2019-20 Census of workforces that intersect with family violence: Survey Findings Report - Primary Prevention Workforce

The primary prevention workforce comprises two groups with varying roles²:

Practitioners

Those who specialise in designing, implementing and monitoring actions to prevent family violence. Practitioners must understand the drivers of family violence and are engaged in activity that focuses on actions to prevent violence before it starts. This group was the target audience for the Census.

Contributors

Those located within specific sectors or disciplines where participation in preventing family violence may be a part of their role, but is not their primary focus. This group was not in scope for the Census.

For the purposes of the Census, references to the primary prevention workforce relate only to primary prevention practitioners.

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

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

Changes to workforce definition to improve data quality.

In 2017, respondents were categorised into four “tiers”. For the 2019-20 Census, this approach was carefully revised and replaced with the three workforce categories outlined earlier in Table 1.

It should be noted that the current Census results for the primary prevention workforce are unable to be benchmarked against results from the 2017 Census, due to the substantial changes in the way workforces were defined in 2019-20.

Extensive consultation with the sector to accurately inform the design and development of the questionnaire.

ORIMA Research and FSV conducted a series of consultative workshops, meetings and interviews with representatives from the target workforces between August and October 2019.

The survey dissemination method and elements of the survey design, including the initial screening questions, were tested amongst the target workforces and iteratively refined.

A consultation summary report was prepared in November 2019, summarising participants’ feedback and recommendations regarding survey communication, design and dissemination.

Sector consultation was made possible with the assistance of the Victorian Council of Social Services, Domestic Violence Victoria and No to Violence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Survey dissemination (via Survey Coordinators)

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

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

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

Pre-registration

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

Response rate

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

Overall, a total of 5,021 responses were received for the Census, including 517 from the primary prevention workforce (see Table 2).

As illustrated in Table 2, the number of survey responses received for the primary prevention workforce is greater than the estimated population (147% response rate). This inconsistency may be due to a number of reasons, including:

Population figures that were used to calculate response rates are estimates of the true population size. These figures were collated by the FSV project team via various workforce contacts and do not represent the estimated overall headcount at a single point in time (as different workforce contacts provided figures at different points over 2019). Although the available population figures are assumed to provide a good estimate of the size of the workforce, in the absence of any single and reliable source of data it cannot be known how closely these figures mirror that of the true population.

A key consideration regarding the estimated figures is that there is likely to have been some employee turnover or restructuring of roles / organisations since this estimate was collated. There is also a small risk that the original estimates may not have covered all in-scope areas of the workforce (though it should be noted that the FSV project team undertook a substantial amount of work to ensure all areas of the workforce were covered).

Respondents were responsible for classifying themselves into the correct survey (by answering the screening questions), hence there is a risk that incorrect self-classification has occurred for some. The project teams very carefully designed the screening questions in collaboration with the sector and provided a range of key roles as examples to assist respondents in classifying themselves correctly. However, there is still a small risk that this was done incorrectly according to FSV’s understanding of in-scope roles. This was further mitigated where possible at the data processing stage, with any respondents who were identified as clearly answering the wrong survey (through their role and organisation type) were allocated back to the correct cohort.

It should be noted that respondents’ interpretation of their own role may also be misaligned to FSV’s understanding / classification. Role examples were provided to mitigate this however some respondents may have disagreed with their classification.

Some primary prevention contributors may have also participated in the Census. As outlined on page 3, it should be noted that practitioners were the key target audience within the primary prevention workforce, and contributors were out of scope.

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

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

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

Results for demographic cohorts (e.g. age, organisation type, etc.) are only presented in this report where notable differences are observed. Suppression rules have been implemented throughout this report whereby groups of individuals with fewer than 10 respondents have not been reported on to protect respondent confidentiality.

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

Figure 1 illustrates the frequency with which primary prevention practitioners reported that they undertook various core activities as part of their role. Around half of respondents or more indicated that they frequently worked on the following at least weekly:

• developing and maintaining partnerships and networks (64%)
• project management (56%)
• implementation of primary prevention initiatives (49%)
• planning of primary prevention initiatives (49%).

In contrast, over one-in-four respondents reported that they never undertook the following activities:

• staff management (41% – although a notable proportion (39%) indicated that they did this at least weekly, demonstrating the complex and varied nature of roles in this workforce)
• external organisational development, including gender equality audits and developing action plans (38%)
• grant applications, reporting or submissions (26%).

Respondents were also asked about the frequency with which they worked on a number of family violence response related activities as part of their role. As shown in Figure 2, overall, respondents undertook these activities much less frequently (9%-29% daily or weekly) compared to the core activities discussed earlier in this chapter (10%-64% daily or weekly).

Although this workforce reported that they conducted family violence response related activities relatively infrequently, over one-quarter reported that they frequently (at least weekly):

• worked on proactive / voluntary family violence information sharing (29%); and
• were responsible for the identification of family violence (28%).

Conversely, around half of respondents (48%-52%) indicated that they never worked on activities related to information requests and client referrals – this may be due to a range of factors, including the ad-hoc nature of these activities which are not core to the primary prevention role, and the possibility that respondents’ organisations are not prescribed under the Multi-Agency Risk Assessment and Management (MARAM) framework.

Employment conditions differed by some demographic cohorts, as follows:

Age

Compared to the overall workforce, those aged 55 or older were more likely to be employed on an ongoing full-time basis (45% versus 34%), those aged 35 to 54 were more likely to be employed part-time (54% versus 43%), and those aged under 35 were more likely than average to be on fixed-term contracts (48% versus 35%).

Gender

Although a small proportion of the overall workforce (13%), males were significantly more likely to be employed on a full-time basis (83% versus 51% overall).

• The results also suggested that males were more likely to have been working in the sector for longer, with 25% having worked in any role within the family violence sector or broader workforce that intersects with family violence for greater than 10 years, versus just 11% of females.

Organisation type

Those working in organisations that specialise in women’s health and health promotion were more likely than average to be employed on a part-time basis (59%-65%), whilst those employed in school education / school health and wellbeing organisations, and Aboriginal community controlled organisations, were more likely to be employed full-time (80%-93%).

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

Age

Younger members of the workforce (aged under 35) were significantly more satisfied with the quality of support provided by their supervisor or direct manager than their colleagues aged 35 years or older (81% versus 69%-70% of those aged 35 to 54 and 55+).

• A similar trend was reflected in relation to years of experience, with a general reduction in overall satisfaction reported as years of experience in their current role increased.

Organisation type

Those working in an organisation that specialises in women’s health were more likely than average to be satisfied with the quality of support provided by their supervisor or direct manager (82%).

Primary prevention practitioners make up a small workforce within Victoria and are reportedly dispersed across many organisations across the state. They often work alone or in small teams within larger organisations. Of all respondents, 49% reported that there were fewer than five other primary practitioners employed at their organisation; and 29% just worked with one, or no others.

As they often make up a small cohort within their organisations, the primary prevention workforce were also asked a series of additional questions to investigate how supported they feel within their organisations more generally (aside from the support provided by supervisors or managers). Overall, the results suggested that primary prevention practitioners felt that their roles were not particularly well understood or valued within their organisation. As illustrated in Figure 8, just:

• One-third (33%) felt that their role was extremely or very well understood by others; and
• Half (49%) felt that their role was extremely or very well valued by others in their organisation.
• However, on a positive note, very few felt that they were not understood or valued at all.

When asked about relationships they held with others in the workforce, 46% reported that they were part of a regional primary prevention partnership or network. Additionally, just over half of respondents (51%) reported that they were a part of a community of practice for primary prevention practitioners, most of whom found it useful (85% of those who are part of such a community).

Results differed by some demographic cohorts, as follows:

Organisation size

Primary prevention respondents working in organisations with fewer staff (< 50) were significantly more likely than those in organisations with more than 200 staff to feel extremely or very well understood (44% versus 16%) and valued (59% versus 33%).

Organisation type

Those working in an organisation that specialises in women’s health were more likely than average to feel that their role was well understood (64% versus 33% on average) and valued (75% versus 49% on average) by others in their organisation. In contrast, those employed in local council or local government, were less likely to be feel that their role was well understood or valued (16%-33%).

Confidence levels varied by some demographic cohorts, including:

• Years of experience – those who had been in their current role for 5 to 10 years were significantly more likely to be confident in their level of training and experience (61%), compared to those with under 5 years (44%-47%) or over 10 years’ experience (48%).
• Organisation type – respondents working in women’s health were generally more confident than others in relation their level of training and experience (68%, compared to 49% overall).

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

• Organisation type – understanding and usage was:
  • generally higher among those working in local council / government; and
  • lower for those employed in community health as well as policy, research and advocacy – noting that these respondents were also more likely than others to understand that their organisation was not prescribed under MARAM.
• Employment basis – those employed in ongoing roles generally reported higher understanding and usage compared to those in fixed-term roles.
• Years of experience – understanding and usage was highest among those who had been working in their current role for more than 10 years.
• Organisation size – those working in medium-sized organisations (50-199 employees) reported higher usage of MARAM tools in identifying or assessing family violence risk, compared to those working in smaller (1-49 employees) and larger (200 or more employees) organisations.

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

• highest among those working in community organisations (75% had undertaken at least one activity in the past year) – which aligns with this cohort’s high understanding of information sharing responsibilities, as discussed earlier; and
• lowest among those employed in policy, research and advocacy (69% had not conducted any of the listed activities in the past year) – again aligning with this cohort’s relatively low level of understanding of their responsibilities in this area, coupled with the low proportion reporting that they had ever made a referral and/or shared information as a result of identifying or receiving a disclosure of family violence.

Results also differed by employment basis – those holding ongoing full-time roles reported higher levels of information sharing activity (73% undertook at least one activity in the past year), while those in fixed-term part-time roles reported the lowest activity (39%).

Reported barriers differed across certain demographic cohorts, including:

• Age – respondents aged under 35 were more likely than older respondents to indicate that they were unable to access further training and development due to lack of time, as well as a lack of awareness about the training available.
• Employment basis – those in part-time roles were more likely than those in full-time roles to identify childcare and caring responsibilities as barriers.
• Organisation size – those working in larger organisations (200 or more employees) were more likely than those employed in smaller organisations (1-49 employees) to report that their employer was not willing to support training and development.

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

• 76% of the primary prevention workforce reported that they experienced at least moderate work-related stress, and 31% experienced high, very high or severe levels.¹
• 76% of those who experienced at least moderate stress reported that this was due to a high volume of work / high demands of their role, whilst 61% also cited poor management or organisational issues.²

Respondents were asked to comment on the frequency with which they experienced several factors that may contribute to workplace stress (see Figure 17 for full results).

In line with the findings above, a high workload was reported to be a frequent issue for almost half of this workforce, with 48% reporting that they only sometimes (or less often) felt that they had sufficient time to complete their tasks.

Despite this, there were also many positive results to note. Overall, almost nine-in-ten of the primary prevention workforce indicated that they felt safe in performing their role (88% always or often – though it should be noted that a minority, 12%, only felt safe sometimes, or less often).

Other positive findings suggested that many felt respected and fairly consulted in undertaking their work, with over three-quarters of this workforce reporting that they always / often felt that:

• their cultural identity was recognised and respected at work (78%);
• they receive the respect they believe they deserve from their colleagues (76%); and
• they have a say about the way that they work (76%).

Other encouraging results were reported regarding workplace conflicts and bullying / harassment, with a low incidence of such negative stressors within this workforce, although again a minority did report experiencing these always /often (12%-15%).

Although high volume of work and poor management were the most cited causes of workplace stress, over one-quarter of those who experienced at least high stress also mentioned staff turnover (41%), backlash or resistance (32%), external pressures (30%), and vicarious trauma (27%).

Given the unique type of work that this workforce undertakes, backlash / resistance³ is a particularly important factor to consider when exploring workplace stress amongst this audience.

• 22% of respondents always / often experienced backlash or resistance in undertaking their work.⁴
• 64% reported that they have access to support if they encounter resistance or backlash in their work.⁵

Although not a core requirement of their role, primary prevention practitioners may also encounter family violence cases or disclosures in undertaking their work.

• 80% of respondents indicated that they have access to support if they encounter cases of family violence or disclosures in their work.

Although broadly positive, these results suggest that there may be scope to either increase the level of support available or increase the awareness of such support amongst this workforce. Respondents who indicated that they have access to support if they encounter cases of family violence or disclosures, or backlash / resistance were additionally asked how effective they felt this support was. Overall, 55% felt that this support was either very or extremely effective, whilst 42% felt it was moderately effective. None felt that the support provided was ineffective (see Figure 18).

Overall, three-quarters of the primary prevention workforce indicated that they were satisfied in their current role (75% – see Figure 19).

Positively, only a minority expressed dissatisfaction (10%), whilst 15% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied in their role.

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

45% indicated that they felt that their work makes a significant difference to people affected by family violence, whilst 52% felt their work makes a moderate difference.⁶

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

Overall satisfaction differed by some demographic cohorts, as follows:

Years of experience – those who had been in their current role for more than 5 years were less likely than those with a shorter tenure to be satisfied in their current role (67% of those with 5 to 10 years’ tenure, compared to 78%-80% of those with less than 5 years’ tenure).

Organisation size – those working in medium-sized organisations (50-199 staff) were less likely than average to be satisfied in their current role (66% versus 75% on average).

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

Age – those aged 55+ were more likely than their youngest colleagues to feel that their work made a significant difference to people affected by family violence (53% versus 41% of those aged 18-34).

Years of experience – those who had been in their current role for 2 to 4 years were least likely to feel that their work made a significant difference to people affected by family violence (34%, versus 45% on average).

Organisation size – perceptions that their work made a significant difference to people affected by family violence reduced as organisation size increased, with 52% of those in smaller organisations (1-49 staff) indicating that they felt this way, compared to 38% of staff in organisation with more than 200 staff.

Organisation type – those working in an organisation that specialises in legal services were more likely than average to indicate that they felt their role made a significant difference to people affected by family violence (61% versus 45% on average).

Investigating satisfaction with various elements of their roles revealed that the primary prevention workers were most satisfied with the nature of the work that they perform and working conditions (85% and 80% respectively – see Figure 20).

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

• opportunities for advancement (42% satisfied, 36% dissatisfied)
• supporting and mentoring (53% satisfied, 25% dissatisfied)
• pay/compensation (58% satisfied, 25% dissatisfied).

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

• practice guidance
• supporting and mentoring
• workload and hours.

Respondents were asked to explain what they felt to be the top three most important changes that could be made to enable them to carry out their work more effectively. Free-text comments were coded into themes, with the main themes illustrated in Figure 21.

When asked about their future plans:

• 48% of respondents had plans to leave their current role, 9% were unsure, and 43% did not hold such intentions¹; and
• 75% of those who planned to leave their current role intended to do so within the next 12 months20, mainly due to an end of contract (45% – see Figure 23).

Those who intended to leave their current role also reported differing plans for their next role, with 41% planning to leave their current role for another role outside of the family violence primary prevention workforce; and 31% planning to leave their current role for another role within the family violence primary prevention workforce.

All respondents who did not currently hold any roles in the specialist family violence response workforce were also asked whether they would consider taking on such a role in the future. Just over half reported that they would be open to such a role (53%), whilst 47% said they would not.

Results differed by some demographic cohorts, as follows:

Age – younger respondents (aged under 35) were more likely than their older colleagues to:

• have plans to leave their current role in the next 12 months (45% versus 35% of those aged 35- 54, and 26% of those aged 55+), but were also slightly more likely than others to plan to cease work temporarily; and
• be open to a role in the specialist family violence response workforce (59% versus 54% of those aged 35 to 54, and 43% of those aged 55+).

Years of experience – those who had been in their current role for more than 5 years were less likely than those with a shorter tenure to have plans to leave their role in the next 12 months (33% of those with 5-10 years’ tenure, and 19% of those with over 10 years, versus 42%-43% of those with 2-4 or less than 1 years’ tenure).

Organisation type – those working in an organisation that specialises in women’s health or policy, research and advocacy were more likely than average to indicate that they had plans to leave their current role (62% and 56%, respectively versus 48% on average).