McAuley has long been committed to, and advocated for, a ‘Safe at Home’ approach. This transforms the default system where women and children ‘escape’ violence and become homeless; instead they are supported to stay home safely, while ensuring accountability from the person using violence.
In 2020 McAuley began a process to test assumptions about ‘Safe at Home’ barriers, and gauge interest in working together with other organisations to overcome them. A coalition which included police, courts, family violence and men’s services formed to collectively explore what could be done.
McAuley has now developed a trial proposal in consultation with the group, Family Safety Victoria and sector partners. It draws extensively on our research with victim-survivors and family violence workers which gave a unique, up-close perspective on how the system works and what change is needed.
The evidence base shaping McAuley’s proposed trial
- Women who’d become homeless because of violence encountered systems that were fragmented. They struggled to locate the help they needed, and had to tell their story too many times. They felt the system did not give them enough time, was crisis-oriented, and was difficult to re- engage at later points. The possibility of staying home had hardly ever been raised.
- Frontline family violence workers gave insights into how very real fears of men’s ongoing violence, an overburdened housing system, and slow and overly bureaucratic processes for financial support and security upgrades, meant that options to stay home were frequently not even explored. Workers in organisations that also offered perpetrator support felt more confident about the feasibility of women staying home. They spoke of a sense of relief that the perpetrator was being monitored and supported, so that heightened risks and escalating behaviours could be quickly identified.
- We heard consistently that timeliness in offering a ‘Safe at Home’ option was critical. Once a woman left home, it was almost always too late: a sense of inevitability developed and the question of returning home had faded from view, seen as too late, difficult, or unsafe.
- McAuley, through a partnership with legal service WEstjustice, had already demonstrated how quick resolution of debt and legal problems associated with family violence can be a game-changer in enabling women to maintain their housing. Evidence through McAuley’s employment support service showed that economic security and employment were also crucial.
The trial’s objectives
McAuley’s trial will provide a closely integrated service with these objectives:
- Women and children remain connected in their community.
- Children’s education continues without disruption.
- Women gain and retain financial and economic security.
- Women and children experience improved personal safety.
- People using violence get support to stop.
- Individuals and family groups have a positive experience of support.
The economic benefits
With no effective ‘Safe at Home’ strategy in place, other parts of the response system have come under enormous strain. Long-term impacts of homelessness, mental health, and intergenerational trauma remain hidden but are highly damaging – and come at an economic cost.
McAuley commissioned an independent report to identify and calculate potential savings to the Victorian Government from a ‘Safe at Home’ pilot.
The present cost to the Victorian Government for family violence-related support is estimated to be $1.8 billion per annum. These include hospital treatment, trauma counselling, police callouts, crisis refuge accommodation, child protection services, and court and corrections services for offenders.
The analysis found that Safe at Home can generate significant savings for the Victorian Government. Modelling based on a small pilot of Safe at Home involving 16 households predicts substantial costs avoided:
- annually – between $591,000 and $844,000
- over the remaining lives of the family violence victims – between $23 million and $33 million.
The time is right
An environment has now been created in which a ‘Safe at Home’ is the necessary and logical next step. We have a broader and deeper understanding, from those who have experienced family violence and homelessness, and the agencies that support them, of what is needed. We need to move further on from those conversations now to test and refine what works with a trial which is both innovative and cost-effective.