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.                  A charitable company limited by guarantee registered in Scotland No 183989             Scottish Charity No SCO18322          CHANGE acknowledges funding from the Scottish Executive