Legislative Council Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2) 53 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Answers to Questions Domestic Violence Domestic Violence The Hon. S.G. WADE Legislative Council Domestic Violence In reply to the Hon. S.G. WADE (9 June 2016). The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS Legislative Council Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety Domestic Violence The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS (Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety): I am advised: Fifteen men engaged in the Domestic Abuse Program (DAP) which operated at Elizabeth Community Corrections and Cadell Training Centre during 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively, and the results were evaluated. The key recommendations following the review of the DAP required the development of a more accurate and inclusive identification of suitable prisoners and offenders and to update the program content and structure to better reflect the needs of South Australian domestic family violence victims and perpetrators. As a result, since October 2015, the Department for Correctional Services (DCS) has delivered the Domestic and Family Violence Program (DFVIP), which replaced the previously piloted DAP. DFVIP is an integrated program which operates in partnership with Women’s Safety Services SA (WSSSA), formerly the Central Domestic Violence Service) to ensure the partners and ex-partners of DFVIP participants are offered specialised support and counselling. The program content centres on the key themes of safety, responsibility, accountability and respect and includes elements of the Duluth Model, Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy and Feminist Theory. Following the rollout of the DFVIP, which is now delivered in both prison and community corrections settings, 72 men have commenced the 10-week program: Of the 45 prisoners who commenced the DFVIP in prison, 40 successfully completed the program (an 89 per cent completion rate). The reason for non-completion in prison was due to non-engagement by the offenders. In the cases of non-completion, the offenders continued to be intensively managed through the case management process. The Parole Board was also advised of their non-compliance as this may impact on the Parole Board’s decision to release an offender back into community. Of the 27 offenders who commenced the DFVIP in the community, 16 successfully completed the program (a 60% completion rate). The reason for non-completion in community offenders was a combination of non-attendance and re-offending. In the case of non-attendance, the offender’s community case manager would be informed and case management protocols followed. An offender would likely be breached for non-attendance. In the case of re-offending, the matter would be dealt with by the courts, and an appropriate action determined following the outcome of their court case (i.e. if they return to prison then they would be re-referred to the prison-based program, if they are returned to the community then they would be re-referred to a community program). With regard to remand prisoners: The DFVIP is not currently offered to remand prisoners within DCS custody. The Courts Administration Authority (CAA) Treatment Intervention Program targets domestic violence offenders on bail in the community. DCS policy is to target prison-based intervention towards sentenced prisoners, and therefore the DFVIP is not available to prisoners who are remanded in custody. This is consistent with the intervention approach for other correctional jurisdictions across Australia.