1 General
2 Services
3 Panorama
 4 Problems: Power and Control
5 For Partners
6 Pro-Feminism
7 Testimonials
8 Cautions

Following the Panorama film broadcast on 8th October 2018 - Can violent men change?  Written text with reference links.h they will doubtless have vested interests.

Our former client wrote this about them, DVIP that is .   His description of his experiences with both the DVIP  and Social Services match what we hear time and time again.
On a BBC radio Northampton programme Neil Blacklock DVIP/Respect stated: "Sometimes as many as a quarter of the men make it through the programme." You can hear the obstacle course in the language of that.
Before a select committee of the Home Office the then CEO of DVIP quoted these costs to "turn a man around". You can read the transcrip of this linked here.
33 men completed the DVIP programme that year at an expenditure of £219,000. The CEO claimed a success rate of 70%. That would mean just 22 men of the 230 that contacted the organisation. An effective completion? Virtually £10,000, by his claim. The figure he quoted, based on referrals versus cost, essentially turned 198 men round and walked them back out of the door at just over £1,000 each! In private law cases what are the costs to the abuser for these Duluth -style "power and control" programmes to "hold the men accountable"? 32 weekly sessions of about 2 ½ hours each cost between £60 and £80 per session.  £270 - £300 per month, for nine months, plus travel.  The academic, Dr Gene Feder very rightly pointed out that ignoring perpetrators ignored the upstream problems.  "The problem is", he said, "We do not have secure evidence they are effective in bringing about changes.  But if you just respond to survivors you are in some ways just colluding with the cycle of violence." 

In 2011 the clinical psychologist Dr Louise Dixon took the "accreditor" Respect to task,
drawing attention to their underlying feminist ideology and the lack of an evidence base for the work they were insisting on. She called for the accreditation to be abandoned. Elsewhere she also wrote that there was no criminological need for female abusers to have separate courses

In 2012 The Centre for Social Justice published a paper calling for the current programmes to be scrapped and the fresh start to be made. "When something is not working ." This was essentially what happened with the IDAP programme, accredited and run by the Probation Service - it was also a Duluth model!

In 2014 the Minsitry of Justice publiched a paper which highlighted the ineffectiveness of the Duluth model, pointing to much better outcomes from other models, but models which were not numerous enough to provide an alternative. (In Britain those other models have been very carefully screened out by RESPECT, and everything accredited is essentially forced to deliver what Respect considers to be okay!) The evidence against the effectiveness of the current accredited work is all there.  Persisting with it is really colluding with creating an ongoing cycle of domestic violence. In whose best interest is that? Certainly not the children's, nor the males and females involved!

The following website gathers together and gives a close and detailed criticism of the "accredited programmes" onto which you might be sent. The evidence may be useful for you in contradicting a court's or Cafcass requirement to attend an "accredited programme".
perpetrator programmes  part 1  
perpetrator programmes   part 2   

Evidence from the Ministry of Justice (2014) about the ineffectiveness of the Duluth model.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/305319/transforming-rehabilitation-evidence-summary-2nd-edition.pdf  (p.25) What is the impact on reoffending? The most recent systematic review of US evidence indicates that the Duluth Model appears to have no effect on recidivism.154 However, this review also identified substantial reductions in domestic violence reoffending by offenders who had attended other interventions. These interventions varied widely in their approach (including cognitive behavioural therapy, relationship enhancement and group couples counselling), and the reviewers were therefore unable to make recommendations about specific preferred alternatives to the Duluth Model.

The Centre for Social Justice

Called for the Duluth programmes to be scrapped and a fresh start to be made -  "when something is not working ..... "