Mixed evidence

Programs in the US have been comprehensively evaluated, albeit with mixed results. Equally mixed – and regrettably vexed on occasion – is the associated academic debate.247 _{Given that}

it is not generally considered appropriate to conduct a fully experimental study in which some perpetrators are offered intervention while others are offered none at all, many studies are also ‘quasi-experimental’ at best – criticised for lack of a ‘gold standard’ evidence base that, arguably, it is not ethical to achieve.248

What’s more, evaluations dismissing or endorsing particular models are often undermined by variations in the implementation of that model.249 _{Meanwhile, debate continues about whether}

programs are more effective when mandated or voluntary,250 _{with commentators pointing to a}

241 R Maiuro & J Eberle, ‘State Standards for Domestic Violence Perpetrator Treatment: Current Status, Trends and Recommendations,’ Violence and Victims, Volume 23, November 2, 2008.

242 MBCP practitioners told the CIJ that many community based programs were about to lose government funding and that they were therefore uncertain about how they would continue to operate.

243 Minimum Standards, No to Violence. At http://ntv.org.au/what-we-do/mens-behaviour-change/standards-and-guidelines/ standards-of-practice/minimum-standards/.

244 Department of Communities, Professional Practice Standards, Working with men who perpetrate domestic and family violence, Queensland Government.

245 This includes by NTV themselves. Consultation with Rodney Vlais, Acting CEO, No to Violence. Respect in the UK recommend a minimum of 75 hours over 30 weeks. At http://www.respect.org.uk.

246 C Humpheys, C Laming and K Diemer, above note 4.

247 K Corvo, D Dutton & W-Y Chen, ‘Toward Evidence-Based Practice with Domestic Violence Perpetrators’, Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, Vol 16(2) #48 2008.

248 Urbis, above note 220. See also A Day, D Chung, P O’Leary and E Carson, ‘Programs for Men who Perpetrate Domestic Violence: An Examination of the Issues Underlying the Effectiveness of Intervention Programs’, Journal of Family Violence, DOI 10.1007/s10896-008-9221-4, published online 31 January 2009.

249 Ibid.

250 Practitioners suggest that it is the job of the criminal justice system to get men into a program, and the job of the program to make them want to change. R Vlais, ‘Domestic Violence Perpetrator Programs: Education, Therapy, Support, Accountability ‘or’ Struggle?’. No to Violence, At http://www.ntv.org.au.

higher drop-out rate for voluntary participants, for example, but significantly less willingness to engage on the part of mandated participants.251

Equally, assessments which use recidivism as a measure do not account for the fact that a program which is part of an integrated response, or which allows for heightened monitoring of the perpetrator, is more likely to identify further offending, or to encourage victims to report it.252

In other words, a robust empirical evidence base around best practice in this area is difficult to achieve.253

It is important to note, however, that the elusive nature of ‘proof’ that MBCPs work should not detract from many studies which indicate that these programs do have a significant positive impact.254

Recent long term work, in particular, has taken a more qualitative approach and examined the experiences of perpetrators, victims and practitioners associated with these programs. For example:

— A long term Australian study has indicated that men do experience participation in an MBCP as a significant and meaningful consequence.255

— A substantial project in the UK entitled Project Mirabel has recently released findings that a considerable number of men do reduce or cease their use of violence and coercion as a result of participation in these programs.256

— Equally, it is vital to recognise the considerable experience of many practitioners, who report the significant difference that perpetrator programs can make.257

As the EIF has observed, the debate about the value of standard batterer/men’s behaviour change programs

…is a very good example of the tensions between the requirements of evaluation on the one hand and the locally variable and self-generated approaches of much local practice on the other.258

Jurisdictions should therefore take the opportunity to identify the combination of measures which may be more useful for determining the effectiveness of MBCPs – ones which use qualitative, as well as quantitative data, and which draw from the experiences of participants, partners and practitioners alike. Certain common features in the existing research, however, are useful to examine for the purposes of this Report – highlighting opportunities which may need to be seized more effectively if MBCPs are to reach their full potential.

251 Some report that the mandated nature of programs can sometimes increase men’s sense of victimisation. A Day, D Chung, P O’Leary, D Justo, S Moore, E Carson & A Gerace, ‘Integrated responses to domestic violence: Legally mandated intervention programs for male perpetrators’, Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice, No. 404, December 2010. Australian Institute of Criminology.

252 Labriola et al, above note 228.

253 J Breckenridge & J Hamer, ‘Traversing the Maze of ‘Evidence’ and ‘Best Practice’ in Domestic and Family Violence Service Provision in Australia’, Issues Paper 26, May 2014. Australian Domestic & Family Violence Clearinghouse.

254 Brown & Hampson, above note 223. 255 J Smith, above note 122.

256 Project Mirabal, above note 236.

257 ‘Perpetrator programs do work’ At http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-growing-problem-of-family-violence-in-victoria. This was reiterated in consultations with practitioners in MBCPs around in NSW, Victoria, Western Australia, the Northern Territory, Queensland and the ACT.