There’s growing recognition of the need to focus on perpetrators of family violence. As Australia’s National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children 2022-2032 states:
“Violence against women and children will not end without a clear and sustained focus on perpetration.”
The National Plan also asserts the need to “bring addressing sexual violence out of the shadows”.
Sexual violence and family violence intersect. Perpetrators of sexual violence against women in Australia are most likely to be an intimate partner, and intimate partner sexual violence often co-occurs alongside other forms of family violence.
Yet, little is known about how responses to family violence perpetrators address intimate partner sexual violence.
Our new research with No to Violence, an organisation that that works with men to end family violence, highlights gaps in the identification, assessment, and response to intimate partner sexual violence.
Responding to family violence perpetrators
A range of perpetrator interventions is used in response to family violence. One common intervention used in Australia is men’s behaviour change programs (MBCPs).
MBCPs are group-based interventions that work with men to explore their violent behaviours and attitudes, to learn non-violence, and to address violence supporting beliefs.
Attendance at a MBCP can be voluntary or court-ordered. Where MBCPs are considered inappropriate for perpetrators, they may be referred to another support service or attend individual counselling.
While MBCPs are often used in response to family violence perpetration, limited attention has been paid to how they address intimate partner sexual violence.
Why we need to focus on intimate partner sexual violence
Intimate partner sexual violence can result in many harmful psychological, emotional, and physical conditions that are distinct from the harms of both non-sexual family violence and sexual violence perpetrated by other assailant types.
Intimate partner sexual violence includes a range of behaviours – including but not limited to – forced or coerced sexual acts; threats or blackmail to obtain sexual acts; image-based abuse; making a partner view pornography; and reproductive abuse (for example, refusing to use contraception). It also includes acts that victim-survivors may submit to in order to avoid the negative outcomes of refusal or out of fear, perceived obligation, or duty to comply.
Read more: Turning a blind eye to image-based abuse
Intimate partner sexual violence often forms part of a broader pattern of violence, and is more often observed in relationships where other forms of family violence are already occurring. It’s also less likely to be reported than other forms of family violence.
Intimate partner sexual violence can be a sign abuse is escalating, and there’s a high co-occurrence of intimate partner sexual violence alongside non-fatal strangulation, stalking, and separation violence, all of which are linked to lethality.
Identifying and assessing risk of intimate partner sexual violence
Our study found limitations in the identification, assessment and response to intimate partner sexual violence in family violence perpetrator interventions.
Practitioners raised a number of barriers to identifying intimate partner sexual violence. Some practitioners spoke, for example, about prior screening by referring agencies. As one practitioner explained:
“No referral agency we deal with […] ever identifies sexual violence in IPDFV [intimate partner domestic and family violence] unless there is a specific charge for a sexual-crime (and if there is, it isn't a charge connected with the IPDFV). Perhaps this is a barrier in our MBCP assessments, in that, because this form of violence is unaddressed, we don't raise it either.’’
This example highlights how issues with, and inconsistencies in, service coordination creates the potential for intimate partner sexual violence to be missed in screening.
Our findings also reveal that one in five practitioners report that they rarely or never risk assess for intimate partner sexual violence in their assessment of family violence perpetrators. Further, two in five practitioners reported that they risk assess for intimate partner sexual violence perpetration less often than other forms of family violence.
Practitioners rely on professional judgment and skill alongside risk assessment tools, such as Victoria’s Multi-Agency Risk Assessment and Management Framework to assess family violence, but the way assessment tools capture sexual violence can be limited.
Practitioners described assessment tools as “blunt”, often focused on sexual assault, and not enabling of a comprehensive assessment of intimate partner sexual violence.
One practitioner reported:
“There is [a] lack of clarity in our risk assessment tool […] There is consistent variation in what is considered sexual assault for the purposes of risk assessment.”
In practice, these recognised limits in assessment tools may undermine broader efforts to identify and assess risk of intimate partner sexual violence.
Addressing intimate partner sexual violence in perpetrator intervention programs
Our study highlights variation in perpetrator intervention program practice related to addressing intimate partner sexual violence. Some practitioners reported that the topic was incorporated into program content and discussed with family violence perpetrators, while others reported that this was not covered.
One in four practitioners reported that they rarely or never discuss intimate partner sexual violence in their work with family violence perpetrators.
Where this is discussed the quality of engagement varied, with some practitioners describing this as only superficially explored.
Key barriers to addressing intimate partner sexual violence in behaviour change work include both practitioner and perpetrator discomfort, and the limited discussions around sex in society more broadly:
“I think the barrier lies in having the conversation […] we don't talk sex.”
Bringing intimate partner sexual violence into frame
In Australia, we’ve witnessed increased focus on addressing all forms of domestic, family, and sexual violence, yet our study demonstrates that intimate partner sexual violence remains on the periphery in family violence perpetrator interventions.
Our research highlights the need for intimate partner sexual violence-focused training for practitioners working with family violence perpetrators. One in four practitioners reported that this was not covered in their training.
Our research also highlights opportunities to improve screening and risk assessment tools to better-support practitioners to identify and assess risk of intimate partner sexual violence alongside other forms of family violence.
It’s critical that workplace support is available for practitioners undertaking this work.
If efforts to hold perpetrators accountable for all forms of violence are to be successful, we need focused attention on addressing intimate partner sexual violence.
