Introduction
Men’s Behaviour Change Programs (MBCPs) have emerged as a pivotal, yet often misunderstood, component of the response to domestic, family, and sexual violence in Australia. These programs, typically delivered in group-based settings, are designed for men who have used violence against intimate partners or family members. They seek to promote accountability, enhance safety for victims and survivors—particularly women and children—and facilitate sustained behavioural change. While these programs were never designed to function as stand-alone interventions, questions about their efficacy and scope persist in public discourse and academic literature (ANROWS & No to Violence, 2024).
This article provides an evidence-based overview of MBCPs, synthesising peer-reviewed and grey literature to highlight their aims, mechanisms, limitations, and roles within broader systems of accountability. It also examines the diverse delivery models and populations served, including culturally responsive approaches and early intervention with younger men. The growing body of research shows that although these programs offer measurable benefits in some cases, they are only one element within a more complex ecosystem of responses needed to meaningfully address men’s use of violence (Chung, Upton-Davis, et al., 2020; Vlais et al., 2022).
The Role and Scope of Men’s Behaviour Change Programs
MBCPs aim to confront and disrupt patterns of coercive control, physical violence, and psychological abuse. Their objectives typically include fostering personal accountability, increasing empathy, promoting safe parenting, and reducing recidivism (Brown & Spitzkowsky, 2024; Day et al., 2019). However, significant variation exists in program structures and content. Approaches may draw from the Duluth model (Pence & Paymar, 1993), cognitive behavioural therapy (Beck, 2011), narrative therapy (Wendt et al., 2019), or acceptance and commitment therapy (Zarling & Russell, 2022), often resulting in hybrid modalities.
Despite their theoretical robustness, MBCPs are frequently hampered by systemic challenges. Many individuals who use violence never engage with an MBCP—either due to limited availability, long waiting lists, or low motivation to change (FVRIM, 2023; Meyer et al., 2023). Additionally, programs are embedded within broader socio-cultural systems that can either reinforce or undermine efforts at behavioural transformation (Helps, McGowan, et al., 2023).
Heterogeneity of Program Models and Participants
A critical insight from recent evaluations is the vast heterogeneity among both programs and their participants. Programs vary in duration, intensity, entry pathways (court-mandated vs self-referred), facilitator training, and levels of engagement with victims and survivors (Chung, Anderson, et al., 2020; Vlais et al., 2017). Participant profiles also differ widely in terms of risk levels, patterns of abuse, motivation to change, and comorbid issues such as substance use or mental health concerns (Nicholas et al., 2020a; Fitz-Gibbon et al., 2024).
This variability has led to calls for more tailored responses, such as programs designed for young men, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, neurodivergent individuals, or men in LGBTQ+ relationships (Satyen et al., 2022; Fitz-Gibbon et al., 2023; Worrell et al., 2024). For example, the Marra’ka Mbarintja Men’s Family Violence Prevention Program in Alice Springs integrates cultural safety, intersectional feminism, and two-way learning into a place-based model of change (Carlson et al., 2021).
Program Outcomes and Limitations
While some participants report improvements in emotional regulation, communication, and reductions in physical violence, these shifts are often incremental rather than transformational (Kelly & Westmarland, 2015; Mosso Tupper et al., in press). Furthermore, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that program completion equates to sustained behavioural change. In fact, some participants may replace overt violence with more covert tactics of psychological control (Coulter & VandeWeerd, 2009; Mandel, 2020).
Evaluations relying on recidivism data offer a narrow lens, failing to capture nuanced behavioural changes or improvements in victim-survivor safety. A growing consensus suggests the need for multidimensional outcome measures that include victim feedback, risk assessments, and systemic collaboration indicators (Nicholas et al., 2020b; Bell & Coates, 2022).
Integration into a System of Accountability
MBCPs cannot function effectively in isolation. Their success depends on robust integration within a coordinated community response that includes child protection services, the criminal justice system, victim support agencies, and mental health providers (DSS, 2015; McCulloch et al., 2017). As evidenced by programs such as CatholicCare’s Back on Track, improved outcomes are more likely when MBCPs are complemented by case management, information sharing, and cross-sectoral collaboration (ANROWS & No to Violence, 2024).
Effective system integration also involves addressing misidentification by police, ensuring consistent messaging from allied services, and enhancing visibility of perpetrator behaviour patterns. Case conferencing, risk review meetings, and communities of practice—such as those initiated by CatholicCare—demonstrate how local ecosystems can be mobilised for improved safety and accountability (Helps, Conner, et al., 2023).
What Works: Program Components and Mechanisms of Change
Evidence suggests several key components that support success in MBCPs:
- Pre-program screening and assessment, particularly for AOD use and cognitive functioning (Siria et al., 2022; Romero-Martínez et al., 2023)
- Motivational interviewing to enhance engagement and readiness for change (Santirso et al., 2020)
- Integrated fathering components, which leverage paternal identity as a driver of behavioural transformation (Broady et al., 2017; Smith Stover et al., 2010)
- Family safety contact, ensuring that the voices and needs of victims and survivors remain central (Kelly & Westmarland, 2015; Seamer, 2024)
Programs that provide wraparound services, such as housing support or legal aid, are also more likely to retain participants and facilitate lasting change (Meli Men’s Centre, Case Study 2).
Methodological and Evaluation Challenges
Robust evaluations of MBCPs face numerous methodological barriers. These include inconsistent definitions of “success,” reliance on self-reported data, and short follow-up durations (Vall et al., 2024; Fitz-Gibbon et al., 2023). Moreover, outcome measures often focus on individual behaviour rather than systemic or relational changes.
Studies rarely account for the contextual variables that influence program efficacy—such as social norms, service availability, or the intersecting impacts of trauma and marginalisation (Jewkes et al., 2015; Vlais et al., 2022). As a result, there is a disconnect between the aims of MBCPs, what they are contracted to deliver, and how their impact is measured (Nicholas et al., 2020a).
Men’s Mental Health and Help-Seeking: Broader Behavioural Change Implications
The challenges observed in MBCPs are echoed in broader behavioural health initiatives targeting men. For example, research on men’s reluctance to seek mental health support shows that traditional masculine norms—such as stoicism, emotional suppression, and self-reliance—act as significant barriers to help-seeking (Addis & Mahalik, 2003; Seidler et al., 2016). Interventions that adopt gender-sensitive behaviour change techniques (BCTs), such as framing, credible sourcing, and social comparison, have demonstrated improved outcomes in male engagement (Sagar-Ouriaghli et al., 2019).
Applying insights from these mental health interventions may inform MBCP design by leveraging positive masculinity traits (e.g., responsibility, strength) and challenging harmful norms without alienating participants (Englar-Carlson & Kiselica, 2013). However, such strategies must avoid reinforcing hegemonic ideals that could inadvertently legitimise dominance or control (Fleming et al., 2014).
Conclusion
Men’s Behaviour Change Programs represent a necessary, but insufficient, component of the systemic response to domestic, family, and sexual violence in Australia. The growing evidence base confirms that while some positive changes can result from MBCP participation, the outcomes are highly variable and contingent on broader systemic, social, and individual factors.
To enhance their effectiveness, MBCPs must be:
- Better funded and resourced to offer tailored, holistic services
- Integrated within a coordinated and accountable system
- Evaluated using multidimensional metrics that centre victim-survivor experiences
- Supported by broader societal efforts to challenge gendered norms and support men’s emotional development
As ANROWS, No to Violence, and the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission continue to emphasise, long-term progress will depend on collective commitment—from policymakers, practitioners, researchers, and communities—to address the root causes of violence and build a safer, more equitable future.