At a glance

Intervention Parenting-based behaviour change programs for perpetrators

Population Adult men who use intimate partner violence (IPV) and have children under the age of 18 who experience parental IPV

Outcomes studied Child outcomes, gender-based violence, health, knowledge, beliefs and attitudes, parenting, and wellbeing and emotions

Impact of the intervention Coming soon

Australian evidence 3 studies presented findings from Australia. 0 studies reported on the experiences of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people

Risk of bias Most studies were rated as high risk of bias as determined by our Risk of Bias tool

Intervention description

Parenting-based behavioural change programs for perpetrators aim to end intimate partner violence, improve parenting practices and strengthen relationships between fathers and their children who had been exposed to parental intimate partner violence.

Interventions target adult men who use intimate partner violence and have children under the age of 18 who are exposed to parental intimate partner violence.

Interventions generally follow a set program of between 12 and 24 weeks and incorporate various approaches, formats and components:

• Some approaches (e.g., Caring Dads) involve closed group parenting sessions focused on positive parenting and co-parenting behaviours, collaborative case management of fathers, and outreach to mothers to ensure safety and child protection.
• Some group-based approaches (e.g., Taking Responsibility) incorporate mindfulness techniques for emotional regulation and individual support sessions.
• Some approaches (e.g., Fathers for Change) involve individual therapy sessions, with optional joint coparent and father-child sessions, focused on family systems, attachment and cognitive behavioural approaches.
• Some therapy-based approaches incorporate an integrated focus on intimate partner violence, parenting and substance use.

What does the intervention involve?

How is the intervention delivered? By mental health or child protection professionals, individual & group formats. Usually in person

Where is the intervention set? Child protection, mental health and substance use treatment settings

What resources and costs are involved? 0 studies comment on costs associated with the intervention

How frequently is the intervention delivered? Programs vary, but range between weekly sessions of 1-2 hours across 12-24 weeks

Theory of change

How is the intervention designed or theorised to work?

The programs are generally based on cognitive behavioural therapy and motivational models of intervention.

Some studies argue that focusing on men’s roles as fathers and their relationship with their children provides motivation for men to engage with an intervention to address their violent behaviour and change dysfunctional patterns of communication and interactions in their relationships.

Impact section coming soon

Key populations

This review assessed the impact of the intervention on adult men who use intimate partner violence and have children under the age of 18 who are exposed to parental intimate partner violence.

Some programs target men with at least one biological child with whom they have some contact (i.e., by phone, in-person, or by letters). Attendance in the programs is voluntary for most participants but mandated for some.

This intervention is not targeted to any specific cultural or ethnic groups, or towards people with physical or mental disabilities or health conditions.

The table below gives an overview of whether or not the intervention was examined with some key populations. The inclusion of these populations was guided by the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032 and the Australian National Research Agenda to End Violence against Women and Children: 2023-2028.

🔴 = no studies
🟡 = at least 1 study mentions that population, but effectiveness wasn't tested with that population
🟢 = at least 1 study tests effectiveness with the population

Population	What do we know about this group?	Degree of knowledge
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities	0 studies. The appropriateness of this intervention with this population has not yet been established. Therefore, we cannot confirm the applicability of this intervention to this population
Sexuality and gender diverse / LGBTIQA+	0 studies. The appropriateness of this intervention with this population has not yet been established. Therefore, we cannot confirm the applicability of this intervention to this population
Specific age groups (including older people, children and young people)	0 studies. The appropriateness of this intervention with this population has not yet been established. Therefore, we cannot confirm the applicability of this intervention to this population
Culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) groups	0 studies. The appropriateness of this intervention with this population has not yet been established. Therefore, we cannot confirm the applicability of this intervention to this population
Migrants and refugees	0 studies. The appropriateness of this intervention with this population has not yet been established. Therefore, we cannot confirm the applicability of this intervention to this population
People with disability	0 studies. The appropriateness of this intervention with this population has not yet been established. Therefore, we cannot confirm the applicability of this intervention to this population

Key considerations

This section summarises factors that may contribute to study results, factors that may be considered to facilitate better outcomes, and the transferability of the intervention to an Australian context.

What do we know about the intervention in Australia?

• 3 of 12 studies presented findings from Australia (including Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria). The other studies were based in Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States.
• None of the Australian studies reported on interventions implemented in rural communities, Indigenous communities or with culturally and linguistically diverse people or people with disabilities. Further research is needed to determine effectiveness and acceptability in these contexts and with these populations.
• An important limitation to long-term behavioural change sustainability of an intervention such as this is the lack of system-wide practices of monitoring and holding men accountable for abusive behaviours once the intervention has ended.

What should Australian stakeholders consider?

• The studies included in this review did not comment on intervention or implementation costs. However, the following resourcing considerations may be taken:
  • Implementation of this intervention my involve recruiting accredited facilitators or training practitioners through established accreditation courses for named and trademarked programs (e.g., Caring Dads and Fathers for Change).
  • Lesson duration and frequency ranges from one to two hours across 12 to 24 weeks, meaning implementation of this intervention may be time intensive.
  • Some programs have practice guides and logic models available on their websites (e.g., Caring Dads).

• Several studies reported on the likelihood of fathers to minimise or underestimate the extent of their violence and, thus, the importance of obtaining insights from their families.
• Studies also found that most participants’ motivation to change was generally centred around their feelings and hopes about fatherhood, which highlights an important motivating factor for convincing fathers to change their behaviour.

Included studies

Characteristics of primary studies included in the Intervention Review

Study and location	Design	Intervention	Sample	Outcome categories
Broady (2017) Australia	Qualitative	Taking Responsibility, group parenting and therapy Duration and format: 18 weeks Setting: Community services	N=21 Men who had used intimate partner violence	Gender-based violence, parenting and parent-child or/infant interaction
Diemer (2020) Australia	Single group pre-post study Qualitative data: Yes	Caring Dads, group parenting Duration and format: 17 weekly sessions Setting: Child protection services	N=174 Men who had used intimate partner violence	Gender-based violence, health, knowledge, beliefs and attitudes, parenting and parent-child or/infant interaction, social and material support, wellbeing and emotions
Hine et al. (2022) Australia	Single group pre-post study Qualitative data: No	Caring Dads, group parenting Duration and format: 16x2-hour weekly group sessions and 1 individual session Setting: Child protection services	N=57 Men who had used intimate partner violence	Detection of violence, screening and support, gender-based violence, parenting and parent-child or/infant
McConnell et al. (2017) United Kingdom	Single group pre-post study Qualitative data: No	Caring Dads, group parenting Duration and format: 17 weekly sessions Setting: Child protection services	N=98 Men who had used intimate partner violence	Gender-based violence, parenting and parent-child or/infant interaction, wellbeing and emotions
McCracken & Deave (2012) United Kingdom	Single group pre-post study Qualitative data: Yes	Caring Dads Cymru, group parenting Duration and format: 22 weekly sessions Setting: Not reported	N=26 Men who had used intimate partner violence, mean age 37	Gender-based violence, knowledge, beliefs and attitudes and parenting and parent-child or/infant interaction
Scott et al. (2021) Canada	Quasi-experimental study Comparison: Waitlist Qualitative data: No	Caring Dads, group parenting Duration and format: Not reported Setting: Child protection services	N=185 Men who had used intimate partner violence	Detection of violence, screening and support, gender-based violence, parenting and parent-child or/infant interaction
Stover (2011) United States	Randomised controlled trial Comparison: Another active intervention Qualitative data: No	Substance abuse and domestic violence treatment program, group therapy Duration and format: 12x90-minute weekly sessions Setting: Drug and alcohol service	N=69 Men who had used intimate partner violence	Gender-based violence, health
Stover (2015) United States	Randomised controlled trial Comparison: Another active intervention Qualitative data: No	Fathers for Change, individual therapy Duration and format: 4 months Setting: Child protection services	N=19 Men who had used intimate partner violence	Gender-based violence, health, parenting and parent-child or/infant interaction
Stover et al. (2017) United States	Single group pre-post study Qualitative data: Yes	Fathers for Change, individual therapy Duration and format: 16x1-hour sessions Setting: Drug and alcohol services	N=44 Men who had used intimate partner violence, mean age 30	Wellbeing and emotions
Stover et al. (2019) United States	Randomised controlled trial Comparison: Another active intervention Qualitative data: No	Fathers for Change, individual therapy Duration and format: 12x1-hour weekly sessions, with 4 voluntary booster sessions Setting: Drug and alcohol services	N=504 Men who had used intimate partner violence, mean age 33.5	Gender-based violence, health, parenting and parent-child or/infant interaction, wellbeing and emotions
Stover et al. (2020) United States	Single group pre-post study Qualitative data: No	Fathers for Change, individual therapy Duration and format: 18x1-hour group sessions over 18-24 weeks Setting: Mental health service	N=504 Men who had used intimate partner violence, mean age 33.5	Gender-based violence, health, parenting and parent-child or/infant interaction, wellbeing and emotions

References and further reading

This Intervention Review was created by drawing on the following included studies:

Quantitative impact evaluations

• Scott, K., Dubov, Devine, C., Colquhoun, C., Hoffelner, C., Niki, I., Webb, S., & Goodman, D. (2021). Caring Dads intervention for fathers who have perpetrated abuse within their families: Quasi-experimental evaluation of child protection outcomes over two years. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 37, 120, 105204. https://doi.org/10.3109/00952990.2010.535585


• Stover, C. (2015). Fathers for Change for substance use and intimate partner violence. Initial community pilot. Family Process, 54, 120, 105204. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Ffamp.12136


• Stover, C. S., McMahon, T. J., & Easton, C. J. (2011). The impact of fatherhood on treatment response for men with co-occurring alcohol dependence and intimate partner violence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 120, 105204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.105204


• Stover, C. S., McMahon, T. J., & Moore, K. (2019). A randomized pilot trial of two parenting interventions for fathers in residential substance use disorder treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 104, , 120, 105204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2019.07.003

Quantitative single group pre-post studies and qualitative studies:

• Broady, T. R., Gray, R., Gaffney, I., & Lewis, P. (2017). 'I Miss My Little One A Lot': How Father Love Motivates Change in Men Who Have Used Violence. Child Abuse Review, 26(5), 328. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.2381


• Diemer, K., Humphreys, C., Fogden, L., Gallant, D., Spiteri-Staines, A., Bornemisza, A. & Verco, E. (2020). Caring Dads program: Helping fathers value their children – three site independent evaluation 2017-2020. University of Melbourne. https://vawc.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/2020-Caring-Dads-Final-Report-23-3-2020.pdf


• Hine, L., Meyer, S., McDermott, L., & Eggins, E. (2022). Intervention programme for fathers who use domestic and family violence: Results from an evaluation of Caring Dads. Child & Family Social Work, 27(4), 711-724. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12919


• McConnell, N., Barnard, M., & Taylor, J. (2017). Caring Dads Safer Children: Families’ perspectives on an intervention for maltreating fathers. Psychology of Violence, 7(3), 406-416. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000105


• McCracken, K., & Deave, T. (2012). Evaluation of the Caring Dads Cymru Programme. Welsh Government Social Research. https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/statistics-and-research/2019-08/120706caringdadsen.pdf


• Scott, K. L., & Lishak, V. (2012). Intervention for maltreating fathers: Statistically and clinically significant change. Child Abuse and Neglect, 36(9), 680-684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2012.06.003


• Scott, K., Dubov, V., Devine, C., Colquhoun, C., Hoffelner, C., Niki, I., Webb, S., & Goodman, D. (2021). Caring Dads intervention for fathers who have perpetrated abuse within their families: Quasi-experimental evaluation of child protection outcomes over two years. Child Abuse & Neglect, 120, 105204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.105204


• Stover, C. S., Beebe, R., Clough, M., DiVietro, S., Madigan, L., & Grasso, D. J. (2020). Evaluation of a statewide implementation of Fathers for Change: A fathering intervention for families impacted by partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 37,49-459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-020-00199-5

Stover, C. S., Carlson, M., & Patel, S. (2017). Integrating intimate partner violence and parenting intervention into residential substance use disorder treatment for fathers. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 81, 35-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2017.07.013

Additional evidence on the intervention

This list contains other evidence that was not eligible for the Intervention Review based on our selection criteria but may provide further information regarding the intervention.

• Arean, J. C., & Davis, L. (2007). Working with fathers in batterer intervention programs: Lesson from the Fathering After Violence Initiative. In J. L Edleson & O. J. Williams (Eds.), Parenting by men who batter: New directions for assessment and intervention (pp.118-130). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195309034.001.0001


• Caring Dads. (2023). Caring Dads. https://caringdads.org/


• Fleck-Henderson, A., Arean, J. C., Mitchell-Clark, K., & Runner, M. W. (2010). Breaking the Cycle, Fathering After Violence: Curriculum Guidelines and Tools for Batterer Intervention Programs. https://www.futureswithoutviolence.org/userfiles/file/Children_and_Families/FAV Guidelines 2011.pdf


• Kertesz, M., Humphreys, C., Fogden, L., Katreen, S., Laslett, A., & Tsantefski, M. (2022). KODY, an all-of-family response to co-occurring substance use and domestic violence: Protocol for a quasi-experimental intervention trial. BMC Public Health, 22, 291. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-12529-x


• Meyer, S., Hine, L., McDermott, L., & Eggins, E. (2019). Walking with Dads trial evaluation: Final report summary. 204 https://noviolence.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/WWD_Final-Summary-Report-w-ISBN.pdf


• Relationships Australia NSW. (2023). Taking Responsibility – Men’s Behaviour Change Program.204 https://www.relationshipsnsw.org.au/support/services/taking-responsibility-mens-behaviour-change/


• Thomson, G., Stanley, N., & Miller, P. (2013). Give me 'strength to change': insights into a social marketing campaign in the North of England. Primary Health Care Research & Development, 14(4), 350-359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1463423612000473


• Yale School of Medicine. (2023). Fathers for Change. https://medicine.yale.edu/childstudy/education-and-training/professional-development/fathers-for-change/