Curtin University, Stopping Family Violence, Mr Rodney Vlais Research Project Prioritising women’s safety in Australian perpetrator interventions: the purpose and practices of partner contact Curtin University, Stopping Family Violence, Mr Rodney Vlais Funded by ANROWS Sarah Anderson & Sophie Ridley

Background National research project Led by Professor Donna Chung at Curtin University Industry Partners: Stopping Family Violence and Mr Rodney Vlais Funded by ANROWS 2 years

Project Aims and Objectives Document national practice of victim/partner contact across Australian MBCPs Examine how MBCPs support women and children’s safety through partner contact and its benefits. Explore how diverse populations are catered for in terms of MBCP partner contact (Aboriginal or culturally and linguistically diverse; diverse sexuality and gender). Understand MBCP partner contact in both metropolitan and regional areas. Improve the quality and consistency of support provided to women and children by current and future MBC programs and perpetrator interventions more broadly.

Practitioner Interviews Research Methodology Literature Review Surveys Practitioner Interviews Scoping Women Practitioners Managers Facilitators Partner contact workers/agencies

Proposed Outcomes A detailed understanding of partner contact practices in Australia Greater integration between perpetrator intervention systems and the service system for women and children’s safety Tailoring responses to achieve safe outcomes outside the metropolitan areas and in diverse populations Development of Practice Guide Manual Training programs

Literature review Methodology A note on terminology Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Literature review Methodology A note on terminology Limitations of existing literature Background and international context Men with a cognitive impairment who use violence Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Groups LGBTIQ+ community People living in rural and remote areas Young people who use violence in the home Elder abuse Women with a disability

Literature review Findings: The experiences of partner contact for women and children Variability in experiences of partner contact Validation and recognition of experiences of FDV Impacts on safety Reciprocal sharing of information between the PC worker and (ex)partner Increase knowledge and awareness of FDV Broader impacts on women “… he knew that they’d be having contact with me. I think that is such a… the way it’s organised, the way it’s done, is fantastic. Because I think he knew too…I can’t go there and pretend … He is just going to look like an idiot (Smith et al., 2013. p, 16). “Where someone like me could be lost in another service, another system, I might not have got any support …” (Denne, Coombes & Mogran, 2013. p, 109) “The single most important and common finding was the importance of being contacted by a professional who … identified the problem as violence, understood women’s experiences and was in a position to validate those feelings and experiences.” (Howard & Wright, 2008. p, 23) “I think I spoke to them maybe three times if that…” (Smith et al., 2013. p, 13)

Literature review findings continued What is considered quality partner contact practice? Genuine, flexible and ongoing support Focussing on women’s strengths Navigating the complexities of confidentiality, information sharing and appropriate use of the man’s disclosure Being aware of “… love and hope coexisting with violence and abuse” (Opitz, 2014, p. 18). Key variables of partner contact Who provides the contact (In house vs. external) Frequency of contact When contact begins Form of contact Duration of contact Who is partner contact provided to

Literature review findings continued Child contact Identified need for more dedicated support services for the children of men attending MBCPs Complexities associated with child contact work Informing and involving children when their fathers are attending a MBCP Research suggests that fathers attending a MBCP should be encouraged to share information with their children in ways that are appropriate for their level of understanding (Lamb, 2017; Alderson, Kelly & Westmarland, 2013). Barriers to partner contact Conclusions

Project Timeline Ethics Approval April 2018 Literature Review September 2018 Surveys September to October 2018 In-depth Interviews November to February 2019 Synthesise data attained from literature review, survey and interviews February to April 2019 Develop Practice Guide April to June 2019 Prepare and finalise report for ANROWS June to August 2019 Disseminate Practice guide and share findings September 2019

References Alderson, S., Kelly, L., & Westmarland, N. (2013). Domestic violence perpetrator programmes and children and young people. London and Durham: London Metropolitan University and Durham University. Retrieved from https://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/criva/FinalversionChildren_and_Young_Peoplebriefingnote.pdf Denne, S., Coombes, L., & Morgan, M. (2013). Evaluating the Effectiveness of Programmes and Services Provided by Te Manawa Services: A Community Intervention into Family Violence. Retrieved from https://library.nzfvc.org.nz/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=4455 Howard, J., Wright, M., & Borderlands Cooperative. (2008). Listening to what matters: A report on partner contact component of a men’s behaviour change program. Inner City Community Health Service Inc. Lamb, K. (2017). Seen and heard: Embedding the voices of children and young people who have experienced family violence in programs for fathers. PhD thesis. University of Melbourne. Opitz, C. (2014). Considerations for partner contact during men’s behaviour change programs: Systemic responses and engagement. Ending Men’s Violence Against Women and Children: The No To Violence Journal, Autumn, 114–142. Smith, J., Humphreys, C., & Laming, C. (2013). The central place of women’s support and partner contact in men’s behaviour change programs. Ending Men’s Violence Against Women and Children: The No To Violence Journal, Spring, 7–28.