Reducing System Fragmentation in Domestic and Family Violence Responses: A Practice Framework for System Alignment
By Jackie Wruck, Asia Pacific Regional Manager, Safe & Together Institute
Across Australia, governments have invested significantly in strengthening responses to domestic and family violence (DFV). National and state reforms emphasise integration, perpetrator accountability, child safety, and cross-sector collaboration.
Yet system fragmentation remains one of the most persistent barriers to achieving these outcomes.
Families experiencing DFV often interact with multiple systems simultaneously—child protection, specialist DFV services, policing, courts, housing, mental health, alcohol and other drug (AOD) services, and at times youth justice. While each service operates within its legislative mandate, the cumulative experience for families can be disjointed by making survivors have to constantly jump through various loops to gain support.
Common indicators of fragmentation include:
Inconsistent risk assessment and documentation across agencies
Limited visibility of perpetrator patterns of coercive control
Over-reliance on incident-based analysis
System-generated risk through unintended mother-blame
Contradictory case planning across statutory and non-statutory services
Findings from Australian evaluations indicate that improvements in cross-sector collaboration are associated with the use of structured, shared practice frameworks rather than reliance on referral processes alone. The Safe & Together Model offers one such framework.
The Safe & Together Model as a System Alignment Tool
The Safe & Together Model is a perpetrator pattern–based, child-centred framework designed for use across statutory and community-based services. It is built on three core principles:
Keeping children safe and together with the non-offending parent whenever possible
Partnering with the non-offending parent as a default practice position
Holding perpetrators accountable for their behaviour and its impact on children
Importantly, the Safe & Together Model is not a standalone program. It functions as a shared practice lens that can be embedded within existing legislative and policy frameworks.
For executive leaders, its value lies in its ability to:
Provide consistent analytical language across agencies
Shift focus from incident-based responses to behavioural patterns
Reduce duplication and contradictory assessment
Improve quality of documentation for statutory and court processes
Strengthen alignment between child protection, DFV services, and related systems
Fragmentation in Statutory Contexts
The ANROWS-funded PATRICIA Project examined statutory child protection files across five Australian jurisdictions and identified significant variability in how domestic violence was documented and assessed.
Key findings included:
Inconsistent identification of perpetrator behaviour patterns
Limited documentation of children’s lived experiences of coercive control
Variable recognition of protective actions taken by non-offending parents
Gaps in accountability narratives within case records
When structured Safe & Together case-reading tools were applied, the analysis demonstrated improved clarity in identifying perpetrator patterns, child impact, and protective parenting.
These findings are significant for executive leaders: Documentation quality influences court outcomes, interagency coordination, and long-term safety planning.
Implementation Evidence: STACY for Children
The STACY for Children Project, also funded by ANROWS, evaluated Safe & Together implementation across Queensland, New South Wales, and Victoria. Findings demonstrated that Safe & Together implementation:
Increased practitioner confidence in analysing coercive control
Strengthened cross-sector collaboration
Reduced systemic mother-blame
Improved consistency in child-centred risk assessment
Crucially, the evaluation identified that system-level impact was strongest where implementation extended beyond single teams and included leadership commitment and cross-agency engagement.
This aligns with broader reform lessons: Sustainable integration requires executive sponsorship and organisational alignment.
Addressing Cross-System Intersections
Fragmentation is particularly visible at service intersections—especially among DFV, mental health, and AOD systems.
The ESTIE (Evidence to Support Safe & Together Implementation and Evaluation) Project explored how Safe & Together principles can be applied within these these complex intersections.
Through this work, the ESTIE Project promotes:
Integrated assessment approaches
Recognition of how perpetrators may weaponise substance use or mental health issues
Clearer accountability narratives
Improved interagency coordination
For government audiences, this reinforces the importance of shared frameworks across portfolios. DFV does not sit within a single department; alignment must extend across health, justice, child protection, and community services.
Why Shared Language Reduces Risk
One of the drivers of fragmentation is inconsistent terminology. When one system describes a case as “high conflict,” another as “relationship issues,” and another as “domestic violence,” responses diverge, often without a thorough assessment of whether coercive control is present.
Safe & Together promotes behaviourally specific documentation—identifying patterns such as financial abuse, social isolation, monitoring, threats, and their developmental impact on children.
This clarity:
Improves court-ready documentation
Strengthens information-sharing
Reduces misinterpretation
Minimises system-generated risk
From a governance perspective, this supports accountability, transparency, and quality assurance across services.
Reducing System-Generated Risk
Without a perpetrator-pattern lens, systems may:
Over-scrutinise non-offending parents
Create compliance plans disconnected from perpetrator behaviour
Frame coercive control as mutual conflict
Overlook cumulative harm to children
The Safe & Together Model re-centers accountability on the person choosing to use violence.
When agencies consistently ask:
What is the perpetrator’s behavioural pattern?
How is this impacting the child’s safety and wellbeing?
What protective actions have the non-offending parent taken?
What accountability strategies are in place?
Responses become more aligned and proportionate.
Strategic Implications for Government
For executive and policy leaders, the evidence suggests:
Framework alignment reduces fragmentation. Shared analytical models strengthen cross-portfolio coordination.
Documentation reform matters. Case records shape court decisions and long-term safety outcomes.
Leadership commitment is critical. System-wide impact requires executive sponsorship, not isolated training.
Integration is cultural as well as structural. Sustainable change requires consistent expectations across agencies.
The PATRICIA Project, STACY for Children Project, ESTIE Project, and international evidence all indicate that Safe & Together can function as an enabling framework for system coherence.
What This Means for DFV System Reform
Reducing system fragmentation in domestic and family violence responses is central to achieving national reform objectives.
Safe & Together does not replace existing statutory mandates. Rather, it provides a unifying analytical lens that supports:
Perpetrator accountability
Child-centred practice
Partnership with non-offending parents
Cross-sector alignment
When systems operate from a shared framework, responses become more coherent, documentation improves, and safety outcomes strengthen.
For governments seeking practical mechanisms to support integrated DFV reform, Safe & Together offers a structured, evidence-informed approach to reducing fragmentation across complex service systems.
Additional Resources
Online Course: Safe & Together: An Introduction to the Model
Safe & Together Institute’s domestic abuse–informed trainings
Safe & Together Institute’s upcoming events
David Mandel’s book Stop Blaming Mothers and Ignoring Fathers: How to Transform the Way We Keep Children Safe from Domestic Violence
