PERPETRATOR PROGRAMS 

Austrelia: 
http://actg.canberra.edu.au/

1. The Committee's terms of reference require consideration of the use of behavioural change programs as sentencing options for violent offenders convicted of criminal assault.[1] 

2. The Committee has considered this question by reviewing literature, noting principles which apply to best practice models, reviewing pros and cons of ordered attendance and options in relation to ordered attendance. 

Overview of programs presently operating in the ACT 

1. The Committee's Discussion Paper released in November 1992 noted that at that stage there were several agencies in the ACT offering counselling services to domestic violence offenders who choose to seek help. These included Relationships Australia, (formerly Canberra Marriage Guidance Service), the Counselling Section of the Mental Health Branch and some church based social services and some community services. Each of the services were taking people individually rather than groups. Additionally Adult Corrective Services were offering a Violent Offenders Program where attendance was court ordered, subject to the consent of the prospective attendee, and the order was made as a condition of a bond. 

2. There have been few changes in the provision of counselling services to domestic violence offenders as noted in the Discussion Paper. Several government and non government counselling services in the ACT are available to perpetrators of violence seeking assistance. This includes Relationships Australia and ACT Health Centres. Murringu Canberra, a non-profit service for men operating under the auspices of St John's CARE, ran group programs for a period of time on a voluntary attendance basis. Adult Corrective Services still runs the Violent Offenders Program but this is for all violent offenders and few of the attendees are ordered to attend because of domestic violence. 

Literature review 

1. There has been a great deal of research and writing in relation to perpetrator programs, particularly in the USA and Canada. In Court-Mandated Treatment of Men Who Assault their Partner, for example, Hamberger and Hastings review evaluations of 28 programs.[2] A review of issues and programs was recently undertaken by the Hamilton Abuse Intervention Project in New Zealand.[3] Recent Australian works include: 

the review undertaken in New South Wales in the course of developing the New South Wales Domestic Violence Strategic Plan;4  the New South Wales Domestic Violence Advisory Council's Fundamentals for Working with Perpetrators of Domestic Violence  []a review undertaken in Victoria in 1991;5  []a study by Devlin & Devlin which has recently been completed in Queensland;6  []a recent study of 8 perpetrator programs in Victoria undertaken by the University of Melbourne's Department of Criminology.7

1. Particularly notable in relation to program content are Ellen Pence and Michael Paymar's Education Groups for Men Who Batter: The Duluth Model[8] and Alan Jenkins' Invitations to Responsibility.[9] 

2. There is agreement that there are major methodological problems with most of the evaluations.[10] The main problems have been short follow up and insufficient consultation with victims to verify the nature and extent of change. 

3. There is also agreement that at this point it is not demonstrated that programs reduce violence in the longer term. Hamberger and Hastings concluded: 

"After reviewing much of the research literature, what do we "know'" about the short and long-term effects of treatment on wife assault? The answer, unfortunately, is "not much." "Recidivism", however measured in the studies reviewed here, varied from: (a) not reported to (b) 4%-5% (rearrests), to (c) up to 50%. We cannot confidently say whether "treatment works"..."What treatment works best on which types of client, and under what conditions?" We are...also unprepared to provide even partial answers to those questions."[11]

1. They found that the methodological flaws in the studies "rendered them at best unhelpful and at worst misleading."[12] 

2. There is consensus on the point that programs for domestic violence offenders are not a cure all and that issues about the availability of programs and court ordered attendance are complex. While the purpose of the programs is quite simple, that is, to change the attitudes of those who commit the violence in order stop the violence, attitudinal change is very hard to achieve. 

3. The conclusion of the 1994 University of Melbourne study was: 

" Ultimately we consider that group programs for male perpetrators can at best be seen only as a stop gap...the best programs can provide a resource and some respite for women who are being victimised, but can not be seen as a lasting solution...with regard specifically to the group programs for male perpetrators, our research allows us to say that in Victoria at least: they should not be relied on to transform men from violent to non-violent and therefore they should not be viewed as an alternative to formal sanctions (indeed we would go so far as to say that if we overload these programs with men whose only reason for being there was that they had to attend as part of a court order, we probably would be sabotaging them). [On the positive side]...men who 'stay in the course'...,as far as we can tell, tend to produce some immediate shift in 'proneness to aggression' although this does not take them below the [dangerous]...level.. programs do seem to put demands on men (high drop out rates alone seem to attest to that) rather than simply pandering to rationalisations...most participants, and most of the partners we could talk to, saw the programs as having some value..."[13]

1. The National Committee on Violence Against Women has listed criteria for perpetrator programs which are in line with the leading views in the literature. These can be summarised as follows: 

the safety of the victim, as a matter of policy, is given absolute priority;  the perpetrator's violence is responded to as a crime;  criminal proceedings, arrest, imprisonment, and penalties are enforced and/or protection orders arranged;  programs should not replace or be an alternative to criminal proceedings;  the perpetrator is held totally responsible for the violence and the aim of the program should be absolute and permanent cessation of the violence;  joint counselling is not undertaken;  programs are primarily educational in relation to gender issues and address the perpetrators attitudes to gender inequality, the construction of masculinity, the social/historical/cultural context of violence against women, the illegality of the use of violence and the concept of self-responsibility;  all perpetrator programs should be subject to proper evaluation against the criteria of effectiveness in stopping the perpetrators violence;  []the funding of perpetrator programs should not take funding resources from services for victims of violence.14 

Victim safety 

1. Arguably the most fundamental and the most common problem with perpetrator programs to date has been insufficient concern with the safety of the victims and lack of accountability on that issue. Lack of accountability has contributed to poor quality programs; inability to attain or maintain a offender responsibility/victim safety focus; poor evaluation methodology; inability to attract or maintain collaborative assistance from victim services; and finally, an inability to sustain programs. 

2. The Duluth model probably embodies the 'state of the art' in terms of perpetrator program accountability. The perpetrator program is run by the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project which sees itself as a victim service and accountable to the victims of the violence. It has close cooperative links with other victim services. The program content focuses on victim safety and offender accountability. In order to attend the program attendees have to authorise the program facilitators to pass on victim safety information. It is understood that when attendance is court ordered that the program will report failure to attend. 

3. The project also provides services for victims of domestic violence including women's education groups. The perpetrator program notifies the women's group facilitators of the names and details of all new program attendees. The women's group facilitators contact the women and invite them to attend the women's education group. The women's group uses the same power and control analysis of domestic violence as the perpetrator group and what can be expected from perpetrator group attendance is discussed. It is known for example that although physical violence tends to abate during attendance that non-physical violence may escalate. [15] Information about the offender's behaviour also flows, subject to the woman's consent, from the women's group coordinator to the perpetrator program coordinator so that the perpetrator program facilitators are aware of the offender's conduct.[16] 

4. Perpetrator programs should be active advocates for victim safety and offender responsibility, they should endorse and emphasise the criminality of behaviour which breaches the criminal law and they should be advocates, and centres of excellence, for sound analysis of domestic violence. Programs should be highly critical of their own performance and highly critical of any analysis of `success' rates. 

Perpetrator responsibility and criminal accountability 

1. There is general agreement that the ultimate key to change is the ability of the perpetrator to accept responsibility for the violence. If programs are, or become, a way for the perpetrators to avoid responsibility for their criminal acts, the existence of programs will work against their purpose. 

2. In order to ensure that perpetrator programs are not misused the following safeguards should be in place: 

a firm and consistent criminal justice response to domestic violence;  police should be cautioned against referral to a perpetrator program as a reason for not pressing charges, not arresting etc. and likewise attendance at a program should not treated as a reason for the prosecution to drop charges;  where ordered attendance is available, an order for attendance must not be used to reduce the penalty which would otherwise be applied;  []court ordered attendance should not occur unless the offender has admitted responsibility or been found guilty;17  perpetrator programs should not, and should not be expected to, vouch for the attendee in court proceedings or otherwise- any feedback should be limited to the attendance record.  programs are educational, they stress offender responsibility and use a gender analysis. 

1. Hamberger and Hastings list 5 primary theoretical orientations in relation to work with perpetrators of domestic violence.

They are: 

ventilation- this posits that the violence is symptomatic of suppressed anger which needs to be expressed through some other cathartic means. These programs do not emphasise the primacy of the violence and the offender's responsibility to stop it. Further criticisms are that the ventilation model confuses anger and aggression. Anger is a human emotion which can be expressed in non violent ways and anger is not a precondition for bullying, aggression or violence. Additionally, ventilation theory holds up anger and aggression as a release and this arguably increases rather than decreases the likelihood of aggression in subsequent situations.  insight-orientated therapy- this posits that violence is symptomatic of some other, underlying conflict, often stemming from the offender's background or childhood. This has been criticised for failing to confront the unacceptability of the violence, and the offender's responsibility for the violence, in the first instance. Additionally, the search for individualised and psychological causes invites the development of excuses. Insight-orientated therapy has a place once responsibility has been accepted.  systems or interactional approach- in this approach violence is viewed as an interaction process in which each partner attempts to dominate and control the other with one resorting to the use of violence. Both parties are treated and the violence is viewed as a 'relationship issue'. The approach has been criticised for labelling the victims behaviour as precipitating and identifying both parties as responsible for the violent behaviour of one.  []cognitive-behavioural approach- that is, an approach based on social learning theories which posits that violent behaviour develops into a behaviour pattern because it has functional value to the offender. Strategies centre on the behavioural responsibility of the offender. This approach is, according to Hamberger and Hastings, perhaps the most widely used theoretical formulation of wife assault. One cognitive-behavioural approach is teaching 'anger management' skills. However, this has been criticised on the basis that it is superficial and deeper re socialisation is necessary; 'anger management' sometimes implies that the victim's behaviour or stress provokes (ie. is responsible for) the violence; the emphasis on anger ignores the use of violence to control; the emphasis on the individual ignores the relevance of social norms and gender-power issues.18  educative approach which focuses on locating the violence in its social/historical context and holding the individual responsible for their violence and oppressive practices. 

1. Hamberger and Hastings note that the oldest and most widely held beliefs about male-to-female violence are the pro feminist perspectives, that is, that the violence is a socio-political issue relating to men's power, and patriarchal social systems which oppress women in many ways, including through the use of violence. It is noted that educative programs which incorporate feminist theory work well within a criminal justice system framework and are to be regarded as the "best practice" model for perpetrator programs.[19]

2. The Australian studies and guidelines have reached the same conclusion, that is, program content should be educative, based on a gender analysis and aim to ensure that the offender accepts responsibility for the conduct. This type of program compliments a firm criminal justice response whereas therapeutic programs tend to work against it.[20] 

3. In addition to the program content there is also a question of how the program should be delivered and the length of the program. There are examples of programs operating on an open group format (a person can join the program at any time), closed group (that is all attendees start together), individual sessions and a combination of individual and group sessions. A reasonably lengthy period of attendance is the norm because the aim is attitudinal change. The Duluth/Hamilton program, for example, is currently an open group program consisting of one two hour session a week for 26 weeks facilitated by one male and one female facilitator.[21] The group format is used because it is said to have a strong educative and reinforcing effect. On the other hand group work, in this area, places heavy demands on the facilitators. A significant advantage of an open group or open program format is that there is no delay in new participants joining and resource wastage, through attendance attrition, is minimised. 

Evaluation 

1. As noted above, there have been major and obvious flaws in most of the attempts to evaluate perpetrator programs and this in turn has promoted debate about what can be expected from perpetrator programs and how to measure it. The approach to evaluation is however, becoming much more self critical and more emphasis is being placed on victim feedback.[22] 

Competition for funds 

1. The National Committee on Violence Against Women as well as the New South Wales and Victorian reviews emphasise that funding for perpetrator programs should not divert funding from services for victims of violence. The reasons for this boil down to the immediacy of the victim's needs and the 'cost/benefit' of perpetrator programs.

2. Programs which require funding and which are established for court ordered attendees or which accept court ordered attendees should, consistent with the emphasis on criminal responsibility, be funded through Corrections. A user pays philosophy, subject to means, is consistent with the perpetrator responsibility focus.[23] 

Payment for programs 

1. The Committee has adopted the view that the amount a person is required to pay to attend a program under a court order should be taken into account by the court in determining any financial penalty to impose as part of the sentence. The Committee wishes to stress that court ordered attendance at a program should never be treated as an alternative to the sentence that would otherwise be imposed.

2. The Committee envisages that an assessment of the persons suitability to attend a program would be conducted by Corrective Services. At this time the person's financial circumstances can be considered and a recommendation made to the court about the contribution the person should make towards the cost of attendance. 

Arguments for and against perpetrator programs 

1. Devlin & Devlin's review of the arguments for and against perpetrator programs can be summarised as follows: 

2. For: 

the importance of addressing the attitudes which inform the violent behaviour;  society has a duty to assist offenders to change;  programs have a symbolic value and convey a message that the abusive behaviour is unacceptable, help is available and society expects them to change;  the violence rarely stops without intervention;  programs have the potential to increase the safety of victims by: making the abuse public; ensuring that victims can provide feedback in relation to continuing abuse; reducing harassment during and after separation; and the victim may be empowered to leave the relationship if the change they hoped for does not occur;  some evaluations show promise.

1. To this list could be added: 

rehabilitation is a fundamental sentencing objective;  best practice perpetrator programs could be centres of excellence for sound analysis of domestic violence and may, arguably, play an important part in debunking myths prevalent in the approach of many key institutions and in the community, about the causes and 'treatment' of domestic violence;  unless perpetrator programs are available there may be a perception, and perhaps a strong perception, that the system response to domestic violence places insufficient emphasis on rehabilitation and this in turn could serve to undermine confidence in, and support for, a responsibility based systems approach. 

1. Against: 

research provides little evidence that programs can eliminate or significantly reduce violent behaviour in the mid to longer term;  programs may compete for funds with services for the victim whereas victims should have priority of access to scarce resources;  []the establishment of programs may produce a false expectation of safety and/or false expectations of successful outcomes.24

1. To this list could be added: 

associated with the concern that perpetrator programs may compete with victim's services for scarce resources is the general concern about the cost/benefit of establishing perpetrator programs;  []a number of studies have noted that although physical violence may cease during program attendance, non-physical violence and manipulative behaviour in fact increases. It has been noted that there is a tendency for attendees to use the language and concepts taught in the program against the victims. That is, research indicates that program content can provide new tools for abuse;25  because of the complex issues in relation to perpetrator programs there is an understandable reticence on the part of victim's services to invest energy in establishing and guiding programs and this in turn contributes to the establishment of programs with an inadequate victim-safety focus;  the resulting difficulty establishing best practice programs in the light of the resourcing issues, lack of support from victim services and lack of emphasis on best practice models by decision makers (government and non government). 

Pros and cons of court ordered attendance 

1. Additional considerations apply to court ordered attendance at perpetrator programs. The arguments for and against can be summarised as follows: 

2. For: 

rehabilitation to end the violence is an appropriate criminal justice goal;  []as many domestic violence offenders are not motivated to stop the violence 'the criminal justice system may provide the needed leverage to compel an offender to seek treatment';26  ordered attendance can be viewed as an expression of the community's abhorrence of the behaviour and desire that the behaviour cease;  ordered attendance involves supervision and during the period of supervision it is less likely that the offender will re-offend;  []the drop out rate for court ordered attendees is lower than voluntary attendees27 and it could be argued that ordered attendance better utilises program resources  the community, and many victims, have a strong desire for efforts to be made to assist the offender to change  the availability of perpetrator programs could serve to dispel myths in the legal system, the community and among victims about the nature of the violence and the prospects of reform. 

1. Against: 

as it is not demonstrated that perpetrator programs 'work'- ordered attendance is based on a fallacious premise that attendance is likely to result in change;  if orders are made without offenders accepting responsibility for the violence, program resources may be wasted on attendees who are not motivated to change and these attendees may undermine the effectiveness of the program for the others;  ordering replicates the dynamic of coercion which occurs in violent relationships and sets an inappropriate tone for a program aiming to achieve attitudinal change;  ordering is likely to necessitate government resourcing and this in turn raises questions of resource priorities and cost/benefit;  unless safeguards are in place, ordered attendance may substitute in part or whole for the penalty which would otherwise be applied and consequently ordering may become a way for the perpetrator to avoid responsibility. 

Evaluation of ordered attendance 

1. Due to the methodological limitations little assistance can be gleaned from the research. 

2. However, for the reasons set out below, the Committee has concluded that it would be desirable for ordered attendance to a best practice perpetrator program to be available in the ACT. Before moving to considerations which brought the Committee to this conclusion, the Committee notes that it considers that there are a number of preconditions to action being taken to implement this recommendation. 

3. These are: 

that the program would be a correctional service and it would be established as part of the substantial upgrading of the criminal justice response to domestic violence in the ACT;  that the program would adhere to the best practice principles outlined above- this includes positioning the program so that it is accountable to victims of domestic violence and capable of sustaining an offender responsibility/victim safety focus. The program would operate in conjunction with women's education groups;  that support for the establishment of such a program is forthcoming from ACT services for victims of domestic violence and that these services are willing to establish and maintain a cooperative working relationship with the program;  that funding for the program is not drawn directly or indirectly in the short or long term from services for victims of domestic violence;  that funding is sufficient for a worthwhile trial period, say 4 years, for evaluation, and for information sessions to be conducted with relevant services and groups, including, for example, police, correctional services, the magistracy and judiciary, lawyers, counsellors etc. so that there is a clear understanding of the nature of the program, the way it works and a realistic understanding of likely outcomes.

1. In coming to a conclusion about ordered attendance the following factors were decisive in the Committee's thinking: 

[]many of the submissions to the Committee called for perpetrator programs or assumed or contemplated that such programs would be available;28  while the effectiveness of perpetrator programs in terms of the rehabilitation of individual offenders is not demonstrated and while there are significant questions about cost/benefit, in the Committee's view programs which adhere to best practice principles are likely to be centres of excellence for the analysis of the dynamics and causes of domestic violence and the purposes and benefits of such programs should be viewed more broadly than rehabilitation of individual offenders;  the tenor of submissions received by the Committee suggests that unless a quality program is available, there will be ongoing calls from the community for a court ordered program to be established and there will be a strong perception (be it accurate or not) that there is a serious gap in the response to domestic violence. These pressures may lead to the establishment of poor quality programs and this in turn may hamper the effectiveness of the revised criminal justice and comprehensive system response recommended by the Committee. The correction of poor quality programs may require significant effort on the part of relevant services and government itself. The Committee considered that the establishment of a best practice program for ordered attendance will go part of the way to fill the perceived gap and it is likely to inform the development of other programs in the ACT;  the key to change is the offender's acceptance of responsibility for the violence. The Committee considers it appropriate, and believes in any event that it is in line with the ACT community's wishes, that offenders should have the opportunity to develop an appreciation of their responsibility for their behaviour. The fact is however, that it is unlikely that those who come before the courts in relation to domestic violence offences will attend a program voluntarily;  the Committee does not accept the argument that court ordering will 'swamp' or 'sabotage' the program. The program should not be expected to put up with disruptive, uncooperative or discourteous behaviour. At the commencement of program attendance the rules of the program should be explained and the necessary disclosure authorities should be taken. If the attendee is unwilling to comply with the requirements or if the attendee fails to adhere to the rules of the program the breach should be reported and breach action should be taken. 

Recommendation 104: 

That subject to the preconditions listed by the Committee, ordered attendance at a perpetrator education program be available in the ACT.

Recommendation 105:

That a perpetrator education program, for court ordered attendees, be funded through ACT Corrective Services and be established and operated within the ACT Domestic Violence Intervention Project. 

When orders for attendance should be possible 

1. Court ordered attendance could arise in several ways, that is, as a term of a protection order or restraining order,[29] as a bail condition, as a condition of a bond or as a parole condition. 

2. There is at present no power to order attendance as a term of a protection order or a restraining order under ACT legislation. It is arguable that the court has this power under the Bail Act but as far as is known the relevant provisions have not been tested. The court can make orders, as a condition of a bond (including a bond attached to a suspended sentence) for attendance at a perpetrator program and does so when ordering attendance at the Violent Offenders Program run by ACT Corrective Services.[30] Additionally, it is possible for such a requirement to be imposed as a term of parole.[31] 

Ordering as a term of a protection order or restraining order? 

1. The Committee considered whether the court should be able to order attendance at a perpetrator program as a term of a protection order or a restraining order. The Committee decided that it may be appropriate in some circumstances but does not recommend that this occur at present. The programs need to be properly established within the criminal justice system before expansion to the civil system is further considered. 

Bail Condition for attendance at perpetrator programs 

1. Section 25(3)(d) of the Bail Act allows the Court to impose as a condition of bail that the offender be required to participate in a program of personal development, training or rehabilitation.

2. The Committee has recommended that perpetrator education programs should be available as a sentencing option.

3. While it is desirable that attendance at a perpetrator education program commence as soon as possible upon a plea of guilty or a verdict of guilty, consideration of bail occurs before there has been a determination of the charge. Perpetrator education programs are not geared to short term attendance - they attempt to facilitate attitudinal change and lengthy attendance is therefore required.

4. It would be highly undesirable if a power to require attendance, as a condition of bail, was used to argue for, or justify, the relaxation of bail conditions which would otherwise be applied. If this occurred the availability of such an order may actually jeopardise the safety of the victim.

5. For these reasons the Committee has concluded that where perpetrator education programs are available it is not appropriate for attendance to be required as a condition of bail, except where there has been a finding of guilt and the court decides to defer sentence to allow the perpetrator to complete the program as discussed previously.

Recommendation 106:

That where perpetrator education programs are available, the court not order attendance as a condition of bail except where there has been a finding of guilt. 

Ordered attendance as a condition of a bond or probation? 

1. As noted above the courts already have power to order attendance at a perpetrator education program as a condition of a bond including a bond attached to a suspended sentence. 

2. The Committee's terms of reference required consideration of the use of behavioural change programs as a sentencing option for violent offenders convicted of criminal assault. The Committee considers that limiting the court's ability to order attendance to 'violent offenders convicted of criminal assault' is too narrow. There are a number of domestic violence offences which do not involve an assault. Elsewhere in this report the Committee has recommended that stalking legislation should be introduced in the ACT. 

3. The Committee considers that the court should be able to order attendance at a perpetrator education program where there has been a conviction for a domestic violence offence .

4. In instituting ordered attendance, it is not acceptable to offer an inducement, such as reduction in the penalty which would otherwise be applied, in order to encourage attendance. Attendance should be expected, it should be routine and it should be ordered in addition to the penalty which would otherwise have been applied. If the person is to serve a term of imprisonment it should be ordered that the person attend a program as a condition of their release or there should be a recommendation that this should be a condition of parole. 

5. The Committee considers that there should be an amendment to the Crimes Act to provide that in the case of a domestic violence offence (including breach of a protection order) that ordered attendance will be routine and it will be in addition to the penalty which would otherwise apply. The Committee recognises that there may be cases where ordered attendance is not appropriate. Experience may, in due course, suggest some refinement of the provisions which the Committee recommends but at this stage the Committee does not think it helpful to anticipate the nature of the exceptional cases where ordering attendance is inappropriate. 

Recommendation 107: 

That the Crimes Act be amended to provide that when the court convicts for a domestic violence offence, unless there are exceptional circumstances to the contrary, the court shall in addition to the penalty which would otherwise be imposed, order the offender to attend an approved perpetrator education program. 

Attendance as a condition of parole 

1. There is power under the Parole Act for the Parole Board to set conditions on which a person is released from prison. The person is always under the supervision of Corrective Services for the duration of their parole and is generally required to obey all directions given by their parole officer, including the requirement to attend relevant courses and programs.

2. It is envisaged that in most cases the order to attend a perpetrator program will be made by the court and if the person is imprisoned, attendance will follow the period of imprisonment.

3. However, if this does not occur for some reason, but the Parole Board feels that release on parole should be conditional on attendance at a program, then the Committee sees no reason why this should not occur.

Recommendation 108: 

That attendance at a perpetrator education program be available as a condition of parole. 

Availability of voluntary perpetrator programs in the ACT 

1. The Committee is unable to gauge the likely level of demand for programs for voluntary attendees. The Committee considers that subject to resources the court ordered program recommended above should be available to voluntary attendees on a means tested user pays basis where the person is prepared to make a commitment to complete the program, is willing to adhere to the program rules and the person wants to change. 

2. The level of demand should be monitored. In the event that demand is beyond the capacity of the program, the program should report to the Domestic Violence Project Coordinator so that the Coordinator can advise Council and government on available options. 

Recommendation 109: 

That subject to resources, satisfaction of entry requirements and willingness to adhere to program rules attendance at the court ordered program be available to voluntary attendees on a means tested user pays basis. 

Regulation of voluntary perpetrator programs in the ACT 

1. In making decisions about funding voluntary perpetrator programs government and non-government bodies should determine whether, when and on what conditions, programs should be established. Where funding is to be provided funding criteria should aim to ensure program quality and funding criteria should be based on the principles and best practice criteria set out above. 

2. The Committee noted a significant variation in the approach to violence in the submissions received in relation to programs for perpetrators. 

3. There are presently no accreditation or regulatory arrangements in relation to perpetrator education programs in the ACT and no professional body has a regulatory or quality assurance function in the area. In the Committee's view it is highly desirable that quality be assured. The Committee has considered a number of possibilities including: inservice training; a formal accreditation scheme and issuing advisory standards. The Committee concluded that each of these are likely to be desirable but none is likely to be sufficient alone. 

4. The Committee believes that the most appropriate course is for the matter to be referred to the ACT Domestic Violence Advisory Council with a view to the Council, in consultation with the ACT Domestic Violence Intervention Project, developing an accreditation scheme for those who intend to provide therapeutic rehabilitative assistance to perpetrators of domestic violence. 

5. The Committee envisages that the Domestic Violence Project Coordinator be on the Management Committee for the perpetrator education program and that Management Committee would develop a code of practice which would be the basis of accreditation as well as providing in service training. The Committee expects that the code of practice would elaborate on the principles which have been referred to in the Committee's review, deal with administrative arrangements and provide guidance on issues which commonly arise. In addition to promoting quality the accreditation scheme would assist referring agencies to make suitable referrals. 

6. The Committee considers that the Management Committee for the perpetrator education program should include the Domestic Violence Project Coordinator and representatives from ACT Corrective Services, Victims Services, Department of Education and of course the perpetrator education program itself.

Recommendation 110:

That perpetrator programs should be accredited by the ACT Domestic Advisory Council in consultation with the ACT DVIP. 

7. Appendix B  List of Submissions 

Organisations

ACT Housing and Community Services Bureau

ACT Womens Consultative Council

Australian Capital Territory Bar Association

Australian Federation of Business and Professional Women (ACT Division)

Australian Federal Police

The Australian National University

Barnados Australia 

Canberra Rape Crisis Centre

Centacare

Citizens Commission on Human Rights

Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs

Domestic Violence Crisis Service, ACT Corrective Services and Marriage Guidance Canberra and Region Inc. (now Relationships Australia) (joint submission)

Domestic Violence Transit Flat Unit, Northside Community Service Inc.

Doris Womens Refuge

The Law Society of the ACT

Lone Fathers Association (ACT) Inc.

Marriage Guidance Canberra and Region Inc.(now Relationships Australia)

Men Against Sexual Assault (Canberra Branch)

Murringu Counselling and Advisory Service Canberra

Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission

Office of the Community Advocate

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

Victims of Crime Assistance League (ACT) Inc.

W.I.S.E (Workers in Sex Employment)

Woden Valley Hospital 

Individuals

The Committee received twenty one submissions on behalf of individuals, and of those submissions, seven were provided "in confidence."All submissions have been treated confidentially by the Committee and the names of those people who provided submissions have not been published. 

References

Asmus, Ritmeester and Pence, Prosecuting Domestic Violence Cases in Duluth. 1991.

Australian Law Reform Commission, Report No. 30: Domestic Violence, 1986.

Australian Law Reform Commission, Interim Report No. 67: Equality Before the Law: Women's Access to the Legal System, 1994. (Part I and Part II)

Australian Law Reform Commission, Report No. 69: Equality Before the Law: Justice for Women, 1994.

British Columbia Crown Counsel Manual

British Columbia Taskforce on Family Violence, Ministry of Womens' Equality, Victoria, British Columbia, Is Anyone Listening? 1992.

L. Bush, Violent Acts and Injurious Outcomes in Married Couples: Methodological Issues in the National Survey of Families and Households, Gender and Society, Volume 4.

E.S Buzawa and C.G Buzawa, Domestic Violence: the Changing Criminal Justice Response, 1992.

N.R Cahn, Innovative Approaches to the Prosecution of Domestic Violence Crimes: An Overview in Buzawa and Buzawa, Domestic Violence: the Changing Criminal Justice Response, 1992.

Mick Devlin, Men's Domestic Violence Practice Standards,Queensland Domestic Violence Council 1994.

Director of Public Prosecutions ACT, Prosecution Policy and Guidelines, 1991.

Distaff Associates, Costs of Domestic Violence, 1991.

R.P Dobash, R.E Dobash, M. Wilson and M. Daly, The Myth of Sexual Symmetry in Marital Violence, Social Problems, 39(1), February 1992.

P. Easteal, Killing the Beloved: Homicide Between Adult Sexual Intimates, 1993.

Edna Erez, Leigh Roeger and Frank Morgan, Victim Impact Statements in South Australia: An Evaluation, Office of Crime Statistics, South Australian Attorney General's Department, Adelaide, 1994.

Ruth Frances, An Overview of Community Based Intervention Programs For Men Who Are Violent Or Abusive in the Home, paper presented at the British Criminology Society Conference, Cardiff, July 1993.

Jane A. Furness, From a Victim's Perspective: A multiple case study of the Men's Education Programme, HAIP Monitoring Team, University of Waikato, January 1994.

Matthew Goode, Stalking Crime of the 90's?, Senior Legal Officer, South Australian Attorney General's Department delivered to the 8th International Symposium on Victimology, Adelaide, August 1994.

K. Hall, Unconscious bias in the judicial system, in Australian Lawyer, 28(9) October 1993.

L.K Hamberger and J.E Hastings, Court Mandated Treatment of Men Who Assault their Partners, in N.Zoe Hilton, Legal Responses to Wife Assault: Current Trends and Evaluations, 1993.

Harrison and Gearin, Working Together to Prevent Domestic Violence in the Northern Territory, To be published in November, 1995.

Barbara Hart, Confronting Domestic Violence: Effective Police Responses, Law Enforcement Training Team Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 1990.

N. Zoe Hilton(ed), Legal Responses to Wife Assault: Current Trends and Evaluations, 1993.

P Jaffe and others, A Research Study to Evaluate the Impact and Effectiveness of the Policy Directive that Police Lay Charges in all Domestic Violence Incidents Where Reasonable and Probable Grounds Exist, 1985, Toronto Provisional Secretariat for Justice. 

P Jaffe, E. Hastings and others, The Impact of Police Laying Charges, in N. Zoe Hilton, Legal Responses to Wife Assault: Current Trends and Evaluations, 1993.

A lan Jenkins, Invitations to Responsibilty: The Therapeutic Engagement of Men Who Engage in Abusive or Violent Behaviour, Dulwich Centre, Adelaide 1990.

Justice Sub-Committee Report, Domestic Violence Resource Unit, South Australia

Los Angeles City Attorney, Domestic Violence Prosecution Unit, Misdemeanour Domestic Violence Prosecutions. 

H. McGregor and A. Hopkins, Working for Change: The Movement Against Domestic Violence, 1991.

Professor K. Mahoney, Speech to the National Press Club, 31 June 1993.

P. Mayhew, N. Aye Maing, C. Mirlees-Black, The 1992 British Crime Survey, Home Office Research Study No.132, 1993.

Jane Mugford, Patricia Easteal and Anne Edwards, ACT Domestic Violence Research, Report to the ACT Community Law Reform Committee, Australian Institute of Criminology, 1993. 

Professor Nutbeem, M. Wise, Dr. Bauman, E. Harris, Professor S. Leeder, Department of Public Health, University of Sydney, Goals and Targets for Australia's Health in the Year 2000 and Beyond, referred to in the Monash University Accident Research Centre study, 1994.

National Committee on Violence Against Women, National Strategy on Violence Against Women, 1992.

National Committee on Violence Against Women, Position Paper on Mediation, prepared by Dr Hilary Astor, December 1991.

New South Wales Women's Co-ordination Unit, New South Wales Strategic Plan, 1991, Programs for Perpetrators of Domestic Violence: Discussion Paper No. 4 .

Michael Paymar, Duluth-An Integrated Model: Working Together to Stop Violence Against Women, paper delivered at the Challenging the Legal System's Response to Domestic Violence Conference, Brisbane March 1994.

Bob Pease, Evaluating Treatment Programs for Violent Men: Issues, Dilemmas and Priorities, in Local Domestic Violence Committees Conference, Papers and Proceedings, July 1991, New South Wales, Domestic Violence Committee.

Ellen Pence and Michael Paymar, Education Groups for Men Who Batter: The Duluth Model, 1993.

Police Commissioner's Policy Advisory Group, Intimidation, Harassment and Threats of Violence, September, 1993.

Queensland Domestic Violence Taskforce, Beyond these Walls, 1988.

Z. Rathus, Rougher than Usual Handling, 2nd edition, 1995.

Report of the New South Wales Domestic Violence Committee, 1991

N. Robertson and R. Busch, Hamilton Abuse Intervention Pilot Project Two Year Evaluation, University of Waikato, 1993.

N. Robertson and R. Busch, What's Love Got To Do With It?: An Analysis of an Intervention Approach to Domestic Violence Volume 1, 1993 Waikato Law Review.

J .Scutt, Going Backwards: Law Reform and Women Bashing, Women's Studies International Forum, 9(1) referred to in J. Stubbs and S. Egger, for the National Committee on Violence Against Women, The Effectiveness of Protection Orders in Australian Jurisdictions, 1993.

J. Sherrard, J. Ozzane-Smith, I. Brumen, V. Reutley, F. Williams, Monash University Accident Research Centre, Domestic Violence Problems and Indicators Report No.63, 1994.

Suzanne Snively, Coopers and Lybrand, The New Zealand Economic Cost of Family Violence, published by the Family Violence Unit, Department of Social Welfare, 1994.

H. Strang, Homicides in Australia, 1990-1991, Australian Institute of Criminology, 1992. 

M. Strauss and R. Gelles (eds) Physical Violence in American Families, 1990.

M. Strauss and R. Gelles, Societal Change and Change in Family Violence from 1975-1985 as revealed by two National Surveys, Journal of Marriage and the Family, Volume 48.

J. Stubbs and S. Egger, for the National Committee on Violence Against Women, The Effectiveness of Protection Orders in Australian Jurisdictions, 1993.

Dr Adam Sutton, Male Perpetrators Program: Summary of Findings, paper delivered at the World Society of Victimology Symposium, Adelaide, 22 August 1994.

United Nations, Strategies for Confronting Domestic Violence: A Resource Manual 1993.

United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (General Assembly resolution 217A (III), annex).

Victorian Community Council Against Violence, Treatment and Counselling of Perpetrators of Family Violence, Report No. 3, March 1991.

John Walker Consulting Services, ACT Crime and Justice Statistics and Management Information Collection and Analysis, prepared for the ACT Attorney General's Department, May 1995.

Western Australian Task Force on Domestic Violence, Breaking the Silence, 1989. 

The Reference 

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

TERMS OF REFERENCE

The Australian Capital Territory has innovative legislation about Domestic Violence. Notwithstanding this, there are community concerns about aspects of the scheme.

I, TERRY CONNOLLY, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY, THEREFORE REFER the following matter to the Community Law Reform Committee as provided for in the constitution of the Committee:

TO REVIEW the law in force in the Territory in regard to Domestic Violence legislation in its application to the Territory AND TO REPORT on desirable changes concerning the existing law, practise and procedures concerning that law.

In making its review and report the Committee will consider:

(a) whether the current effectiveness of Domestic Violence Orders in regard to time limitations imposed and the procedure on the expiration of the orders is adequate;

(b) arrest and Court procedures having regard to a broadly held public view that the charging of offenders is the responsibility of the victim;

(c) the collection of statistics on domestic violence in the ACT;

(d) the implementation of automatic preventive detention or refusal of bail to violent offenders;

(e) the implementation of mandatory arrest and custodial detention of violent offenders;

(f) the automatic cancellation of custody and access orders in favour of violent offenders when protection orders are breached and death threats have been made;

(g) the need for awareness training for magistrates;

(h) the provision of background information to the Court to assist in determining penalties for breaches of Domestic Violence Orders;

(i) the need for a specialist domestic violence unit within the police service;

(j) the use of Behavioural Change programs as sentencing options for violent offenders convicted of criminal assault;

(k) the facilitation of information exchange between agencies with due regard to privacy provisions.

In making its review and report the Committee is to have regard to any views of government agencies, the community and individuals on the subject matter of this reference and to the impact of any Territory scheme for the compensation of victims.

Signed this 3rd day of September 1991

TERRY CONNOLLY

ATTORNEYGENERAL

--------------------------------------
 

Chung D, Zannettino L & Colley D (2004) 'Researching Domestic Violence Perpetrator Programs as Feminists: Improving Women’s and Children’s Safety or Misplaced Effort?' Victorian Centres against Sexual Assault Forum (CASA) Home Truths Conference: Stop sexual assault & domestic violence a national challenge, Sheraton Towers Hotel, Southbank, Melbourne.