Primary prevention isn't new to WA, recognition for what's already been achieved
Last week I attended some primary prevention training in Geraldton which was being rolled out as part of a state government commitment to primary prevention in WA. It really took me back in time, and actually reminded me of a revolving door. Why? Because 6 years ago I was working in primary prevention of violence against women. I was and still am well-versed on the Our Watch framework (which was very new back then) and so were many of our local community organisations. Last week it felt like, let’s learn about primary prevention (again for me), here is something new being proposed (which it isn’t), and it is part of a government strategy that’s being introduced to make change (it’s an election promise so it needs to be met, let’s get people educated so the roll out can occur within the time frame).
My primary Prevention Story
It started back in 2016, after an awful and intense week of domestic and family violence (DFV). My CEO at the time and I committed to make preventing violence against women a priority in our community. We both understood that responding to domestic and family violence alone, would not prevent it from reoccurring. Back then, we were both leaders of a DFV organisation here in Geraldton and were fortunate enough to receive federal funding by the Department of Social Services– one of 40 projects across Australia (and one of 6 in WA). This funding came and went but we were able to establish a solid primary prevention framework with localised training and worked alongside some great partners who produced some effective and impactful work. See Building Safe Communities for Women and their Children: A compendium of stories from the field (see project number 17), Conversations for Change (LCAEVS) and this Research Paper. I am also aware that the Peel Says No To Violence project have produced some great evaluation and research from this original funding roll out.
Then this funding finished, it was really challenging to find further funding, particularly for an initiative that will not show change for another generation or more. The primary prevention project slowed and I’ve since left the organisation so can’t comment on its status now. But it’s fair to say it’s not as progressive as it was back then when it was funded. It’s also fair to say that the outcomes around the gendered drivers were never measured due to the short time that it was in operation.
Back to today
Now 6 years later, the WA state government has made a commitment to primary prevention as an election promise. Most people think this is great that it is happening. It consists of one round of grants with varying monetary amounts across WA, some training for those who are interested in the field of primary prevention, and capacity building opportunities that sits with the WA peak DFV body. As far as I know, there is no offer of subsequent funding for primary prevention after this roll out and no long-term plan to support primary prevention across WA. I am happy to be corrected on this if this is not the case.
It is well recognised that primary prevention is the most effective way to eliminate violence against women and their children. It also takes time to change social attitudes in the community. We know that primary prevention requires a long-term agenda, it needs to be consistently funded and it should sit alongside a long-term prevention plan.
Does the WA government have a long-term agenda? Is this stopping and starting of funding really going to make a difference? What about the good work that has already been done through the federal grant roll out?
It's common knowledge that in health every dollar spent in prevention saves much more in cure (in the case of domestic and family violence its response rather than cure). It makes sense that the government commits to responding to problems and this is considered essential. This is all our women’s refuges, DFV advocacy and counselling services, and men’s behaviour change programs. I do believe that the government remains non-committed to primary prevention in the long-term for a number of reasons. Firstly, primary prevention initiatives are basically untested programs with a limited evidence base, and secondly, they can’t produce a reduction in violence over a short period of time, particular within a 4-year government term. Government funding is results driven.
Here's my thoughts on some solutions
There is already expertise in primary prevention in WA from these early federal primary prevention project roll outs. There is emerging evidence and promising practice from evaluations and work being done since then, particularly in the Midwest, Peel, Pilbara and Perth. Local people have worked together to find local solutions and place-based initiatives are already in place. This has been done by organisations and communities using creative and innovative ways, without any regular state funding. It shows the dedication to stop violence against women despite the challenge of limited funding. I’ve worked over the past two years with various organisations assisting them get primary prevention frameworks and plans in place. The work that has already been done is of great value to all of us. Imagine what their work could look like if it was recognised and supported with state funding long-term.
There should be a two-tiered approach by government. Firstly, they should consult with those already working in primary prevention to:
See what they need so they can continue and strengthen their primary prevention work
How to best share their knowledge and expertise
Focus on developing the evidence base; and
Ascertain what’s needed for long term sustainability and growth in this field.
Then bring along others new to the field to learn alongside them. Respect and utilise what’s already been done rather than assume no-one has commenced this journey.
What is being offered isn’t what’s really needed. Am I the only one that thinks this? I would love to hear your thoughts and comments.