Our practice in the Victorian Family Violence Sector, is guided by the Multi-Agency Risk Assessment and Management (MARAM) Framework. This Framework includes:

Legislative Framework Document
Foundational Knowledge Guides
Adult Victim/Survivor Practice Guides (which includes tools for risk assessment and management)
Adult Using Family Violence Practice Guides (which includes tools for risk assessment and management)
Documents for organisational alignment
Child and Young People Practice Guides (Not yet released)

If you are a practitioner in the Victorian system, you are required to use the MARAM Framework, and to understand your role in the system, and continually inform yourself as to how to build your practice through these documents.

Structured Professional Judgement Model

Within the Foundation Knowledge Guides, is the guidance for HOW, we as practitioners are guided to make decisions under the MARAM Framework. This is called the Structured Professional Judgement Model, which requires us to use evidence based information to determine the level of risk our clients are in.

The model has four elements:

It holds the victim survivors self assessment of risk at it’s heart,
Then it examines the evidence based risk factors which tells us the likelihood of lethality or permanent injury as a result of the person using violence
It then requires we gather information through the Information Sharing Schemes which informs us about what is occurring for all members of the family,
it then applies an intersectional lens which lets us examine other oppressive systems that the client may be experiencing.

We are going to go through each of these elements with examples now, and then examine how we apply them to a Risk Summary.

The Risk Assessment for Adults Experiencing Violence has several questions relating to the self assessed level of fear which, we as practitioners are required to ask as part of our initial assessment, and revisit periodically when it has been indicated there has been a change in circumstance.

These questions are:

Do you believe it is possible they could kill or seriously harm you?
Do you believe it is possible they could kill or seriously harm children or other family members?
From 1 (not afraid) to 5 (extremely afraid) how afraid of them are you now?
Do you have any immediate concerns about the safety of your children or someone else in your family?
Do you feel safe when you leave here today?
Would you engage with police if you felt unsafe?

If these questions have not been asked, then the self assessed level of fear cannot be established using the Structured Professional Judgement Model.

During an assessment, you should be writing notes, that utalise their answers to demonstrate their level of fear.

The following is an example, which provides a rationale for self assessed level of fear:

Do you have any immediate concerns about the safety of your children or someone else in the family? Yes

Case note:

Two nights ago (list date) the adult using violence indicated he would take the kids and keep them from the the adult experiencing violence, if they didn’t agree to remain in a relationship. The adult using violence has never cared for baby (list name and age) alone and the adult experiencing violence has seen an incident where the adult using violence physically assaulted the toddler for crying on (date) and (date).

This example provides us with a reason for the fear, and the pattern of behaviour we can share with other services to address with the adult using violence.

The following does not provide a rationale for self assessed level of fear:

Do you have any immediate concerns about the safety of your children or someone else in the family? Yes

Case Note:

Adult experiencing violence is fearful that AUV won’t return children.

This example does not provide details as to why they hold that fear, what pattern of behaviour we should be looking for, or what the concerns are that need to be mitigated.

The evidence based risk factors are expanded in the Risk Assessment, Management and Safety Planning page.

However, when you are recording the evidenced based risk factors, you should name the risk, and note whether it it contributing to:

self assessed level of fear
imminence
whether the behaviour has recently escalated
when the most recent event occurred.

The purpose of this section is to begin to build a pattern of behaviour of the adult using violence, which can be monitored over time, to see if the behavior is escalating or deescalating.

The following is an example which does provide the context for the evidence based risk factors:

MARAM Risk Assessment Question: Has the AUV ever threated or tried to self harm or commit suicide? Yes

Case Note:

The Adult Experiencing Violence stated that they entered into a relationship with the Adult Using Violence when they were both 16, and at the time, the Adult Using Violence would self harm by cutting their legs on a semi regular bases.

This progressed to threats of suicide when the Adult Using Violence was around 20yrs old and they were hospitalised under an involuntary order for three days in 2021.

The threats of suicide significantly decreased when the Adult Using Violence was engaged with community mental health between 2021-2024.

The threats of suicide have increased over the past month, the Adult Using Violence has on (date- this month) and (date- this week) made threats to commit suicide if the Adult Experiencing Violence leaves the relationship, stating ‘having nothing to live for if you and the children aren’t with me‘.

The Adult Experiencing Violence is fearful they will follow through with the threat if they leave the relationship.

This example provides the pattern of the Adult Using Violence behaviour, recent escalation, interventions that the Adult Experiencing Violence felt were successful at reducing their risk along with their self assessed level of fear.

The following is an example which DOES NOT provide the context for the evidence based risk factors:

Has the AUV ever threated or tried to self harm or commit suicide? Yes

Case Note:

The Adult Using Violence has a history of self harm and threats to commit suicide. They have previously been engaged with mental health services.

This example does not provide us with any pattern of history, nor whether the Adult Using Violence felt that the protective factor (engagement with mental health services) was successful at lowering the risk.

Information Sharing requires us to both gather information, where it is indicated that other services may hold information and to share information with other services who may be involved with the family. To read more, go to our Information Sharing Page

Information Sharing should compliment our risk assessments.

An example is:

An L17 was received by a practitioner from Vic Pol who attended an incident over the weekend where the Adult Using Violence was removed from their ex partners property.

The practitioner who received the L17 for the adult using violence, is able to establish that prior to the most recent incident, they had been staying in an acute mental health hospital. They undertake an information sharing request. They are not entitled to information that does not pertain to risk and safety, so they are unable to find out formal diagnosis, or what led them to be in the hospital.

However, what could be shared is their perception of the relationship with their (ex) partner, who they believed they were very much in a relationship with and their ongoing use of family violence while admitted in the hospital, which were repeated phone calls which had been documented and overheard by staff.

This information, along with information from the family members experiencing violence was able provide practitioners with an understanding of the mental state of the person using violence which allowed for an accurate assessment of risk for the family.

In this instance it allowed for quick referrals to a high risk management panel, as a response to the risk the family in was outside what could be provided in the service sector.

Using an intersectional approach with Adults Experiencing Violence
Applying an intersectional analysis lens allows you to explore the impacts of systemic and interpersonal discrimination and disadvantage on marginalised groups.

This can influence how victim survivors:

talk about, recognise and understand their experience of family violence by the perpetrator
understand their options or decisions about what services to access based on actual or perceived barriers. This may be due to past discrimination or inadequate service responses from the service system, including from institutional or statutory services
describe and/or are differently impacted by their experience of family violence by the perpetrator, and violence generally.

You should reflect on your own practice and biases in considering how Aboriginal people or people from culturally diverse communities or at-risk age groups may experience barriers, discrimination and inequality.

An example of applying an intersectional approach in your work is:

The Comprehensive Risk Assessment for Adults Experiencing Violence, asks you to identify whether the person you are working with is part of a range of communities. If they are from a rural community, it asks:

Are you concerned that other people in the community or other family members will find out what is occurring? Yes

Case Note:

The Adult experiencing violence is very concerned about members of the farming community finding out about the violence being caused by (name), as the community is small and the adult using violence grew up in the community and has long family ties to the area, with many from the community being extended family. The community is close knit and likely to support the Adult Person Using Violence, and are not likely to want to rent or employ the Adult who is experiencing violence. The adult experiencing violence stated that their family is actually from NSW and would like to leave the community to return to where they have family support. To mitigate the risk of the community finding out in the short term, we agreed the safest option was to communicate over the phone.

Using an intersectional approach with People Using Violence

Intersectional analysis can also help you understand how adults uses of violence against child and adult victim survivors,
including how they:

engage with the service system and seek help – based on actual or perceived barriers due to discrimination, inadequate service responses, negative beliefs about help-seeking (often associated with masculine identity)
disclose and talk about their use of family violence – including how they understand, minimise, justify, or rationalise their use of violence
engage in personal accountability and change – for example, motivations to change and perceptions of how accountability may present in particular ways for people from Aboriginal and diverse communities.

This may be due tot heir particular identity, experience and place in relation to the community

An example of a applying an intersectional analysis with adults who use violence is:

The Adult who uses violence you are supporting is identifies as Indigenous Australian. After getting a secondary consultation from an Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisation (ACCO) , you have a talk with your client about a referral to the ACCO, to address their support needs in a culturally specific manner and to facilitate connection to community and culture.

Practitioners should utalise the Structured Professional Judgement Model when completing their final risk summary. For more information about how to determine the level of risk utalising the Professional Judgement Model, visit our Risk Assessment, Management and Safety Planning.

Trauma and violence–informed practice

Trauma is defined as the experience and effects of overwhelming stress that result in a reduced ability to cope or integrate ideas or emotions that are the result of that experience. Trauma arises from activation of instinctive survival response to threats. It can occur through everyday events outside a person’s control (loss of housing or employment), exposure to vicarious trauma, collective trauma (such as largescale emergencies, natural disasters, war, acts of terror), systemic violence (including institutions), interpersonal violence, neglect and abuse during childhood or adulthood (such as from an intimate partner, caregiver or known person/family member and stranger violence), and historical and intergenerational trauma.

Complex trauma can result from repetitive, prolonged and cumulative violence. Complex trauma is often interpersonal, intentional, extreme, ongoing and can be particularly damaging when it occurs in
childhood. Trauma for children may be identified as adverse childhood experiences, which typically include physical, sexual and emotional abuse, physical and emotional neglect or witnessing family violence as a child.

Trauma and violence–informed practice considers ‘the intersecting impacts of systemic and interpersonal violence and structural inequities on a person’s life This includes using intersectional analysis to
highlight current and historical experiences of violence so that symptoms are not understood as exclusively originating within the person. Instead, these aspects of their life experience are viewed as adaptations and predictable consequences of trauma and violence

Resources:

Responsibility 2: Appendix 1 – Observable signs of trauma that may indicate family violence

Source – MARAM Practice Guides

Non Collusive Practice

The term ‘collusion’ refers to ways that an individual, agency or system might reinforce, excuse, minimise or deny a perpetrator’s violence towards family members and/or the extent or impact
of that violence. Invitations to collude occur when the perpetrator seeks out the professional to agree with, reinforce or affirm their narrative about their use of violence, the victim survivors or their situation. Then taken up by professionals, this practice colludes with the perpetrator’s attempts to avoid responsibility for their use of violence.

Recognising collusion
Collusion takes many forms. Professionals collude by demonstrating compliant collusion (agreement) or through oppositional confrontation (reprimand or
arguing with them). It can be expressed with gestures implying agreement, a sympathetic smile or a laugh at a sexist or demeaning joke. It is there when all or partial blame is laid on a victim survivor and when a perpetrator’s excuses are accepted without question.

Collusion by professionals is often unintentional. It arises from the long-standing subjugation of women and legitimisation of various forms of violence against women and
children. It can be conscious or unconscious, and it includes any action that has the effect of reinforcing the perpetrator’s violence supportive narratives as well as their narratives about systems and services. Perpetrators can intentionally invite professionals to collude in their narratives. This gives the narratives legitimacy, while allowing them to avoid thinking critically
about their behaviour and its impact on others. Professionals have a responsibility to recognise invitations to collude. This includes recognising your own discomfort when hearing perpetrators’ narratives and knowing when and how to adjust your responses to maintain the person’s engagement while holding awareness of their use of violence