%
5%
10%
15%
% o
f res
pond
ents
12.50%
34
10.29%
28
14.71%
40
15.81%
43
13.60%
37
15.81%
43
6.62%
18
6.99%
19
1.84%
5
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
144 Segments with fewer than five survey respondents are not labelled.
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 101
Qualifications
Survey results indicate that 73.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Parenting Services across all tiers report that their highest level of education is a Bachelor Degree or higher.
Figure 112: Highest level of education of survey respondents who work in Parenting Services (all tiers)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
ParentingServices
28%
76
17%
45
28%
77
27%
74
Highest EducationYear 11 or below, Year 12, Certificate I to IVBachelor Degree
Graduate Diploma or Graduate Certificate
Postgraduate Degree
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Employment status
Survey results indicate that over 35.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in the Parenting Services and identify as Tier 1, 2 or 3 report that they are employed on a part time, casual or sessional basis.
Figure 113: Employment status of survey respondents who work in Parenting Services (Tier 1, 2, 3)145 146
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
ParentingServices
54%
120
26%
58
9%
21
9%
20
Employment StatusCasual or Sessional
Fixed-term part time
Ongoing part timeFixed-term full time
Ongoing full time
145 Segments with fewer than five survey respondents are not labelled.146 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels
are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
102 PARENTING SERVICES
CAPABILITY AND CONFIDENCE IN RELATION TO FAMILY VIOLENCE
Survey respondents’ perceptions regarding family violence related work
Survey results indicate that 94.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in the Parenting Services across all tiers perceive their work ‘somewhat makes a difference’ and makes a ‘significant difference’ to people affected by family violence.
Figure 114: Perception of survey respondents who work in Parenting Services regarding the difference their work makes to people affected by family violence (all tiers)147
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
ParentingServices
42%
94
52%
115
5%
12
How much differencedo you think yourwork makes to people
Don’t know / Unsure
No difference at all
Somewhat makes a difference
Significant difference
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
147 Segments with fewer than five survey respondents are not labelled.
Tenure at current organisation
Data on tenure at current organisation is not available for Parenting Services employees as the sector did not participate in the payroll data collection.
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 103
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Proportion of workforce that has undertaken family violence/primary prevention training
Survey results indicate that 82.4 per cent of survey respondents who work in Parenting Services across all tiers have received formal and/or informal training on family violence or primary prevention.
Proportion of workforce who do not consider they require family violence training
Survey results indicate that 55.9 per cent of survey respondents who work in Parenting Services across all tiers consider that they do not require family violence or primary prevention training to perform their role.
Confidence in having enough experience and training to perform role effectively
Survey results indicate that 56.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Parenting Services and identify as Tier 1 or 2 report that they are confident that they have had sufficient training and experience to perform their role effectively, with regards to family violence and/or primary prevention.
Figure 115: Confidence of survey respondents who work in Parenting Services in having enough experience and training to effectively perform role (Tier 1 and 2 only)148
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
ParentingServices
56%
87
34%
53
10%
15
Confidence inperforming your role
Not confident
Somewhat confident
Confident
148 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
104 PARENTING SERVICES
Confidence in identifying those who are experiencing family violence
Survey results indicate that 54.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Parenting Services and identify as Tier 2, 3 or 4 report that they are confident in identifying those who are experiencing family violence. Of these, the majority have received family violence training.
Figure 116: Confidence of survey respondents who work in Parenting Services in identifying family violence (Tier 2, 3, 4)149
Parenting Services
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%
% of respondents
Not confident
Somewhat confident
Confident
26%
60
50%
115
7%
17
9%
20
4%
9
3%
8
Have TrainingYes
No
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
149 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 105
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Confidence in responding to a disclosure of family violence
Survey results indicate that 57.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Parenting Services and identify as Tier 2, 3 or 4 report that they are confident in responding to a disclosure of family violence. Of these, the majority have received family violence training.
Figure 117: Confidence of survey respondents who work in Parenting Services in responding to family violence by training status (Tier 2, 3, 4)150
Parenting Services
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60%
% of respondents
Not confident
Somewhat confident
Confident
11%
25
22%
50
53%
121
5%
11
4%
10
4%
10
Have TrainingYes
No
150 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
106 PARENTING SERVICES
Confidence in managing the needs of children affected by family violence
Survey results indicate that 53.7 per cent of survey respondents who work in Parenting Services across all tiers report that they are confident in managing the needs of children affected by family violence.
Figure 118: Confidence of survey respondents who work in Parenting Services in managing the needs of children affected by family violence (all tiers)
Parenting Services
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60%
% of respondents
Not confident
Somewhatconfident
Confident 53.70% 145
14.07% 38
32.22% 87
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 107
Barriers to training
Survey results indicate that 58.3 per cent of survey respondents who work in Parenting Services across all tiers cite lack of time as a barrier to accessing training.
Figure 119: Barriers to accessing training cited by survey respondents who work in Parenting Services (all tiers)151
Parenting Services
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
% of respondents
Lack of time
Cost of study
Lack of suitable options
N/A I have good access to training
Distance to training venue / Lack of onlinestudy options
Lack of employer support
Inability for organisation to provide backfillfor my role while I am on training
Unconvinced of benefits from training
Child care
Other
58.30% 158
41.70% 113
14.02% 38
14.02% 38
23.25% 63
22.88% 62
29.15% 79
5.17% 14
5.90% 16
4.80% 13
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
151 272 unique survey respondents answered this question. Respondents could provide multiple answers.
108 PARENTING SERVICES
HEALTH AND WELLBEING
Proportion who receive clinical supervision
Survey results indicate that 14.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Parenting Services and identify as Tier 1, 2 or 3 report that they do not receive any supervision in their role.
Figure 120: Supervision receipt and provision by survey respondents who work in Parenting Services (Tier 1, 2, 3)152
Parenting Services
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60%
% of respondents
Both receive and provide
Only provide supervision
Only receive supervision
No Supervision
49.10% 109
13.96% 31
30.63% 68
6.31% 14
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
152 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 109
Satisfaction with clinical supervision
Survey results indicate that 29.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Parenting Services and identify as Tier 1, 2 or 3 report that the quality of the supervision received is ‘excellent’.
Figure 121: Quality of supervision received by survey respondents who work in Parenting Services (Tier 1, 2, 3)153 154
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
ParentingServices
29%
52
45%
79
21%
37
Supervision QualityVery PoorPoor
Average
Good
Excellent
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
153 Segments with fewer than five survey respondents are not labelled.154 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels
are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.155 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels
are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
Organisational policies and procedures on vicarious trauma
Survey results indicate that 69.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Parenting Services and identify as Tier 1, 2, or 3 report that their organisation has processes in place or policies and procedures to recognise and manage vicarious trauma.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
ParentingServices
69%
154
14%
30
17%
38
Organisation hasvicarious traumaprocesses or policies
I don't know
No
Yes
Figure 122: Proportion of survey respondents who work in Parenting Services whose organisations have processes or policies and procedures in place to recognise and manage vicarious trauma (Tier 1, 2, 3)135
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
110 PARENTING SERVICES
Effectiveness of policies and procedures
Survey results indicate that 44.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in Parenting Services and identify as Tier 1, 2 or 3 report that their organisation’s processes or policies and procedures to recognise and manage vicarious trauma are ‘very effective’ or ‘extremely effective’.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
ParentingServices
38%
58
38%
58
13%
20
6%
10
5%
7
Policy EffectivenessI don’t know
Not effective at all
Not very effectiveSomewhat effective
Very effective
Extremely effective
Figure 123: Quality of processes or policies and procedures in place to manage vicarious trauma reported by survey respondents who work in Parenting Services (Tier 1, 2, 3)156 157
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
156 Segments with fewer than five survey respondents are not labelled.157 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels
are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 111
SCHOOL EDUCATION
The number of survey respondents identifying as working in School Education was 703. Of these survey respondents 8, 60, 62, 573 self-selected into Tiers 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively.
Payroll data was not collected for School Education employees.
WORKFORCE PROFILE
Gender
Survey results indicate that 83.1 per cent of survey respondents who work in School Education across all tiers are female and 16.9 per cent are male.
Age
Survey results indicate that 39.3 per cent of survey respondents who work in School Education across all tiers are over 50 years of age.
Figure 124: Age of survey respondents who work in School Education (all tiers)
School Education
19 or below 20 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 39 40 to 44 45 to 49 50 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 65 66 or above0%
5%
10%
15%
% o
fre
spon
de
nts
11.81%
83
14.08%
99 13.09%
9212.80%
90
13.80%
97
10.81%
76
0.71%
5
3.13%
22
8.82%
62
9.10%
64
1.85%
13
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
112 SCHOOL EDUCATION
Qualifications
Survey results indicate that 75.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in School Education across all tiers report that their highest level of education is a Bachelor Degree or higher.
Figure 125: Highest level of education of survey respondents who work in School Education (all tiers)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
School Education26%
180
16%
111
33%
232
26%
180
Highest EducationYear 11 or below, Year 12, Certificate I to IVBachelor Degree
Graduate Diploma or Graduate Certificate
Postgraduate Degree
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Employment status
Survey results indicate that 22.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in School Education and identify as Tier 1, 2 or 3 report that they are employed on a part-time, casual or seasonal basis..
Figure 126: Employment status of survey respondents who work in School Education (Tier 1, 2, 3)158
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
SchoolEducation
59%
77
18%
24
9%
12
8%
10
5%
7
Employment StatusCasual or Sessional
Fixed-term part time
Ongoing part timeFixed-term full time
Ongoing full time
Tenure at current organisation
Data on tenure at current organisation is not available for School Education employees as the sector did not participate in the payroll data collection.
158 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore population size related to the question is unknown and confidence levels are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 113
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
CAPABILITY AND CONFIDENCE IN RELATION TO FAMILY VIOLENCE
Survey respondents’ perceptions regarding family violence related work
Survey results indicate that 82.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in School Education across all tiers report that they perceive their work ‘somewhat makes a difference’ or makes a ‘significant difference’ to people affected by family violence.
Figure 127: Perception of survey respondents who work in School Education regarding the difference their work makes to people affected by family violence (all tiers)159 160
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
SchoolEducation
28%
37
54%
70
15%
20
How much differencedo you think yourwork makes to people
Don’t know / Unsure
No difference at all
Somewhat makes a difference
Significant difference
159 Segments with fewer than five respondents are not labelled.160 Confidence levels are unavailable as the service doesn’t have sufficient sample size, but results are provided for insight purposes.161 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels
are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
Figure 128: Confidence of survey respondents who work in School Education in having enough experience and training to effectively perform role (Tier 1 and 2 only)161
Proportion of workforce that has undertaken family violence/primary prevention training
Survey results indicate that 33.1 per cent of survey respondents who work in School Education across all tiers have received formal and/or informal training on family violence or primary prevention.
Proportion of workforce who do not consider they require family violence training
Survey results indicate that 74.9 per cent of survey respondents who work in School Education across all tiers consider that they do not require family violence or primary prevention training to perform their role.
Confidence in having enough experience and training to perform role effectively
Survey results indicate that 24.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in School Education and identify as Tier 1 or 2 are confident that they have had enough training and experience to perform their role effectively, with regards to family violence and/or primary prevention.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
SchoolEducation
24%
16
46%
31
31%
21
Confidence inperforming your role
Not confident
Somewhat confident
Confident
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
114 SCHOOL EDUCATION
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Confidence in identifying those who are experiencing family violence
Survey results indicate that 18.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in School Education and identify as Tier 2, 3 or 4 report that they are confident in identifying those who are experiencing family violence. Of these, the majority have received family violence training.
Figure 129: Confidence of survey respondents who work in School Education in identifying family violence (Tier 2, 3, 4)162
School Education
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%
% of respondents
Not confident
Somewhat confident
Confident
26%
180
34%
236
18%
128
10%
66
8%
54
4%
30
Have TrainingYes
No
162 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
163 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
Confidence in responding to a disclosure of family violence
Survey results indicate that 46.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in School Education and identify as Tier 2, 3 or 4 report that they are confident in responding to a disclosure of family violence. Of these, the majority have not received family violence training.
Figure 130: Confidence of survey respondents who work in School Education in responding to family violence by training status (Tier 2, 3, 4)163
School Education
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
% of respondents
Not confident
Somewhat confident
Confident
14%
97
28%
191
26%
179
11%
75
20%
139
Have TrainingYes
No
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 115
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Confidence in managing the needs of children affected by family violence
Survey results indicate that 25.5 per cent of survey respondents who work in School Education across all tiers report that they are confident in managing the needs of children affected by family violence.
Figure 131: Confidence of survey respondents who work in School Education in managing the needs of children affected by family violence (all tiers)
School Education
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%
% of respondents
Not confident
Somewhatconfident
Confident
25.11% 176
49.36% 346
25.53% 179
116 SCHOOL EDUCATION
Barriers to training
Survey results indicate that 48.5 per cent of survey respondents who work in School Education across all tiers cite lack of time as a barrier to training.
Figure 132: Barriers to training cited by survey respondents who work in School Education (all tiers)164
School Education
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%
% of respondents
Lack of time
Cost of study
N/A I have good access to training
Lack of suitable options
Lack of employer support
Distance to training venue / Lack of onlinestudy options
Inability for organisation to provide backfillfor my role while I am on training
Unconvinced of benefits from training
Child care
Other
Unware of options
48.51% 341
25.75% 181
28.73% 202
15.50% 109
20.63% 145
13.66% 96
10.81% 76
3.41% 24
7.25% 51
1.42% 10
3.84% 27
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
164 695 unique survey respondents answered this question.
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 117
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
HEALTH AND WELLBEING
Proportion who receive clinical supervision
Survey results indicate that 36.2 per cent of survey respondents who work in School Education and identify as Tier 1, 2 or 3 report that they do not receive any supervision in their role.
Figure 133: Supervision receipt and provision by survey respondents who work in School Education (Tier 1, 2, 3)165
School Education
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
% of respondents
Both receive and provide
Only provide supervision
Only receive supervision
No Supervision
25.38% 33
32.31% 42
36.15% 47
6.15% 8
Satisfaction with clinical supervision
Survey results indicate that 40.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in School Education and identify as Tier 1, 2 or 3 report that the quality of the supervision received is ‘excellent’.
Figure 134: Quality of supervision received by survey respondents who work in School Education (Tier 1, 2, 3)166 167
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
SchoolEducation
40%
29
42%
30
13%
9
Supervision QualityVery PoorPoor
Average
Good
Excellent
165 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
166 Segments with fewer than five survey respondents are not labelled167 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels
are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
118 SCHOOL EDUCATION
Organisational policies and procedures on vicarious trauma
Survey results indicate 60.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in School Education and identify as Tier 1, 2 or 3 report that their organisation has processes in place or policies and procedures to recognise and manage vicarious trauma.
Figure 135: Proportion of survey respondents who work in School Education whose organisations have processes or policies and procedures in place to recognise and manage vicarious trauma (Tier 1, 2, 3)168
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
SchoolEducation
60%
78
15%
19
25%
33
Organisation hasvicarious traumaprocesses or policies
I don't know
No
Yes
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Effectiveness of policies and procedures
Survey results indicate 38.0 per cent of survey respondents who work in School Education and identify as Tier 1, 2 or 3 report that the organisation’s processes or policies and procedures to recognise and manage vicarious trauma are ‘very effective’ or ‘extremely effective’.
Figure 136: Quality of processes or policies and procedures in place to manage vicarious trauma reported by survey respondents who work in School Education (Tier 1, 2, 3)169 170
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of respondents
SchoolEducation
34%
26
36%
28
19%
15
5%
4
Policy EffectivenessI don’t know
Not effective at all
Not very effectiveSomewhat effective
Very effective
Extremely effective
168 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
169 Segments with fewer than five survey respondents are not labelled170 This question was not asked of all tiers and therefore the population size related to this question is unknown and confidence levels
are unavailable. The results are provided for insight purposes.
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 119
Attachment 2: Project governance, consultation and ethics approval
PROJECT GOVERNANCE
The planning and conduct of the census was supported by two key project governance groups and a project governance structure that were both established at the outset of the government’s engagement with KPMG. The two governance groups have been:
• The Project Control Group (PCG) – a Victorian Government interdepartmental governance body with senior official representation – responsible for providing high level oversight of the census project, and sponsorship of the census within represented Victorian Government departments.
• The Project Steering Group – initially solely a Victorian Government interdepartmental governance body – responsible for providing input into the census engagement from represented Victorian Government departments. During the data collection period, the Steering Group membership expanded to include representatives from the Victorian Council of Social Service and Domestic Violence Victoria, who were engaged to help boost engagement and participation.
CONSULTATION
A number of consultations were carried out with the sector at the outset of the project, including with peak bodies, service providers, unions and professional associations. Outputs from these consultations – summarised below – were used to inform the development of both the employee survey and the employer data template and also give an insight into key workforce challenges felt by the sector.
Workforce profile
Stakeholders noted the challenges faced by regional organisations in securing and retaining suitably qualified family violence workers, given that young people so often move to metropolitan areas for study and remain there. Consequently, regional services are often forced to appoint employees with lesser tertiary qualifications and or experience.
Elsewhere, stakeholders highlighted a trend towards hiring more highly qualified, but less experienced staff to family violence roles, commenting that, in some instances, there are two family violence workforces: older staff who have been in their roles for ten years or more and have trained under an ‘apprenticeship’ model; and a newer workforce that is required to have tertiary qualifications over significant sector experience. Stakeholders noted the importance of the census’ ability to capture the significant level of practice experience in the sector.
Concerns were expressed about a lack of diversity in management positions, and the role gender and cultural bias might play in this. The challenge and importance of recruiting and advancing employees from diverse backgrounds, including those of culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, employees with a disability and Aboriginal employees, was also raised, with stakeholders agreeing that specific and relevant community networks should be relied on rather than traditional recruitment networks. It was also observed that workers who were recruited from within their local communities were often vulnerable to discomfort and overwork as they often live in the same communities as they work.
Stakeholders considered that the sector did not have enough staff with specialist skills in dealing with perpetrators, nor was there adequate training in this area. It was also observed that attraction, and therefore workforce supply, may be negatively affected by broad perceptions of the specialist family violence sector as being like a ‘pressure cooker’ with low job security.
120 PROJECT GOVERNANCE, CONSULTATION AND ETHICS APPROVAL
Capability, knowledge and skills
Stakeholders suggested further training would be beneficial in a number of areas. This included supporting practitioners in better risk management, as well as gaining a better understanding of short to medium term interventions versus longer term behaviour change programs for perpetrators.
There was significant discussion about core competencies, and what could be done to clearly identify and define tiered sets of skills and capabilities applicable to all workers that intersect with family violence. Stakeholders observed the existence of a number of obstacles to further study or training (such as cost, lack of funding, the need to travel from regional areas, and a lack of suitable training options), and how this impacted workforce capability and confidence. Technology was proposed as an economical tool to address frequent challenges to do with training regional workers.
Stakeholders commented that as a consequence of the Royal Commission recommendation to mandate social work degrees for Tier 1 family violence workers, agencies are tending to recruit candidates with formal qualifications, over those with significant experience and no formal qualifications, and this has placed additional demand on experienced staff to provide support to – what can be – a highly mobile, young, workforce.
Stakeholders agreed on the need to grow and train a workforce that is better able to engage in prevention initiatives and respond to family violence in diverse communities. Concerns were raised about adequate recognition of multi-lingual skillsets and bi-cultural workers. It was noted that diversity training, such as cultural competency training, tends to be expensive and more needs to be done to ensure training translates to practice. Participants discussed the need to develop a prevention and response mindset in workers across sectors, and greater connection between prevention and response areas.
Career pathways
It was noted that limited advancement opportunities often result in workers needing to change employers to progress their careers, which produces high levels of mobility and has a ‘self-cannibalism’ effect within the sector, particularly for smaller non-government organisations. It was noted that some smaller organisations provide good opportunities for junior staff to ‘act up’ early in their careers, but once managerial levels were reached career opportunities thin out significantly.
Others raised concerns that ‘the only way up’ in pay scale is through managerial roles, and suggested that technical specialists should also be recognised with equivalent managerial-level salaries.
Low job security, due to high numbers of fixed term contracts and their dependence on funding and grant replenishment, was said to be another factor in the sector’s minimal career pathways and security. While stakeholders expressed mixed views about the inter-sectoral mobility, they were also conscious that family violence workers can get ‘stuck’ in unsatisfactory positions due to the inability to take sick leave and other benefits with them when moving to new employers.
Health and wellbeing
Stakeholders were particularly cognisant of the sector’s ‘pressure cooker’ qualities, and how this contributes to burnout and, together with limited career pathways, job security, and obstacles to training, can negatively impact worker wellbeing.
The importance of professional supervision for supporting family violence workers was strongly conveyed, with stakeholders asserting that where Tier 1 workers are not currently accessing supervision, this needs to be remedied as a matter of priority. Others highlighted the need to consider the issue of vicarious trauma for broader workforces.
It was also indicated that increased or additional mentoring or supervision would be highly valued by workers in the specialist family violence sector, and communities of practice similarly valued in the primary prevention sector. Likewise, opportunities to shadow other workers and ‘learn by example’ was considered a key way for workers to improve their practice.
Stakeholders observed that family violence workers are often drawn to work in the sector because of idealism, or personal experience of family violence.
Stakeholders also flagged that potential future risks to staff morale and wellbeing could come from change fatigue with an extended reform agenda. It was agreed that a clear, ongoing communications strategy – in a manner that includes workers rather than simply informs them – will be vital for effective change management and organisational wellbeing.
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 121
The organisations that participated in the consultation are detailed below 171
• Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention and Legal Service
• AMES Australia
• Anglicare
• Australian Association of Social Workers
• Australian Education Union
• Australian Medical Association
• Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation
• Australian Psychological Society
• Australian Services Union
• Berry Street
• Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare
• Community and Public Sector Union
• Community Housing Federation of Australia
• Council to Homeless Persons
• Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria
• Domestic Violence Victoria
• Early Childhood Australia
• Family Violence Regional Integration Coordinators
• Federation of Community Legal Centres
• Gippsland Centre against Sexual Assault
• Health and Community Services Union
• InTouch
• MIND Australia
• Monash University
• National Disability Services
• No To Violence
• Nursing and Midwifery Australia
• Our Watch
• RMIT
• Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists
• Royal Australian College of General Practitioners
• Safe Steps
• Salvation Army
• Seniors Rights Victoria
• The Police Association
• VICSERV
• Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency
• Victorian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation
• Victorian Council of Social Service
• Victorian Trades Hall Council
• Women with Disabilities
• Women’s Health and Wellbeing Barwon South West
• Women’s Health West
• Women’s Legal Service
ETHICS APPROVAL
Ethics approvals were gained for the census prior to its roll out. These approvals were secured through the following channels:
• Department of Justice and Regulation Human Research Ethics Committee
• Department of Health and Human Services Research Committee
• Victoria Police Research Coordinating Committee
• Department of Education and Training.
A range of protocols were used to provide assurance on the safety, security and privacy of data collected for the census, including that: participation in the census was opt-in and there were no adverse consequences for not participating; no direct personal identifiers were collected through the census; data collected is treated as confidential and access is restricted and monitored; no raw data will be published or disseminated, and no individual will be identified in any publication or report.
171 Representatives of program areas within government departments and agencies also participated in the consultations.
122 CENSUS SAMPLING STRUCTURE AND RESPONSE RATES
Attachment 3: Census sampling structure and response rates
Notes on methodology: The true workforce population for each tier and each industry is unknown. Therefore estimated population sizes have been constructed on the basis of size estimates of workforce types and a mapping of workforce types to tiers. This mapping is provided in Table 1.
As respondents could self-select their tier, there are some inconsistencies between this mapping and how respondents self-identified, which presents an additional complexity in the calculation of response rates and confidence intervals. This is particularly apparent at the industry level for payroll data (see table 3 below) where organisations identified more employees in the health industry than had been estimated for the purposes of the census, resulting in over sampling and distorted response rates. An implication of the ability of respondents to self-select their tier is that confidence levels are not calculated for questions that were not asked of all tiers since the population size relevant to the question is unavailable. These have been footnoted accordingly in the sector profiles.
The sample size obtained by the employee survey allows reasonable conclusions to be drawn about the population across all four tiers. As with tiers, a sufficient sample size has been gathered from most industries to draw conclusions based on a 2.5 per cent margin of error and 95 per cent confidence interval,. The exceptions were Emergency Services and Local Government which were not deemed sufficient for a 2.5 per cent margin of error and 95 per cent confidence level.
Due to the voluntary nature of the census, strategies were employed to reduce the self-selection and non-response biases.172 These included consistent engagement with representatives on the project governance bodies to drive communication and participation, extension of the time that the survey was open to maximise responses, and multiple contact points for respondents with technical or census-based queries.
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 123
Table 1. Workforce tiers with identified census workforces
Tier Description Detail Identified workforces Workforce population estimate
Survey sample size
Survey response rate (%)
Payroll Sample size
Payroll response rate (%)
Tier 1 Specialist family violence, sexual assault and primary prevention practitioners
These workforces have responsibility for dealing with medium to high risk cases on an ongoing basis and spend 90.0 per cent or more of their time on the following activities:
• responding to victim survivors of family violence
• working with perpetrators of family violence, or
• engaged in primary prevention activities
• Specialist family violence workers (including accommodation support, casework, outreach and counselling)
• Sexual assault service workers
• Primary prevention practitioners
• Victoria Police staff specialising in family violence
• Court staff specialising in family violence
• Perpetrator interventions staff (including men’s behaviour change program facilitators)
• Indigenous Family Violence Regional Action Group staff
• Regional Integration Coordinators
• Community Legal Centres with a focus on family violence
2,275 1,603 70.5 1 503 66.1
Tier 2 Core support or intervention professionals
Responding directly to family violence is not the core business of these workforces; however, they spend a signiicant proportion of their time responding to victim survivors or perpetrators of family violence.
This tier also includes people who may not undertake primary prevention of violence against women and their children as the core function of their role but have responsibility for planning or overseeing prevention work as part of their job.
• Child FIRST/Integrated Family Services staff
• Aboriginal Health workers
• Aboriginal women’s diversion programs staff
• Community Legal Centre staff
• Corrections staff (prisons, community correction services and funded programs) Cradle2Kinder workers
• Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies workers
• Homelessness services staff
• Magistrate’s and Children’s Court staff (in non-family violence specialist roles)
• Out of Home Care workers
• Specialist family violence clinical psychologists
• Specialist family violence financial counsellors
• Statutory child protection workers
• Victims Assistance Program workers
• Victims of Crime Helpline and Victim Support Agency staff
• Victoria Legal Aid staff
• Victoria Police staff (in non-family violence specialist roles)
• Youth Justice workers
27,359 2,578 9.4 22,617 82.7
124 CENSUS SAMPLING STRUCTURE AND RESPONSE RATES
Tier Description Detail Identified workforces Workforce population estimate
Survey sample size
Survey response rate (%)
Payroll Sample size
Payroll response rate (%)
Tier 3 Professionals in mainstream services and non-family violence specific support services
The core role of these workforces is not family violence, but they work in sectors that responds to the impacts of family violence (e.g. housing, alcohol and other drugs, mental health), or in an area where they may notice early signs of people experiencing or perpetrating family violence.
• Aged care workers (residential and non-residential, including Aged Care Assessment Teams)
• Allied health practitioners
• Alcohol and Other Drug workers
• Courts and tribunal staff (in non-family violence specialist roles, with the exception of Magistrates’ and Children’s Court staff who are in tier 2)
• Disability workers (including accommodation, respite and outreach/advanced case workers)
• Dispute Settlement Centre Victoria staff
• Financial counsellors (in non-family violence specialist roles)
• Gambling services staff
• GPs
• Health services staff (in areas such as allied health, emergency, maternal and newborn, paediatric,
• Mental health services)
• Infringement Management and Enforcement staff
• Regional Aboriginal Justice Advisory Committee staff (including Local Aboriginal Justice Action Committee staff)
• Maternal and child health nurses (including Right@Home)
• Mental health workers
• Paramedics
• Parenting services workers
• Privately employed health workers, such as psychologists, counsellors and psychiatrists
• Public/social housing workers
• School and area-based health and wellbeing service staff
• School Focussed Youth Services staff
• Sheriffs
156,725 2,894 1.8 n/a n/a
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 125
Tier Description Detail Identified workforces Workforce population estimate
Survey sample size
Survey response rate (%)
Payroll Sample size
Payroll response rate (%)
Tier 4 Professionals in universal services
The core role of these workforces is not family violence but because they interact with children, families and/or adults in their day-to-day roles, it is likely that they have contact with victim survivors (including children) or perpetrators of family violence.
• Consumer Affairs Victoria staff
• Dentists
• Early childhood education and care professionals
• Justice Service Centre staff
• Migrant services staff
• Primary and secondary teachers and school leadership
• School chaplains
• TAFE/Learn Local/University staff
• Youth workers (including in local government)
198,944 4,190 2.1 n/a n/a
Industry Estimated workforce population
Number of responses Response rate (%)
Education 155,293 1,815 1.2
Emergency Services 15,906 453 2.8
Health 169,101 2,770 1.6
Human Services/Community/non-government 31,908 3,837 12.0
Justice 10,015 1,620 16.2
Local Government 3,080 661 21.5
Industry Estimated workforce population
Number of responses Response rate (%)
Education 34 0 0
Emergency Services 13,214 8,620 65.2
Health173 300 861 287.0
Human Services/Community/non-government 8,808 7,641 86.8
Justice 7,223 6,939 96.1
Local Government 59 55 107.2
Table 2: Survey response rate by industry
Table 3: Number of employees per industry – payroll data
Source: Adapted from RCFV, Report and recommendations, Vol VI, p. 172 and KPMG Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence.
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
Source: KPMG analysis of employee survey data
173 Inflated result owing to organisations identifying more employees in the health industry than had been estimated for the purposes of the census.
126
Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence / 127
CENSUS OF WORKFORCES THAT INTERSECT WITH FAMILY VIOLENCE
Authorised and published by the Victorian Government1 Treasury Place, Melbourne 3002© The State of Victoria (Family Safety Victoria) 2017
This work, Census of Workforces that Intersect with Family Violence, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. You are free to re-use the work under that licence, on the condition that you credit the State of Victoria (Family Safety Victoria) as author. The licence does not apply to any images, photographs or branding, including the Victorian Coat of Arms, the Victorian Government logo and the Family Safety Victoria logo. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Printed by Impact Digital, Brunswick, Victoria.
ISBN 978-1-76069-155-4 (Print)
ISBN 978-1-76069-156-1 (pdf/online)
CONTENT COORDINATION
Images courtesy of Cleverdeer Photography
ACCESSIBILITY
To receive this publication in an accessible format phone 03 9194 3100, using the National Relay Service 13 36 77 if required, or email [email protected].
This document is also available in PDF format at www.vic.gov.au/familyviolence.
DISCLAIMER
This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication.
Except where otherwise indicated, the images in this publication show models and illustrative settings only, and do not necessarily depict actual services, facilities or recipients of services. This publication may contain images of deceased Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
In this document, Aboriginal refers to both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Indigenous or Koori/Koorie is retained when part of the title of a report, program or quotation.
128 SECTION