The WESNET Committee has made it a priority to respond to the issue of perpetrator programs. This is an issue which for ten years now has been of great interest and concern to women’s services, and which has seen a real growth in programs and policies. In 1996 the National Forum on Domestic Violence hosted by the Commonwealth Office of the Status of Women made a series of recommendations regarding perpetrator programs. It is timely that women’s services nationally make some comment.

A working group of the WESNET National Committee considered the broad issues regarding perpetrator programs, and examined a variety of service guidelines which had been produced by different States. The group found some important similarities and some real differences emerging between the States.

WESNET strongly supports a number of overarching principles which need to guide any intervention programs with perpetrators of domestic violence:

1. That the safety and ongoing protection of the victims is the overriding concern of any intervention. 
2. That men should take responsibility for the violence they inflict.
3. Domestic violence is a crime and no intervention should ever substitute for a criminal response.
4. Resources for perpetrator programs must never be at the expense of, or diminish the resources available for victims.
5. Programs must be based on a gender analysis and be culturally appropriate.
6. Differences between the types of programs for perpetrators of domestic violence and perpetrators of sexual assault should be acknowledged and acted on in the formulation of such programs.
7. Nationally based training and accreditation, monitoring and evaluation must be put into place.
8. Outcomes must be based on the elimination of violence as reported by the victims.

WESNET also recommends the following:

1. Resourcing/funding

(a) Men’s SAAP services.

It is often said that ‘more should be done for men’, ‘what about refuges for men?’ or that ‘women get all the help’. The fact is that there are more SAAP beds for men than women. Yet to what extent have men’s SAAP services used their resources to combat domestic violence? SAAP services accommodating men (including young men) should be required to more effectively resource perpetrators with accommodation and support (including counselling).

(b) User Pays

This has been shown in NSW and WA to be an effective source of funding for perpetrator programs, and indeed perpetrator fees have been used to fund parallel women’s groups. The Queensland Government has approved Minimum Practice Standards for Men’s Domestic Violence Perpetrator Progams which endorse this principle. User pays (on a means tested basis) should be a required funding source.

(c) Attorney Generals/Correction Departments

For court mandated programs we strongly recommend that funding should be sourced from the Department which funds the courts which order the counselling, or the Department implementing other court imposed penalties (eg probation, imprisonment).

2. National Guidelines

A cursory examination of the guidelines that have been developed on a State by State basis reveals a disturbing number of variations between States. We call for a National set of standards to include:

• national Accreditation and Training Standards;
• monitoring by outside agencies (preferably non-government); and
• inclusion of a female facilitator in all groups.

3. Parallel Women’s Groups

Without running parallel women’s groups, there is a real danger that stand- alone men’s groups will lose a perspective on what is happening for the women who are the partners or ex-partners of the participants. Running parallel women’s groups also ensures that a community does not have a men’s group and nothing for women.

Money raised from men participating in the men’s group on the user-pays principle, should be adequate to fund the associated parallel women’s group.

Women’s participation, however, must be voluntary. There should be no pressure on women to participate.

4. Children to be Given Equal Status as Victims

In developing and implementing perpetrator’s programs, the effects on children of domestic violence must be taken into account, and the outcomes of children of such programs must also be considered.