‘Partners in Prevention’, Swindon Women’s Aid Conference
14 March 1996
Transcript of
Monica Wilson’s conference contribution.
I’m here today
to talk to you about the work done by the CHANGE Project. CHANGE
is sub-titled "Men Learning To End Their Violence Against Women"
and I'll talk a bit more about what that means in a minute, but
it tells you something about the perspective the project has on
men’s violence; that it is something which they have 'learned'
to do for a reason.
The project
began in September 1989, but it had taken a number of years work
before that to develop the concept and get it funded. A range of
people who were interested in getting this work off the ground
sought funding from various bodies in Scotland before the
project was eventually granted funding under the Urban Programme
sponsored by Central Region Social Work Department. It was
understandably difficult to get funding for this kind of work,
given the fact that work with women on the receiving end of
men’s violence is still grossly under-funded. As many of you
will be aware, there is a lot of controversy about whether this
work should take place at all, aside from whether it be funded
or not.
Those who were
involved in setting up CHANGE came from a variety of
backgrounds; academic, social work, the legal profession, and
Women's Aid. However, both Scottish Women's Aid and the three
local groups in the Central Region of Falkirk, Clackmannan and
Stirling, brought with their involvement a lot of reservations.
There was growing awareness that work with men was inevitably
going to happen. It had been happening in North America for a
number of years and there is a maxim that says what happens over
there yesterday, happens over here tomorrow. There were concerns
that when work with men was set up that it should try and follow
best possible practice and learn from the lessons which had been
learnt elsewhere. CHANGE was set up as a pilot demonstration
project to find out whether this work could be done effectively,
and to try to do it in an accountable way, a way that was
accountable to women.
Among those who
were instrumental in getting CHANGE established were Russell and
Rebecca Dobash. Many of you may be familiar with their work. I
was one of their research assistants in the 1970's when we were
undertaking the research which informed their book Violence
Against Wives. So I came into this work with a
knowledge-base very much from the abused woman's perspective.
That's from a personal as well as a professional viewpoint.
When I first
became aware that CHANGE was being planned, and then when the
staff posts were being advertised, my thoughts were something
like "what a poisoned chalice". However, the more I thought
about it, the more I started to think, this is a challenge as
well. It should be something that women are involved in, and I
would quite like to be that woman. As it turned out, I applied
and was appointed joint project coordinator with a male
colleague; David Morran.
CHANGE started
its work therefore in 1989 with three clear aims. First, to
devise and operate a criminal justice based programme for men
who had been violent to their partners. Now there are a range of
reasons why that's thought to be important. CHANGE came about at
a time when in Scotland one of the major issues in the social
policy field was about diversion.
For those of
you not familiar with the term, diversion is about trying to
divert offenders, and young men in particular, away from career
criminality by intervening in criminal behaviour at an early
stage. Special programmes or intervention schemes are developed
to which some offenders are referred without the case proceeding
to court. I am aware of two particular methods of diversion, one
is to divert with a threat of prosecution at a later stage
should the offender fail to comply with the diversion scheme.
The other is to divert with no threat of prosecution.
Certainly in
our particular area some Procurators Fiscal, the prosecutors in
Scotland, were interested in schemes for diverting domestic
violence offenders away from court. CHANGE was not keen to go
this route mainly because it was thought this would not ensure
that domestic violence was seen to be as important, as criminal,
or as serious as other forms of assault. So CHANGE was committed
to the goal that the programme be a post prosecution option
taking the form of an additional requirement of a probation
order.
Working within
the justice system was also seen to be crucial in that such a
programme should not just impact 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 other
activists, CHANGE wanted to play its part in having an impact on
the institutions which dispense justice. Their response in turn
influences the way that the community perceives, and that men
perceive, this behaviour. We wanted to have some influence too
on the way that the police treated domestic violence, and on the
way that prosecutors decide whether or not to prosecute. One
prosecutor told us that we would not get men for this programme
if we aimed it at convicted offenders because women will just
withdraw their evidence. And this is where the earlier point
made by one of the speakers comes in: the need to educate people
within the justice system. This is an area where women's
organisations and programmes like CHANGE can contribute to that
education process. If women feel the justice system has
something positive to offer in terms of intervention, and if
they are supported in the process of giving their evidence, then
they are not so likely to withdraw evidence. CHANGE’s experience
did not bear out that prosecutor’s prediction.
CHANGE was
fortunate in that some Sheriffs in local courts were very keen
to use a new initiative on domestic violence. They didn't
necessarily share our particular perspective on domestic
violence, but they felt that the sentencing options open to them
at that time were very limited in terms of doing anything real
about this problem. They knew that when a man appeared before
them on a charge involving domestic violence, they generally had
four options. They could fine him, they could put him on
probation, they could defer sentence for good behaviour, or they
could send him to jail. Now we know that fining a man on a
charge like this usually means that the fine comes out of the
family income and punishes the whole household; the woman, who
was the victim of the offence; and any children. Deferring
sentence does little to actually impact on the offending
behaviour and very often means there is further pressure on the
woman not to report any further acts of violence. She may feel
the system has 'let her down' and it is not worth using the law,
or she may be pressured by him not to report his violence to
prevent his being further punished.
While putting
him on probation would seem to be a positive move, how to make
effective use of the probation order was still a point of
discussion until the advent of men's programmes. As for prison,
we know, again from research, that while that might give women a
brief respite from the violence and perhaps even an opportunity
to make her own plans and make her escape, we also know that men
can continue to coerce women from prison. The use of phone
cards, ('make sure you're in whenever I call you!'), or
demanding visits can be forms of abuse. Families or friends on
the outside can also be asked to 'keep an eye on' women. Plus
she and any children, have to carry the social stigma of a
partner in prison. Fortunately, as I have said, some of the
Sheriffs were keen to try a new disposal which would have some
kind of impact on this behaviour.
CHANGE's second
aim was to work with the Police, with Social Work, with the
Courts, with voluntary agencies in particular with Women's Aid,
to encourage a multi-agency response to domestic violence. A
multi-agency approach has certainly been developing in our area
over the last few years. A domestic violence strategy has been
produced and a forum is in the process of being developed so all
agencies can come together on this issue. CHANGE was also
represented on the committee implementing the Zero Tolerance
Campaign in Central Region.
The third aim
was to develop training programmes and educational materials for
others wishing to do work on men's violence. This is a central
part of our current work, but I want to concentrate today on the
men’s programme.
As I have said,
CHANGE's perspective on men's violence was informed by research
and by the experience of Women's Aid. Men's violence is
intentional behaviour. It is not inexplicable, it is not
mysterious; it is intentional. It may not feel or be explicable
to the man who's using it as something he can explain at the
time. But by working with him you can actually get him to
realise that there is intent behind his behaviour. And the
intent is this; violence is about power, it is used to assert
power, it is used to reassert power, it is used to get control.
We know that men are encouraged to use violence to be manly in a
whole range of settings, not just in personal relationships. Men
have learned that this is how they stay in charge. We know that
historically men have been permitted, sometimes even encouraged,
to use violence in order to control women and other
subordinates. Developing changes in attitudes to this violence,
and legislation to circumscribe men's right to use it, have
taken many centuries. We now consider such behaviour
unacceptable, illegal, and criminal. But nonetheless there is
still a kind of folk memory, the cultural memory that men can
use violence when women somehow 'step out of line'; that uppity
women deserve to be slapped down.
Traditionally,
there has been therefore a social and institutional tolerance of
men's violence. I don't have to tell anyone in this room, I
suspect, that years of work have gone into persuading the
general public, persuading politicians, persuading people in
powerful institutions that domestic violence is a real problem,
that it is widespread, that it is not something that is only
just a small issue for a few families. We know, for example,
that traditionally the police were reluctant to intervene in
'domestics'. But we have also seen great changes in the way that
they now react to domestic violence. It is something that I have
witnessed in my career. A change from when the police were
saying it is nothing to do with us; to now, when I can hear
police personnel standing up at conferences and talking about
the need for an effective police response to domestic violence.
So change is possible, and it is happening.
The work of
activists and researchers has also made clear that domestic
violence is widespread. It is not just a problem of a few 'sick'
individuals or families. We know that when this problem was
'rediscovered', if you like, in the 1970's and started to be
talked about again, one of the current views at that time was
that it was down to the pathology, either of the men or the
women involved. I think this view has now largely been
discredited; the problem is too big and too widespread for such
individualistic explanations to hold up.
Nor is violence
caused by drink or social stress. Alcohol misuse, certainly
where I live, is a major social problem associated with a lot of
distress, associated also with a lot of criminal behaviour. But
I think what we need to do is to separate out the role that
drink plays from the actual violence itself. Not all drunken men
are violent; and not all violent men are drunk. This distinction
is something that we've had to tackle a lot with the men we have
worked with. But it is also something which, in my experience,
men are quickly able to recognise. They see that they use drink
in certain ways. Sometimes to escape from everyday life, or from
a self they don't like very much. Sometimes to overcome
inhibitions or furnish them with the bravado to be violent or
abusive and which gives them a handy excuse for behaving that
way: "I didn't mean it, I was drunk”.
Similarly,
violence is not caused by stress, such as unemployment or poor
housing. These are very real issues in people's lives and I'm
not trying to dismiss them at all as sources of genuine
difficulties and problems for those experiencing them. But we
know that domestic violence is not a problem exclusive to those
suffering such distress; it cuts across the social strata and
occurs in all social groups.
CHANGE’s
position is that men themselves are responsible for their
violence and therefore men are responsible for stopping it.
Some of you may
be familiar with this model. This was a model developed by a
project in North America, the Domestic Abuse Intervention
Project in Duluth, Minnesota. They were very generous to CHANGE
when we started up in giving us a lot of help, training and
advice and allowing us access to their programme materials. They
developed this model for their own programme and it is something
that we have found very useful for bringing home to men where
they see they stand in relation to partners. The idea is that if
you model your relationship with the person you are living with
such that you need to be the one who has the final say; you need
to be the one who lays down the law; you need to be the one that
says when she should shut up, when she should stop 'nagging',
when things can happen, then what you are basically doing is
saying ‘I need to be in control here all the time. I am the one
who has the power’. If you must keep that power and control,
because that is so important to your identity, then you do so by
using a whole range of behaviour, the ultimate of which is
physical or sexual violence. You don't always need to use
violence because as long as that person that you are trying to
control knows that you are capable of it, and you've used it
before, then the whole other range of behaviour of coercion, of
intimidation, of emotional, or psychological abuse are all the
more damaging to the person on the receiving end.
What the CHANGE
programme tries to achieve with men is for them to place their
relationship with their partner on a different basis; to remodel
it to one based on equality or true partnership.
These are the
kinds of ways of behaving to others, non-violent ways, which
indicate an equal, partnership based relationship.
To achieve this transition:
from Power and Control to Equality based relating to partners,
CHANGE drew on the experiences of other programmes already in
operation in North America in terms of some programme content
and style and also in relation to early findings about
effectiveness. Research which compared a number of different
group-based programmes found that comparatively short,
structured, educational programmes appear to have the most
impact on ending men's physical violence and other abuse.
Building on the framework suggested by these findings CHANGE
devised a probation based programme to pilot in Central Region
in Scotland.
The CHANGE men's programme
was designed as a short, structured group-based re-education
programme working with cohorts of four to eight men at any one
time. The twenty two-week curriculum comprises two-hour weekly
sessions. Men understand that upon completion they have still
only undergone a basic programme which has introduced them to
some of the ideas and skills they need in order stop using
violence and abuse. One of the advantages of working with men
who are on probation is that they can continue the work begun in
the programme in the context of the individual contact they have
with the social worker in charge of their probation order.
CHANGE influences this work through regular reports and liaison
meetings with social workers during which specific difficulties
and outstanding issues for men can be discussed.
The programme encourages men
to take personal responsibility for their violent behaviour by
increasing their awareness of the dynamics involved in its use;
by challenging their attitudes and beliefs around both the use
of violence and relationships between men and women; and by
developing skills for relating non-violently to others. The
methods employed include brainstorming, written work - including
weekly homework- small group work, didactics, video,
self-reporting, self-assessment and role play.
Often men will either deny
their violence or try to blame it on someone or something else
such as alcohol or a sudden loss of control, such as a 'blind
rage'. Sometimes they seem frightened and confused by the
apparent mystery of this behaviour and want to understand it for
themselves. Men are therefore encouraged to examine in what
circumstances and why they have used violence, and over the
course of several weeks various incidents are broken down where
men have been violent and abusive including those which resulted
in them being charged. Men may thus come to see that in these
situations their violence had the purpose of maintaining or
re-establishing authority on that particular occasion or of
getting him something he wanted, be it 'peace and quiet', his
evening meal, obedience or sex.
Men often seek to excuse
their unacceptable behaviour by blaming it on the woman
involved. She is often portrayed as being culpable in some way
or as having provoked a ‘justifiable’ retaliation on the man's
part. It is suggested to men however that the use of violence is
solely their responsibility and that failure to accept this will
inevitably nullify their promises to stop. Quite simply, they
cannot refrain from behaviour which they do not accept as their
own. Only by recognising and accepting that violence has been
their choice can men refrain from behaving this way in
the future.
Much time is spent
considering the consequences of violence and the gains and
losses it entails. The 'gains' which are short term relate to
the restoration of supremacy in the relationship or services
rendered. They are mostly hollow victories. The 'losses' however
are incurred at the expense of the 'gains' and are more long
term. According to most men these include the loss of love,
trust and respect from the woman and children alike.
A key element of the work is
spending time examining how their behaviour has physically and
otherwise damaged someone close to them. Few have opened
themselves to this awareness before, either through shame or
guilt, or through plain insensitivity. Looking at how their
partner must have experienced the violence and other abuse can
be a painful part of the process of men’s growing awareness of
the effect their actions have on others. Often this part of the
programme has a profound effect as men come to see themselves as
subject; someone who has choices in actions which effect others;
and not object; someone who is acted upon.
Men are encouraged to
identify for themselves, and make a work plan for the particular
skills they need to develop in order to live non-violently. They
are encouraged to make self-assessments of their progress, and
their shortcomings, and to seek feedback from the group.
Finally, in order to be
accountable and effective, the programme must remain fully aware
of the dangers in this type of work with men. The programme thus
carefully monitors the effect it appears to be having on men's
behaviour by confirming, if possible from sources other than the
man, that participation is having the desired effect and that
where it clearly is not, appropriate prompt action results.
What I have given you here
this morning is a very brief and therefore much abbreviated
description of the CHANGE men’s programme. Time has
unfortunately not permitted a more in-depth examination of how
the programme operates and how effective it has proven. A formal
research study into its effectiveness has been undertaken funded
jointly by the Home and Scottish Offices. The report of that
research is due to be published shortly.
Thank you
