The WESNET Committee has made it a priority
to respond to the issue of perpetrator programs. This is an issue which for ten years now
has been of great interest and concern to women’s services, and which has seen a real
growth in programs and policies. In 1996 the National Forum on Domestic Violence hosted by
the Commonwealth Office of the Status of Women made a series of recommendations regarding
perpetrator programs. It is timely that women’s services nationally make some
comment.
A working group of the WESNET National
Committee considered the broad issues regarding perpetrator programs, and examined a
variety of service guidelines which had been produced by different States. The group found
some important similarities and some real differences emerging between the States.
WESNET strongly supports a number of
overarching principles which need to guide any intervention programs with perpetrators of
domestic violence:
- That the safety and ongoing protection of
the victims is the overriding concern of any intervention.
- That men should take responsibility for the
violence they inflict.
- Domestic violence is a crime and no
intervention should ever substitute for a criminal response.
- Resources for perpetrator programs must
never be at the expense of, or diminish the resources available for victims.
- Programs must be based on a gender analysis
and be culturally appropriate.
- Differences between the types of programs
for perpetrators of domestic violence and perpetrators of sexual assault should be
acknowledged and acted on in the formulation of such programs.
- Nationally based training and accreditation,
monitoring and evaluation must be put into place.
- Outcomes must be based on the elimination of
violence as reported by the victims.
WESNET also recommends the
following:
1. Resourcing/funding
(a) Men’s SAAP services.
It is often said that ‘more should be
done for men’, ‘what about refuges for men?’ or that ‘women get all
the help’. The fact is that there are more SAAP beds for men than women. Yet to what
extent have men’s SAAP services have used their resources to combat domestic
violence? SAAP services accommodating men (including young men) should be required to more
effectively resource perpetrators with accommodation and support (including counselling).
(b) User Pays
This has been shown in NSW and WA to be an
effective source of funding for perpetrator programs, and indeed perpetrator fees have
been used to fund parallel women’s groups. The Queensland Government has approved
Minimem Practice Standards for Men’s Domestic Violence Perpetrator Progams which
endorse this principle. User pays (on a means tested basis) should be a required funding
source.
(c) Attorney Generals/Correction
Departments
For court mandated programs we strongly
recommend that funding should be sourced from the Department which funds the courts which
order the counselling, or the Department implementing other court imposed penalties (eg
probation, imprisonment).
2. National Guidelines
A cursory examination of the guidelines
that have been developed on a State by State basis reveals a disturbing number of
variations between States. We call for a National set of standards to include:
- national Accreditation and Training
Standards;
- monitoring by outside agencies (preferably
non-government); and
- inclusion of a female facilitator in all
groups.
3. Parallel Women’s Groups
Without running parallel women’s
groups, there is a real danger that stand- alone men’s groups will lose a perspective
on what is happening for the women who are the partners or ex-partners of the
participants. Running parallel women’s groups also ensures that a community does not
have a men’s group and nothing for women.
Money raised from men participating in the
men’s group on the user-pays principle, should be adequate to fund the associated
parallel women’s group.
Women’s participation, however, must
be voluntary. There should be no pressure on women to participate.
4. Children to be Given Equal
Status as Victims
In developing and implementing
perpetrator’s programs, the effects on children of domestic violence must be taken
into account, and the outcomes of children of such programs must also be considered.