1. 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

2. 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

3. 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.

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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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., p, 16).
“Where someone like me could be lost in another service, another system, I might not have got any support …” (Denne, Coombes & Mogran, 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, p, 23)
“I think I spoke to them maybe three times if that…” (Smith et al., p, 13)

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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
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
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.