What we found out[19459000]
Violence in the home and within families is a growing epidemic. The prime minister of 2024 declared domestic and family violence a crisis.
The official statistics have shown time and again that men are the main perpetrators of this type of violence.
Most of us are aware that this is a common occurrence. We see it in our local communities, on the internet, and even on television.
This is not just an Australian issue.
In the Indo-Pacific, which includes Australia, 41 other countries, domestic violence is at its highest.
This raises the question of why we aren’t seeing any reduction in family and domestic violence?
According to our research, we may be failing in our efforts to engage men who use violence.
Map the whole picture
The academic literature was a vast study, and we cast a broad net in order to identify the different types of domestic violence programs available for men. It wasn’t about judging which program is best but rather to get the whole picture.
After screening more than 20,000 publications, we found 50 articles that discussed 42 programs in 14 Indo-Pacific nations, including Australia.
India, Bangladesh and Nepal.
Nearly half of 42 interventions came from Australia. It’s not because Australia is the leader in these works, but rather because English-language Western research tends to be favoured by academic publishers. We’re missing out on a great deal of research in other parts of the world.
Beyond the norm
The majority of interventions are more innovative than one might think. Nearly 75% of included programs were beyond standard programs for men to change their behaviour.
The standard program is based on a group therapy method that has been widely adopted for many decades. The program usually lasts several weeks and brings men together to change their attitude and behavior in a group setting.
Australia was the most common country to use this standard model. When interventions did depart from the standard approach, it was often short-term pilot programs with limited funds.
Community-based strategies were very common outside of Australia and New Zealand. The men who use domestic violence and abuse their families are not the only ones affected by these types of interventions. They also affect the wider community from which they come.
One intervention, called HERrespect in Bangladesh’s garment factories, combined “edutainment”, in the form skits, plays, and awareness campaigns, with an intervention.
The whole workforce is involved in this and other interventions, which reach men that might not have otherwise sought assistance.
There have been some difficulties in the running of HERrespect.
However, it has not received funding for a long time enough to allow a proper evaluation. This means that we cannot say if HERrespect was successful in reducing violent crime over a long period.
Parivartan, an Indian community-based program (which means transformation), is another example. The program was aimed at young male cricketers, their coaches and mentors.
The program included both players and coaches to support prevention and intervention in a sports community.
It aimed to encourage more positive responses towards violence. Other research has shown that this type of program is an effective way to change men’s attitude towards women.
As of yet, it is difficult to determine whether or not these interventions have a long-term impact.
All interventions reviewed were almost completely absent of marginalised communities. Two of 42 initiatives considered the diverse populations of Malaysian Rohingya refugees, Indigenous peoples and LGBTQIA+ individuals, but the other 41 programs almost completely ignored them.
Commitment to the long term
These findings show that the governments of the Indo-Pacific region need to make long-term investments in an array of strategies that extend beyond the traditional men’s behavior change program.
The difference between a cricket coaching session in India and a campaign to raise awareness about garment factories in Bangladesh may look quite different than a group-therapy program in Brisbane. But this diversity could be the key to genuinely engaging males.
Our funding and policies need to reflect the fact that there is not a single solution for domestic violence and family abuse.
It is also clear that we need more intervention designed in collaboration with communities, and not simply adapted to Western models. It is important to co-design programs with Indigenous peoples, LGBTQIA+, migrants and people with disabilities, instead of treating them like an afterthought.
Rainbow Door, the only domestic violence and family abuse helpline in Australia for LGBTQIA+ individuals.
This helpline in Victoria can help LGBTQIA+ individuals navigate the system. During long COVID locksdowns, the impact of this service became clear. However, it was apparent that the practitioners would not be able keep up with demand. This indicated the need for more funding and an expansion throughout Australia.
This service is not aimed at men who use violence, but it’s an example of how a service that has been designed with purpose can benefit a whole community.
Australia can also benefit from approaches used in the Indo-Pacific, especially those which involve the entire community and not only the person who uses violence. How would involving communities in this project look like?
Women can be kept safe by a program that is effective and intervenes in domestic violence and family abuse. If a program doesn’t work or isn’t funded for long enough, the woman at risk and her family are left in danger.
Our research indicates that there are promising solutions in the Indo-Pacific.
