Men’s violence against women in Australia is recognised as a . We urgently need to better understand what can be done to prevent it and intervene effectively.
Authors
Kate Fitz-Gibbon
Professor (Practice), Faculty of Business and Economics, Monash University, Monash University
Jasmine McGowan
Lecturer in Criminology, Monash University
There is a need to hold perpetrators to account for their abusive behaviour. This is set out in the . Men’s behaviour change programs 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 programs , there is still limited understanding of whether perpetrators engage in these programs and why. Our research, , provides new evidence on what is needed to improve the efficacy of behaviour change programs with the goal of improving women and children’s safety.
Our study
For , we interviewed and surveyed men who had participated in a behaviour change program to understand what their experiences were like. We also interviewed family members of participants and practitioners who deliver the programs. 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. Program completion, for example, should not be construed as success.
Most family members questioned whether participants ever genuinely engage with a program.
Housing impacts engagement
sought to better understand what factors impact a person’s level of engagement in a behaviour change program.
We found that housing instability is a key risk factor for disengagement. Housing stability is crucial for program eligibility and for supporting attendance, engagement and program completion. Practitioners reflected that where men do not have stable accommodation they are more likely to skip group sessions and exit the program 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 program participants.
Court referrals and issues with motivation
identified significant challenges to engaging men who are required (mandated) by the court to attend a behaviour change program. 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 program content. This was confirmed by the family members we interviewed who spoke about how participants who were mandated to go to a program 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
showed while programs 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 program. One in six were planning to do another program but were not yet enrolled. And one in 20 were already enrolled or on a waiting list for another program.
People who use violence currently do not have consistent access to post-program 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 program is particularly important when children are involved as it can provide additional oversight.
Many practitioners recognised the value of post-program support but noted they lacked the resources to provide this service. There needs to be better resourcing to help provide this.
What now?
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 programs or if alternative interventions are necessary to better meet their needs and hold them accountable.
We recommend that as part of holding program participants to account, program providers should submit a completion report to the court when a participant exits a program. 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 programs are important, but they are only one part of a much needed suite of interventions to address domestic and family violence.
Kate has received funding for family violence-related research from the Australian Research Council, Australian Institute of Criminology, Australia’s ³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾ Research Organisation for Women’s Safety, the Victorian, Queensland and ACT governments, and the Commonwealth Department of Social Services. This piece is written by Kate Fitz-Gibbon in her role at Monash University and is wholly independent of Kate Fitz-Gibbon’s role as Chair of Respect Victoria. This article presents findings from a Victorian Government funded project.
Jasmine McGowan received funding from the Victorian Government for this project.
