Retrospective analysis estimates A$12.1 billion in funding for violence against women in Australia, highlighting gaps in primary prevention and gender inequality.
Objectives and importance of study Adequate funding for comprehensive strategies is crucial to eliminating violence against women. This study examined funding committed during a major policy initiative aimed at reducing violence against women in Australia between 2010 and 2023. Study type A retrospective review of federal, state and territory government budget documents to estimate funding levels and examine the distribution of resources across types of strategies aimed at addressing violence against women in Australia. Methods Review and data extraction of budget estimates and activity descriptions addressing violence against women and gender inequality during the time of Australia’s National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children. Mixed-method analysis explored trends in funding over time by jurisdiction and strategy type and identified priority actions. Results Of the 508 papers screened, 201 documented relevant information with over 900 extractions for activities addressing violence against women (n = 797) and gender inequality (n = 110), totalling an estimated A$12.1 billion. Rather than a steady investment, funding fluctuated, and jurisdictional differences occurred. Supporting people impacted by violence, raising workforce capacity and developing systems to strengthen the response were supported. Primary prevention, incorporating awareness-raising and promoting gender equality, received fewer resources overall, with funding directed towards education, workplace and sports settings. Conclusions During a critical time of action to reduce violence against women, increased government funding occurred, supporting diverse strategies. However, a lack of clarity and consistency in budget reporting contributed to uncertainty in total funding committed over this timeline. Having a fiscal strategy over the entire action plan will embed long-term funding and improve future planning and monitoring.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sheppard et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: