1 General
2 Services
3 When & Where
 4 Participants
5 For Partners
6 Pro-Feminism
7 Testimonials
8 Other programmes
   
 

Your ref: CAF 15-202 Our ref: Gov/CAF 15-202 Cafcass National Office 3rd Floor 21 Bloomsbury Street London WC1B 3HF  Tel   0300 456 4000   16 December 2015 "These approved providers deliver programmes which specifically address male to female domestic violence. These programmes are underpinned by a solid evidence base regarding male perpetrators of abuse in intimate partner relationships."

There are many things to be learnt about just why feminist inspired abuser programmes,

Problems for and with the Respect accredited programmes, the programme Cafcass "requires ".

The Ministry of Justice paper 2013 records: "no effective outcomes from the Duluth" model. Cafcass is essentially a Department of the Ministry of Justice having been moved from the Department for Education in 2014. What is the impact on reoffending?
 
1)      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.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/305319/transforming-rehabilitation-evidence-summary-2nd-edition.pdf  (p.25)                                                                                                   


1)      Dr Louise Dixon, Birmingham University, 2011, pointed out the ideology behind Respect's requirements, which obviously impacts on the focus of the "accredited" groups. Her conclusion was: the Respect accreditation should be abandoned. The Centre for Social Justice paper, Beyond Violence, 2013, called for the abandonment of the current regime and a complete restart -    http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/core/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/DA-Full-report.pdf      
    
The Centre for Social Justice paper, Beyond Violence, 2013, called for the abandonment of the current regime and a complete restart -    http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/core/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/DA-Full-report.pdf                                                                       
"
3.7.1.1 Key therapeutic elements of successful perpetrator programmes Probably the most important reason these treatments typically fail is that they do not explicitly include therapeutic ingredients that are key to achieving change.196 A strong therapeutic alliance is the most consistent predictor of treatment success across a broad range of therapies and clinical problems.197                
A good relationship between the therapist and client is facilitated by the therapist being trustworthy, warm, interested, and curious, as well as through therapeutic techniques such as focussing on the client's past successes, emotions and important life experiences.198 Effective treatment understands and addresses each person's individual pathway into domestic abuse. This is at direct odds with the one-size-fits all approach of education about gender inequalities or relapse prevention. Additionally the confrontational style of the Duluth approach is diametrically opposed to communicating trust, respect and belief.        
3.2 Impact and validity of the 'power and control' model  Later in this chapter, we review specific areas of domestic abuse policy and practice in the UK today, and consider how feminist sociological theory has shaped their development. First we explore the general impact the 'power and control' paradigm has had on societal and political thinking about domestic abuse (how useful it has been), and whether or not it is valid. The feminist movement has worked hard to embed the idea in public and political thinking that 'the personal is political' - broadly speaking, the view that because women are not economically and politically equal to men, their intimate relationships are not equal either. This standpoint is politically important, adding further impetus to attempts to create societal equality between men and women. The 'zero tolerance' approach of the feminist movement has helped to reduce victim blaming in society, for example we found in our polling that less than one per cent of adults in the UK think that the main cause of domestic abuse is the victim.151

On a political level, this perspective has gained more and more credence over the years, so that now we have priority strategies to end violence against women and girls and an unprecedented number of services dedicated to addressing domestic violence. It is hard to imagine all of this social progress occurring without the passionate voices of the feminist movement, arguing that violence against women in relationships is never acceptable and yet is an all too common part of everyday life. The feminist narrative of domestic abuse has brought this issue out from behind closed doors and placed it firmly within social and political discussion. Arguably a straightforward message about the causes and dynamics of domestic abuse and its moral dimension is initially necessary to get people listening and acting. However, as movements move from the margins to the mainstream, they need to confront and adapt to the nuances and complexities of the problems they are aiming to address. This has not happened in the domestic abuse field; the 'patriarchy, power and control' analysis remains more or less intact despite its incompatibility with emerging findings about domestic abuse. Findings that are hard to reconcile with this dominant narrative include those indicating that:152 „
Substantial violence is perpetrated by women towards men in intimate relationships, and between men and between women in same-sex relationships (and it is not simply the case that perpetrators in these relationships are acting within masculine gender identities);153 „ Childhood experiences, attachment patterns and personality all play a large part in both perpetration and victimisation; „ Victims often do not leave abusive relationships even when they have the resources and capacity to do so; „ The dynamics between a couple help to explain the presence of abuse in a relationship beyond simple perpetrator factors. Sometimes these findings are explained away by unsubstantiated assumptions. For example, some advocates of the patriarchy, power and control model have argued that violence from women towards men is typically self-defensive.154 However research has usually found similar motives for both male and female perpetrated abuse, and in-depth analyses of violence said to be self-defensive suggest that much of it might be more accurately termed retributive or vengeful.155 At other times, understandings of domestic abuse based on this research evidence are dismissed as 'victim blaming' or as giving excuses to perpetrators.     
3.7.1 Perpetrator programmes Treatment to help perpetrators stop their abusive behaviour is a key means to prevent further abuse of current and future victims. However, we need to consider how useful it is for programmes to narrowly focus on this goal, if it is at the expense of more holistic goals concerned with the healing of the perpetrator and the wellbeing of all family members. Treatment to help perpetrators stop their abuse is provided by either the voluntary sector or the probation service (there are also some programmes provided by the prison system, and literally just one or two by the NHS). Both voluntary sector and criminal justice system programmes have tended to be group-based and only eligible for male perpetrators. Accreditation criteria for both probation and voluntary sector programmes aim to ensure that due attention is paid to issues such as victim and child safety, support for victims, supervision of staff, and monitoring of risk and violence, including via links with victims and the police.186   
Both voluntary sector and criminal justice programmes currently follow a similar approach (see below); the main difference is that men do not tend to be mandated to attend voluntary sector programmes. There is very patchy provision of programmes for domestically violent men who have not been convicted, and more or less no programmes available for domestically violent women. UK perpetrator programmes have developed according to the feminist-driven Duluth model. Men are taught to recognise the influence of patriarchy in society and challenge the sexist beliefs that are presupposed to underlie their behaviour. Confrontation is often used to 'jolt' abusive men out of denying or minimising the harm they cause and into changing their behaviour.187 As programmes have developed, they have shifted to include a number of cognitivebehavioural therapy (CBT) elements.188 CBT for domestically violent perpetrators is based on the theory that skill deficits (such as emotional regulation) and inaccurate beliefs and   thoughts (cognitions) underlie domestic violence. These beliefs may include those based on a patriarchal model ('women are objects', 'men are superior to women') as well as others ('anger is uncontrollable').   
CBT involves challenging cognitions with less confrontational, more curiously questioning techniques than the Duluth approach, and it also teaches behavioural methods to avoid violence such as anger management and relapse prevention skills. It does not appear to matter a great deal whether programmes are based on the Duluth approach, CBT or a mixture of the two, as reviews suggest that the outcomes for both are roughly the same: neither appear to be very successful. A meta-analytic study found that treatment outcomes for Duluth model and CBT perpetrator programmes were not significantly different from one another, and overall these treatments reduced the risk of recidivism by only five per cent (men who received treatment had a 40 per cent chance of being successfully nonviolent, whereas men who did not receive treatment had a 35 per cent chance).189 A five per cent success rate is low compared to the outcomes achieved by therapy for other types of offending, and indeed therapy in general.190 Other reviews have also found small or insignificant effects of treatment.191 Furthermore, these treatment programmes have very high drop-out rates - between 37 and 40 per cent of participants in the UK probation-run programmes (in line with the drop-out rates measured in US studies ranging between approximately 30 and 60 per cent).192 These figures are astounding if we consider that there are severe consequences for dropping out from probation treatment programmes, including custody. In other words, it seems as if between a third and a half of men participating in these treatments would rather face more severe sanctions than attend these groups. This is instructive when thinking about whether the programmes do much to engage participants or help them consider or believe in change. If we consider some common features of these treatment approaches, their poor outcomes and high drop-out rates begin to make sense. Neither emphasise:
Addressing the emotional dynamics within domestic abuse. Individuals may engage in abusive behaviour in an attempt to meet a range of emotional needs, for example to regulate feelings of insecurity or jealousy (usually related to attachment difficulties).193 They may learn in treatment that violence is not acceptable and have the skills to inhibit it but the presence of powerful emotional motivators means that they have little reason or purpose to stop it; „ Individual differences in abusive relationships, such as between 'coercive control' and 'situational couple violence'. Different forms have diverging root causes, triggers and motivators for change, and therefore require different treatment responses;195 „ Aspects of therapy described below that are vital to achieving long-lasting change with individuals who may be initially resistant or ambivalent about this change.
3.7.1.1 Key therapeutic elements of successful perpetrator programmes Probably the most important reason these treatments typically fail is that they do not explicitly include therapeutic ingredients that are key to achieving change.196 A strong therapeutic alliance is the most consistent predictor of treatment success across a broad range of therapies and clinical problems.197 A good relationship between the therapist and client is facilitated by the therapist being trustworthy, warm, interested, and curious, as well as through therapeutic techniques such as focussing on the client's past successes, emotions and important life experiences.198 Effective treatment understands and addresses each person's individual pathway into domestic abuse. This is at direct odds with the one-size-fits all approach of education about gender inequalities or relapse prevention. Additionally the confrontational style of the Duluth approach is diametrically opposed to communicating trust, respect and belief.   .    Rehabilitating perpetrators should, we argue, also be done in a way that addresses psychological and relational dynamics. A respectful and open therapeutic approach that enables perpetrators to grapple with their difficulties in managing their emotions and the personal motivations behind their abusive behaviour is more likely to result in long-term change for them and their families than current approaches. We regret that decreased funding is available to address domestic abuse in many local contexts, but this makes it even more important that the programmes that are available are effective, even if they challenge deeply held beliefs in the sector and wider public attitudes about the inherent worth of perpetrators.                         
6.1 A reform of community perpetrator programmes In Chapter Three we analysed dominant perpetrator programme approaches which have very high drop-out rates and extremely limited effectiveness in decreasing recidivism. Their failure to help significantly or engage men who have abused is likely to be because they    ignore individual differences299 and emotional dynamics, and pay little attention to principles of effective therapy. Promising approaches to the treatment of perpetrators have been developed, but are not widely implemented and therefore not rigorously evaluated. A fresh approach to helping perpetrators stop their abusive behaviour is long overdue. Because the field has for so long rigidly held to programmes that generally do not appear to work, the development of effective perpetrator programmes is at an early stage. We do not yet know conclusively what works, but are encouraged by successes in other areas of offender rehabilitation302 and the development of promising approaches that include effective therapeutic elements.                                                                                                    





                                                          

 
   
Top