Getting the best from review recommendations

The contribution of domestic and family violence death reviews in Australia: From recommendations to reform?

“…These barriers are unlikely to be reflected in written materials and assessing them would require an implementation analysis approach that engages directly with recipient entities and DVDRs. Alternatively, under-implementation could indicate that the official “government” response to recommendations does not represent the perspective of the entities ultimately then tasked with implementation, which may consider the recommendations unfeasible, undesirable, impracticable or incapable of implementation (Buckley & O’Nolan, 2013; Moore & Henaghan, 2014; NSW Auditor-General, 2021; Stutz, 2008; Sutherland et al, 2014).…”

“…We note, however, that the SMART method has been criticised for stymying creativity, focusing on outputs instead of outcomes and encouraging a mechanistic approach to DVDR recommendation making (Rowlands, 2023). Any guidelines should, therefore, ensure that recommendations can be made that move beyond “superficial aspects of procedures” and encourage “deeper learning” (Buckley & O’Nolan, 2013, p. 31).…”

“…Concerns about the lack of monitoring and implementation of DVDR recommendations are similar to those that have been raised about the quality and effectiveness of recommendations made by other death review bodies, such as coroners (Bugeja, Ibrahim, et al, 2012; Bugeja, Woolford, et al, 2018; Grech, 2004; Moore & Henaghan, 2014; Sutherland, Bugeja, et al, 2014; Sutherland, Studdert, et al, 2016) and child death review teams (Wirtz et al, 2011). They also mirror concerns about the efficacy of public inquiry bodies more broadly (e.g., Buckley & O’Nolan, 2013; Mintrom et al, 2021; Stark, 2019; Stutz, 2008).…”