What is perpetrator accountability in DFV practice?
Introduction
Perpetrator accountability is widely recognised as an important component of effective responses to domestic and family violence (DFV). It appears across policy, frameworks, and training, and is often positioned as central to improving safety for women and children (Helps et al., 2025; Family Safety Victoria, 2021).
However, the term is not always clearly defined. It is used across different contexts, with different meanings, and sometimes applied broadly to all parts of the workforce without clear distinction.
This can lead to confusion about:
what perpetrator accountability actually is
how it operates in practice
whose role it is within the wider DFV system
In this blog, DFV practice refers to the broader system response, including practitioners working with victim-survivors and those working directly with people who use violence.
While not all roles involve holding perpetrators to account directly, all parts of the system contribute to how accountability is enacted in practice, within their scope.
What is perpetrator accountability?
At its core, perpetrator accountability means that:
responsibility for violence is clearly located with the person using violence
the impacts of that violence are recognised and responded to
systems and services act in ways that monitor, challenge, and respond to that behaviour
Accountability can take different forms, including external accountability imposed through legal systems, and internal accountability developed through behaviour change processes (ANROWS, 2020).
Perpetrator accountability is not a single action, task, or intervention. It is an ongoing, system-wide process that operates across multiple parts of the DFV response (Vlais & Campbell, 2019; Family Safety Victoria, 2021).
It does not rely solely on a person choosing to take responsibility for their behaviour. Accountability can also be externally applied and reinforced through systems, services, and legal responses (ACT Government, 2022). National policy also reinforces that perpetrator accountability is a system responsibility, requiring integrated responses that monitor behaviour, impose consequences, and reduce the likelihood of continued violence (Australian Government, 2022).
Perpetrator accountability as a system process
Perpetrator accountability can be understood as operating across three interconnected levels:
1. Individual level
At this level, accountability involves the person using violence:
acknowledging their behaviour
recognising its impacts on others
making sustained changes to stop using violence
This is the primary focus of services that work directly with people who use violence, such as:
men’s behaviour change programs
perpetrator intervention and case management services
In practice, this may involve a person engaging in a men’s behaviour change program, where they are expected to take responsibility for their behaviour and work towards change. Participation may be voluntary or mandated through legal processes.
2. Service level
At the service level, accountability is supported through how practitioners respond to violence in their everyday work.
This includes:
identifying and documenting patterns of coercive and controlling behaviour
keeping the person using violence in view
sharing information about risk (within legislative frameworks)
ensuring responsibility is not shifted onto victim-survivors
Services do not hold perpetrators accountable on their own but contribute to accountability through their role within the broader system (DCPFS, 2015; Helps et al., 2025).
In practice, this might look like a specialist DFV practitioner identifying patterns of coercive control during risk assessment, clearly documenting this in case notes, and sharing relevant information with other services to support an integrated response.
This work contributes to a broader system where multiple services work together to manage risk and enhance safety.
3. System level
Effective responses rely on systems that maintain visibility of perpetrators’ behaviour over time, rather than responding to isolated incidents, with multiple services working together to monitor risk, share information, and respond collaboratively (ANROWS, 2021). This is sometimes described as a “web of accountability”, where different parts of the system work together to keep the person using violence visible and accountable over time (ANROWS, 2021).
At the system level, accountability is enacted through:
legislation and legal frameworks
policing and justice responses
child protection systems
integrated and multi-agency responses
These systems create mechanisms to:
monitor behaviour
impose consequences
reinforce that the use of violence is unacceptable (Family Safety Victoria, 2021).
In practice, this includes police responding to incidents, courts issuing and enforcing protection orders, and child protection or other statutory services taking action where there are risks to children or adults.
Whose role is it?
Perpetrator accountability is a shared system responsibility across the DFV response, but it is not the same for every role.
Different parts of the workforce contribute in different ways, depending on their scope and function.
Specialist DFV services (working with victim-survivors)
Specialist DFV services play a central role in supporting safety and responding to risk.
Within this, they contribute to perpetrator accountability by:
building a detailed understanding of the person using violence through the victim-survivor’s experience
identifying patterns of coercive control and escalation
documenting behaviour and its impacts
keeping the perpetrator visible in case notes, assessments, and system responses
sharing information to support integrated responses
ensuring responsibility for violence is never placed on the victim-survivor
Their role is not to change the perpetrator’s behaviour directly, but to support system responses that can hold the person using violence accountable (Helps et al., 2025).
Services working directly with people who use violence
These services have a distinct role in:
engaging with the person using violence
addressing beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours
supporting behaviour change
reinforcing responsibility and consequences
This is where direct accountability work at the individual level occurs (Vlais & Campbell, 2019).
Justice and statutory systems
Police, courts, and statutory systems are responsible for:
enforcing legal consequences
monitoring compliance
responding to breaches
providing formal mechanisms of accountability
Broader service system
Other professionals (e.g. health, education, community services) play an important role in:
recognising and responding to violence
identifying and sharing risk (where appropriate)
supporting safe referral pathways
Their role is to respond safely within their scope of practice, rather than directly holding perpetrators accountable (ACT Government, 2022).
A key clarification
Not all roles involve direct perpetrator accountability. However, all roles operate within an integrated system that shapes how accountability is enacted in different ways.
Understanding this distinction is critical to:
maintaining safe and appropriate practice
avoiding role confusion
ensuring integrated and effective responses to violence
Conclusion
Perpetrator accountability is a central concept in DFV responses, but it is often used without a clear definition.
It is not a single task or responsibility, nor does it sit with one service or practitioner.
It is a system-wide process, where different parts of the workforce:
play distinct roles
operate within their scope
and contribute to an integrated response that keeps the person using violence visible, responsible, and subject to consequences
Clarity about what perpetrator accountability is, and whose role it is, is essential for safe, effective, and consistent DFV practice.
Key takeaways
Perpetrator accountability is a process, not a single action
It operates across individual, service, and system levels
Specialist DFV services contribute to accountability, but do not hold it directly
Direct behaviour change work sits with perpetrator intervention services
Justice systems provide formal accountability mechanisms
Not all roles involve direct accountability — scope matters
References
ACT Government. (2022). ACT domestic and family violence risk assessment and management framework. ACT Government.
Australia’s National Research Organisation. (2020). Improving accountability: The role of perpetrator intervention systems: Key findings and future directions (Research to policy and practice, 20/2020). Sydney: ANROWS.
Australia’s National Research Organisation. (2021). Interventions for perpetrators of domestic and family violence: An evidence synthesis. Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety.
Australian Government. (2022). National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022–2032. Commonwealth of Australia.
Department for Child Protection and Family Support (DCPFS). (2015). Western Australian family and domestic violence common risk assessment and risk management framework (CRARMF). Government of Western Australia.
Family Safety Victoria. (2021). MARAM practice guides and foundational knowledge. Victorian Government.
Helps, N., Bell, C., Schulze, C., Vlais, R., Clark, O., Seamer, J., & Buys, R. (2025). The role of men’s behaviour change programs in addressing men’s use of domestic, family and sexual violence: An evidence brief (ANROWS Insights, 01/2025). ANROWS. https://doi.org/10.71940/snn3-m344
Vlais, R. & Campbell, E. (2019). Bringing pathways towards accountability together – Perpetrator journeys and system roles and responsibilities, RMIT University, Melbourne.