Research suggests that the management of high-risk domestic violence offenders requires multiple agencies

to interact with a high degree of precision and coordination and yet, multiple definitions of ‘offender

management’ emerge from the literature. It is a term that is treated in different places as synonymous with

punishment, treatment, rehabilitation, protection of the victim, control, incapacitation and surveillance.

There are many tensions and contradictions between these different understandings of ‘management’ just

as there are different conceptual models of ‘domestic violence’ itself.

The successful management of high-risk domestic violence offenders may involve combining sanctions in ways that are -

A.    both punitive and reintegrative,

B.    useful for offenders, as well as victims,

C.    supported by the range of stakeholders involved in the domestic violence response, and

D.    acceptable for the community.

This involves an understanding of how strong community partnerships can develop, underpinned by a set of shared

principles in relation to domestic violence and recidivism reduction. Such principles may shift according to the

local community context. However, criminological research has emphasised, in particular, the importance of targeting

interventions on the basis of risk and tailoring them according to the needs and propensities of particular offenders.

Measurements of risk often involve the reduction of complex behaviours, situations and life histories

to a set of abstract ‘factors’. Such approaches have furnished the domestic violence sector with a range

of useful tools. However, risk assessments and risk management practices are just that: tools. They

provide a useful but partial perspective on the complex lives and relationships of violent men and

survivors of domestic violence. It is a perspective that might be useful in assessing victim safety but the

actuarial language of ‘risk’ and ‘recidivism’ can mask the range of personal and social issues that must be

addressed if lasting change is to be achieved.

There are now a range of emerging techniques that seek to enhance perpetrator accountability initially

through direct surveillance and oversight and eventually through self-regulation, as the perpetrator

is encouraged to develop new linkages with his community. These approaches are laudable in principle

although sometimes uncertain in practice, particularly in some applications of therapeutic jurisprudence

that are more focused on the symbolic rather than practical aspects of social reintegration. Crucially,

research suggests that anti-recidivism initiatives are unlikely to be successful unless they are coupled

with social welfare policies designed to address the housing, employment, health and other difficulties

that are prevalent in the lives of serious domestic violence offenders and victims. In the absence of

such policies, the management of high-risk domestic violence offenders is likely to maintain the punitive

flavour that contributes to the cycles of disadvantage, disempowerment and abuse that characterise serious

domestic violence.