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

A clinical psychologist's referral report.

Notice how the client's history is personalised and how a detailed and precise description of what needs to be undertaken with him to enable him to gain some insight into and mastery of his situation.


What the psychologists reported about one client -linked here

What another client said about us and about DVIP, a London based RESPECT accredited programme, the RESPECT flagship


A child protection social worker who had sent us several clients eventually sent us her father. Two years later her comments were: "Thank you very much, you gave me back the father I never had."

A client's thanks following what was for him a very constructive first meeting

Hi David,

Writing to you to thank you with hand on heart.
Yesterday I met my children after nearly 2 weeks and I thanked you in my heart. Let me explain why-

The nursery is the only place of contact for me to see my children.
In our last meeting I had explained you how I am struggling to see my children and how much they miss me. I explained to you that I feel very uncomfortable and uneasy in that small closed room of nursery where I see my children; they see me, get very excited and then seeing new items in that room they get busy playing with them. I was only happy seeing them playing. You then gave me some tips how to cope, how to use that time best so that we three can enjoy fullest possible.

Yesterday before driving in to the nursery or after coming out, first time I didn't cry. Before going in I remembered you and your words. I bought gifts for them. Didn't drive hastily. When I went in I just became a small boy to play with them as I used to be before. I gave them gifts (swimming goggles, pool back float for example), tried them on kids, this helped me interacting with them for 1o min at least. After that I did some fun game to feed them snacks. After that we played tickling, inc-winci spider and my other forgotten games and gestures. We laughed and laughed and laughed a lot, I was on the floor, all over the place etc.

This might not mean to you anything. But yesterday I laughed naturally after so many months. I converted that time in that small room from a phase of self low (because I miss my family) to an energetic and positive full of life moment. This all happened because of you. You told me, so what you have small time or less opportunity, you should use it to max benefit. So I did.
Hence I thank you.

Regards

Birmingham Domestic Violence Forum quickly associated itself with RESPECT accredited courses: it is possible that this influences social services approach to our work.  The details of that policy are outlined below and our criticisms of it are added in the next paragraphs. 

Below that are a couple of paragraphs we have taken from the 2015 update!

http://www.lscbbirmingham.org.uk/images/WM-DV-standards.pdf "Domestic violence is an abuse of power and control and is characterised by a pattern of abusive controlling behaviour rather than by a one off incident. The definition includes so called 'honour-based violence', female genital mutilation (FGM) and forced marriage. Understanding domestic violence & abuse   

Comment:
Ellen Pence, the originator of the power and control mindset recognised that as wrong in her book in 1999! Johnson scores it 7 per 1,000 men and 5 per 1,000 women are "intimate terrorists!!

Does not male genital mutilation, also called circumcision, not constitute an assault on the male child, too?  Why would this be treated any less seriously than FGM? What would be the reasons for not addressing this problem?

Domestic violence is a pattern of abusive behaviour over time, where men tend to be the primary aggressor 

Comment:No. Women tend to be the primary i.e. first aggressor  - Graham-Kevan and Archer.

"and where women may be using violence in order to protect and defend themselves and their children,"

Comment:an attempt at minimisation and or denial?

"Agencies need to screen effectively to identify the primary aggressor in situations where both women and men are using violence in the relationship or where there are counter allegations."

Comment: They certainly do need to screen effectively!

And statistically these relationships, involving so-called "situational couple violence", range from between 75% and 80% of domestic violence cases. Johnson and Graham-Kevan and Archer.
"Domestic violence is most more commonly gendered, and is caused by the misuse of power and control, is central to effective intervention and prevention. Domestic violence and abuse consists mainly of violence by men and against women, and the gender of both victim and offender influences behaviour and the severity of risk and harm caused."


"Although the vast majority of domestic abuse is perpetrated by men on women, men can be victims of domestic violence and abuse. Domestic violence and abuse occurs within lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgender (LGBT) communities. "

Comment:  The vast majority,  more commonly, tend to  - a wide range of "vast majority" there!

Does DV occur in the communities or does it occur in the relationships?   Domestic violence is a pattern of abusive behaviour over time, where men tend to be the primary aggressor  women tend to be the primary i.e. first and where women may be using violence in order to protect and defend themselves and their children, (an attempt at minimisation and or denial of female violeence?

Agencies need to screen effectively to identify the primary aggressor in situations where both women and men are using violence in the relationship or where there are counter allegations.

And statistically these relationships, involving so-called "situational couple violence", range between 75% and 80% of domestic violence cases.

Birmingham Interagency Domestic Violence Forum 2004 Motto: ("Empowering, confidential, open, safe.") Service Standards 17 (Pages 14 and 15) Service providers apply specific standards when engaging in perpetrator programmes for violent men. (Numbering added by Temper Domestic Violence) Minimum Where perpetrator programmes are provided, service providers will ensure that:
1   Programmes operate within RESPECT the National Association for Domestic       Violence Perpetrator Programmes and Associated Support, 'Principles and Minimum Standards of Practice'
2   Programmes focus upon the social and gendered context of violence against women. 3            Programmes provide parallel support for associated women (whether current or ex-­partners) and children, with clear protocols determining how information is made available to women where their, or their children's safety, may be compromised.
4  Parallel support would form part of any funding bids for a programme. Programmes require that participation is mandated through the criminal justice system.   Programmes would work closely with the criminal justice system to ensure that any breaches are dealt with swiftly and robustly. Programmes ensure that participants would not be enabled to use their participation in the group as a means to avoid the legal consequences of criminal behaviour. Programmes would not engage with, or link to, couples work, anger management or mediation Facilitators would be skilled and experienced in providing programmes operating within the power and control model. Programmes would forge strong links with Birmingham Inter-Agency Domestic Violence Forum. Programmes would commit to thorough monitoring and evaluation, including the women's report as an integral element of this evaluation. Without these minimum standards being place, then perpetrator programmes will not only be dangerous to women and children, they will also significantly fail to change the behaviour of domestically violent men.
Aspirational                
Perpetrator programmes operate within a wider state and community context which abhors and condemns domestic violence and affords greater opportunity for perpetrators to challenge their violent behaviour and attitudes. 
 Notes to the above
1)   Respect's notions are based on the Duluth Model. According to Gondolf's research 2003, 40 studies had found no substantial affect. "Best practice" as considered by RESPECT was based very largely on DVIP's (The Domestic Violence Intervention Project, London) practice, which up until 1998 involved mainly court mandated clients. Joseph Rowntree Trust established in 1998 that 57% of clients dropped out. DVIP's figures in 2008, with a much bigger percentage of non-court mandated clients, was that "33 men of 230" completed a programme. DVIP's other claim, based on research outcomes by Dobash and Dobash, in turn  based on CHANGE which completed work with 46 men between 1990 and 1996 was that 70% 0f men "improved".    This would mean that 23 men of 230 made significant progress, all documented by Government papers. According to Gondolf, men that drop out of projects pose a more significant threat to their partner or former partner!
2)  The above means that women that are violent to women in lesbian relationships, and men that are violent to men in gay relationships and women that are violent to men in heterosexual relationships have no programmes to attend. As such it represents an unjustified sexual discrimination against all of those groups because violence exists in significant percentages in each of those relationship variations. It further implies that only men are capable of violence and that only women may only be victims.
3)  By attempting to compel an agency into working with both abuser and victim they create a triangular relationship. Essentially this is potentially a very dangerous situation because a couple will attempt to "speak to one another through the agency", and one result is so-called "splitting". It is much safer for both parties to be supported by different agencies.  It is also much safer for the agency, too. Funding to support female victims is now very plentiful. It is plainly unwise to move women who are victims away from well-funded sources of support into the impoverished sources of support, which are barely available for abusers (men!) to use!
4) If you believe that all abusers are a) the same sex, b) have the same problems and c) need the same solutions then you might make the Birmingham Domestic Violence Forum Statements. In the real world abusers, like everybody else, come with a vast array of problems, a large number of different needs, and produce a wide variety of outcomes.  Patriarchy being seen as essentially the sole cause of domestic abuse is simply unrealistic, and represents dogmatic, outdated feminism in the vast majority of cases. More recent recognitions split the feminist stereotype into " Intimate terrorists" and "situational couple violence" as main categories.
5)   POWER AND CONTROL: the initiator of this notion, Ellen Pence, recognised in the book she wrote in 1999 that power and control was not an issue with the vast majority of male abusers that she worked with. P 29. "Co-ordinating Community Responses to Domestic Violence - Lessons from Duluth and Beyond" Melanie Shepherd and Ellen Pence                 Duluth makes use of its "famous" TWO WHEELS. Power and control was one of them, EQUALITY  was the other. Her statement effectively made the "vehicle" for addressing men's abuse a monocycle, which nearly everybody falls off! Riding a monocycle is usually regarded as a circus act! Trick cycling!  For circus entertainment purposes only. I would suggest that is very close to the mark! The missing wheel is EMOTIONS.
10            When TEMPER attempted in 1998 to forge links with the membership of Birmingham Domestic Violence forum we were not permitted access to an 800 strong membership readership. The young woman who agreed to our placing an advert for an "information day" in her membership paper kindly wrote back and explained that "editorial control" had been removed from her control. In other words, BDVF wanted nothing to do with "abuser" organisations. 
12            With the above elements in place, with our experience of abusers we would say that Duluth programmes are dangerous to families. A coruscating description of the short-comings of a DULUTH abuser programme has been written by no less than the Vice Chair of RESPECT. To implement the very fundamental changes they suggest none of the trainers delivering DULUTH training would have a clue how to start.  Nobody may assume that any particular child will be safer with their mother, because of her femaleness, than they would be with a father because of his maleness.  Ethnic minorities in Britain represent about 10% of the population. Female abusers in Britain represent about 15% of the partner "abuser" population. According to American statistics females are responsible for about 62% of child abuse. 
 As far as work with abusers is concerned Birmingham Domestic Violence Forum's Standard 17 is conclusively the opposite of its motto:
Disempowering
, because it does not even expect or encourage change in the behaviour of men - it merely seeks to "hold them accountable". 
Non-confidential, RESPECT like IDAP requires work to be undertaken in front of video cameras, "for quality control purposes".
Not open,
because only males, in heterosexual relationships may attend. and
Unsafe
, because the system "promotes" large drop-out rates, ignores working with the emotional issues in favour of working with a non-credible, and discredited dogma (power and control). It further seeks to involve both partners in a dangerous "triangular relationship" with an organisation.


Starting in 1995 the organisation has  delivered well over 100  courses for more than  750 people, We are aware of  54 of these people who have become violent, aggressive, abusive again.

In 2004 we became members of RESPECT. Whilst members, as agreed, we  delivered  only single sex courses. However, with 14.9% of serious domestic violence cases involving women as the abusers, RESPECT's denial and minimisation of the problem, as outlined in their "Minimum Standards Policy" looks increasingly suspect, based as it is on the notion that patriarchy is the root cause of domestic violence, which is simply statistically incorrect and it leaves female abusers with nowhere to go and people in gay and lesbian relationships unable to choose to take part in groups.

Very substantial and balanced criticism of current policies in America is available at the addresses given in blue on page 8.

You can also Google "Duluth perpetrator programmes" to read of the lack of statistical evidence supporting the use of the overlong, over-complex and resource hungry programme which the Probation Service now "Accredits". The word accredit does not mean that the programme is effective, merely that it fits within a recognised (and imposed) framework.

The efforts with men seem to be to encourage the development of empathy towards their victim. We suspect that neither the roots nor the buds of empathy will be found in the undrawn stumps of pro-feminism!


Described as a snapshot the following information can be read from the RELATE website
http://www.relate.org.uk/Documents/bridging_to_change.pdf  
Three Relate centres ran projects with domestic abusers.
The Bridge project in Coventry started in March 2005, which means that up to December 2007 when the report was written, it had been running for 142 weeks (at 4 weeks per month).
The Change project in Bournemouth started in May 2005, which means it had been running for 136 weeks and the Somerset Change project started in September 2005 which means it had been running for 118 weeks.  
Bridging to change: All three projects run a 30 week course. (p 15).
The Bridge project had 19 men who  completed the work. If we take off the 30 weeks before which they could not have had a completion this meant that 19 men completed the work in 112 weeks.
The Bournemouth Change project had seven men who completed the work, similarly this meant in 106 weeks.
The Somerset Change project had 10 men who completed the work, in 88 weeks.  
To summarise: 19 men completed in 112 weeks, seven completed in 106 weeks and 10 completed in 88 weeks. 35 men completed in 3 projects in 306 weeks.   There is therefore one completion per nine weeks.  This averages out at about six completions per project per year, a truly outstanding contribution!  
And as Dr Aneta D Tunariu    said later the drop-out rates peaked around 3 to 6 weeks!!!!!  Just how much would have been learnt by that time?

Having discovered that the IDAP programme (via the Probation Service) did not deliver any effective outcomes of note it was scrapped. Where did that leave Duluth?
Well, remember that the programme is meant to be a firewall against therapeutic work! More able course designers who have experimented with an "intensive" format have had to realise that they also could not make that work and started to experiment with "one-to-one" work. RESPECT of course resented this - it was circumventing their "authority". So of course the accreditation standard for 1-to-1 work is "not less than 25 hours!".  "Motivational interviewing" is the technique. Firstly most of the people are not lacking in motivation - what they need is concrete help not further obstancles!

To undertake a meaningful academic study about the effectiveness of the work would cost at least £18000, money which we have never had available. But anecdotally we believe we have been very successful.

In 2002 a man we'll call Dave took part. Three years before that he had been assessed by a Social Services sponsored psychologist as having a severe personality disorder. Two years after undertaking our work the same psychologist declared that opinion to be outdated, and moreover he was astounded at the progress this young man had made. Dave's testimonial is printed below. He tells it right. It was not because of TEMPER, he made the changes himself. Without TEMPER he would  not have managed any changes. We would add that after the 36 hours he had minimum support.





 
   
Top