How the ACT’s Domestic Violence “Risk Tools” Pre-Decide the Outcome

The ACT Government’s Domestic and Family Violence Risk Assessment and Management Framework (DFV-RAMF) claims to be an evidence-based system for identifying and managing family-violence risk.

But on inspection, the so-called “Practice Guide 1: Screening for Adults” and “Fact Sheet 7: Risk Management Conversation Guide” operate less like diagnostic tools and more like ideological scripts.

They cannot return a “no risk” result, they direct workers to “proactively name the violence” before any facts are tested, and they instruct that “all risk must be acted on” — even if no risk has been demonstrated.

The bottom line is that from the moment this framework is applied, the only result that is possible is a finding that the woman (or man, if that has every happened) is at risk and must be managed into the system.

In short, the DFV-RAMF is structurally incapable of producing neutral findings.

1. There’s No Way to Record “No Risk”

Right from page 3 of the Framework, the ACT Government declares:

“All domestic and family violence should be considered a risk which requires a response.”

Later, the only levels of risk listed are “At risk,” “Elevated risk,” and “High risk.” Workers are told it is “far better to overestimate the risk than underestimate it.”

That wording eliminates the possibility of “no risk” or “low risk.”

Any interaction — no matter how benign — must be categorised somewhere on the risk scale.

A true risk assessment, by contrast, needs to include both confirming and disconfirming criteria so that “no risk” remains a valid, testable outcome.

2. Pre-Framed Questions That Guarantee Disclosure

Under Practice Guide 1 (page 71), every frontline worker must start with the line:

“Services across the ACT have begun to routinely ask all women the same questions about violence at home. This is because violence in the home is very common and can be serious…”

The next step is three binary “ever” questions:

• “Has your partner or ex-partner ever put you down or tried to control what you can or cannot do?”

• “Have you been hit, slapped or hurt in other ways?”

• “Are you ever frightened by your partner or ex-partner?”

Answer yes to any of them, at any time in your life, and the guidance says:

“If violence is disclosed through the process, proactively name the violence and reinforce that responsibility rests solely with the perpetrator.”

That step immediately labels the relationship as “violence,” eliminating any neutral or exploratory conversation about context, frequency, or credibility.

3. A One-Way “Conversation” That Confirms the Label

The companion Fact Sheet 7: Risk Management Conversation Guide (page 98) instructs workers to “discuss possible actions,” including:

• Keeping incident diaries,

• Contacting police or protection-order services, and

• Challenging any client “minimising the violence” by talking about “the experiences of other women.”

The worker is directed to correct the client’s perspective until it fits the official narrative. That is not evidence gathering — it’s social-proof conditioning.

4. Gendered Screening: “Ask Every Woman”

Despite claiming to be inclusive, Practice Guide 1 explicitly requires universal screening of “all women.” No equivalent instruction exists for men.

This means men are only ever assessed if accused — never screened neutrally for victimisation.

The Framework even devotes a full fact sheet (Fact Sheet 9: When Men Are Labelled as Victims) to warning practitioners that many male “victims” are actually perpetrators pretending to be victims .

That institutionalises gender bias in the design itself.

5. A Self-Confirming Cycle

The logic chain runs like this:

1. Assume all domestic violence is a “risk that requires a response.”

2. Screen all women using lifetime yes/no questions.

3. On any disclosure, “name the violence.”

4. Direct the client into police, legal, or counselling pathways.

5. Record that “risk was identified and acted on.”

Every case therefore proves the framework’s own premise that violence is pervasive.

There is no exit ramp back to neutrality, and no mechanism for falsification — the basic test of any credible risk method.

6. What Real Risk Assessment Requires

International standard ISO 31000:2018 – Risk Management Guidelines defines risk as “the effect of uncertainty on objectives.”

A compliant risk tool must:

• Define likelihood and consequence scales,

• Specify decision thresholds, and

• Allow “no risk” or “low risk” as valid results.

The DFV-RAMF does none of this. It is an advocacy framework, not a risk framework.

By its own wording, it substitutes measurement with belief.

7. Why This Matters

These instruments are now used by ACT public servants, police, NGOs, and family-law-related services.

Because “all risk must be acted on,” they effectively force interventions — even when evidence is weak, ambiguous, or entirely absent.

That has life-changing implications for men (particularly fathers) falsely accused of violence or coercive control.

Without independent corroboration (such as third-party records, metadata, or witnesses), any “risk” finding produced under DFV-RAMF should carry little or no probative value in court.

It is not an objective measurement of danger — it’s the output of a confirmatory, gender-biased script.

References

• ACT Government (2022). ACT Domestic and Family Violence Risk Assessment and Management Framework.PDF download – see Introduction (p. 3) and Practice Guide 1 (pp. 71–72) for language establishing universal “risk.”

• ISO 31000:2018 – Risk Management Guidelines. iso.org/standard/65694.html

• Fact Sheet 7 – Risk Management Conversation Guide. ACT Government DFV-RAMF, p. 98 ff.

• Fact Sheet 9 – When Men Are Labelled as Victims. ACT Government DFV-RAMF, p. 104.