Study maps domestic violence perpetrator interventions across the Indo-Pacific

Domestic and family violence (DFV) rates in the Indo-Pacific are among the highest globally, but there is a lack of focus, both in research and policy, on the issue across the region. 

In the first analysis of its kind centered on the Indo-Pacific, Griffith University researchers conducted a scoping review, mapping the intervention programs that existed for male perpetrators of DFV, examining what they looked like in practice, and where opportunities for learning and collaboration lay. 

Dr Freya McLachlan, Research Fellow at the Center of Excellence for The Elimination of Violence Against Women (CEVAW) who conducted the review with Professor Patrick O’Leary, Katy Desmond and Taliah Swart, said while practitioners in the Indo Pacific were trialling innovative intervention approaches to male perpetrated violence, too often programs were developed independently, piloted with limited resources and were unable to facilitate meaningful knowledge sharing. 

If we want to effectively engage men who use domestic and family violence in Australia and across the Indo-Pacific, we must first examine how we engage the communities in which that violence occurs. 

Only 14 of the 42 countries we looked at produced peer-reviewed literature on perpetrator programmes and almost half of the identified interventions were based in Australia.” 

Dr. Freya McLachlan, Research Fellow, Center of Excellence for The Elimination of Violence Against Women (CEVAW) 

Three broad approaches emerged from the research: 

Men’s behavior change programs (MBCPs) – 18 interventions. The dominant model in Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, and Taiwan. Group-based, typically court-mandated, rooted in feminist and psychoeducational frameworks. 

Whole-of-community approaches – 18 interventions. Predominantly found outside Australia, particularly across South and Southeast Asia. Engaged the person using violence and the broader community – bystanders, peers, family members, faith leaders, and elders. 

Multi-agency and integrated approaches – 6 interventions. Coordinated across multiple services, addressing violence alongside mental health, substance use, housing, fathering, and child safety. 

Community-based and bystander interventions were far more prevalent outside Australia and this reflected cultural context as much as program design. 

Seventeen of the 22 interventions identified without bystander engagement were Australian. 

“This raises an important question for the sector: are Australian practitioners and funders drawing enough on community-based approaches, particularly for communities with their own collectivist 

frameworks such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and men from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds?” Dr McLachlan said. 

This review identified multiple key research and practice gaps in the areas of inclusion, geography and evidence. 

For example, only two of 42 interventions directly addressed the needs of marginalised populations. 

Some countries with the highest DFV rates – identified in WHO and UN data – were entirely absent from the intervention research base. 

“This does not mean that programs do not exist in these countries, but that they are not captured in academic publishing, which reflects broader inequality in the global research system,” Dr McLachlan said. 

“CEVAW researchers are expanding this work to include a grey literature review which will capture programs from NGO-led programs in low-resourced countries.”