RESPECT is the ideologically biased charity which has become the proxy “accreditor” of the DAPP programmes which Cafcass will fund.
Cafcass in the Family Courts: Often a “finding of facts” hearing will, on the balance of probability, find an individual guilty of the behaviours of which he or she has been accused. If the individual accepts all those finding of facts he may be eligible to be forwarded to an “Accredited programme”. No acceptance, no programme. The “accredited programmes” are usually between 26 and 32 weeks long. Historically less than 25% of men have completed these programmes – so it would be wise to ask what the completion rate is.
Cafcass funded 909 places in 2019 at a cost of £1.2 m. They cannot tell you how many men completed. My freedom of information request (FOI) revealed that Cafcass received mid-way reports on 32% of the referred men and concluding reports on 39% of the men.
Because of the radical feminist beliefs of the accreditor, a charity called RESPECT, there is no course available for female abusers other than ours. Some of the many problems with the “accredited programmes” which Cafcass would recommend are on this link
Following the Panorama film broadcast on 8th October 2018 – Can violent men change? The i-payer link is here. The programme is no longer available via the link.
Terry White, McKenzie friend and David Eggins in conversation about Cafcass and a Judge’s unhappiness with the unhelpful, obstructive and unaccountable practice, suggesting it is the “philosophy” of Cafcass. Does he really mean following the Feminist Ideology words?
RESPECT and some of the problems with the ineffectiveness of the so-called “accredited” perpetrator programmes, DAPP’s. Terry and David discuss.
Dr H, a clinical psychologist and risk assessor. In an assessment he wrote to Cafcass as follows: Therapeutic approaches based on Duluth domestic violence education programmes for men are often recommended for male perpetrators of domestic violence. The Duluth model is an educational approach that is programme centred, challenging, confrontational and rigid. These programmes are based on an educational approach in which the perpetrator will often suppress their abusive behaviours during treatment. (Jewel and Wormith 2010). Meta-analytic studies of Duluth type educational approaches have consistently found that domestic violence education programmes for men that are based on Duluth pro-feminist model result in no long-term reduction in intimate partner violence (Slabber 2012). Approaches that appear to have more positive outcomes to the Duluth model identify individual criminal criminogenic risk factors, target dynamic need and risk factors, target multiple needs, promote behavioural change and develop social and communication skills. More therapeutic approaches are client centred, empathic, engage the client, are responsive to a client’s needs, and result in a reduction of IPV. The research literature clearly indicates that an effective approach for male perpetrators of IPV is to provide therapeutic treatment that focuses on the perpetrator’s own traumatic history and other individual difficulties (Vlais, 2014). It has been found that courses involving more than 36 hours of education and therapy do not have any better outcomes than courses involving less than 36 hours of intervention work (Paulin, 2014). The group based course offered by Temper does address IPV issues and a number of local authorities refer clients to the organisation. A client was concerned that Cafcass had informed him that the course run by Temper is not a recognised course for domestic violence perpetrators. I would assume that this reflects that the course run by Temper is not accredited by RESPECT — a self appointed organisation in the UK that accredits domestic violence perpetrator programmes that are primarily based upon The Duluth model.