Men’s behaviour change work is often described in terms of “helping men change,” but the true measure of success is not how a man feels about himself – it is whether his partner, ex‑partner, and children are actually safer. If victim‑survivor safety is not the organising principle, men’s programs risk becoming another service centred on the needs and comfort of the person using violence rather than those living with its consequences. Any domestic violence programs for men that take their responsibility seriously must constantly come back to this question: “Is what we’re doing increasing safety, or simply increasing engagement?”
Safety as the first principle, not an add‑on
Across Australian practice standards and research, one message is consistent: the safety of women and children must be given the highest priority in perpetrator interventions. That means programs are not neutral spaces where “both sides” are explored; they are interventions with a clear purpose – to reduce and prevent domestic and family violence, not to repair a man’s self‑image.
Keeping safety at the centre changes how programs are designed and delivered:
- Program content focuses on patterns of power and control, not just “anger issues.”
- Facilitators name violence clearly and challenge minimisation, denial, and victim‑blaming.
- Risk is monitored throughout, not only at intake, and there are clear procedures for responding to threats or escalation.
When men attend a men’s behaviour change course online that is truly safety‑focused, they learn early that the program is not there to “get the court off their back,” but to confront the impact of their choices on the people around them.
Listening to victim‑survivors, even when they’re not in the room
Victim‑survivors rarely sit in the circle where men are doing behaviour change work, but their experiences should shape what happens there. Practice guides emphasise the importance of partner contact safe, voluntary, and properly supported conversations with victim‑survivors – as a core part of prioritising safety.
Partner contact and safety‑focused work can:
- Provide victim‑survivors with accurate information about the program and what it can and cannot do.
- Give them a channel to share concerns about ongoing or escalating behaviour, including ways men may be misusing the program (for example, claiming attendance as “proof” they have changed).
- Offer validation, support, and referrals so they are not left feeling that the system’s focus is solely on the man.
Victim‑survivor voices also inform program design more broadly. Research shows that many women value not just reduced violence, but honesty, responsibility, and meaningful consequences when patterns continue. Programs that centre safety take those expectations seriously.
Risk assessment and ongoing monitoring
Risk in domestic and family violence is dynamic, not static. A man may enter a program at one risk level and shift up or down as circumstances change for example, after separation, new court matters, child contact disputes, or substance use changes.
Safety‑centred men’s behaviour change programs:
- Conduct structured risk assessments at intake and revisit risk systematically during the program.
- Monitor indicators like escalation in threats, stalking, breaches of orders, and use of children or legal systems as tools of control.
- Have clear protocols for responding to increased risk, including information‑sharing with partner support services, child protection, or justice agencies where appropriate and lawful.
This monitoring is not just about “keeping an eye” on participants. It is about recognising that participation in a men’s behaviour change program can sometimes trigger new tactics of control – for example, men using the fact they are “doing a course” to pressure partners to stay, or to argue in court that concerns are no longer valid. Safety‑focused services anticipate and respond to this.
Challenging narratives that centre men instead of safety
One of the persistent risks in this field is that the man’s journey becomes the main story: his trauma, his stress, his shame, his “recovery.” While these elements matter, they can never be allowed to overshadow the core question of whether his behaviour is becoming safer.
Safety‑centred practice means:
- Being cautious about language that frames men primarily as “clients in need,” rather than as people who have used harmful behaviour and are responsible for changing it.
- Avoiding therapeutic approaches that focus heavily on his feelings without connecting them to accountability and impact.
- Recognising that some men will attempt to use therapeutic language (for example, talking about “childhood trauma” or “triggers”) as a way to deflect from current choices.
A strong domestic violence course for men will integrate insight and support with firm accountability, making it clear that understanding yourself is not a substitute for stopping violence.
Integration with systems that hold men to account
Victim‑survivor safety is best supported when behaviour change programs are part of an integrated system response rather than operating in isolation. This includes collaboration with:
- Courts and specialist family violence lists
- Police and family violence units
- Community corrections and parole
- Child protection and family law systems
- Specialist women’s and children’s services
An integrated approach helps ensure that:
- Risks identified in programs can be acted on quickly.
- Legal and child‑related decisions are informed by specialist knowledge of the man’s behaviour.
- Victim‑survivors receive consistent messages from different parts of the system about what is acceptable and what support is available.
Programs that position themselves within this broader system rather than marketing as quick‑fix standalone solutions are better placed to keep safety at the centre.
Keeping safety central in online and long‑form programs
With more services moving online, including men’s behaviour change program online models and long‑form 40‑week programs, there is both opportunity and responsibility. Online delivery can increase access for men across regions, but it must not dilute safety practices.
Safety‑focused online and long‑form work should include:
- Clear protocols for managing disclosures and risk indicators in virtual sessions.
- Strong partner contact and support processes that are not dependent on physical office access.
- Regular review points where the program checks not just “how the man is going,” but what this might mean for the safety of the people around him.
When well‑designed, extended models like a men’s behavioural change 40‑week program can provide more time to challenge deeply held beliefs and entitlements, while maintaining close attention to risk and system coordination.
Re‑centring who this work is really for
Ultimately, the central question for any practitioner, manager, or funder working around men’s behaviour change should be: “Who benefits most from this intervention?” If the honest answer is “the men, because they feel better,” then safety has slipped from the centre.
Victim‑survivor safety must remain the core measure of success:
- Are women and children reporting less fear, fewer incidents, and more freedom?
- Are systems better informed and better coordinated around risk?
- Are men being held to account in ways that go beyond attendance and into real behavioural change?
Men’s behaviour change work can play a vital role in building safer communities – but only when it is designed and delivered with victim‑survivor safety as its starting point, not an afterthought. For those looking at how this can be put into practice in an online, long‑form setting, organisations like Core Men’s Business offer a useful example of programs that explicitly shift the burden of change away from victims and onto the men who use violence, while keeping safety at the centre of every decision