CHANGE 1990-1991 Annual Report
FOREWORD
The issue of domestic violence is, like many others, one in
respect of which social workers can do with all the help
available. Innovative programmes based upon sound research
findings are more certain than others to attract the support of
funding agencies and CHANGE readily met the criteria when the
approach was first made to Central Regional Council for Urban
Renewal Unit application.
One year into the project, good working relationships have been
developed and social workers have welcomed the opportunity to
recommend referral to the CHANGE men’s programme of men charged
with violence against their partners. It has also become evident
that courts in the Region have welcomed the programme as a
credible component in a developing range of options for
addressing the issue. Confronting men who perpetrate violence
against women with their unacceptable behaviour may also be
viewed as enhancing support to victims.
With the advent of 100% funding of Social Work Services in the
Criminal Justice System it seems reasonable to hope that the
project may be able to consolidate and indeed develop its work
in future. Although the road ahead is paved with testing
questions there is confidence that the capacity of the
Management Committee and staff to monitor, review and adapt will
ensure a continuing important role for the programme.
Ian Ross
Director of Social Work
STATEMENT FROM THE CHIEF CONSTABLE
As newly appointed Chief Constable of Central Scotland Police I
was pleased to learn of the innovative, forward thinking work
being carried out by the CHANGE Project. Police officers all too
often are the front line workers in dealing with domestic
violence and it is refreshing for me to know as Chief Constable
that such issues are being tackled in a credible, professional
manner, providing a possible cure as opposed to simply treating
the symptoms.
Like the courts, I have no hesitation in endorsing the project
and look forward to monitoring its results in the coming year.
William Wilson
Chief Constable
CENTRAL REGION WOMEN’S AID AND CHANGE
Central Region Women’s Aid has had a long relationship with the
CHANGE Project which dates back to the early days of the
steering group which was instrumental in securing funding for
the project. It was therefore with a sense of achievement,
though also some apprehension that we heard of the success of
the application to Urban Aid. We have continued to be involved
with the CHANGE Project throughout the first year of operation.
This involvement has been in two distinct areas. Firstly, each
group is represented on the Management Committee, which sets the
policy objectives for the project and has, during this year,
appointed the first staff members and seen the programme up and
running.
Secondly, now that men are being referred onto the programme, we
have started to undertake our other role - namely the support of
their female partners. In the initial stages numbers have been
small but as expected there has already been a steady rise. This
work involves not only direct contact with those women who
request it but also close liaison with the co-ordinators who
ensure that the partners of all men on the programme are given
information on the services provided by Women’s Aid and our
contact numbers.
Women’s Aid Groups in Central Region receive a small grant from
the CHANGE funding which in some measure compensates for the
increased workload. As this money became available before the
programme commenced we used the first instalment to commission
and produce an exhibition, which illustrates our services, for
each group. This has proved very useful and has been on display
throughout the Region in libraries, health centres, etc.
As CHANGE is still in its early stages, it is too soon to come
to any conclusion about the success of the programme in respect
of long-term benefits for female partners. However, we remain
committed to the principles and philosophy of the CHANGE Project
and support its efforts to explore alternative approaches to
tackling the problem of men abusing their female partners, which
may eventually offer women a better remedy than having to leave
home, family and all that is familiar.
CONVENOR’S
REPORT
On behalf of the Management Committee I am very pleased to
introduce the CHANGE Project’s first Annual Report.
In late 1985 a group came together in order to extend existing
efforts to deal with violence against women in the home. That
group included people working in the voluntary and statutory
sectors, with particularly important representation from Women’s
Aid. Other members included social workers, solicitors,
academics and a sheriff. The expressed purpose of the group was
to develop a new, positive response to men who use violence
against their partners. Modelling plans on the work of projects
in the United States, they sought to encourage a multi-agency,
criminal justice based response to domestic violence whereby
offenders would be referred through the courts to a
re-educational programme.
An important concern of the group was the location of the
project. A number of locations was considered, for example,
Tayside and Strathclyde, but it was eventually decided to locate
the project in Central Region as it was considered a more
manageable location for a demonstration project.
The group sought funds unsuccessfully through various
initiatives operated by the Social Work Services Group of the
Scottish Office. Discussions began with Central Region Social
Work Department and in 1988, under their auspices; a successful
application was made to Urban Aid. The CHANGE Project came into
being on 1 September 1989. The Project reflected the initial
concerns and interests of the original group with a clear
commitment to operating a multi-agency programme linked to a
criminal justice sanction.
From the appointment of the project’s co-ordinators and
administrator, the original group took on the role of a
management committee. The varied backgrounds and diverse skills
and interests of committee members have greatly informed the
work of CHANGE.
The CHANGE Project has a remit to challenge social attitudes and
institutional responses to domestic violence and from the outset
the workers began to negotiate and establish links with
statutory agencies such as police, sheriffs, procurators fiscal
and social work. The Project has attracted considerable interest
from the media and various national and international
organisations and this interest has been channelled into two
highly successful conferences held in January and September
1990.
The Management Committee has recently established an Advisory
Group of interested individuals whose work brings them into
contact with domestic violence. It is anticipated that this
group will be of value in offering skilled advice and
information to CHANGE and will also enable relevant agencies to
learn about the progress of the CHANGE Project.
In conclusion, the Management Committee would like to thank
Dorothy Anderson (Administrator) and David Morran and Monica
Wilson (Joint Co-ordinators) whose hard work and professionalism
have established and consolidated the credibility of CHANGE thus
far and we look forward to the success and continuing
development of the project.
Sue McLaughlin
Convenor
CHANGE Project
THE CHANGE PROJECT
Developing the men’s programme
Our major task during the first year was the development of the
men’s programme. While the content of the programme was our main
concern, we describe below how the need to satisfy the
requirements of courts and ensure that the men actually
accomplish the work affected the shape the programme has taken.
The programme as a criminal justice resource
A central feature of the men’s programme is that it works with
men whose violence has brought them before the courts. This
accords with CHANGE's position that domestic violence should be
regarded as seriously as non-domestic violence by police and
courts, and that men admitted to the programme are there as a
sentence or requirement of the court. This also assists courts
who have long expressed frustration in dealing with men who
appear before them. Fining men very often fines the household
and periods of imprisonment, while offering some short term
protection for women, do little or nothing to confront men
directly with their violent behaviour. If the criminal justice
system is to use the men’s programme as a resource it must have
confidence that CHANGE recognises the need to be accountable for
its role as a sentencing option.
The programme was designed to operate as a condition of a
probation order. The programme requirements and rules are clear.
Breaking or failing to comply with these can be dealt with by
CHANGE and reported to the the social worker involved. The final
sanction remains with courts.
Research into American men’s programmes undertaken by Jeff
Edelson of DAP in Minneapolis shows that comparatively short,
structured programmes appear to have at least as much impact on
ending men's physical violence as longer, open ended
unstructured programmes which function for a year or more. We
knew that in working with men to gain their compliance and
co-operation, there were dangers in running over a period of
time where men would eventually trip over issues such as
continual attendance. As a result we might find ourselves in a
constant struggle with them rather than providing them with an
environment in which to learn. We also had to consider what we
were able to commit ourselves to as individuals and workers in
terms of running and reviewing the weekly programme.
Acknowledging all of these factors we then worked towards
developing a group format to run over a sixteen week period. The
groups would meet locally once a week during the evening in
community or school premises. Men would be required to attend at
least sixteen sessions on a regular basis in order to fulfil
their probation requirement. During a man’s time on the
programme we would liaise regularly with the social worker /
probation officer to comment on progress made or problems
raised. Upon completion of the programme a man would continue to
see his social worker on an individual basis.
Programme structure
We next turned our attention to the structure of the programme.
We were aware that in running a court-mandated programme a
percentage of the men referred, despite the fact that they had
agreed to participate, would nevertheless be resistant to the
ideas and demands the programme made of them. We attempted to
organise each session in such a way as to decrease men's overt
resistance, draw them into undertaking the work of the group,
and gain their compliance and co-operation.
We wanted men to undertake work on particular attitudes and
behaviour issues. The most efficient and accountable way to
organise this work was in the form of modules. A man would have
to attend as many sessions as were necessary to complete all the
modules in order to fulfil his probation requirement with
CHANGE. He would have to be present in the group for the
didactic presentation of a module, i.e the ‘taught part’. He
would have to contribute to any ‘brainstorming’ or other
exercise which might follow, and he would also have to undertake
homework which revealed his own use of violence as it related to
the module concerned. During the programme each man would also
have to undertake a session, nicknamed by them the ‘hot spot’,
in which his own past and present use of violence was
specifically examined.
As there is an emphasis throughout the programme on the fact
that violence is learned behaviour, the feel of the groups is
more of work undertaken in a class than in a counselling
session.
Much of the interaction occurs as a result of prepared exercises
and initially there is little scope within the group for
open-ended discussion which all too quickly goes off the point.
However, where men do become more open over time, discussion of
their behaviour and sounding out of their concerns and ideas is
not discouraged.
The most essential aspect of the programme is its content. In
discussing this however we should point out that the programme
is not static and that structure and content are continuously
reviewed and refined in the light of experience.
The content of the programme
CHANGE contends that men commonly use violence in order to
establish and maintain their power and control over women. As we
began to develop the programme, however, we knew that we would
have to do so in a way which took into account men's own
beliefs, excuses and rationalisations as to why they were
violent. While a man may state that his is an ‘anger problem’
CHANGE considers that his ‘anger problem’ is one which is
invariably directed against his partner and may not constitute a
problem in the way he relates to other people in his life. In
order for learning to become meaningful to that man it is
necessary to allow him to work through his own rationalisations,
challenging them as we go, rather than merely dismissing them at
the outset.
When we first interview a man he has already been charged by the
police. We have found a similarity in the way men describe their
violence as having come to public attention. Typically the
violence has occurred in the evening and usually after he has
been drinking. He ascribes his violent outburst to the fact that
he lost control because he was drunk. He sees his violence as
being atypical - that is, totally out of character, sudden and
physical, and due to factors for which he is not responsibile.
He was "out of control" or in a "blind rage" at the time.
We begin the process of demystifying the man's violence by
challenging his attempts to deny and minimise his
responsibility and blame someone or something else for
his own behaviour. We know too that if he feels that his
violence was atypical and less serious than that of other men in
the room he will continue to resist accepting that his physical
violence fits in with a wider pattern of behaviour.
From the start therefore we confront his ideas of what
constitutes violence. CHANGE defines violence as ‘behaviour or
actions which intimidate someone, control someone, or force
someone to do something against their will’. We look at the fact
that violence does not have to be physical in order to achieve
this end; it can be physical, psychological or sexual. We also
include violence to objects under a separate definition as men
sometimes see this as a kind of substitute violence which is
used as an alternative to the real thing.
As the programme extends his understanding of the types of
violence he uses, so the man may realise that his use of
behaviour such as intimidating his partner by persistent
questioning, threatening her, using jealousy and isolation are
also ways of getting her to do something which is against her
will. He may also recognise that the physically violent
behaviour which he wants to mystify as having no purpose is
suddenly given one. He wanted her to do what he wanted. His
physical violence is intentional!
We challenge his ‘blind rage’ theory as being unsatisfactory and
aimed at avoiding responsibility for his actions. We focus on
breaking down present and past violent incidents - what the
situation was, what preceded it, what the man actually said,
what his intentions were, what he believed about the situation,
what he felt, how exactly he used violence and how and why he
stopped.
Invariably the man sees this as an event in which he was
provoked by his partner to such a level of anger that he lost
control and did
not know what he was doing, so he lashed out. We tell the man
that if he is so little in control of himself then he is
dangerous. He must learn something about the way he feels and
acts in situations where he has been violent and abusive in the
past. He must focus on his cues or signals,
patterns in his behaviour, situations where in the past he has
been violent, in order to begin to take the
responsibility for making himself safe to be around. Developing
this skill means that he can learn to avoid using violence.
As the man proceeds through the programme he works on his
personal safety plan. This may include learning to take a
‘time out’ when he recognises he is escalating a
situation where he has usually resorted to abuse or violence in
the past. He may need to work on issues of self esteem, alcohol
abuse, bottling up feelings, and his attitudes to jealousy and
provocation. His personal safety plan may also contain a list or
description of situations in which he feels small, insignificant
or unimportant. We freely suggest areas for inclusion in his
safety plan. While we may challenge many of his assumptions
however, we also add that if these are the factors which he
feels are behind his violence and which make him dangerous then
he has a responsibility to work on these issues in order to make
himself safe. If he does not do so then we need to examine
whether he wants to take on that responsibility, or whether his
safety plan needs to be amended.
For the woman who has been a victim of violence at the hands of
her partner and who continues to live with him, the fact that he
now takes more responsibility for his own behaviour and works
towards making himself safe may offer some reassurance. Despite
this, coexisting with someone who constantly monitors himself to
avoid the recurrence of violent outbursts can hardly be a secure
experience. The types of situations which made the man feel
angry or insecure, which saw him storm out for a drink, which
provoked a row which resulted in abuse or violence are hardly
likely to disappear. While the man may have learned some skills
in how to anticipate his responses in many of these situations,
he also needs to learn that he cannot control the world in which
he lives and further that he cannot and should not control those
with whom he lives.
We are also aware that many men's violent behaviour may have
been routinised into something which is not acute and related to
angry outbursts but is instead a chronic, persistent
intimidation and undermining of his partner. This behaviour will
not be addressed by violence avoidance exercises or other
techniques of behaviour-management. The man has to confront the
attitudes, expectations and beliefs through
which he has endorsed his use of violence and abuse in the first
place. He needs to understand the context in which he uses
violence, be it physical or otherwise, namely that he does so in
order to establish and maintain his power and control
in relationships with women - whom he considers as his
subordinates.
As the programme breaks down each incident of violence or abuse
therefore, we look at the beliefs and expectations which
underpin the man's behaviour. If violence is seen initially by
the man as an explosion, the breakdown can reveal that it most
often occurs when his partner defies his expectations of
authority and denies him the services he expects in
certain situations. These expectations generally conform to his
usually rigid views as to what denotes proper male and female
behaviour. Given his fixed stereotyping of these roles the
‘challenge’ which he experiences to his authority when his
partner behaves out of role by not obeying him or contradicting
him or by acting without his consent, may cause a sudden crisis
of confidence in himself and in the integrity of his role. His
‘anger’ or ‘temper’ which results in violence is his way of
restoring order and authority to any threatening situation. His
violence therefore is used to get him peace and quiet, sex, his
supper promptly on the table or money to go out. He uses
violence and abuse intentionally in order to stay powerful.
If the man does not need to remain powerful, then it is less
likely that he will be violent, but the programme cannot
guarantee that men will begin to relate to their partners as
equals simply because it is right or good that they should. For
many men the concept of equality in a relationship is alien;
their fear is that if they lose or relinquish power their
partner will seize it! The process of ‘power sharing’ or living
as equals is opposed by a lifetime of socialisation and the
reinforcement of living within an unequal society.
Some men will attempt to portray themselves as already having an
equal relationship because of their willingness to perform
‘women's work’, e.g. by ‘helping her out’ with the dishes.
Others will resist the idea of having an equal relationship as
being not natural. In short, men are not likely to relinquish
power unless they can see good reasons, i.e. good for them as
well as others, as to why they should.
The programme therefore examines with the man the consequences
of his violence for himself and his partner. Most men when asked
to consider the gains and losses of using violence answer
somewhat sheepishly that there are no gains, "you only lose."
The restoration of authority and the obtaining of services,
which is the intention behind the violence, are the gains. But
these are short term and often illusory. The losses of love,
respect, companionship, intimacy and trust are real and lasting,
resulting in a relationship that is based on fear or else the
departure of the woman whom the man has been so concerned to
keep under his control.
As the man nears the end of his required time on the programme
we hope that he has learned something about owning his
behaviour, understanding why he behaves as he does and what the
cost of his use of violence and abuse has been. He may also have
learned other skills in the process whose absence may not have
made him violent, but whose accumulation may nevertheless make
him a safer person to himself and others.
The programme always stresses to men that completion does not
constitute the conclusion of the work that they must do; they
are only beginning to learn how to end their violence.
Conferences
CHANGE hosted two major conferences in 1990, the first of which
was held on 15 January at the University of Stirling. The
purpose of the conference was to launch the CHANGE Project and
to bring together for discussion people working in the statutory
and voluntary sector whose work involved the issue of domestic
abuse. It was opened by CHANGE staff and management
representatives who described the origins and objectives of the
Project and then the day focussed on how one North American
men’s programme - ‘Manalive’ in Marin County, California -
operates in practice. The main speakers were Hamish Sinclair
from ‘Manalive’ and Donna Garske from the Marin Abused Women’s
Service. Some of the issues about the relationship between men’s
programmes and women’s shelters (refuges) were examined. One
hundred and two delegates representing social work, the police,
court officials, solicitors, the prison service, the RSSPCC,
Women’s Aid and others attended. The conference attracted a lot
of publicity and was covered on television, radio and in the
national and local press.
Later that year CHANGE held a one day conference and associated
workshops on the theme of ‘Developing a Comprehensive Community
Response to Male Violence against Women’ from 3 - 6 September.
Ellen Pence and Michael Paymar from the Domestic Abuse
Intervention Project (DAIP) of Duluth, Minnesota were the main
speakers and workshop leaders. DAIP’s men’s programme, like
CHANGE, works with men who have been referrred by courts.
Welcoming remarks were made by Professor A J Forty, Principal of
Stirling University, and the conference was introduced by Mr Ian
Ross, the Director of Social Work for Central Region, who also
chaired the day’s events. Speakers from CHANGE and DAIP spoke
about practice issues and experiences in co-ordinating responses
to domestic violence from the police, social work agencies, the
criminal justice system and the community.
The two associated workshops on ‘Working with Women who
experience Male Violence’ and ‘Running a Programme for Violent
Men’ proved to be stimulating and widely appreciated by the
delegates.
Both the conference and workshops attracted much interest from
the UK and abroad. Delegates, representing a wide range of
agencies and interests, came from the UK, Norway, Germany,
Holland and the USA.
Contributions to other conferences/workshops
We have been invited to attend and contribute to many
conferences and workshops since the project began, although
constraints of time and resources have sometimes dictated that
we have had to limit acceptance of such invitations. On two
occasions we have given presentations at meetings of the Working
with Offenders Group at the Overnewton Centre, Glasgow. This is
an informal group which comprises social workers, psychologists,
psychiatrists and academics who are working with violent
offenders, and who meet to discuss practice issues in their
various disciplines.
We have also been the guest speakers at two conferences of the
Scottish Association for the Study of Delinquency, one in
Edinburgh and the other in Glasgow, and at the Annual General
Meeting of the Central Region Branch of the Scottish Association
for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders.
We attended and held workshops on the CHANGE men’s programme at
the Association of Directors of Social Work Conference in
Aviemore in December 1990, and at the Prison Social Workers’
Conference at the Scottish Prison Service College, Polmont on 31
January and 1 February 1991.
On 14 February we were guest speakers at a seminar for members
of Nottingham Domestic Violence Forum, an organisation
comprising representatives of statutory and voluntary bodies
committed to developing a community response to domestic
violence.
Visits to other programmes
Last spring, we spent ten days in the United States visiting
men’s programmes in three cities in two different States. We
went to learn how these programmes operate, how they liaise and
tie in with the women’s shelter movement and how they relate to
agencies of the criminal justice system.
Our first stop was in Duluth, Minnesota, where the Domestic
Abuse Intervention Project (DAIP) has been operating for ten
years. This is the acknowledged model in the USA for a
multi-agency, criminal justice based approach to domestic abuse.
DAIP had arranged for us to hold discussions with
representatives from all the different aspects of the project’s
work. Starting at DAIP headquarters, we met project staff, who
described the various aspects of the network of agencies and
organisations which comprise DAIP.
DAIP is the co-ordinating body for a variety of programmes
around the whole issue of domestic abuse. There are fifteen to
eighteen groups of various sorts running at any one time. As
well as running the re-education programme for men there are a
number of supportive programmes for women which offer shelter,
transitional housing and legal advocacy. There are also
programmes for the children involved. There were, at that time,
one hundred and twenty men in various stages of re-education
programmes. The majority of the men are court mandated although
some attend on a voluntary basis.
DAIP also have a training mandate for a variety of agencies
which involves working with the police, court officials,
community groups and schools.
We were invited to visit the women’s shelter and talk with
shelter workers and women’s advocates whose task is to assist
abused women in their dealings with court, housing and welfare
representatives. We observed a session of the men’s programme
and held discussions with group leaders. We also met with a
judge who outlined a number of the legal procedures by which men
can be placed on the programme which we later saw in operation
in his family court.
The City Attorney outlined how the existence of DAIP had
affected practice in the prosecution of domestic violence
offenders. Two senior police officers spoke about how police
attitudes and responses had been informed and influenced by DAIP
and in particular how this had affected changes in arrest
policy.
Our second stop was the Domestic Abuse Project (DAP), in
Minneapolis, Minnesota, which shares many characteristics with
DAIP. DAP had also arranged a schedule of meetings for us with
staff from the women’s and men’s programmes. We were invited to
visit two women’s shelters, one of which was purpose built, and
talked to staff concerned. Additionally we met outreach
programme workers, who run community support groups for women,
and in Minneapolis Civic Centre we visited the office of the DAP
women’s legal advocacy service.
At DAP we discussed with the Director how the various services
they provide relate to each other. We also met one of the women
who facilitates a women’s group and two of the men’s programme
facilitators who told us about the programme’s content and
style.
DAP’s training remit for other agencies and organisations is
similar to that of DAIP and we were fortunate to be invited to
attend a training session for new police recruits where the
police response to domestic violence was the subject of the day.
Our final visit was to the EMERGE men’s programme in Boston.
Unlike DAP or DAIP, EMERGE developed as a self-referral
programme and while it is not formally part of a co-ordinated
response to domestic violence, does accept some court referrals.
The content of work in men’s programmes elsewhere has been
greatly influenced by EMERGE’s experience since 1972 and the
other programmes we visited acknowledged this contribution. We
met with key staff, sat in on a session for men who had
completed the EMERGE programme but who now chose to attend an
ongoing support group on a weekly basis. These men readily
engaged in discussion and answered many of the questions and
issues we raised with them. That evening we attended an early
stage group of court-mandated men where the workers were using
the ‘Manalive’ format for confronting men’s violence. It was
particularly interesting to see in practice in Boston something
which we had been introduced to only a few months earlier at the
CHANGE January Conference in Stirling.
Media coverage
Besides the media attention generated by conferences, CHANGE has
attracted a wide interest from the press and broadcasting media,
both in Scotland and the UK as a whole. CHANGE has been the
subject of feature articles in the local press and in The
Scotsman and The Glasgow Herald. Interviews have also been given
to New Woman and Elle magazines. A number of independent
television production companies have also contacted us with a
view to producing documentary programmes.
In our contact with the media CHANGE has endeavoured to stress
that men’s programmes have only a small part to play in putting
an end to men’s abuse of women, that they are not a substitute
for the still pressing needs of abused women and their children
and that there is a danger that in focussing attention on men
and men’s programmes we lose sight of these needs.
Future Plans
CHANGE will continue to develop the men’s programme and expand
the number of groups being run as referrals increase. We plan to
start a follow-up group on a voluntary basis for men who have
completed the required sixteen weeks and are addressing the
practical issues involved in this. In the longer term we also
hope to offer a role to men who have been through the programme
and who wish to contribute to CHANGE’s work in the community.
In addition to a commitment to undertaking in-service training
for agencies involved with the men’s programme, such as social
workers and police, CHANGE also has a remit to develop
educational materials for use in the wider community. This will
include material for others whose work brings them into direct
contact with the issue of domestic violence, such as health care
professionals and teachers, and general information for the
public. The aims of such materials will be to raise the profile
of domestic violence as being unacceptable and illegal, to
stimulate debate and understanding of its origins and supports,
to inform and influence professional practice, and to promote
social change.
CHANGE: A VIEW FROM SCOTTISH WOMEN’S AID
The programme
Men’s violence in the home is unacceptable, and domestic assault
is just as much a crime as violence in the street. Indeed being
on the receiving end of violence from the man designated
"partner" is likely to have more severe, wider reaching and
longer term effects on a woman’s life, and on the lives of her
children. The only step a woman can take by herself to ensure
that she will have a future free from violence is to leave the
violent relationship. Any other decision will have an outcome
which is influenced by the man’s actions and decisions. Women
often want the relationship to continue, but the violence to
stop, and so their safety continues to be dependent on the
outcome of the man’s decisions. Therefore it is important that
men, who often say that they do not want to continue to be
violent, are offered the appropriate support to make such
decisions effectively in their lives.
There are, in addition, some important aspects of CHANGE which
are distinct from some other kinds of programmes for violent
men. In particular, CHANGE has had the support of the Scottish
Women’s Aid network in its development. Scottish Women’s Aid’s
experience and understanding of the predicament of abused women
and their children demonstrates that there are certain
conditions which a programme for violent men must satisfy in
order to be effective, both in offering the possibilities of
changed behaviour to violent men and in promoting change at a
societal level.
These conditions include the understanding that violence against
women in the home occurs as a result of the relative positions
of men and women in society; that men are fully, solely and
unequivocally responsible for their own violence; that alcohol
abuse, stress, deprivation etc. are excuses which allow men to
shift the responsibility for their own decision to be violent;
that only a court sentenced option for violent men will
adequately demonstrate that our society finds domestic violence
unacceptable and thus only a court sentenced option will
adequately reinforce and build on the potential for change in
individual men; that it is imperative that men’s projects
continually demonstrate commitment to ensuring the safety of
women, including the increased provision of safe refuge and
other options for women and children, and in so doing be guided
by Women’s Aid.
CHANGE was the first project in Europe to set up a programme of
re-education for violent men which aims to take full account of
the interests of those women and children by satisfying those
conditions. Because it does so, Scottish Women‘s Aid supports
and is actively involved in CHANGE.
Last year in Scotland 3396 women, with an unknown number of
children, were unable to find a Women’s Aid refuge space that
they desperately needed and wanted. Refuge places were found for
1888 women and 3002 children, while a further 10192 women were
helped by Women’s Aid in other ways. The problem, therefore, is
not a small one, especially when account is taken of all the
abused women who have not yet made the decision to approach
Women’s Aid. In recognising the value of work with violent men,
it is important never to lose sight of the reality of life for
the thousands of women who live in fear.
Women’s Aid supports work with violent men in some trepidation,
particularly as the Scottish Women’s Aid network has this year
lost ten refuge spaces in Falkirk, in the very area where CHANGE
operates, and in the very year in which CHANGE was first funded.
Time will tell whether, yet again, resources for men’s work will
be more plentiful than resources for women and children.
Diversion
Men have denied, minimised and trivialised their violence
towards women for hundreds of years, and the CHANGE programme is
one positive example of how men can be helped out of this
destructive pattern towards a new understanding that they too
can live a life free from violence, if they choose it. The
CHANGE programme holds high the message that men must take
responsibility for their violence if they are to change it. But
how can our criminal justice system, which has so often failed
abused women and children, influence the whole process towards a
society in which women and children no longer have to live in
fear?
It is a criminal offence to assault a woman, and this is no less
the case when the perpetrator is the woman’s partner, and the
scene of the crime the private domain of the family home. This
crime however, unlike most others, has remained hidden by men’s
denial, and until recent times the male dominated institutions
of our society have willingly colluded in the cover-up. Now,
thanks mainly to the work of Women’s Aid voicing the concerns of
abused women and their children, the crime is explicitly
recognised in policy statements of all kinds, in every sphere.
But policy is only the first step. The institutions, and in
particular the criminal justice system, must dismantle the
practices and the conventions which continue to condone and
reinforce violence against women, despite policy statements to
the contrary.
Diversion is one such convention. Because the crime has been
minimised for so long, it takes strong action to convince
society to recognise it as such, and to introduce a practice
which treats the offender accordingly. The objectives of
diversion are admirable in the extent to which they provide
appropriate opportunities for the rehabilitation of offenders
who commit crimes which are universally and actually subject to
condemnation. Diversion of domestic violence offenders, however,
will subvert those objectives insofar as diversion is perceived
as an ambivalent response to the crime itself. The message that
society regards violence against women in the home as entirely
unacceptable is not yet universally understood, and until it is,
decisions to divert violent men will be confusing and ambiguous,
and such diversion will be inappropriate.
Scottish Office guidance on diversion recognises the particular
difficulty of the decision to divert in cases of domestic
violence, but unfortunately does not go far enough in
discouraging its use in these cases. There is recognition of the
need to ensure the safety of the woman and children involved,
but insufficient attention is paid to the significance of the
message to the wider community, as well as to the individual
woman and man, within the current context of ambivalence about
the crime. Within this context, a diversion scheme cannot carry
an authoritative statement condemning the crime.
On a positive note, however, it is possible for the criminal
justice system in Central Region to disseminate just that
message, while at the same time offering all the rehabilitative
advantages which fines and prison sentences fail to offer. In
Central Region, the CHANGE programme is available, and the
courts can be assured that the sentence will offer all the
individual advantages of diversion, while at the same time
offering the opportunity to put policy into practice in the case
of domestic violence.
Management Committee
Professor Sally Brown
Shona Campbell
Dr Rebecca Dobash
Dr Russell Dobash (Treasurer)
Mark Donnelly
Elizabeth Kennedy
Doris Littlejohn
Sue McLaughlin (Convenor)
Graeme McRoberts
Ian Shovlin
Margaret Taylor (Secretary)
Joyce Watkinson
Helen Whincup
Advisory Group
Ms Eva Comrie, Solicitor
Mr Peter Crow, Sheriff Clerk
Councillor Elizabeth Kennedy, Central Regional Council
Mr Anthony McNulty, Social Work Department
Ms Anne Morrison, Scottish Women’s Aid
Inspector Sam Muir, Central Scotland Police
Sheriff - rotating
Ms Sharon Stirrat, Victim Support Scheme
Mr Keith Valentine, Procurator Fiscal
Councillor Anne Wallace, Central Regional Council
Mr Harold Wilson, Education Department
Mrs Muriel Young, Forth Valley Health Board
Project Staff
Dorothy Anderson, Administrator
David Morran and Monica Wilson, Co-ordinators
