Abstract
2011 Best Article Prize
‘Re-education or recovery? Re-thinking some aspects of domestic violence perpetrator programmes’ by David Morran (University of Stirling)
Abstract
There has been a substantial development of domestic violence perpetrator programmes within the probation service in recent years. Pressures to ensure that approaches are ‘evidence-based’ and thereafter formally ‘accredited’ have led to the proliferation of somewhat standardized models of intervention in both probation, and increasingly, in the voluntary sector. This does not fit either with the experience of practitioners nor from emerging research in this field. This article suggests that too much might be expected from current interventions. Consideration is then given to what individualized approaches might require in this context and specifically examines how desistance-focused approaches might apply with this type of ‘offender’.
A copy of the winning article can be accessed via the Probation Journal Website
There are two domestic killings each week on average in England and Wales (Hill, 2012). Almost a million children in Britain are affected by domestic violence either as victims or witnesses, an increase of more than 22 per cent over the past decade, and yet four out of five of families affected do not seek help. Those who do seek help are likely to find it increasingly difficult to access services as more than a quarter of local authorities have reduced their funding for domestic violence support in the past two years (Dugan, 2012). At the same time proven interventions with perpetrators of domestic violence are being replaced with untested, shorter and cheaper alternatives. A survey conducted by Napo found that more than half of all probation areas were introducing unaccredited domestic abuse courses as an alternative to approved interventions and even when approved courses are available there were waiting lists of up to a year (Hill, 2012). It is appropriate and timely therefore that the Editorial Board have chosen David Morran as the recipient of this year’s best paper prize for his article ‘Re-education or recovery? Re-thinking some aspects of domestic violence perpetrator programmes’ published in the March 2011 edition of Probation Journal. The author provides a salient overview of the development of domestic violence programmes in the United Kingdom which, as he points out, have become a significant part of contemporary probation activity despite initial resistance on ideological grounds and doubts about the effectiveness of such interventions. Despite the significant progress made in tackling what is undoubtedly a major social problem, the author warns that such programmes are at something of a crossroads in terms of their purpose and what they can expect to achieve. The prevailing ‘power and control’ model (with an emphasis on holding individuals to account for their actions) has undoubtedly chimed with a risk-based approach in probation practice but according to David Morran this has sometimes been at the expense and marginalization of more therapeutically-orientated interventions which have struggled to secure funding. Drawing on the lessons emerging from a range of desistance studies, the author presents a powerful argument for a more transformative approach to dealing with what are an undoubtedly challenging and recalcitrant group. He seeks a balance between the more confrontational elements of such programmes with a more motivational and engaging approach that ‘provide opportunities in their internal and external worlds which will increase the possibilities and opportunities for desistance?’ (p. 29). David Morran is undoubtedly correct in highlighting the limitations of current ‘professionalized’ provision in which interventions are almost exclusively delivered by ‘experts’ and draws on the experiences of other jurisdictions that use former perpetrators of domestic violence as advocates for change (p. 30). The Home Office are currently testing the ‘positive deviance’ tool to support policy on violence against women and encourage community action. This approach engages those not normally involved in community activism, utilizing the experiences of those who have successfully overcome problems (Kerss, 2012). However, it is important that such initiatives are introduced because they are more responsive to the complexities and contradictions inherent in abusive behaviours and instil a sense of hope in the possibility of personal change rather than providing merely another cost-cutting mechanism.
At a structural level, what the shocking statistics regarding the extent of domestic violence highlights (and what David Morran articulates so elegantly in his article) is the negative impact of ‘having to continue to live in a patriarchal society, with few alternative role models existing as to alternative masculinities’ (p. 31). Reports that 45 per cent of women in England and Wales are at some point in their lives victims of sexual or physical violence at the hands of men (Kaufman, 2012) remains a terrible indictment of our society. There is a growing recognition that no single agency can make victims of domestic abuse safe and that a shared understanding of risk is needed so that scarce resources can be targeted to most effect. For this reason the Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) model of intervention has been developed so that a coordinated multi-agency response to domestic abuse is adopted. Several studies have indicated that MARACs can reduce recidivism even among those most at risk (Community Care, 2007). The work of the MARAC mirrors that of the Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) which are the subject of the next article in this edition. In ‘MAPPA Level 3 Offenders: Reconviction as a Measure of Effectiveness’, Joanne Wood explores the reconviction patterns of a cohort of 174 cases within a follow-up period of 12 months from the date that they were initially registered under Level 3 MAPPA. Supporting David Morran’s discussion of the complexities of working with this group, those whose offence type involved domestic violence were the most likely group to commit a serious and specified offence as defined by the Criminal Justice Act 2002. The author speculates that some of the restrictions put in place by MAPPA may lead some offenders to commit different types of offending and therefore those involved in the supervision of high-risk cases should avoid making assumptions about future offending based on previous behaviour. Whilst Joanne Wood found that MAPPA may have gone some way to transform the way in which high-risk offenders are supervised in the community, this does not mean that it is in itself sufficient to bring about the transformation in attitudes and behaviour that, as David Morran points out, should be central to working with those engaged in domestic abuse.
The management of child sexual abusers is another high profile issue that has become highly politicized. In ‘Professionals understanding of Government strategies for the management of child sexual abusers’, Kieran McCarten seeks to elucidate the views of professionals regarding the government’s approach to child sexual abuse. Amongst those professionals interviewed for this study, there was support for recent developments such as MAPPA although others viewed them as merely a rebranding of existing packages to placate public opinion. There was also scepticism expressed regarding the effectiveness of recent policy developments such as public disclosure to provide a responsible means of monitoring those convicted of child sexual abuse in the community. Many of those interviewed believed that the government have an unrealistic and uninformed understanding of child sexual abuse. This had in turn resulted in what was seen as the promotion of highly reactionary policies and practices that were neither grounded in robust research nor informed debate. As in domestic abuse work, those professionals interviewed for Kieran Mccarten’s study believed that contemporary discourses should be rooted in both protection and rehabilitation/reintegration strategies. This theme is continued in Tracy Almond’s article ‘Asset: An assessment tool that safeguards or stigmatises young offenders’. Here the author provides a practitioner’s perspective on the efficacy of the structured assessment tool developed by the Youth Justice Board. Whilst acknowledging that such tools provide a wealth of quantitative data regarding the young person’s offending, risks and needs and protective factors, the author argues that it places too much emphasis on limited treatment goals at the expense of longer-term developmental processes. Drawing upon the insights provided by alternative approaches to the dominant risks/needs model of intervention she provides a persuasive argument for ensuring that assessment tools not only safeguard the young person’s well-being but are also sensitive to issues of inequality and discrimination that frame many young people’s lives and prevent them from developing their true potential.
In the final article in this edition, ‘Mindfulness training for self-regulation and stress with incarcerated youth: A pilot study’, Sam Himelstein, Arthur Hastings, Shauna Shapiro and Myrtle Heery consider the potential of alternative therapies in working with young prisoners. Drawing on their evaluation of a time-limited intervention using meditation techniques they conclude that there are promising signs that these approaches can have a positive impact on the individual’s well-being in terms of reducing stress levels and strengthening self-regulation. Whilst these approaches might sit uncomfortably within a punitive culture they provide an alternative lens with which to address the impulsivity and lack of self-control which are characteristic of some forms of offending behaviour.
Together these articles bring into focus the emotive nature of working with troubled and troublesome individuals and the reality that achieving meaningful personal change is both complex and often problematic. They also challenge us to confront contemporary policies and practices that have a tendency to emphasize individual deficits and ultimately stigmatize. But they also point to a more transformative practice that holds individuals to account for their actions whilst moving them towards a more sustained form of desistance that isn’t solely defined by their past offending regardless of the depth of feeling that their actions can invoke in us all.
As always, the journal welcomes letters, comments or articles in response to any of the issues raised in this edition.