The impacts of child sexual abuse are often pervasive and lifelong, affecting the individual, family, and broader community leading to victims/survivors engaging in a range of specialist and community support services. Unfortunately they readily face barriers when seeking help and frequently report that services fail to provide trauma-informed, accessible, inclusive and culturally-safe responses. The Australian Government, National Office for Child Safety commissioned the Australian Centre for Child Protection to lead the development of Australia’s first ever Minimum Practice Standards. The Standards were developed via an evidence informed co-design approach, including: broad literature review, large workshop-style consultation, surveys, interviews, and discussions across Australia to identify broad parameters. As the Standards took shape, various draft versions were also consulted upon. Feedback was sought from multiple sources so that practice, cultural, and lived experience wisdom contributed equally to the Standards alongside the literature. The final Standards endorsed by state, territory and federal government were shaped by, those with a lived experience of child sexual abuse; Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (including Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations and peak bodies); government and non-government organisations providing services; state, territory and Commonwealth agencies and representatives; and subject matter experts. Underpinned by three overarching Core Values – Victim and Survivor Centred, Trauma-Informed, and Culturally Safe, there are six Standards each with several indicators; 1.Promotion of safety and self-determination, 2.Accessible and inclusive services, 3.Holistic and integrated responses, 4.Experience, research, and practice informed way of working, 5.Skilled and supported workforce and 6.Effective organisational governance.

Kelly Richard, Michael Chataway, Chris Emzin, Carol Ronken, Rebekah Chapman Individuals who perpetrate sexual harm are one of the fastest-growing groups of prisoners across Australia. An array of measures – from sex offender registers to Circles of Support and Accountability – has been introduced in an attempt to reintegrate and manage sexual offenders at the inevitable conclusion of their prison sentences, and to limit the risk they pose of reoffending in the community. Despite being key stakeholders, victims and survivors of sexual violence have not been included in the development of programs/responses to reducing offending, nor asked for their views about these various measures, what they suggest offenders might need during the period of transition from prison to the community, or what victims and survivors themselves might need at this time. It is vital to capture the views of victims and survivors, as they have unique insights into what might strengthen community safety, what might best support offenders to reintegrate into the community and desist from sexual offending, as well as what victim and survivor needs are and how these could be met. This paper presents results from the first survey globally that examines victims and survivors’ views about these post-custodial measures. In particular, the survey results differentiate the needs and views of victims and survivors of adult sexual violence from those of victims and survivors of child sexual abuse. Designed and administered by a multidisciplinary team of researchers, including First Nations researchers, the survey results provide a much-needed insight into victims and survivors’ views of post-custodial measures that can be used to shape such measures in future.

PartnerSPEAK is a unique specialist agency which provides peer support and advocacy to the non-offending partners (NOP) and affected family members (AFM) of perpetrators of child sexual abuse (CSA) and online child sexual exploitation (OSEC). PartnerSPEAK invited investigators who work in child sexual abuse (mostly OSEC) in all jurisdictions of Australia to participate in an anonymous, online survey. There were 48 respondents from Australian Federal Police, Australian Border Force and local LEA (law enforcement agencies). This paper presents the findings and recommendations from this survey. Investigators across Australia report that responding to families is more personally distressing to them than viewing OSEC. In the survey, 90% of respondents indicated that they worry about the impact of the investigation on AFM. This paper explores, how does providing support for NOP/AFM also support investigators and, in turn, enhance disruption capabilities? In regards to families directly assisting with disruption, 90% of investigators stated they had direct experience of an AFM providing information at the time of warrant. Examples that investigators gave about the impact of collaborating with NOP/AFM were very compelling including our highest driver for disruption: “The identification of further victims.” Investigators also experience AFM providing names of other children the offender has access to, assistance with identifying children, advising law enforcement of subsequent disclosures from children and providing information about the likelihood of the suspect to comply with bail conditions. This paper identifies the opportunities for LEA and other practitioners to harness their approaches to AFM in a way that supports families, supports investigators and supports the disruption of child sexual abuse.