Men’s violence against women in Australia is recognised as a national crisis. We urgently need to better understand what can be done to prevent it and intervene effectively.
There is a need to hold perpetrators to account for their abusive behaviour.
This is set out in the National Plan to end Violence against Women and Children. Men’s behaviour change programmes are a key component of the broader strategy to hold men accountable for their actions and prevent future abuse.
While there has been an increase in funding for these programmes in recent years, there is still limited understanding of whether perpetrators engage in these programmes and why.
Our research, released today, provides new evidence on what is needed to improve the efficacy of behaviour change programmes with the goal of improving women and children’s safety.
Our study
For this study, we interviewed and surveyed men who had participated in a behaviour change programme to understand what their experiences were like.
We also interviewed family members of participants and practitioners who deliver the programmes. While data collection was conducted in Victoria, our findings are relevant to all Australian states and territories.
We found engagement is influenced by many factors, including how ready individuals were to change their behaviours and attitudes, how motivated they were, what referral pathways they had come through, and what external support systems they had in place.
In our interviews, many victim-survivors were sceptical about “engagement” and what it means.
Family members often pointed out the need to distinguish between attendance, engagement and completion. They noted each of these concepts refer to different things, and that one does not imply the other. Programme completion, for example, should not be construed as success.
Most family members questioned whether participants ever genuinely engage with a programme.
Housing impacts engagement
Our study sought to better understand what factors impact a person’s level of engagement in a behaviour change programme.
We found that housing instability is a key risk factor for disengagement.
Housing stability is crucial for programme eligibility and for supporting attendance, engagement and programme completion. Practitioners reflected that where men do not have stable accommodation they are more likely to skip group sessions and exit the programme early.
It is then highly challenging to monitor and manage their ongoing risk where no fixed address is provided.
There was clear recognition among practitioners that there are limited housing supports available for people who use violence, placing a burden on men’s services to identify accommodation options for programme participants.
Court referrals and issues with motivation
Our study identified significant challenges to engaging men who are required (mandated) by the court to attend a behaviour change programme. This is a main referral pathway. We need to understand how it can be more effectively used.
Practitioners reflected that court-mandated participants often have low attendance and engagement with programme content.
This was confirmed by the family members we interviewed who spoke about how participants who were mandated to go to a programme often didn’t want to take responsibility for their actions.
These participants were often seen as motivated primarily by self-serving outcomes, such as gaining access to children, complying with court orders or avoiding further criminal justice intervention.
There was a perception these men were not genuinely motivated to change their behaviours. Family members and practitioners viewed this as problematic. The court order might initiate attendance but did not guarantee longer-term engagement.
This finding is perhaps unsurprising given these men had not opted to attend voluntarily.
It highlights that there is no one-size-fits-all approach and we need to understand what interventions are effective for whom and what else may be needed.
Follow-up support needed
Our study showed while programmes are a core intervention, they should not be considered the be-all and end-all.
One in four of the men we surveyed told us they were seeking additional support after completing a behaviour change programme.
One in six were planning to do another programme but were not yet enrolled. And one in 20 were already enrolled or on a waiting list for another programme.
People who use violence currently do not have consistent access to post-programme support.
This impacts the system’s ability to keep perpetrators in view and support longer-term behaviour and attitudinal change.
Family members told us support after the programme is particularly important when children are involved as it can provide additional oversight.
Many practitioners recognised the value of post-programme support but noted they lacked the resources to provide this service. There needs to be better resourcing to help provide this.
What now?
Our research shows the current approach to working with perpetrators is missing opportunities to more effectively engage men in behaviour change, keep their risk visible and hold them to account.
These missed opportunities represent important moments where victim-survivor safety could be improved.
State governments need to consider expanding housing options for people who have been removed from their primary residence, potentially as part of an intervention order.
This should be seen as part of the wider strategy for people who use violence. Importantly, this should not come at the cost of providing adequate accommodation services for victim-survivors.
We need to better understand how court-mandated participants can effectively engage with behaviour change programmes or if alternative interventions are necessary to better meet their needs and hold them accountable.
We recommend that as part of holding programme participants to account, programme providers should submit a completion report to the court when a participant exits a programme.
These completion reports should be used by the courts to inform future judicial decisions involving the person using violence.
Improving current practices requires sustained funding models and a more comprehensive approach to engaging people who use violence in behaviour change.
These programmes are important, but they are only one part of a much needed suite of interventions to address domestic and family violence.
- First published in The Conversation
- Finlay Macdonald is a New Zealand journalist, editor, publisher and broadcaster.
Related Posts:
News category: Analysis and Comment.
