Improving perpetration data

Shifting focus from victimisation to perpetration

Collecting and analysing perpetration data offers many benefits for the primary prevention of family violence. First and foremost, it keeps perpetrators ‘in the picture’. Family violence, which is disproportionately used against women and children, is not ‘a woman’s problem’: we cannot prevent violence from happening by only working with the people experiencing it. We must work with people using violence, and with those who perpetuate attitudes, behaviours and social norms that drive violence, whilst also understanding the contextual factors that reinforce this violence (e.g. alcohol, pornography, histories of abuse).

Australia has, for some time, collected data on victimisation of domestic, family and sexual violence through the PSS (ABS 2023). A regular, nationally representative, population-based survey on the use of domestic, family and sexual violence would complement this dataset, and support the framing of family violence as a ‘perpetrator’s problem’. Consistent data collection over time would enable between-year comparisons of patterns of family violence within the community. In prevention, this dataset would support both evidence-based program design, and monitoring impact through measuring the prevalence of drivers and use of violence.

While this inquiry is predominately focusing on perpetrators of family violence, it makes sense to consider family, domestic and sexual violence in any population-based survey, including insidious and dynamic forms of abuse such as tech-facilitated abuse, economic abuse, and coercive control. This is due to the overlap and co-occurrence of perpetration of different ‘types’ of violence (Flood, et al. 2022). Expanding the focus would also support a more intersectional analysis of violence perpetration, as different types of violence impact people with different identities and histories at different rates and in different ways. To complement this intersectional analysis of perpetration data, deeper intersectional analysis of data about the characteristics of victims of violence (such as disability, migrant status, and so on) available through the PSS is required.  

Focusing on the drivers

The gendered drivers of violence need prominence in data collection related to the cause and use of violence. A fuller understanding of how these drivers relate to violent behaviour would result in more effective, and more targeted, prevention and early intervention efforts. The combination of data related to attitudes towards and understanding of the gendered drivers of violence and family violence dynamics (such as data currently available through the NCAS) and additional data about violence use, would also help us draw a line of sight from prevention efforts through to violent behaviour (or desistance).

Reinforcing factors such as alcohol and other drugs, gambling, financial stress, mental illness and pornography use are important for understanding the context in which violence occurs. Alcohol and other drug use, gambling addiction, financial stress and mental illness are identified as evidence-based risk factors under MARAM, to identify risk of harm. Pornography is included as a risk factor when it has been shown to children. These reinforcing factors interact with the gendered drivers to influence the frequency, severity, and sometimes the onset of violence, but they are not the primary cause (Our Watch 2021). For example, ANROWS research during the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that experiences of economic insecurity were significantly associated with sexual, physical, and non-physical abuse (Morgan A 2022). Financial stress increased the risk of experiencing physical or sexual violence, or emotionally abusive, harassing or controlling behaviours for the first time. Women who had lost work or taken a pay cut were more likely to experience physical or sexual violence from their partner for the first time. A partner’s loss of work or income was also associated with increased risk of first-time violence, and escalation in frequency and severity of existing physical violence, and emotionally abusive, harassing and controlling behaviours. Reinforcing this link, when women’s financial situation had improved compared to 12 months ago, they were more likely to see a de-escalation in violence. However, while both women and men experienced financial stress during the pandemic, the gendered nature of violence remained: men were more likely to use violence and women were more likely to experience it. Income and financial security is inherently linked to gendered norms of inequality, based on the presumption that men should be providing for the family and exerting financial control. In other words, economic stress may result in violence in the context of the gendered drivers.

Similarly, it is important to understand the links between mental illness and violence through the prism of the gendered drivers of violence. All genders experience mental ill-health (AIHW 2024), but they do not use domestic, family and sexual violence at similar rates (AIHW 2024). Mental illness may result in people having intense feelings, such as shame, anger, and fear. Boys are socialised to use violence and aggression as a means of processing difficult emotions and conflict, often meaning that they do not develop the tools to resolve these issues and feelings in healthier or safer ways (Randell, et al. 2016). Violence is a learnt coping mechanism that may result in boys and men being more likely to use violence in the context of psychological distress than other genders (Sharma 2023). It is important to note that while mental illness or psychological distress may make it more likely that someone uses violence (Paulino A 2023), most people with mental illness are not violent (Van Dorn R 2012).

By focusing on the gendered drivers of violence, and how they play out through reinforcing factors, a perpetration survey would deliver not only better understanding of why and how violence is used, but it would also act as a mechanism to monitor our progress in primary prevention and early intervention. The NCAS as it currently stands, while providing rich and useful analysis, is insufficient to measure primary prevention progress, due to its focus on attitudes alone without also capturing data on behaviour. A perpetration survey that analyses both, and the relationship between them, would provide stronger evaluation evidence.

To function effectively as a tool for monitoring and evaluation, a perpetration survey would need to collect data from a representative sample of a large enough size to enable analysis at a state and ideally regional level. The different policy, systems, environmental and community contexts existing between states and regions may result in different attitudes, beliefs and behaviours, risk factors and this difference is important to analyse in terms of understanding which approaches are working best to prevent violence. In Victoria, a regional analysis would enable deeper understanding of the impact of different funding and programmatic approaches, and enable better alignment of primary prevention and early intervention of gender-based violence initiatives with the Early Intervention Investment Framework (EIIF), which requires evaluation of both shorter- and longer-term impacts. 

Perpetration as a behaviour, not an identity

A nationally representative survey should seek to emphasise understanding perpetration rather than perpetrators. While a call to understand more about people who use violence is understandable amongst escalating reports, the prevalence is so great that we need to acknowledge that it’s not one ‘type of person’ using violence: it’s people we know, love, and work with. People who use violence are everywhere, and they are part of our families, friendship groups, workplaces, sports clubs, and even our parliaments.

Domestic, family and sexual violence is pervasive and impacts people from all walks of life. Gendered violence being understood as a societal issue driven by problematic attitudes and norms, is critical to the success of primary prevention: if the problem of violence belongs to the whole community, then there is community will, momentum and mobilisation to address it. While it is important to collect demographic information as a part of any survey to ensure it is representative, any attempt to create a perpetrator profile that is based on identity characteristics rather than attitudes, behaviours and previous experiences risks creating a taxonomy that people can use to remove themselves from culpability, thinking that because they do not fit a particular profile, they do not need to be concerned about their behaviour. Profiling also risks compounding existing issues of over policing, stereotyping and discrimination. The purpose of collecting demographic and personal history information should be related to the pervasiveness of violence across our population, and identifying opportunities to intervene early and effectively.

Understanding the pathway to perpetration

A consistent, nationally representative survey on domestic, family and sexual violence perpetration should include data collection that enables a wider and deeper analysis of the pathways, dynamics, patterns, drivers, and characteristics of perpetration. By collecting data not just about instances of violence, but also contextual factors, patterns, and the presence of gendered drivers and reinforcing factors, we would get a better picture of how to reduce the risk of violence. If we understand perpetration trajectories, we better understand where to intervene in order to prevent violence from occurring, and from reoccurring. Long-term, cross-sectional data collection would enable us to see changes unfold over time, and better understand perpetration trajectories or pathways – and in turn opportunities for intervention and prevention.

Getting a better sense of the impact, intent and context of violence also helps us understand the gendered dynamics more clearly. Reviews by Flood et al. (2022) and Respect Victoria (Salter M 2023) found that men typically used violence repeatedly, to control, and in a way that caused fear in their partner. However, women who used violence tended to do so in a reactionary or defensive way, that did not cause prolonged fear or submission in their partner. The PSS (ABS 2023) collects data about anxiety and fear that results from violence, which is more reliably reported from victim-survivors than people who perpetrate violence, as they may not have that insight into the state of mind of the person they are harming. A perpetration survey should consider dimensions of violence such as motivation, frequency, severity, context, and whether it was in the presence of coercive and controlling behaviours. Questions designed to elucidate patterns of abuse, both within a single relationship and by one perpetrator towards multiple partners/family members, rather than information about individual instances, will provide a richer picture to identify opportunities for targeted prevention and early intervention opportunities.

A better understanding of how the drivers of violence influence violent behaviour would enable better targeting of both whole-of-population and cohort-specific impactful primary prevention efforts. It would also enable better targeting of early intervention initiatives towards people who are most likely to use, continue, or escalate violent behaviours. In particular, the information could strengthen men’s behaviour change programs, peer support programs, and initiatives designed to support help-seeking behaviour in men at risk of using violence.

Exploring contextual factors may also support a better intersectional analysis of domestic, family and sexual violence use in Australia. Understanding the role of racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, classism, and other forms of discrimination in the lives of people who use and experience violence would enable stronger risk reduction efforts within marginalised communities. Through this analysis it is critical to keep the ‘why’ as well as the ‘what’ in view: in other words, it is not a person’s social identity that creates the risk, it is the discrimination they face. This concept has been well-established in both mental health and domestic, family and sexual violence research focusing on the experiences of LGBTQIA+ people (Green, Price and Dorison 2021) (Flood, et al. 2022). For example, internalised homophobia can act as a risk factor for intimate partner violence in queer relationships, and disrupting this link will be critical to driving down rates of violence in LGBTQIA+ relationships (Flood, et al. 2022).

Identifying potential intervention points

In a population survey that interrogates both attitudes and behaviours, it may be possible to investigate the feelings of people who use violence towards their own behaviour. For example, do people who use violence identify that they have done anything wrong, do they feel ashamed, do they feel justified? Peer-to-peer and bystander behaviours could likewise be investigated through questions about whether someone intervened or spoke to a person using violence about their behaviour. These questions would support stronger prevention and early intervention through understanding how social norms are playing out in Australian communities. Flood et al. noted that men are more likely to self-report that they would assault a woman if they thought there would be no consequences. While more research is needed, Flood et al.’s analysis suggests that if gender-based violence – particularly sexual violence – is not addressed when it first emerges, usually in adolescence, offending is likely to continue into adulthood, and potentially escalate. There are opportunities for accountability outside of the criminal justice system, in social settings. These opportunities are important in addressing behaviour both before it reaches the threshold of criminality, and also because of the very low rates of reporting and conviction for domestic, family and sexual violence offenses. Therefore, survey questions about responses to a person’s use of violence could give us a sense of to what degree people are holding each other accountable, and the impact that is having on violent behaviours.

Creating a representative dataset

As advocated for by Michael Flood, Lula Dembele and others, a regular, nationally representative, population-based survey on the use of domestic, family and sexual violence is the most promising mechanism for collecting and analysing data of the scale, depth and breadth needed to truly understand perpetration. Much like the PSS over-samples women due to the gendered nature of victimisation, a perpetration survey should over-sample men due to the gendered nature of violence use. In 2016, the PSS sample included approximately 30,000 women and 7,000 men to get a more detailed picture of the experiences of victim-survivors: to replicate this approach, a perpetration survey might sample 30,000 men and 7,000 women. 

While analysis of service data may offer qualitative insights, it cannot be considered representative of the full scale and spectrum of people who use violence. Due to well-documented issues within Australia about over-policing and surveillance of particular communities (such as First Nations communities, and people living in social housing), and people from a range of communities not feeling safe to report violence (including LGBTQIA+ and First Nations people) there is the potential for service data to significantly misrepresent who is using violence, who is impacted, and reinforce stereotyping and bias. However, when complemented by a representative dataset, service data would tell us who is currently not engaged with services or ‘in view’ of the criminal justice system, and where there are gaps. 

Methodological considerations

The willingness of people to disclose violent behaviour in a survey, and reliability of the data generated, has been the subject of significant research over recent decades. There are a range of ways these risks can be mitigated through careful survey design, expert analysis and communication strategies.

Flood et al.’s review (2022) built on previous research (Anderson, et al. 2019) to show that how we ask people about their violent behaviours has a considerable impact on both what they report, and our ability to analyse the data effectively. Some people do not recognise their behaviour as abuse or assault, and are less likely to self-report if behaviour is framed in that way. More nuanced descriptions of situations and behaviours is likely to elicit more honest reporting. There are also examples of how online survey mechanisms can mitigate social acceptability bias and give more accurate prevalence estimates, such as the Man Box project (The Men's Project 2024), and research into child sexual offending behaviours and attitudes in Australian men (Salter, M et al. 2023) – both of which found high rates of self-reported violence by Australian men.

We also see between research studies that if research takes an incident-based approach, a lot of detail is missed that would give us a better understanding of the impact of violence within a relationship. For example, in studies that ask about specific incidents of violence without asking about the severity, intention, or impact of the violence, roughly equal numbers of men and women are reported to use physical and emotional intimate partner violence. However, in studies that delve deeper into the context of the violence, we see that men are far more likely to use violence that is repeated, escalating, designed to control, and that causes fear, distress and compliance in their partner (Salter M 2023). Women, however, are more likely to use violence in a defensive way, in single incidents with less likelihood of causing harm, and without causing fear and compliance in their partner (Flood, et al. 2022).

Implications for prevention

A regular, nationally representative, population-based survey of the perpetration of gender-based violence offers a number of benefits to primary prevention and early intervention, including:

• A deeper understanding of who is using domestic, family and sexual violence, how, and in what context.
• The opportunity to analyse the links between gendered drivers, reinforcing factors, and perpetration of domestic, family and sexual violence.
•  Identification of leverage points for population-wide and cohort-specific primary prevention and early intervention efforts.
• Enhancing our capacity to evaluate progress in addressing the gendered drivers and reinforcing factors of domestic, family and sexual violence.
• Providing us additional detail about patterns of violence use, including entry into and exit from violence perpetration to inform the design and delivery of prevention, early intervention and response services.