Programmes for Male Domestic
Violence Offenders
Monica Wilson, Director, CHANGE
What I am here to talk about, albeit briefly, is one innovative
form of practice in the field of domestic violence: men’s
programmes - special programmes for male domestic abusers.
Lesley Irving has already given you a brief description of how
men’s programmes developed experimentally in Scotland, modelled
on ‘good practice’ from the USA; and has said that currently
only the Edinburgh programme, the Domestic Violence Probation
Programme (DVPP) is still operational. Moira Andrew from DVPP
will be speaking about their work in relation to women partners
after me.
I work for CHANGE and, with David Morran who introduced us all
today, developed and ran the CHANGE men’s programme in the old
Central Region from 1989 -1996. But I don’t want to talk
specifically about CHANGE today; rather to address some practice
issues about men’s programmes. What I want to concentrate on are
some of the pitfalls and dilemmas - dangers indeed- that need to
be taken into account when planning for, and working with,
abusive men; and then look briefly at the why, and then the how,
of this work.
Ten minutes is just not enough time to speak comprehensively
about this subject. So I have had to settle for trying to give a
flavour of, or awareness-raising, about some practice issues
which have been highlighted both by those working with survivors
of domestic violence and by those of us working with programmes
for violent men.
As many of you will be aware, there has long been controversy
about whether work with violent men should take place at all,
especially when work with women and children continues to face
resourcing difficulties. I think it is important to understand
why such work is controversial, and to take account, as far as
is possible, of the potential dangers when planning for
developing it.
Firstly there is the concern that placing violent men on
programmes may increase danger to women. Lots of good reasons
for this concern spring to mind; for example the woman gets
blamed or punished for getting ’outsiders’ involved; and then
for him being on a programme. He may want to feel it is all ‘in
the past’, but constant references to his violent behaviour in
the programme may lead him to punish her. After some time, he
may feel he’s ‘done enough’ and now it’s her turn. She may be
coerced into lying about further abuse to protect his status on
the programme.
Then there is concern that being on a programme may teach him
more subtle, non-physical means of abusing her; by, for example
mixing with other abusers and learning from them, or hearing
discussions in the group about the wider definition of violence.
The fear here is that he may stop being physically abusive, but
the threat of violence is still there and he becomes more
skilled at ‘terroristic tactics’.
Placing men on programmes may rob women of their chance to
escape. Despite numerous promises to change that she may have
heard before, he ‘proves’ he’s really going to change this time;
look he’s on a programme, he’s doing it; she’s got to give him
this chance; or she’s got to stay and help him, he’s doing it
for her. She will often want to believe him; she may feel she
owes it to him, or to the children, or even to the programme
staff to stay with him or to return to him is she’s left.
Programmes must be alert to the danger of giving women ‘false
hope’. Surely this time he means it, he will change: it’s a
‘proven’ programme, she’s heard of it, it’s been on the ‘telly’.
Another, very real fear is that the existence of men’s
programmes may undermine or take resources away from women and
children. There is the fear that agencies will see men’s
programmes as a ‘flavour of the month’ solution to the detriment
of resourcing services to women and children. As in much of what
I have outlined already, this is where the importance of
inter-agency working to agreed principles and standards is so
important. Those of us involved in men’s programmes also need to
keep focussing on why we are doing it.
Similarly there is the danger that working with men may focus
agencies’ attention on men’s needs rather than women’s; and
attention may get diverted away from his violence onto other
issues, such as his employment needs or alcohol abuse.
A slightly different issue is that men on programmes may use
their experience there abusively. Many examples spring to mind,
such as men representing themselves as somehow ‘expert’ in
relationships. They may use programme jargon to abuse (" you
should watch yourself when you do that: it’s an early warning
signal", or, "you need to take a time-out"). They may say
(falsely) that programme staff have agreed with them that she is
the problem; or say they know more than her now about how to
conduct a model relationship. In my own experience some men have
asked if they can get a certificate for completing the
programme.
Any agency embarking on this work therefore needs take account
of these difficulties when planning how they develop and
implement men’s programmes. As I have said, this is where
inter-agency working, and working within the criminal justice
system can play an important role in addressing some of these
potential dangers.
Given these fears about working with abusing men, why do it
then?
The most obvious reason to me is that violent men need to be
held accountable for their violence: they are the problem. For
too long domestic violence has been seen as a ‘women’s
problem/issue’ instead of a problem for women but perpetrated by
men.
Those social and institutional attitudes which foster men’s
violence need to be challenged and men’s programmes have a part
to play, alongside other agencies such as Women’s Aid, and
campaigns by Zero Tolerance. Violent men’s behaviour and the
beliefs which underpin it need to be challenged: men’s
programmes have experience in developing tools which can do this
which they can share with other agencies. Myths abound about the
causes of domestic violence; for example, alcohol, social class
factors, or the individual pathology of the men or the women
involved. By holding men responsible for their violent
behaviour, men’s programmes have a part to play in debunking
these myths.
But perhaps the most compelling reason for working with abusive
men is because women want it. As you have heard Lesley say, many
women love and want to stay with the men they live with but want
the violence to stop. Other women want the programme to be the
means of their partner realising what he has put them through:
the pain, hurt and often, terror that she has endured. For still
others, his being on the programme may provide the security she
needs to leave him.
How should we work with men?
Given the difficulties that men’s programmes need to be alert
to, working within the Criminal Justice System can go a long way
in offering safeguards to women. Working within the justice
system is also important in that programmes impact more widely
that just on the men worked with. You cannot change a major
social problem like this by working with individuals alone.
Along with women’s organisations and others, programmes can play
a part in having an impact on the institutions which dispense
justice, and on the community. In addition, it offers sentencers
a novel and offence-focussed sentencing option. Men’s programmes
need to work closely with all the agencies of the justice
system, and to have agreed procedures, such as referral systems,
assessment guidelines, and written reports.
The CHANGE men’s programme, and DVPP work from what is now the
widely accepted feminist perspective. That perspective on male
violence is that it is intentional, albeit not always conscious,
behaviour that men use to maintain power over and to control
women in intimate relationships. It stems from the historic and
cultural legacy of patriarchy whereby men are socialised into
believing they are superior to, and have rights over, women.
Using broadly cognitive/behavioural methods, the programmes give
clear messages about what men are there to do: to take
responsibilty for and to stop their violent and abusive
behaviour. We state that the use of violence is learned
behaviour. It is not a manifestation of pathology; these men are
not sick. To underpin this message we ensure that we are clear
that this is re-education, not therapy or counselling.
The work is done mainly in groups and men come onto the
programme post conviction as part of probation order. There is a
minimum of 6 month’s participation with post-programme
follow-up. Each man signs a written contract and must abide by
minimum participation requirements - men can’t just sit and
stare out of the window. There are systems for tracking men’s
progress, including liaison with other agencies and with
partners. Agreed procedures exist for dealing with
non-compliance
As to content, both programmes share the following
characteristics: They
-
are educationally focussed
and structured
-
challenge/examine behaviour
in great detail
-
challenge attitudes/beliefs
-
help men to develop skills
for non-violence
To finish, I want to say that
with the experience of both CHANGE and DVPP in managing men’s
programmes, we now have in Scotland, an important resource base
which can help to make for positive change in the way the
Criminal Justice System tackles domestic violence.
Next
