Updated Evaluation of the Alexis Family Violence Response Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundThe Alexis Family Violence Response Model (Alexis- FVRM) is a coordinated police and social services response to recidivist family violence in Victoria. Following the success of the pilot program (2015- 2017 in Glen Eira, Bayside and Kingston), the Alexis- FVRM was expanded to include multiple regions in the South-Eastern metropolitan corridor of Melbourne and is currently active across multiple police divisions (e.g., Bayside, Prahran, Morwell and Wonthaggi).Aims and MethodThe current mixed-methods evaluation aimed to explore the effectiveness of the Alexis-FVRM since the rollout to other police divisions across Victoria. It comprised two stages:-an anonymous online survey to examine victim-survivors’ perceptions of the Alexis-FVRM (n = 18), and-an analysis of de-identified client data to examine risk levels for respondents (n = 101) and affected family members (n = 100) following Alexis-FVRM intervention.The evaluation also sought to provide an overview of the type of support provided by the Alexis-FVRM, and an exploration of engagement rates and modes of engaging victim-survivors and respondents.Key Stage 1 Survey ResultsOf the 18 complete survey responses, the majority of victim-survivor participants (78%, n = 14) viewed the Alexis-FVRM positively. Most felt supported by the Alexis-FVRM team and reported that the Alexis-FVRM had helped to connect them with relevant services (e.g., housing, mental health, medical).Most victim-survivor participants (78%, n = 14) reported that the Alexis-FVRM helped to reduce family violence in their lives. Zero victim-survivor survey participants reported that family violence became worse following Alexis-FVRM intervention. Key Stage 2 Results for RespondentsThe risk levels for respondents significantly reduced following Alexis-FVRM intervention. Of the 101 respondents in the dataset, 66% (n = 67) had lower risk levels at case closure compared to their initial risk ratings.Alexis-FVRM provided support to respondents for 13 to 286 days (on average 70 days), with key supports including assertive outreach, service planning and engagement, risk assessment, safety planning, brokerage, crisis response, psychoeducation, and socio-emotional support.Engaging respondents in family violence interventions is widely recognised as a challenging task. Alexis-FVRM practitioners reported successful contact with respondents in 83% of cases, with assertive outreach used in 85% of cases.For over a third of respondents (36%), their case was closed because their needs had been met by the Alexis-FVRM. Key Stage 2 Results for Affected Family Members (AFMs)Risk levels for AFMs significantly reduced over the Alexis-FVRM support period. Of the 100 AFMs in the dataset, 66% (n = 66) had lower risk levels at case closure compared to the initial risk ratings.The Alexis-FVRM provided support to AFMs for 4 to 313 days (100 days on average). For over half (52%) of the AFMs who were engaged with the Alexis- FVRM, the recorded reason for case closure was that the victim-survivor’s needs were met. Overall, the Alexis-FVRM provided a range of support to a diverse pool of respondents and victim-survivors in several police divisions across Victoria. Taken together, the two stages of the evaluation results are largely positive regarding the efficacy of the Alexis- FVRM. The evaluation results indicate that the Alexis-FVRM helped to reduce the risk of family violence for many of the respondents and affected family members, and that the victim-survivor survey participants generally felt safer and supported following the coordinated police and social services response.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.091 | 0.156 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".