Seeds of healing from +SHIFT: An antiviolence program for women in Victoria,Australia

The development of antiviolence programs for women in Victoria, Australia

Shelters for domestic violence (DV) victim/survivors have existed in Australia since the 1970s, and the DV sector has traditionally been reluctant to allocate resources away from traditional victim services to address the behavior of DV offenders. DV advocates have also been wary about moves to describe women as anything other than victim/survivors, due to the long history of gender-equivalence debates in Australia (for example, see Taft et al., 2001). Furthermore, an incident-based violence-focused approach used by police at the time of their first response has led to many women being mis-identified as offenders when in fact they were DV victims (Larance et al., 2022; Larance, 2024a).

In recent years, a range of service providers across Australia have responded to the need for gender-responsive antiviolence programming for women, often developing their own small-scale, local response. Formal antiviolence interventions for women who have harmed their intimate partners emerged in the United States and elsewhere in the early 2000s (for example: Larance et al., 2009; Larance et al., 2019b; Pence et al., 2011; Covington, 2013; Walker, 2013), with the recognition that antiviolence interventions designed for men who had abused their intimate female partners were inappropriate for women (Miller, 2005). However, few of these have been adapted for the Australian context (Warren et al., 2020a). ¹

However, a recent national survey has found that many professionals, working in a range of community services across Australia, regularly encounter women who have used force in their intimate relationships, particularly in specialist DV services and in substance use programs. Survey respondents reported that these women rarely sought services specifically to address their use of force, but were identified through referral or intake information, or through self-disclosure. Individual work with women was the predominant response reported, as specialist responses for women’s use of force were not available and referrals to perpetrator services ² such as men’s behavior change programs were seen as inappropriate (Warren et al., 2020b).

In the Australian state of Victoria, most DV services are government-funded and therefore free of charge to participants. Funding streams are divided into offender programs and services for victim/survivors, with the latter including a wide range of DV services for women and children. Service responses for DV offenders consisted primarily of men’s behavior change programs, until 2015, when the Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence recommended a review of the spectrum of responses to “all perpetrators across varying forms and risk levels of family violence”, resulting in a funding stream for a range of groups falling into this category (Neave et al., 2016: 69).

In response to these trends, and an identified need within their own programs for a service targeting women who use force, in 2018 two non-government agencies - Baptcare and Berry Street - established the +SHIFT program in two metropolitan community locations and in a major regional center in Victoria, Australia. With the program funded under the new extended perpetrator stream of government funding, program developers emphasized that the program be advertised as voluntary (a common approach for Victorian non-government services), both to differentiate it from men’s behaviour change programs, and based on evidence that readiness to change is a key factor in successful groupwork participation (Maldonado and Murphy, 2021). Courts or child protection services could recommend or order that women enroll in the program, but program co-facilitators accepted women only if they themselves agreed to participate. In addition to the cost-free intervention, initial funding also provided childcare and transportation vouchers in recognition of potential barriers to women attending the program. From 2018 to 2022, funding for the program included research evaluation. This article draws on data collected as part of this evaluation.

The + SHIFT program

Adapted from the U.S.-based Vista Program (Larance et al., 2009, 2019a, 2023), +SHIFT is grounded in a “healing place philosophy” (Larance, 2006) that emphasizes family safety, and promotes alternatives to use of non-self-defensive, non-fatal force. The program is informed by evidence that women who resort to physically harming their partners and/or their children often have histories of being harmed in their intimate relationships (Dasgupta, 2002; Dobash et al., 1992; Larance et al., 2019a; Miller, 2005).

As set out in the Australian Practice Framework (Kertesz et al., 2021), theoretical foundations for the program include the Ecological Nested Model (ENM) (Bronfenbrenner, 1977) and intersectionality theory (Crenshaw, 1991). As detailed in the ENM’s inter-related components, +SHIFT recognizes the relationship between women’s experiences in a range of contexts: individual (e.g., childhood, family of origin dynamics), micro- (e.g., family, friends, colleagues), exo- (e.g., occupation, social networks), meso- (connections between micro- and exosystems), and macro-systems (e.g., societal norms, culture). Grounded in ENM, empowerment theory encourages people to understand the connections between their personal experience and the context in which they have made choices, enabling them to expand the range of choices available to them (Arnold and Ake, 2013).

In addition, the complexity of each woman’s life is deeply influenced by her interlocking and overlapping intersectional identities (Crenshaw, 1991). Intersectionality theory offers an analytical framework for understanding how marginalized women’s experiences of relationship and institutional power, and the choices available to them, are shaped by a range of personal identities including, by not limited to, their age, race, ethnicity, sexual identity, gender identity, citizenship status, and national origin (Collins, 2015; Crenshaw, 1991). +SHIFT’s supportive intervention approach attends to women’s individual, intersectional experiences across the inter-related components of their complex lives and provides women opportunities to heal from the harm they have experienced while simultaneously raising their awareness and use of non-forceful behaviors across their relationships.

The + SHIFT draft curriculum ³ is a tool for group co-facilitators trained in the program’s philosophy and approach, to guide group member healing and increase their awareness of viable alternatives to force. The sixteen-session framework focuses on group participant safety and support, healthy relationship boundaries, feelings of shame, exploring how socio-cultural messages shape perceived relationship options, an increased awareness of self-talk and escalation cues, and promoting equitable relationships free from violence and coercive control. Group co-facilitators are tasked with tailoring session content to the unique needs of the women in their groups.

The program’s definition of “accountability” is a cornerstone of service delivery. Rather than women being accountable to others or to institutions, +SHIFT views accountability as the “actions, thoughts, or behaviors toward or involving others that reflect the integrity of the person you want to be” (Larance et al., 2019a). This approach has the demonstrated potential to catalyze individual healing and change through a process of recognizing how personal shame and guilt often mask feelings of grief, loss, and betrayal (Larance and Rousson, 2016). The process can enable deeper self-awareness, freedom from immobilizing shame, and awareness of previously unrecognized relationship options.

Co-facilitators implement a non-judgmental trauma-informed approach inside and outside the group (Baird and Alaggia, 2021; Elliott et al., 2005; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], 2014). In groups of no more than 12 participants who self-identify as women, sessions include a member-led ritual opening, a co-facilitator-guided accountability check-in, and a member-led ritual closing where group members’ feelings of safety are cultivated. Outside the formal group, co-facilitators offer women support and resources by checking in with those who have missed a session or who have not yet started the program.

Methodology

The + SHIFT evaluation adopted a convergent mixed methods approach (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2017) to describe the women attending the program and their histories; measure differences in participant attitudes, behaviour and well-being (Kertesz et al., 2019); and understand in depth the program components that facilitated healing and repair for women system-identified as using force. Ethics approval was granted by the first author’s university human research ethics committee.

From late 2018 to 2022, program data including referrals, participation and completion rates were collected. Program participants were asked to complete a questionnaire prior to starting + SHIFT. At group completion, during the sixteenth and final session, participants were asked for consent to have their data included in the program evaluation. Questionnaire data consisted of demographic information, as well as several pre-and post-program measures to assess the women’s change process. Demographic data reported in this paper were taken from the pre-program questionnaire responses. Research team members supervised by the first author interviewed a sub-sample of women about their experience of the program, shortly after they completed the group sessions. While the research team planned to interview women again 3 months after the program finished, attempts to contact interview participants at this later date were unsuccessful. In this paper we primarily draw on a thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2019) of the interview data to engage with the research question: What, if any, impact does + SHIFT program contact have on women who have used force in their intimate relationships?

Confidentiality was emphasized when informed consent was obtained prior to each interview, and pseudonyms have been used throughout this article. Women were invited to reflect on their experience of +SHIFT and what, if anything, they had gained from participation. In a semi-structured interview style, questions were open-ended to encourage interviewees to share what they considered significant, including issues they deemed important for the agency to hear. In addition to questions about the number of sessions attended, interviewers asked about “some of the things that were discussed within the program” and for examples of any impact the program had had on the interviewee. Other questions about changes in stress levels and in interpersonal relationships were phrased as “did you notice…” (see Appendix for interview schedule). While the interviewers explicitly stated that there was no expectation for the women to talk about personal or distressing experiences, many interviewees chose to talk more broadly about their lives. For the few interviewees who showed distress, the interviewer offered to pause or stop the interview, and discussed what support the interviewee could access.

Interviews were recorded, transcribed and then thematically analyzed. Following preliminary manual coding using NVivo 14 software (Braun and Clarke, 2019) by the first author, the first two authors independently and manually identified themes in the interview material. The authors then collaboratively developed a thematic structure, agreed to by both, with four themes relevant to the research question, that also reflected and honoured features, perspectives, and individual worldviews of the interviewees. Rather than endeavouring to quote from all 21 women in this article, quotations that most articulately represented the perspective of all interviewees have been selected to illustrate each theme. As a result, the voices of several women appear to be prominent, due to their expressive ability.

As the findings reported were obtained through an evaluation of +SHIFT, the sample was limited to program participants who volunteered to be interviewed. The program was open to all who identified as women, bur primarily received referrals for cisgender women, as another local service offered group and individual work for women, trans, and gender diverse people who had used force and/or violence in family and intimate partner relationships. By chance, participants volunteering for interviews were all heterosexual. These findings, therefore, are drawn from a small group of cisgender, heterosexual women, and care should be taken in generalising the findings to other groups.

Findings

Interview participants

Table 1 presents broad characteristics of women who participated in interviews ⁴ . They ranged in age from 22 to 55, with a mean of 36.3 years, and all identified as cisgender, heterosexual women. 13 of the 21 women (62%) stated that they were caring for children. 17 of the 21 women (81%) were born in Australia, and all but one (who was a Permanent Resident) held Australian Citizenship. English was the first language for 18 (86%) of the women. Two of the interviewees identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. Participants represented a broad range of educational attainment, with eleven having started or completed post-school studies, five having completed secondary school, and three having some schooling. A quarter (24%) of the interview participants were referred to the program by police or courts, 29% from a DV service, and 14% were referred by child protective services.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Characteristics of +SHIFT Interviewees.

IntervieweePseudonym	Age bracket	Place of birth	Aboriginal or Torres strait Islander	English as a first language	Educational attainment*	Caring for children
Amy	36-45	Australia	No	Yes	Some schooling	Yes
Anna	36-45	Australia	No	Yes	Completed high school	No
Bree	46-55	Australia	No	Yes	Completed high school	Yes
Cara	26-35	Australia	No	Yes	Completed high school	Yes
Jess	26-35	Australia	No	Yes	Some or completed TAFE	Yes
Jenna	36-45	Australia	Yes	Yes	Completed high school	Yes
Kate	36-45	Australia	No	Yes	Some or completed TAFE	No
Katrina	18-25	Australia	No	Yes	Some or completed TAFE	No
Kelly	18-25	Australia	No	Yes	Some or completed university	Yes
Mia	36-45	Australia	No	Yes	Completed high school	Yes
Naomi	46-55	Australia	No	Yes	Some or completed university	Yes
Olivia	36-45	Middle East	No	No	Some or completed TAFE	Yes
Penny	18-25	Australia	Yes	Yes	Some schooling	Yes
Priyanka	26-35	South Asia	No	No	Some or completed university	Yes
Rachel	26-35	Australia	No	Yes	Some or completed university	No
Rhiannon	18-25	Australia	No	Yes	Some or completed TAFE	No
Sara	36-45	Southeast Europe	No	Yes	Some or completed TAFE	Yes
Simone	46-55	Australia	No	Yes	Some or completed TAFE	No
Tania	36-45	Australia	No	Yes	Some or completed TAFE	Yes
Tara	46-55	South Pacific	No	No	Some or completed university	Unknown

*TAFE = Technical and Further Education.

Thus, the women interviewed were broadly representative of the larger sample of 180 women who completed the program over 4 years, a retention rate of 56% from program inception. Facilitators reported that many women who disengaged did so because of competing demands on their time and energy due to court or child protection requirements and referrals, or because of issues with substance use, or the chance to enter a detox program. A very small number of women were reported to have left due to group dynamics, pointing to the importance of initial assessment and skilled facilitation.

In the interviews, women identified four areas which made + SHIFT an impactful and, at times, transformative experience for them. These were: program philosophy and curriculum components; co-facilitated group structure, process and interactions; shared peer experiences and peer support; and the insights they gained by connecting curriculum content, life experiences and personal accountability.

Discussion

Through interviews with women who had taken part in the +SHIFT antiviolence groupwork program, this paper identifies four aspects of the intervention approach which have contributed to participants’ awareness of alternative perspectives and behaviors promoting healthier relationships, and ultimately, their healing. The seeds of healing (as described by Kate) were the program philosophy and curriculum components; co-facilitated group structure, process and interactions; shared peer experiences and peer support; and the integration of these components with each woman’s own life experience. The authors have chosen to focus on aspects that were successful for participants – the seeds that germinated – whilst acknowledging that the women who dropped out of the group early (and were not contactable for interview) may have had other responses. Responses from interviewed women about how the group could be improved were very individual, with no particular theme emerging. Several comments advocated longer sessions to allow better coverage of topics, and other individual comments related to goal setting, facilitators managing group dynamics or a wish for individual time with the facilitator and opportunities to ‘make up’ missed sessions.

Key aspects of the +SHIFT program philosophy and curriculum components were mentioned by many women, such as important components of the sixteen-session curriculum encompassing cultural issues, healthy boundaries, positive self-talk, understanding escalation cues, safety planning, and shame. In addition, women’s reflections highlighted the importance of the program’s contextual approach, in helping them reflect upon their actions in the light of past experience and the spectrum of harm endured and caused by them. The + SHIFT focus on an internally focused definition of accountability was noted by several participants, who found this a more effective approach than one that focused on their failings.

Rather than expecting measurable behaviour change during the intervention period, +SHIFT promotes an internal accountability of developing actions, thoughts or behaviors that reflect the integrity of the person you want to be (Larance et al., 2019a). Within the safety of the group, Kate and many other group participants spoke of the families they had grown up in, their adult relationships and their relationships with their children, and the impact of these experiences on themselves and their behavior. A focus on the impact of culture – an intersectional concept incorporating family, social and ethnic attitudes – also encouraged women to reflect on how these experiences had shaped their habitual responses.

Women’s reflections on the impact of these experiences varied widely. Although many or most of the women’s stories demonstrated a history of victimization, and women could describe the problems in their relationships, some women described themselves as fighters and did not like to be labelled as victims (Larance et al., 2022). While Kate described herself as an abuser and spoke of having to “unlearn” attitudes and behaviors taught her in childhood, other women’s reflections suggested that they had come to the program at an earlier stage in their journey, but nevertheless had found the program valuable. Several interviewees had participated in the program twice and reflected on its cumulative value.

Trauma-informed group structure and process, including the skills of co-facilitators in creating a safe environment, were core to how women talked about their group experience. Women’s expressed sense of safety within the group reflects the importance of creating safe, trusting and nonjudgemental relationships with group members that are well recognized as key principles of trauma-informed work (Baird and Alaggia, 2021; Elliott et al., 2005; SAMHSA, 2014), and experienced in other group programs (Walker, 2013). Trust was formed between co-facilitators and group members through a predictable session structure and through + SHIFT co-facilitators’ outreach activities before, during and after group sessions. The skills of trauma-informed groupwork are essential to creating the sense of safety which facilitates healing and change, as is reflected by current concerns in the Australian service context about building a broader workforce with the skills to facilitate this type of work (Wendt et al., 2020).

Shared peer experiences and peer support is a well-established benefit of groupwork process of sharing experiences and stories, as a way of reducing isolation, stigma and shame (Baird and Alaggia, 2021; Larance, 2024b). Once the women had developed trust in the skilled co-facilitators, they then chose to extend this trust to group members, enabling them to speak about vulnerable topics and feelings of shame and fear. Women’s reflections also indicated that they found it easier to share their experiences with strangers, than with people from their existing networks, echoing established evidence (Larance, 2024b).

The integration of these components - program philosophy and curriculum, group structure and process, and shared peer experiences and support - with each woman’s own life experience, facilitated group members’ process of reflecting on new approaches to current challenges while feeling empowered. +SHIFT’s four “seeds of healing” are also evident in other programs for women who have experienced and caused harm and have trauma histories (Covington, 2013; Pence et al., 2011). As in other studies (e.g., Walker, 2013), the relational aspects of the group experience were a primary focus of participants’ reflections on + SHIFT. The combination of program design and curriculum contact, a non-judgmental, trauma-informed approach to group process, and shared experiences and support with other group participants, enabled the women to make connections between past experiences, curriculum content, and their current challenges.

Conclusion

This paper focused on the impacts of +SHIFT program contact for women who used force in their intimate relationships, specifically in terms of the women’s experience of the program design and delivery. Many questions are left unanswered, however. Despite the difficulties of maintaining post-program engagement with women, combined efforts by program and research teams to conduct follow-up interviews could yield important information about how the women translated their insights from the program into their lives and relationships. In addition, exploring in detail the prevalence amongst program participants of mental health challenges, and issues with substance use is vitally important, to contribute to the growing understanding of how these issues may be caused or weaponized against women who have experienced DV.

The stories told by the women who participated in +SHIFT are powerful reminders that they were designated ‘offenders’ by a socio-legal system which creates a dichotomy between victims and offenders, thus inadvertently perpetuating their abuse by legal and intervention frameworks, rather than seeing them as harmed women who may harm others because of a dearth of choices.

The art of delivering successful antiviolence interventions, in this case for women identified as having used force, involves integrating theoretical foundations, an evidence-based curriculum, trauma-informed approaches to process, strong facilitator skills and a focus on the power of relationships, both with co-facilitators, and with peers. In the case of +SHIFT, these elements created a “healing space” for women who endured as well as caused harm, honoring their life experience rather than condemning their actions, and respecting them as experts in their own lives. These “seeds of healing” enabled women who participated in +SHIFT to become more at peace with themselves and assess what behavioral and relational choices were viable in the context of their own lives, to promote non-violence across their relationships.