A critical review of long-term funding for reducing violence against women in Australia

Introduction

The prevalence of violence against women (VAW) in Australia is comparable to global rates, with one in four women having experienced violence perpetrated by a partner or family member since the age of 15 years.^1,2 Women are most at risk of abuse by an intimate partner, and many incidents of this form of gendered violence go unreported.¹ The cost burden is substantial, estimated at nearly A$22 billion per year in 2014–2015.³ Together, the safety, health, social and economic consequences support the case for strengthened action.

Four types of strategies are recommended: (1) stopping violence before it starts (primary prevention), (2) rapid intervention when it first occurs (early intervention), (3) strong systems of response to minimise harm (tertiary prevention) and (4) long-term support to facilitate healing (recovery).⁴ These strategies are encouraged across multiple areas for a comprehensive response to VAW, including individual and relationship, organisation and community, system and institute, and societal levels.⁵ These conceptual frameworks contribute to Australia’s approach to addressing VAW, reflected in the first National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children 2010–2022 (National Plan) and its four sequential 3-year action plans:

There was no apparent funding strategy accompanying the National Plan.

Funding was already being invested in jurisdictions on a range of initiatives dating back to the 1980s, with the first National Plan seeking to give jurisdictions an evidence-based plan to direct their efforts more strategically, including a focus on primary prevention. A recent review reported that Commonwealth funding for family, domestic and sexual violence activities increased between 2010 and 2022, with enhanced monitoring and advocacy providing context to this expanded support.⁷ A lack of clarity and consistency across budget papers was noted, making precise estimates of annual funding challenging to extract. Practitioners delivering activities to address VAW have also expressed concerns with funding processes, namely that the resources available are not commensurate with large-scale, sustainable action needed to address complex issues arising in practice.^8,9

Resource priority setting is a challenging task facing decision-makers, with limited evidence of cost-effectiveness to inform which strategies targeted at reducing VAW are promising investments.¹⁰ Although established methods guide the distribution of funding where multiple priorities exist, the overall adoption of explicit priority-setting techniques in health has been gradual.¹¹ One reason may be the time and resources needed to support a rigorous priority-setting process.¹² Without further research, inefficient fiscal decisions could potentially slow progress towards ending gender-based violence in one generation.¹³ Therefore, this study aimed to:

Methods

A targeted review of published, publicly available government budget papers was conducted to identify and extract public funding committed to addressing VAW for mixed-methods analysis in Excel.¹⁴ The primary researcher (LS) performed the search, data extraction and coding under expert guidance (VB, MM, KR). This study did not require ethics approval as it used only publicly available data and did not involve human participants or identifiable information.

Results

From 508 budget papers retrieved, information was obtained from 201 documents, including 907 principal funding extractions (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Search, screening and data extraction process.

Most of the principal funding extractions were classified as addressing VAW (n = 797; 88%), with fewer gender equality initiatives (n = 110; 12%; Supplementary Table S4).

Principal funding

An estimated A$12.1 billion principal funding was committed to eligible activities; nearly A$11 billion principal funding for activities were primarily aimed at addressing VAW and A$1.1 billion for gender inequality initiatives (Table 1).

Table 1.Total and per capita funding by jurisdiction, 2022 Australian dollars.

	First action plan		Second action plan		Third action plan		Fourth action plan		Current year		Total ($mil)
	2010–2011 to 2012–2013		2013–2014 to 2015–2016		2016–2017 to 2018–2019		2019–2020 to 2021–2022		2022–2023
	Total ($mil)	Per capita ($)	Total ($mil)	Per capita ($)	Total ($mil)	Per capita ($)	Total ($mil)	Per capita ($)	Total ($mil)	Per capita ($)
Federal	80	1	179	1	372	4	2112	16	1397	53	4141
ACT	14	<1	16	<1	19	<1	26	<1	20	1	95
NSW	21	<1	81	<1	405	3	997	8	300	11	1804
NT	140	2	12	<1	63	1	16	<1	18	1	249
Qld	48	1	89	<1	353	4	112	1	324	12	926
SA	11	0	4	<1	47	1	20	<1	2	<1	83
Tas	0	0	33	<1	35	<1	18	<1	57	2	143
Vic	69	1	170	3	2862	23	838	11	237	9	4175
WA	3	<1	113	2	150	2	156	2	66	3	488
Total	387		699		4305		4294		2420		12,105

Notes: median annual per capita funding within the 3-year period. Rounded to the nearest million ($mil) or dollar ($). Totals may differ due to rounding.

ACT, Australian Capital Territory; mil, millions; NSW, New South Wales; NT, Northern Territory; Qld, Queensland; SA, South Australia; Vic, Victoria; Tas, Tasmania; WA, Western Australia.

Trends over time

Government funding commitments exhibited an upward trend over time, with key differences in the magnitude and timing of these increases (Fig. 2). In the initial years, funding was steady and lower than investment levels observed in the latter half. The announcement of a national Women’s Safety Package in 2015–2016 and state-led inquiry were key events co-occurring with increased resources (see Victoria Fig. 2).²³ A subsequent increase during implementation of the final action plan coincided with the pandemic response, with additional resources allocated within the 2-year COVID economic recovery plan.²⁴ Increased resources in this critical period appeared sustained beyond acute phases of the pandemic, with funding also committed beyond 2022–2023.

Fig. 2.

Trends in funding over time in each jurisdiction. Notes: different scales applied. Funding in 2022–2023 may be for a single year or include commitments beyond 2022–2023 where reported. ACT based on annual expenditure from 2016. AUD, Australian dollars; ACT, Australian Capital Territory; NSW, New South Wales; NT, Northern Territory; Qld, Queensland; SA, South Australia; Vic, Victoria; Tas, Tasmania; WA, Western Australia.

By jurisdiction

Variation in funding occurred between government jurisdictions (Table 1). Federal funding accounted for more than one-third of commitments across all jurisdictions, some of which were forwarded on to states and territories to implement national priorities (34%). Only one state committed a similar level of funding for local activities (Victoria; 34%). Jurisdictional per capita differences indicated no discernible relationship between funding levels and population size.

Type of strategy

Activities aimed at strengthening the response to VAW received more funding compared with primary prevention, early intervention and recovery strategies in most jurisdictions (Table 2). This contrasted with lower funding for primary prevention initiatives addressing VAW and gender inequality. Few activities stated early intervention or recovery as primary objectives, which contributed to lower estimates and differences in ‘other’ initiatives are attributed to reporting consolidated funding for multiple strategies.

Table 2.Funding by type of strategy, 2022 Australian dollars.

	Gender inequality ($mil)	VAW initiatives ($mil)					Total ($mil)
		Primary prevention	Early intervention	Response	Recovery	OtherA
Federal	527	519	332	1936	330	497	4141
ACT	<1	3	4	81	–	7	95
NSW	290	40	–	855	64	556	1804
NT	7	2	1	120	4	115	249
Qld	54	86	3	462	284	37	926
SA	44	5	3	26	<1	6	83
Tas	18	8	1	73	–	43	143
Vic	180	366	93	2956	451	129	4175
WA	<1	17	–	261	7	202	488

Notes: – indicates that either no funding was found in the reviewed budget documents, or the identified funding was not classified as principal funding. Rounded to the nearest million ($mil). Totals may differ due to rounding.

VAW, violence against women; ACT, Australian Capital Territory; mil, millions; NSW, New South Wales; NT, Northern Territory; Qld, Queensland; SA, South Australia; Vic, Victoria; Tas, Tasmania; WA, Western Australia.

^A Includes activities that have multiple objectives, grants and research.

Narrative synthesis

Strengthening systems and infrastructure for integrated responses to VAW was a major theme emerging from the narrative descriptions of budgeted activities (Supplementary Table S5). Investments were made in inquiries, committees and other groups to identify gaps and to recommend measures to improve practice.

Diverse strategies involving multiple sectors contributed to enhancing responses to VAW. Actions to secure the safety of women and families at risk of harm were a core theme, with high profile events reinforcing urgent measures. Ensuring individuals impacted by violence had access to timely and comprehensive support and that there was capacity within services to deliver integrated care was the priority objective of several funded activities. Engaging perpetrators to reduce reoffending was a minor theme, with these activities more frequent in the latter half of the timeline. Parenting programs, crisis services and practitioner training incorporated early intervention goals, and trauma-informed models of care contributed to a recovery focus. However, early intervention and recovery themes were difficult to discern from budget papers, particularly in the initial years.

Educating young people about consent, rights and responsibilities for maintaining healthy relationships was supported, alongside whole-of-population campaigns addressing harmful gender norms and, more recently, online safety. Gender equality activities predominantly supported actions targeted at institutional settings. Initiatives targeted workplaces, education and elite sports, with major infrastructure changes delivered to facilitate women’s involvement in sport (e.g. women’s change rooms). Integrating equality principles within broader social policies reinforced these primary activities, such as paid parental leave and childcare policies supporting mothers to return to work.

Increasingly, non-specialist sectors integrated tertiary prevention objectives, supporting continuity of action across connected services. For example, activities in the justice, legal and law enforcement sectors supported the protection of people impacted by violence during police and court interventions. Social, community and housing sectors facilitated safe access to protective services essential in a crisis and for long-term support. This expanded support contributed additional resources vital to progressing objectives.

Discussion

Principal funding support increased overall during Australia’s first National Plan addressing VAW, providing more resources for activities. Marginal increases in initial phases contrasted with rapid funding increases in the latter half of implementation. Factors outside of planned action contributed to these patterns, including the introduction of local action plans, the COVID pandemic and advocacy for women’s and family safety.²⁵ Although responding to emerging issues is an essential part of public policy, the unpredictability and time-limited nature of support may have prohibited long-term planning. This provides some context to practitioner concerns of unsustainable funding in this area.^8,9

Funding contributed by multiple sectors for diverse activities suggests progress toward comprehensive action consistent with conceptual prevention frameworks. Emerging themes indicated the prioritisation of funding for strengthened responses to VAW, and although this focus is contextually relevant, given the high prevalence of VAW and ongoing concerns for women’s safety,^1,13 whether this overshadowed opportunities to develop primary prevention and early intervention strategies warrants consideration. A further theme was that few activities stated early intervention or recovery as primary objectives.

Jurisdictional funding differences could not be explained by population size, nor are they likely due to differences in prevalence.¹ Several factors could account for this variation. Foremost, the consistency, quality and transparency of budget reporting varied by jurisdiction and year, which may have contributed to eligible activities being overlooked or classified as significant (excluded from funding estimates). Similarly, reporting based on annual spending rather than budget commitments over multiple years contributed to lower estimates in one jurisdiction (ACT). Federal funding for national priorities did not count towards state and territory estimates, meaning that any support differences were not represented. Finally, it is plausible that jurisdictional differences reflect the different levels of political interest, prioritisation or willingness to fund these kinds of activities. Future research could examine how much of the reported difference was driven by reporting practices or other contextual factors.

There is limited literature for comparing these findings. A recent funding review over the same period (2010–2023) reported a similar upward trend in Commonwealth funding and recommended clarity in fiscal reporting.⁷ However, a direct comparison with this study is impractical owing to differences in method, including the wider scope of activities extracted (e.g. gender equality), deductive coding and classification approach, and themes explored. Whereas the current study explored jurisdictional differences and acknowledged limitations challenging interpretation of findings, the earlier review excluded state and territory funding due to indistinct budget reporting.⁷ Two other reviews of primary prevention funding showed limited resources for these activities,^14,26 consistent with the findings of this study. This review contributes to a limited literature examining government funding and resource prioritisation. Therefore, some specific recommendations are made to inform practice.

Concurring with the recommendations from a recent review,⁷ future national and local action plans should be supported by a fiscal strategy founded on activity-based funding over the plan’s duration. Documenting principal and significant funding would account for all activities and resources and, therefore, provide an accurate picture of overall government funding. Funding dedicated to different types of strategies should be distinguished to monitor the extent of resources invested in proactive, preventative, responsive and long-term strategies for recovery. Aggregate funding, historical spending and activities unrelated to prevention objectives should be avoided to overcome issues of reporting clarity. Encouragingly, the latest federal budget release shows progress towards some of these recommendations, which will strengthen planning and monitoring of fiscal decisions in the future.²⁷

Equally, this study highlights important opportunities for research to pursue. Prevention frameworks offer little guidance for policymakers to deliver comprehensive activities within budget constraints. Defining a core package of strategies or decision criteria to guide prioritisation would ensure essential measures receive adequate resources, and continuing to build evidence of cost-effectiveness will help to define what initiatives deliver good value for money. Without this, funding decisions may rely on other factors, like historical practice, political will or public opinion, rather than being evidence-driven.

The rigorous manual search of government budget papers supported the identification of major sources of public funding for a wide range of activities. Broad search terms enabled eligible activities to be identified, and expert members of the team contributed to all stages of work to support a rigorous review. Applying a prevention framework ensured findings were relevant to current policy, practice and research issues.

Several study limitations impacted the extraction, synthesis and interpretation of findings. The search identified eligible funding based on activity descriptions, meaning potentially supportive programs were excluded if budgets lacked adequate detail. Initiatives addressing child maltreatment and abuse, crime reduction and others were excluded, which could have an integrated focus on VAW. Local government funding, non-government, private and philanthropic support were not counted, since maintaining the same rigorous review and extraction process demanded resources beyond those available. The extent to which these donors provided additional resources was not explored further.

This study did not examine resources allocated to different aspects of VAW, such as sexual violence, domestic or family violence. Further research is necessary to draw out gaps in resource allocation to prevent sexual violence and to inform current and future funding policies, considering the increased prevalence and reporting of such in Australia and elsewhere.

Unclear budget reporting may have also contributed to an overestimation of funding if budget line items incorporated broader activities not specific to the prevention objectives communicated. It is also plausible that inconsistent language was used to describe the nature of the activities funded, whereby strategies labelled prevention may reflect (wholly or partly) response activities. In such cases, this would have contributed to the overestimation of funding for prevention. Although coding and classification of the extracted data applied standard frameworks and definitions, it also relied on expert opinion, making this a subjective process. Given this limitation, a data extraction tool and the inclusion of a second reviewer for data quality checking (5% of budget documents included) were incorporated into the design. These challenges may present a broader opportunity to enhance reporting mechanisms that illustrate the flow of funding from a budget commitment to the delivery of practical interventions.

Finally, investing more may not be indicative of a higher priority or better outcomes for women. In many areas of public health, every dollar invested in prevention is associated with a positive economic return, reinforcing the potential value for money of enhanced primary prevention action.²⁸ Responses, such as those in the justice sector, may incur higher costs than community-based strategies because of differences in pay scale, program size or intervention intensity. Mixed-method analysis enabled a range of tools to examine trends and priorities, with funding levels being one contributing factor. Future research could establish clearer decision rules or criteria for determining priorities based on empirical and narrative data.

Conclusions

In aiming to eliminate VAW, Australia prioritised funding to strengthen services for people impacted by violence and build practitioner capacity and infrastructure to deliver timely support. Although fewer resources were committed to other types of strategies, the funding contributed across diverse sectors and activities in key impact areas indicates progress towards recommended comprehensive action.

The inconsistency of budget reporting contributed to uncertainty in funding estimates and jurisdictional differences reported, drawing attention to opportunities to improve budget practices. Australia’s National Plan 2022–2032 would benefit from an overarching fiscal strategy outlining long-term funding for all types of strategies essential to addressing VAW. National and global targets aim for the elimination of VAW, and it is crucial for decision-makers to adopt a transparent, long-term, needs-based fiscal strategy to ensure resources are sufficient and optimally invested.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material is available online.