How to build the financial case for occupational violence prevention training

Start from Part 1: staff have a right to a workplace free from violence, and the organisation has a duty to provide one. That is the reason to act. Executives still have to choose between competing priorities, so the money is usually won on cost and risk.

Services that win funding argue that one avoided claim pays for the program. This part sets out that case step by step, with the Australian evidence to back each part.

Step 1: What is violence already costing your service?

Start with your own figures, because executives fund what they can see on their own books. Your network's workers' compensation premium, contribution or expense is published in its audited annual report. Those reports are public, but they don't show the costs that sit outside a claim.

Gather four numbers:

1. Workers' compensation cost. The premium or contribution line in your network's financial statements, for the last two years. In NSW, almost every LHD's contribution rose 12% to 44% in 2024-25 (NSW Health financial statements).
2. Violence incidents and claims. From your incident system (RiskMan, VHIMS, ims+) and, in Victoria, the mandatory occupational violence table in your annual report.
3. Lost time. Days off, and the cost of backfilling shifts with overtime or agency staff.
4. Restrictive practice. Seclusion and restraint rates from your Chief Psychiatrist's reporting. This is where staff are most likely to be injured.

This year’s figures point the same way in every state. Accepted mental injury claims across the WorkCover Queensland scheme doubled from 1,974 in 2021-22 to 4,110 in 2025-26 (WorkCover Queensland). SA’s health networks and SA Ambulance carried $228m in workers’ compensation liabilities at 30 June 2026, our sum of their audited figures (SA Auditor-General). And on one day in June 2026, 96 Tasmanian hospital staff were on injury leave (Legislative Council answers).

Our state guides list the published figures for each network, and the full table is on the open data page.

Step 2: Which arguments will get it funded?

Lead with cost and lost time, back it with compliance, and keep clinical evidence for the objections. Each argument persuades a different member of the buying group, so a strong case uses all five.

Step 3: What does the evidence actually show?

The case rests on a four-step chain, and it's honest about which steps are proven. Executives respect a case that names its limits, and it protects you when someone asks for evidence.

1. 1 Strong

   Safewards reduces conflict and containment

   A UK randomised trial found 15% less conflict and about a quarter less containment (Bowers et al. 2015), and Victoria's trial wards saw 36% less seclusion (Fletcher et al. 2017).

2. 2 Promising

   Less conflict means fewer violent incidents

   A Victorian ED pilot found about 30% lower odds of a code grey (Safer Care Victoria, 2021). Not yet shown on general wards (SCV, 2023).

3. 3 Moderate

   Less restraint means fewer staff injuries

   Restraint is the most common activity when serious staff injuries happen in mental health services: 27% in UK NHS trusts (Renwick et al. 2016). Services that reduced restraint saw no rise in staff injuries.

4. 4 One study

   Fewer injuries means lower cost

   In one US unit that cut restraint by 91%, workers' compensation payments fell 98%, sick days 53% and staff turnover 80% (LeBel and Goldstein 2005).

Step 4: How do you answer the objections?

Expect four objections, and answer each in the objector's own terms.

• "There's no evidence for it in our area." Strong evidence exists in mental health, promising results in EDs, and it aligns with NSQHS requirements. Offer to generate local evidence: a 90-day measurement plan turns "no evidence" into "let's find out".
• "We've done training before and nothing changed." One-off training is the weak version. Ask what was measured, and propose a model with ward champions, simulation and follow-up (see what practical de-escalation training involves). Regulators now expect training to sit within a system of controls.
• "We can't release staff." Compare the hours of training with the hours already lost: a single restraint episode takes 11 to 13 staff hours (LeBel and Goldstein 2005), and one psychological injury claim can mean months of backfill.
• "It's just another program." Staff are tired of tick-box exercises. Ask for an executive sponsor whose own performance is tied to sustaining the model, and say so in the case.

Six common objections, including “there’s no budget” and “more security is the answer”, each have their own page with the evidence and the words to use: answering objections.

Step 5: How do you show it worked?

Build the evaluation into the case before you ask for money. Funded programs get revisited, often when a new executive or consultant arrives, and measurement is what keeps them alive.

1. Before you start

   Baseline

   Violence incidents, code greys or blacks, seclusion and restraint rates, workers' compensation claims and lost days, staff sense of safety.

2. 90 days

   Early signal

   Training completion, champion activity, incident trend, staff survey.

3. 12 months

   The result

   The same measures against baseline, claims and lost days, and cost avoided.

Use measures you already collect, report them to the same committee every quarter, and name an owner.

Step 6: How do you put it on one page?

Executives fund a single page, with the detail behind it. A one-page business case for OVA prevention training needs six parts:

Download the one-page template (Word or PDF)

Find the numbers for your state

Next: Part 3, how to find funding, then Part 4, how to present your case and get to yes.