The research context

It is more than two decades since the inception of the Duluth Domestic Violence Pathfinder, the first probation-led programme for domestic abuse perpetrators in England and Wales. Despite the lack of an outcome evaluation, and a report critical about the early stages of its implementation two programmes based on the pathfinder were rolled across all probation areas by 2005. 

Both programmes were disbanded in favour of Building Better Relationships (BBR), currently the only accredited programme in probation for domestic abuse perpetrators, despite being subjects of a number of critical reports raising concerns about the quality of its implementation, unsustainable waiting lists, a less than impressed probation client group about the service received, and a stressed and overstretched workforce. The most critical lesson of Duluth – that effective work with men who abuse cannot be secured without adequately supporting their partners – has not always been heeded.

As BBR is replaced with Building Choices, the authors argue convincingly that it is crucial that we learn whatever lessons we can about how to intervene safely and effectively with perpetrators of domestic abuse.

A good working alliance

The authors highlight that the quality of the relationship between practitioner and client is the cornerstone of probation practice for improving reoffending outcomes. A good alliance is built upon genuine care, mutual trust and respect, and a belief by both parties that an intervention can improve the lives of those subject to it. They argue that a good working alliance goes beyond the interpersonal dynamics of an intervention, and is contingent upon good working relationships within and beyond the organisation in which programmes are situated.

The report outlines areas of good practice that acknowledge the importance of good working relationships at the interpersonal, organisational, and community levels; arguing that there are three key ingredients.

Interventions need to take seriously the safety of victim survivors, the time and resources practitioners need to build working relationships with clients and colleagues, and the skills required to stimulate curiosity in change.

Safety for victim survivors

The authors are clear that the key priority of any domestic abuse intervention is to ensure the safety of victim-survivors – including children. When domestic abuse perpetrator interventions include integrated support for victims, research demonstrates that this can enhance women’s safety and provide them with space for action for themselves and their children. However, the role of the safety worker has, however, long been perceived as secondary – or outsourced – in the probation context, leaving some victims feeling disillusioned about the service they have received.

The authors urge that victims and survivors’ voices should be at the centre of domestic abuse interventions but note that this is not always easy to achieve. Engagement with a safety worker is, of course, purely voluntary on the part of the victim, some of whom may have long moved on from the abusive relationship, do not receive timely contacts, or may be too reluctant to engage with criminal justice processes that have been slow, and which have ultimately failed to protect them previously. Timely and supportive communication with the partners, ex-partners and children of domestic abuse perpetrators is therefore an essential prerequisite of effective intervention.

Building working relationships

Research shows that when practitioners are supported to develop and maintain a working alliance, engagement, attendance rates and outcomes are improved. In line with working alliance principles, and their own professional identities, probation-based intervention facilitators underscore the importance of:

• adopting a non-judgemental approach
• humanising the clients they work with
• having the time and skills necessary to support them to understand their violence.

The authors emphasis the critical casework challenge that however unpalatable their rationalisations, men on probation for domestic abuse offences value the opportunity to talk about what they perceive to be the emotional antecedents to their abuse which. They argue that when these factors are sincerely acknowledged by practitioners, present unique opportunities to work with them in more thoughtful ways.

While standards for domestic abuse perpetrator interventions emphasise the importance of holding perpetrators accountable for their actions, they also note that interactions should be respectful and fully cognisant of the client group often presenting in emotional disarray.

The authors highlight the difficulties in implementing this approach in an over-stretched and under-staffed probation service.

Stimulating curiosity in change

It is well established that many domestic abuse perpetrators on probation are liable to present in crisis and have long histories of being both troubled and troubling. Many domestic abuse offenders carry with them the unacknowledged traumas of abuse and neglect from their childhoods, and become emotionally reliant upon the partners that their insecurities have been projected onto in abusive ways.

The casework challenge is demanding – to acknowledge perpetrators’ own problems as important drivers of their abuse, while in no way condoning them. Perpetrators need to be helped and challenge to take stock of their behaviour, develop understanding of the impact of that behaviour on their victims and co-develop honest and effective strategies for change.

Conclusion

The authors conclude the current challenge for policy makers and practitioners to improve their work with the many thousands of domestic abuse perpetrators on the probation caseload:

“There is considerable scope for the development of much better intervention work as a new generation of programmes are introduced in probation, as well as inherent dangers in assuming that an overstretched workforce can find the time, resources and headspace needed to support and change a sizeable population of men who present a serious risk of harm and fatalities.”