Lessons from practice

Key findings

• Service providers found that once trusting relationships are formed between the participants and their facilitator and/or fellow group members, a deeper level of engagement is reached.
• When one-on-one support is offered in parallel to group programs it provides additional educational support to participants who are struggling to grasp concepts covered in the group sessions, and prepares individuals for group work by addressing higher level needs.
• For many of the cohorts included in the new programs, an element of ‘healing’ in the behaviour change process is often required in order to achieve lasting change in the use of violence. This needs to be delivered within a framework of acknowledging responsibility for the use of violence.
• An aspect of most of the programs was to facilitate holistic wrap-around service provision for the people who use violence. Addressing these needs enables the person to then better engage in addressing their violent behaviours.
• When delivering cohort trials, providers have demonstrated flexibility in approaches, taking into account individual need. This included flexibility of session content, timing, delivery methods, and intensity.
• Providing support to people who experience violence via a Family safety contact provided a tailored service to these people, and increased visibility of risk factors. There were some challenges in resourcing this role.
• Some challenges were identified, including the impact on the resources available to deliver this more intensive level of support, and barriers to engaging with people who experience violence.
• Large amounts of the brokerage funding in the first twelve months went unspent, with only 14% of the total allocated brokerage acquitted, as of October 2019. There were reported difficulties in making decisions about how to spend brokerage appropriately, given a hesitance to provide financial assistance to people who use violence.

4.1 Introduction

The evidence suggests that tailoring perpetrator interventions to cater for a diverse range of individual needs, enables a greater variety of people who use violence to access and benefit from these programs. There are specific approaches that better enable previously excluded or under-serviced groups to benefit from government funded perpetrator intervention, as outlined in the previous chapter. The evaluation has determined effective approaches to delivering interventions to people who use violence, through these six key features that have been observed in the current practices of the providers delivering the new cohort trials and case management:

• trusting relationships between participants and facilitators, and among group members to encourage engagement and participation
• utilising both individual and group work [1] in a complementary manner
• balancing responsibility for violence with a trauma informed approach to address the underlying factors contributing to violent behaviour
• facilitating a holistic, wrap-around approach to address contextual factors in a person’s life by connecting them to the broader service system
• allowing flexibility in approach for people with different levels of need and at varying stages of change
• providing support to people who experience violence via the family safety contact function.

The evidence to inform these lessons are based on findings from cohort-specific group trials and case management for people who use violence with complex needs. However, a small number of examples were provided in consultations of strategies used in these trials being applied to mainstream practice. This occurred as providers were sharing learnings from the trials which they deemed to have benefits for mainstream services also. Therefore, the above features may be beneficial aspects of perpetrator interventions more broadly.

The evidence presented in the following sections outlines the ‘enablers’ of these features, and any ‘barriers’ (what challenges still exist) to achieve each of these key features.

4.2 Trusting relationships

In order to fully engage in an intervention, people who use violence first need to acknowledge their violent behaviour. Their willingness to honestly admit to violence, and demonstrate a need to address this, is most likely to occur when participants feel safe and trusted by those around them.

Participants reported that the stigma associated with perpetrating violence was a barrier to being involved in a behaviour change program. This attitude was particularly prevalent among male participants, but in some cases also extended to women who use force and LGBTI participants. Some male participants indicated that they felt ‘judged’, ‘attacked’, or ‘threatened’ by programs for people who use violence. Therefore, overcoming this feeling within participants, by gaining their trust, was a key component of the perpetrator intervention.

Well, there isn't probably that many services for men. I'm not 100% saying that that's true or not, but in my eyes, there's probably not that many for men and if there is, it has got that stigma behind it… It reflects badly on you, but it shouldn’t reflect badly. You're out there to try and help yourself and it shouldn't ever - nobody should ever feel bad about themselves for doing something for themselves.

Really, I’m feeling better when I share the things with him and I know it’s confidential and all that and I’m feeling positive energy with him.

4.2.1 Trusting relationships - ‘enablers’

Service providers found that once trusting relationships are formed between the participants and their facilitator and/or fellow group members, a deeper level of engagement is reached.

4.2.1.1 Trusting relationships between facilitators and participants

Cohort trial and case management facilitators stated that in cases where they are able to create trusting and positive professional relationships with participants, this was the avenue to achieve reliable and consistent contact between the facilitator and participant.

Most participants highlighted that the programs had helped them to feel safe and comfortable to discuss challenging topics. Participants reported that they valued the ‘non-judgemental’ approach adopted by program staff, as they felt that they were in an environment where they could discuss their behaviours. This enabled the case worker to focus on the needs of the individual in order to address their use of violence, through a lens of accountability. For many participants, this was a new experience.

Emotional support… when you're a kid, when you're a male, your emotions get compressed by other people, like you know, 'man up,' 'be tough,' you know? 'Be strong,' 'don't be a wuss,' you know? And you compress that. But he got in there, and yeah, it was quite – he opened me up like a can of worms.

ust the fact that you talk through problems, talk through scenarios and they make you feel comfortable, they don’t judge you… As bad as the truth is, they don’t judge you. And you walk out feeling – walking out a better person.

4.2.1.2 Closed group format

All the cohort trials adopted a ‘closed-group’ format, whereby the same attendees would be present each week, and new members could not join after the first week. This approach is in contrast to a number of mainstream MBCPs which are ‘open’ or ‘rolling’ groups, meaning that participants can join or leave at any point in the program, and therefore there is variation each week.

The group-based support in cohort trials generally involves multiple individuals of similar backgrounds or social contexts taking part in weekly group sessions. This dynamic whereby participants shared common experiences is reported to have generated a greater level of rapport and support among group members. This was an important factor in providing additional motivation for attendance and engagement in the intervention.

Some participants indicated that it was beneficial for them to be in a group of people who shared similar experiences. This was particularly evident among LGBTI participants, as well as women who use force, with participants from both cohorts indicating that they had previously struggled to find suitable services prior to engagement in the program. Some participants talked of the importance of being part of their ‘community’, highlighting that this had helped to create a comfortable environment to address their behaviour.

It was so, I suppose, a comforting feeling and we knew that we were all there through traumatic circumstances of some type, it was a safe spot. It became a real safe spot that we looked forward to going to. (Person who uses violence, Cohort Trial, Women who use Force)

You feel really supported… It makes you feel really connected just to have people there. I've made a lot of friends through the group… Having that connection with other people who feel the same way that you do, and being able to share your experiences with each other, really helps. (Person who uses violence, Cohort Trial, Women who use Force)

It was in some cases, however, important for providers to monitor the status of these relationships, through awareness of participant interactions and conversations, to ensure collusion between participants would not occur, whereby they would justify each other’s use of violence.

4.2.2 Trusting relationships - ‘barriers’

For some case management participants who also attend mainstream MBCPs, they experienced difficulty developing connections with other participants, which in turn impacted on their ability to engage. Some highlighted the diversity in experiences and backgrounds among participants as something that impacted on the group dynamic, including a mixture of mandated and voluntary participants. For example, participants without children noted difficulty in being able to relate to participants who were parents.

There’s me and one other guy in there that don’t have kids, all the other guys have kids. Sometimes the group becomes a bit kid focused (Person who uses violence, Case Management)

You're sitting there with 20 guys, and you're not really – you know, same thing over, and over again, and they're not listening to it. He said, “I just rocked up, paid the money, sat down, nodded my head, and went back home.” And I don't think that's – it must work for some, but… it's very hard to be heard, and felt like being heard in a group… eventually you’ll open up in one-on-one, and understand more. (Person who uses violence, Case Management)

Whilst these participants are able to develop trusting relationships with their case manager, there is still a challenge that exists whereby they feel somewhat isolated from ‘peer support’, which, as indicated above, can be an enabler for addressing violent behaviour.

4.3 The complementary nature of individual and group work

Both group work and one-on-one case management each play an important but distinct role in the behaviour change process. It has been acknowledged in a number of large-scale studies that the incorporation of individualised case management approaches to complement group MBCPs will assist to increase readiness for group work, and reduce program drop-out [2]. This ability to support group-based interventions with one-on-one case management was recognised a top priority for MBCPs in Victoria [3].

But if I went straight and did the group, and then walked away and didn’t do the individual sessions, I don’t think it would have been as positive as a result. Definitely going in and almost debriefing was very important after the group.

The one on one probably more beneficial on your own situation but I would say they work well together.

The course is essential, I reckon, the group work. But the one on one's good too. Yeah, I couldn’t discredit either of them as being not worthy. But you've got to do the course first, I reckon. For sure.

Five out of seven cohort trials offered a combination of group and one-on-one work to their participants. A number of case management providers offered this one-on-one support to people who were also participating in mainstream MBCPs.

Providers reported three main reasons for offering more intensive individualised support in parallel with group work:

• providing additional educational support to participants who are struggling to grasp concepts covered in the group sessions
• preparing individuals for group support by addressing higher level needs or their willingness to undergo behaviour change
• addressing complex needs that had not been addressed previously by mainstream services.

4.3.1 Providing complementary individual and group work - ‘enablers’

4.3.1.1 Providing additional support

As described in Section 4.2.1, the closed-group nature of cohort trials generated an environment of trust and support among group members. This had the benefit of facilitating peer learning, resulting in group participants supporting each other through the change process.

In addition to being supported through the sharing of common experiences, participants were exposed to the different ideas and opinions of other group members. Some participants noted they learned things from groups that they otherwise would not have.

Sometimes I don’t know what I don’t know. So when I’m sitting in a group, I can hear somebody else’s story and identify something that I didn’t know. Whereas if I was doing one-on-one I can’t really identify those things...

I think in a group you learn new ideas as well, people be there to contribute new ideas through experiences they’ve had in life...

Being a group environment you, I, find that I learn a lot from observing others. So by watching, when the new guys came in, there was a guy that came in who had sort of drug problems and his relationship was breaking down. And he was sitting there really owning his shit, and sort of talking through everything really candidly. And I found it really helpful because I saw myself in him. So listening to his story and hearing what we was going through and hearing the emotional, the feelings that he was feeling. And the way that he was overcoming it. Things like that I started implementing those things for myself to.

However, many participants indicated that they felt more comfortable sharing their experiences in a one-on-one setting compared to a group. Participants stated that they would be anxious about opening up in a group context. Building trust with a case worker one-on-one encouraged participants to discuss sensitive issues.

Sometimes when you’re in the group sitting there’s certain things that you feel too afraid to face, or questions that you might feel are too stupid to ask. I feel like if you have that one-on-one time, it could give you the opportunity to ask something without facing – inner demons or self-doubt...

One on one’s a little bit more intimate I suppose… I’m a bit weary I suppose of talking about myself to other guys. You feel a bit vulnerable.

It's more confidential - it's more private, I suppose. Yeah, it's more comfortable. You haven't got the pressure of having 40 eyes looking at you.

Some participants mentioned that case management allowed them to identify specific causes and triggers of their behaviour, by facilitating a greater self-understanding. They considered that having a case worker who was able to understand their unique circumstances was an integral component of this.

[Case Worker] would look at different angles, okay. ‘what are the things that are attached to my relationship that actually have gone to take an ugly turn?’ Then he would find all the causes… identifying these things and then controlling them… and then implementing on yourself… it was a rigorous sort of approach…

When program staff work individually with people who use violence in conjunction to their group work, they are able to tailor behaviour change strategies to the specific needs of the individual. This tailoring assists people who use violence with their learning by focussing on specific and relevant aspects of things covered in the group work.

So it was important to me to have that contact with [Case Worker] afterwards, just to chat. I mean, we went over some of the things in the course one-on-one, some of the things that were relevant to me, some of the things that weren’t, some of the things other people concentrated on them and I wanted to talk about me. It was good to do. I would strongly say to any of the guys who finish that course, go and have a couple of one-on-one sessions for yourself. For no one else, just for yourself.

How I could essentially fix my shortcomings. I liked the - the Men’s Behaviour Change program the group aspect, was quite enlightening. But it wasn’t personalised I suppose, or individualised and I like that with the one on one sessions. Where I could explain different aspects about me, and how certain things specifically affect me.

Well yes, they went more in depth here with my personal issues. More so than, as what I had in the men’s behavioural. And ongoing issues that were arising. So yes, it’s been more focused around what I’m dealing with at the present. And ways to get around that.

Individual case managers were also able to monitor participants as they progressed through the group program, and provide additional support to participants if they identified any challenges. Participants reported that meetings with their case worker involved ‘touching base’ and unpacking topics from group sessions.

Every four weeks we have a one on one instead of group. For a check-up of how you’re doing and what’s new or if you’re having a hard time… It’s a tell-all just so the instructors know we’re on the same level...

I see for one-on-one sessions just to catch up. That's usually once a week, every fortnight, whatever, just to see how I'm going with the program and if everything is all good. She just likes to check up on me.

4.3.1.2 Group readiness

The ability of one-on-one work to address barriers to individuals accessing perpetrator intervention programs is often crucial to their continued engagement in support. Removing barriers to engagement is often necessary for people who use violence, as some are living with multiple issues including physical health, mental health, social and/or economic instability. Providers found it difficult to focus on accountability and strategies for behaviour change when a person was in crisis or had a number of physical and social support needs that needed follow up. Supporting people to meet their basic physical needs (particularly in times of crisis) creates additional time and space for individuals to attend the group sessions and address higher level needs. Additionally, individuals exhibiting low readiness to change at the time of referral or with complex needs often require additional intervention/s so they are more able to engage in a group work process. Due to the one-on-one component of most cohort trials and the addition of case management, individuals received more individualised support. This approach increases the inclusivity of perpetrator interventions to those who are not suitable at the time of referral. It provides an opportunity to educate the participant about the support they will receive through group work, and the need to take accountability for their violent behaviour. Further, with the inclusion of these individuals in case management support, this also means the person who experiences violence will also be contacted for support. Previously they would not have been engaged unless the person who uses violence was.

Many participants expressed difficulty with the concept of taking responsibility for their behaviour. Some participants talked of needing to be at a stage where they felt ready to accept responsibility and commit to the program.

It took me a bit of convincing that this would be the right sort - I was sort of afraid to go into a program like that. Sort of found it a bit scary and then I thought, oh, my situation isn't that bad; I don't need this program.

I think there's definitely always going to be women who aren't quite ready… [to] actually accept that, maybe you could have done things differently. If you don't think you're wrong in any way, shape or form, then it's really hard to look forward and change behaviour… I definitely think you'll always get those women that, for no other reason, than they're just not quite at that point.

For some participants, they may never be ready for group work and therefore will continue with one-on-one support for the duration of their intervention. The availability of ongoing one-on-one work is an important focus of the new case management program, as it increases the service delivery options for people who use violence but may not be suitable for MBCPs.

4.3.2 Providing complementary individual and group work - ‘barriers’

Whilst there are obvious benefits to offering both group and individualised support as part of perpetrator intervention, this does have an impact on the resources available to deliver this more intensive level of support. In some cases, providers noted that the burden on staff to meet the demand for individualised support was greater than anticipated. This included both the time commitment, as well as burn out and the effects of vicarious trauma in some cases. For those providers who did not offer both group and one-on-one work, one of the reasons given was the lack of staff capacity to undertake this.

4.4 Addressing accountability with a trauma informed approach

Providers of the programs included in this evaluation (both cohort trials and case management) were aware that unless there is an element of ‘healing’ in the behaviour change process, there is unlikely to be a lasting change in the use of violence. This was particularly evident when working with women who use force, LGBTI people, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who use violence. Providers of programs for these groups explicitly designed their interventions to acknowledge and address trauma, as indicated in the funding submission for the program for the LGBTI cohort trial:

When working with clients, we will be guided by trauma informed approaches and use a trauma lens that explores the motives, dynamics and context for the violence so that they can be properly addressed. In addition, we will assess current victimisation and personal safety and will use a client centred approach to explore the existing strengths and resources that clients can utilise in their journey to take responsibility for and stop using violence.

4.4.1 Addressing accountability with a trauma informed approach – ‘enablers’

4.4.1.1 Recognising past trauma

Participants in the program for women who use force indicated that a key focus of the program was recognising the relationship between past trauma and current acts of violence. The women identified themselves as ‘victims’ of family violence, while still also being recognised as ‘perpetrators’ of violence. By addressing experiences of victimisation, the intervention aims to facilitate a change of mindset to one of accountability, which then leads to behaviour change.

Providers employed frameworks and techniques in order to shift participant’s perspectives, using techniques designed to demonstrate the lasting impact that their violence has had on others, whilst also recognising the trauma they themselves had experienced. This enabled them to link their experiences of trauma with their use of violence:

I was seeing [Case Worker], and she was probably one of the better kind of people that I've worked with in dealing with some of the trauma that over the past has accumulated and she was really incredible. Like, she knows the intersection of queerness and how we use violence and how that manifests.

4.4.1.2 Enabling self-awareness

Many participants discussed how the program helped them to understand their own behaviour, and improve their knowledge of family violence more broadly for example, that it does not pertain only to physical abuse.

It's for women who were at a point in their relationship where there's some type of family violence and they have now lost control of how they would respond to that situation, and respond out of desperation, which in turn, makes them do things that they wouldn't do under normal circumstances.

I saw lot of family violence as a child, and there are things that I do to try to protect myself from those happening, that also is a form of family violence. So like, I did those things because I'd seen so much.

Additionally, a trauma informed approach addresses the intersection between the work being undertaken with people who use violence, and the engagement with people who experience violence. Trauma informed practice focuses on physical and emotional safety, in seeking to support empowering relationships for both parties, underpinned by an awareness of the impact of violence on others.

The ‘A Better Way’ program utilised by Anglicare and VACCA highlights this approach particularly for Aboriginal clients who have experienced intergenerational and cultural trauma which intersects with their violent behaviour. Their intervention approach includes “understanding the impact of the perpetrator’s behaviour on Aboriginal children and the victim-survivor’s right to cultural practices and connections”.

4.4.2 Addressing accountability with a trauma informed approach – ‘barriers’

Whilst not necessarily a barrier to success, it is essential these trauma-informed approaches are always delivered within a framework of acknowledging accountability for the use of violence. Many people who use violence have a perceived sense of victimisation, which they use to justify their own use of violence. Multiple examples were given by providers of participants entering into an intervention with the perception that they were the victim in their violent situation, and that other people were responsible for their violence. Enabling people who use violence to be able to acknowledge and take accountability for their violent behaviours is a primary purpose of perpetrator intervention programs.

4.5 Holistic intervention

In order to increase the inclusivity of perpetrator interventions in Victoria, it was important to address the factors that make mainstream services inappropriate for certain cohorts. This was done by identifying the contextual factors that may be contributing to violent behaviour, as well as the potential barriers to engagement with services.

For most participants interviewed as part of the evaluation, the cohort trial or case management intervention they were involved in was their first time receiving assistance for family violence. Providers noted that, for many participants, it was clear that they had experienced a somewhat turbulent pathway through the service system, accessing a number of ad hoc or short-term interventions, prior to engaging in the current program. It was therefore necessary for the program staff and case managers to play a role in identifying and assessing each individual’s range of needs, in addition to addressing their use of violence. Whilst these needs do not provide justification for the use of violence, they do impact on the ability of individuals to participate in in the program and commence a meaningful behaviour change process.

4.5.1 Holistic intervention – ‘enablers’

4.5.1.1 Delivering wrap around services

A number of providers had a formalised assessment or intake process incorporated within their referral process, in order to understand the complexity of an individual’s needs, and therefore provide them with the required level of support. Once a cohort trial or case management provider has identified underlying concerns or needs for a participant, they are able to connect them in with the relevant services. Common examples included employment programs, housing services and court support.

Mental health and alcohol and other drug comorbidities are common amongst the people who use violence accessing these interventions, as discussed in Section 3.5.1. Therefore, providers commonly adapt their approaches to accommodate these needs and connect participants to appropriate supports. Specifically, neuropsychological assessments are being accessed by participants through brokerage funding.

Some participants talked of being referred to counselling, drug and alcohol support, and parenting programs by their provider in participant interviews. In many cases, it appeared that general conversations about being referred to other services had been held, however there was varying levels of actual translation into engagement in services at the time of the interviews. Reasons for a potential lack of engagement in other services is discussed further in Chapter 7.

I’m starting couples counselling shortly through [Provider]... And that will be good, but yeah, it’s just some sort of counselling and sort of talking to them about other ways that they can help... [Case Worker]’s been quite proactive about getting me in touch with the counsellor that deals specifically with family violence.

[Case Worker] has recommended trying to get me involved with a doctor or a counsellor that specialises in ABI personalities, so I’m interested in how he approaches that because that would be encouraging to me.

She understands where I’m coming from, supports, she’s pointed me in directions that I was asking. Housing, men’s behaviour, talking about that, place I could go. Other organisations I suppose that could help out in what I’d been asking her… just for places to stay, emergency accommodation and stuff like that. Other men’s help lines. Places to eat… just stuff like that… I kind of use [Case Worker] as my main service rather than going to those services… I stick to what I know.

Additionally, a small amount of brokerage was provided to case management providers. The intention of this brokerage is to assist people who use violence in circumstances where they may be experiencing crisis (e.g. homelessness) or to address a barrier which is preventing their engagement in the service (e.g. taxi vouchers). Providers reported that this assistance enabled them to offer flexibility in the assistance they provided, and respond to men’s needs as required.

Results from the FSV brokerage data showed that the top five uses of brokerage were as follows (noting that this does not reflect the total spend in each category):

1. immediate basic needs
2. transport
3. physical and mental health and wellbeing
4. support for social engagement
5. short-term accommodation.

Case study

An elderly man was referred to a case management provider due to his lack of group readiness. The initial assumption from the case management provider was that his problem with engagement was due to his poor proficiency in English. He began to attend case management weekly and over the course of the engagement, the case manager noticed the participant experiencing significant issues with memory and orientation (to time and space). Through following up on this observation, the provider was able to determine that the participant had early stages of dementia. Following this diagnosis, the provider connected the participant to community support, aged care and mental health treatment. Once his health was being treated, the participant was a lot more engaged with the intervention. The provider was able to organise support in order for him to attend meetings and groups which allowed for this increased engagement.

A secondary benefit of wrap around service provision, particularly where individual support was provided, was to enable the participant to have one person to correspond with regarding all of their needs. Case managers reportedly assisted with communicating between the individual and external services, particularly in situations where there had been no follow-up or communication had broken down.

Participants indicated that they were also able to contact their case worker outside of sessions, usually by calling them or sending a text message, and generally reported that their case workers were always accessible and responsive.

I was in touch with him through text messages and all that as well. If I needed anything I would just ask him and even he would just say how things are going, he would just text me and all that. So that, the contact was always there.

Even outside of the program, like sometimes I’ll email [Case Worker] and she’ll be in contact with me within the day. Or if I’ve called [Provider] and asked to speak to them, they’ve been available. They’re very, very available.

4.5.1.2 Increased visibility

A secondary benefit of providing a more holistic intervention to people who use violence, which touches on different aspects of their life, is the greater insight into individual needs case workers gain which in turn contributes to a more accurate picture of risk. The primary purpose of these interventions is to increase the safety of victims of family violence. By providing a more intensive service to people who use violence, particularly involving an element of one-on-one work, case workers gain a deeper contextual understanding of the person’s situation, and consequently the interactions they may be having with the person who experiences violence.

4.5.2 Holistic intervention – ‘barriers’

4.5.2.1 Brokerage

Despite the intended benefit of the brokerage funding to enable a more wrap-around support by meeting the basic needs of case management participants, large amounts of the brokerage funding in the first twelve months went unspent. Only 14% of the total allocated brokerage was acquitted, as at October 2019.

Anecdotally, there is a hesitance to provide financial assistance to perpetrators of family violence due to the potential or perceived risk that this may be supporting their use of violence. This has led to difficulty in making decisions about how brokerage can be spent appropriately, and to ensure it meets the expectations outlined in the guidelines. However, many providers report that they are spending greater amounts of brokerage as the case management program becomes embedded, as it took them some time from when the funding was released to get their case management programs up and running. The brokerage spend increases across each quarter are shown in Table 4.1. This is the first time brokerage has been allocated to programs for people who use violence, and both FSV and providers are undertaking work to better understand best practice in this context.

Table 4‑1: Quarterly brokerage spend

4.5.2.2 Burden on staff

As has been previously mentioned, the more intensive, wrap-around nature of the new programs, as compared with traditional MBCPs, can lead to over-burdening the case workers, many who have large caseloads. In some cases, the support goes beyond the scope of their role to provide case management in the context of a family violence intervention. One cohort trial provider indicated that the intensive nature of this wrap-around support was leading to staff burnout. Providers should ensure that program facilitators and case workers understand the scope of their role, and the limits of the support they are expected to provide to participants. Ongoing supervision should also be provided to staff members to ensure they are receiving the necessary support in order to undertake their role, and to mitigate burnout. Providers indicated that supervision typically involves both fortnightly individual sessions (or on as as-needed basis), as well as frequent group supervision which is often more informal, and involves sharing experiences and learnings with other facilitators.

4.6 Flexibility of interventions

People enter perpetrator intervention programs with different needs, different life circumstances, and at different stages of change. Therefore, these programs need to demonstrate flexibility to cater for different levels of motivation and individual contexts to keep participants engaged. This aligns with the TTM model outlined in Chapter 3.

In addition to group readiness as outlined above, due to individual circumstance and characteristics, individuals will progress through perpetrator interventions at different rates. By acknowledging this difference, facilitators can adjust their approach and expectations to allow for long term progression.

4.6.1 Flexibility of interventions – ‘enablers’

4.6.1.1 Flexible delivery model

When delivering cohort trials and case management, providers have demonstrated flexibility in approaches, considering individual need. Examples of flexible approaches include:

• The women who use force cohort trial model had a structured 16-week curriculum, yet depending on the needs of the group on the day, the order of the sessions could be tailored.
• The LGBTI cohort trial also demonstrated high levels of flexibility in what the topic of each session would be, through regularly asking participants what would be most helpful for them to work on each session. The provider also demonstrated flexibility in the intensity of the service provided to participants, for example whether they needed more frequent one-on-one support depending on what else might be happening in their life at the time.
• Cognitive impairment cohort trials utilised visual tools and hands-on activities for participants who did not respond as well to more traditional forms of communication. They also noted that mainstream facilitators had become more flexible and more aware of cognitive impairment presentations in their groups since the implementation of the cohort trial.
• Some case management providers indicated that they did not put a cap on the number or frequency of sessions a person could access.

The flexible nature of support was highlighted by many participants as a positive aspect of programs. Part of this pertained to the flexibility of what was covered in sessions. For example, some cohort trial participants noted that despite there being overarching structure to groups, most sessions were fluid.

It allows open conversation, you can get what you want out of it… it's not structured to the point of, 'No, now we're talking about this.'

In the one on ones or if we’re about to start group or coming back from the break, the case worker takes the time to approach me then and ask if everything is all right… they’re quick to pick up on if I’m really angry.

The flexibility of case management was appealing to participants as it allowed them to combine paid work with attendance in the program.

I work full-time, and I'm able to go at my lunch, which has made it a really, really good, really good thing to have for me, otherwise I wouldn't be able to do it. I would have had to basically change jobs, or quit my job to do the other courses other organisations wanted me to do. It didn't work, it was ridiculous what they asked me to do, but [Provider] have worked around it, and made something very easy.

I think even when I first started looking at this [Provider] stuff that one or two providers came back and said, “Yeah, we do sessions” or “we can do your interview at this time.” It was during business hours. And I said basically I can't just give up my work to be able to do these things, so it's got to be a bit more flexible.

Participants appreciated the flexibility in the timing of individual case management sessions. Participants discussed that case workers were generally available and willing to schedule or re-schedule sessions to a time most convenient to participants. This compared favourably to traditional MBCPs, which run at set times on a weekly basis.

Oh yeah, no, it was – I don’t think I would have finished the program if it wasn’t for that. I really don’t think I would have finished the behaviour change thing because that was the only reason why I really stuck with it was because I was able to do it easily the whole way through…The flexibility was great, and the actual position of it, it was – like, it took me like a minute and a half to drive there. That was probably the best thing about it.

4.6.2 Flexibility of interventions – ‘barriers’

4.6.2.1 Program timing

Although some cohort trial and case management providers did make an attempt to provide flexibility for participants, participants did find the time commitment a barrier to participation. This related to both to the total length of some of the programs, as well as the times available to attend the programs. These considerations appeared to be of particular relevance for participants receiving group-based support, and was most problematic for participants who were currently working.

Six months is quite a long time… Some people will look at the duration, it may be too much for them, because it’s every week… so if you combine that with work and other stuff, some people may feel it’s too much.

Relating to case management, some participants highlighted that a 20 session program was a big commitment for a lot of people, particularly as this was to be balanced with competing demands, such as work, family, and for some, legal cases.

I’m at uni full time and I’m trying to do this on the side plus I’m trying to have my relationship with my partner… And I’m also trying to look for a new house and – so it’s just a lot on and I’m doing also drug recovery, so I’m doing narcotics anonymous and my meetings, and I’m just constantly around the clock.

4.7 Family safety contact support

Both case management and cohort trial providers work with partners or ex-partners and child(ren) of people who use violence (where they wished to be involved). This occurs via contact with the Family safety contact worker, and the level of support varies based on the program structure and the needs of the individual. For example, some people who experience violence have access to face to face sessions with the Family safety contact worker, whereas others receive phone calls or information via email. Of the people who experienced violence for which data was recorded, sixteen of the 58 responses of those associated with the cohort trials had previously accessed specialised family violence services, and 20 of the 99 responses associated with the case management program [4]. Where the person experiencing violence is already engaged with a specialist family violence service, the family safety contact worker will liaise directly with that service with their consent.

Two cohort trials are explicitly providing family safety contact support for children of participants. Others are providing indirect support to families of participants, primarily through assistance with Child Protection matters.

4.7.1 Family safety contact – ‘enablers’

4.7.1.1 Tailored support

Discussions with the family safety contact worker involved ‘touching base’ to see how the participant had been going, and to check if they had any safety concerns. Some participants indicated that the family safety contact worker would update them on how the person who used violence was progressing in the program, although there were limits with what they were able to disclose. People who experienced violence appreciated having the family safety contact worker, noting that it was beneficial for them to have someone available to listen to their story and acknowledge their experiences.

As with the people who use violence, having someone trusted to speak with was also emphasised as an important benefit among people who experience violence. This cohort noted that having someone who could acknowledge their struggle and support them was integral to their recovery process.

I felt like she was listening. Yeah, I felt like she was actually listening and she was there to help me and not just ticking the boxes and moving on to the next question… I love that [Case Worker] listens to me, to my needs.

And just to have somebody there who – with the confidence to go no, this is wrong. And it is really supportive and it’s really good to know that you’ve got somebody on your page… as an advocate… it means more than they know.

People who experience violence derived value from the family safety contact function when they were made to feel empowered and gained confidence as a result of their support.

So, that’s why [provider] is such a godsend to some people. It’s such a valuable, a resource to use and it just gives you the confidence to be able to do what you need to do. Like report those breaches that you’re going to get laughed at or you’re going to get told that, no, no, no, that’s not a breach. Well, yes, it is.

Earlier on, some participants indicated a need for more tangible support, such as counselling, referral to other services, or financial assistance, noting that support from the safety contact was often limited. However as the trials progressed there was evidence to suggest that some people who experience violence are gaining greater access to other support services. For example, psychology appointments, English lessons, lawyers and financial counselling.

4.7.1.2 Increased visibility

Case management and cohort trial providers agreed that partner feedback is a more accurate indication of perpetrator behaviour change compared to feedback from clients themselves. Where the person who experiences violence is engaged in support via the family safety contact function, they can provide information with which to either substantiate or contradict the person who uses violence’s account. Providers who engage with partners and ex-partners can collect and record their feedback and can use it to better understand participant progress.

Some people who experience violence stated that their communication with the family safety contact worker involved corroborating the veracity of claims made by the person who used violence.

I don’t meet with [Husband]’s case worker… he calls me fairly regularly… to see if what he’s been told is true and correct in [Husband]’s session (Person who experiences violence, Cohort Trial).

This also means that in an event where risk may escalate, the provider has a means to notify the person who experiences violence, and provide support as required.

4.7.2 Family safety contact support – ‘barriers’

4.7.2.1 Association with the person who uses violence

Once people who had experienced violence had been contacted by a provider, a unique barrier to participation was the reluctance of the person who experiences violence to be involved with the same provider that was also currently engaged with the person who uses violence. This was particularly relevant for participants whose relationship with the person who used violence had ended. They reported that deciding to be involved in the program was difficult due to the perceived association with the person who used violence.

There was also some hesitation reported by some people who experienced violence regarding broaching the topic of program participation with the person who used violence, with the fear of retributive violence evident.

There was also one example given which suggested that the role of the family safety contact worker was being used to facilitate engagement with people who use violence, rather than support people who experience violence. It is important that FSV provide communication to providers to ensure this practice is not a systemic issue and that it does not occur in the future.

4.7.2.2 Resourcing

There was also feedback from providers that there were some issues with appropriate resourcing for the family safety contact function. Some providers indicated that this role was not a large focus of their program, and was often shared with the mainstream MBCP also delivered by the provider. As these mainstream programs have a large number of participants, the family safety contact worker would be over-capacity in terms of their caseload once taking on additional case management clients, and therefore not able to dedicate a sufficient amount of time to this work.

Family safety contact funding is bundled within the unit price of a working with a person who uses violence for these programs. With this funding structure, providers have typically chosen two frameworks to offer family safety contact support. The first framework is that a new cohort trial or case management program is set up to work with people who use violence and the family safety contact role for these new participants is allocated to an existing team within the organisation that works with people who experience violence. The second framework is that the same pool of workers that work with people who use violence, also work with those who experience violence. There was one example of a provider hiring a new staff member to exclusively offer family safety contact support for the partners of the participants in a new cohort trial.