Focused Deterrence and Domestic Violence Threat Assessment Centre: consultation summary

• people with lived experience
• First Nations people
• people from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse communities
• people with disability
• LGBTQIA+ people
• people from regional and remote communities
• researchers
• experts
• health practitioners
• providers of victim-survivor services
• providers of men’s behaviour change and other perpetrator services.

The consultations produced insights into what will make the pilots effective, safe and responsive for different communities and cohorts.

See below Nous Group’s summary of the consultation findings.

Nous Group's Focused Deterrence and Domestic Violence Threat Assessment Centre public consultation summary

What was the purpose of the consultations? 

Nous Group (Nous) was engaged by the Attorney General’s Department to undertake targeted consultations with sector experts, community representatives and service providers to develop evidence-informed guidance for designing and implementing two family and domestic violence pilot models: Focused Deterrence and Domestic Violence Threat Assessment Centre (DVTAC).

What are the two pilots?

In September 2024, National Cabinet committed $4.7 billion to accelerate delivery of the National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children 2022–2032. As part of this commitment, two pilot models were endorsed for trial.

• Focused Deterrence: a crime prevention strategy that targets a broad range of people who use intimate partner violence (IPV). Law enforcement agencies, victim services and advocates, social services, and community figures work together, with the aim of deterring people from using violence. They do this through direct communication, offers of support for those willing to change, and follow-through with consequences for those who re-offend, with a particular focus on protecting the most vulnerable victims and shifting the burden of safety from victim-survivors to the state. Simultaneously, a parallel process for victim survivors exists to offer real-time information sharing, targeted resources and supports.
• DVTAC: a conceptual model, inspired by Fixated Threat Assessment Centres, for intervening with people who use violence fixated on – or grievance related violence against – their current or former intimate partner. While still under development, DVTACs would likely bring together a multi disciplinary team (e.g. police, health practitioners, domestic violence experts, etc.) to identify, threat assess and intervene with people who use fixated grievance IPV and who pose a risk of escalating to high-harm or lethal violence.

What was the scope of the consultations?

The Consultation Summary Report summarises insights from 37 hours of consultations with stakeholders across Australia. Nous interviewed researchers, experts, health practitioners, providers of men’s behaviour change and other perpetrator services, providers of services to victim-survivors, and representatives of people with lived experience, First Nations, Culturally and Linguistically Diverse, disability, LGBTQIA+, regional and remote communities.

What did we hear about the behaviours of people who use violence?

Stakeholders consistently emphasised that people who use IPV have a wide range of characteristics, backgrounds and behaviours. The most consistent pattern is the use of coercive and controlling behaviours to maintain power within the relationship, although how this appears can differ greatly between individuals and contexts.

People may use IPV for a range of reasons, but stakeholders agreed that violence is shaped over time by cultural norms, beliefs about gender, and entitlement, and is frequently caused by exposure to conflict or aggression in childhood. Other influences such as trauma, substance use or mental illness may make violence more likely, but all stakeholders were clear that they are not the root cause of violence. Violence is a learned behaviour and what is learned can be unlearned.

Many people who use violence experience their actions as ego dystonic (where someone’s actions conflict with their self-image). This can make it difficult for people to admit, disclose, or even recognise their behaviour as violence. This lack of self-recognition can lead to denial, minimisation, or justification of abuse. It can limit the effectiveness of interventions such as behaviour change programs and reduce the impact of traditional deterrence strategies.

What did we hear about the experiences of people from priority populations?

Stakeholders were clear that victim-survivors from priority populations experience the same core forms of violence – physical, psychological, sexual, and systemic – but often to a greater degree, and with additional layers of harm. Stakeholders from priority population organisations identified a range of barriers to priority population victim-survivors accessing and engaging with services.

These barriers are not just individual – they are deeply systemic and reflect long-standing gaps in how services are designed, delivered, and resourced. They include:

• Fear and mistrust.
• Shame and stigma.
• Racism and unsafe services.

What were the core messages from consults?

Throughout consultations, stakeholders repeatedly reinforced the following four key messages:

1. Victim-survivor safety must remain central to every intervention. Pilot models must ensure proactive, embedded safety planning, clear risk management protocols, and ongoing prioritisation of victim-survivor voices and lived experience – especially in the most dangerous and complex cases.
2. The system must actively work to reduce the burden on victim-survivors. Systems must reduce the emotional and procedural strain placed on victim-survivors.
3. Children must be recognised as victim-survivors in their own right. Pilot models must embed child focused approaches, ensuring that children’s disclosures are taken seriously, and offer supports to address the intergenerational effects of trauma.
4. The language used to describe people and experiences matters. Language shapes outcomes, engagement, and dignity. Early, rigid labelling of anyone as either a “victim” or “perpetrator” can reinforce stereotypes, contribute to misidentification, and make family and domestic violence seem distant or unrelatable.

What did we hear about the Focused Deterrence pilot?

Stakeholders expressed varied views on the potential effectiveness of Focused Deterrence. Opinions ranged from optimism to opposition, with some suggesting the model could cause harm and others believing its success depends entirely on how it is implemented. The differences in views did not follow a clear pattern across stakeholder groups. The variation in part reflects the sector’s diversity, differing beliefs about what drives behaviour change, and the need for a robust evidence base to inform the model.

In the consultation process it was not possible to explain every feature of the Focused Deterrence model in detail. This may have shaped how some stakeholders conceptualised the model, and in some cases may have caused them to raise risks or issues that – had they had more time – they would have understood are already mitigated or addressed by the model’s core features and its flexible approach to implementation.

Key insights regarding Focused Deterrence include:

• Victim-survivor safety must be prioritised as a core tenant of the model.
• Deterrence will likely be more effective when consequences align with what the person using violence values.
• The credibility of people giving messages to the person using violence influences whether deterrence messages are heard or dismissed.
• Messages should be delivered soon after an incident.
• Deterrence works best when it is clear, culturally safe, and paired with supports that promote behaviour change among people using violence. The model focuses on stopping behaviour by connecting individuals to appropriate supports and making clear that there will be swift and certain consequences if violence continues.
• The model must be designed and implemented in ways that recognise the distinct risks, needs, and contexts of different priority populations.

What did we hear about the DVTAC pilot?

Consultations did not examine the DVTAC model in depth. Instead, discussions centred on understanding the characteristics of people who use fixated grievance-fuelled IPV, identifying existing interventions, and considering the features that contribute to their effectiveness. Three key features of effective practice emerged from consultations: information sharing, multi-agency collaboration, and co-location.

What are the next steps?

Nous has shared a detailed Consultation Summary Report with the Attorney-General’s Department, which will inform the ongoing design, implementation and evaluation of the pilots.