APPENDIX 65
Supplementary memorandum submitted by
Respect
RESPECT ANSWERS TO HAC QUESTIONS
How do perpetrator programmes run by voluntary
sector organisations differ from those run by the probation service?
There are more similarities than differences.
Both:
— have a similar understanding
of domestic violence;
— run perpetrator programmes
with associated partner support services which aim to increase
the safety of women and children; and
— attempt to manage risk as
well as change behaviour.
Key differences:
— The probation service remit
is to work with convicted offenders to reduce reoffending. Respect
voluntary sector members work with referrals from a wide range
of agencies—some are on a statutory footing (such as CAFCASS,
Social Services), some are an informal referral (eg from a GP,
therapist, Relate counsellor, or other voluntary sector agency)—as
well as self-referrals.
— The probation service has
two perpetrator programmes—IDAP and CDVP—accredited
by the Correctional Services Accreditation Panel (CSAP). As a
statutory national service, one of the aims of probation is to
provide consistency across all 42 probation regions, so their
programmes have a pretty rigid curriculum and delivery. Respect
members run many different programmes, often drawing on local
resources, with a variety of programme lengths and structures,
and more flexibility in approach. Most have cognitive behavioural
therapy (CBT) elements, but often have more therapeutic content
too. Respect, funded by the Home Office and the Lankelly Chase
Foundation, has developed accreditation for voluntary sector perpetrator
programmes, which will be rolled out in April this year (subject
to funding). Accredited services will meet nationally
agreed quality standards.
— Because of the partners they
have (ie CAFCASS and Social Services) many Respect members' programmes
have a particular focus on child protection and safe parenting,
which the probation programmes do not.
In your view, how serious a problem is the fact
that probation service programmes are only available to perpetrators
who have a conviction? Can you give examples of problems this
has caused? What alternative programmes would you advocate for
non-convicted offenders, and who could deliver them?
The problem is not that probation only
works with convicted offenders—but that there are huge capacity
issues for both the probation service and the voluntary sector.
There needs to be considerable investment in both areas to meet
demand.
Respect accredited services will be ideally
placed to develop and expand their services to work with non-convicted
perpetrators in partnership with a range of agencies (see above).
How do you work with the probation service to
meet demand?
There is no formal arrangement currently
for Respect and our members to work with the probation service
to meet demand, although we are aware of potential developments
in the south west region, mentioned by Phil Mackin at the HAC
evidence session on 22 January 2008.
We would welcome the opportunity to work
with the probation service on this. When accreditation begins
Respect will be in the position (subject to funding) to have a
much greater role in supporting and facilitating partnership working
between the probation service and Respect accredited services.
We have several ideas for different models
of working, including:
— Respect accredited services
staff could work side by side with probation staff to help them
run probation groups (and could also provide some / all of the
women's safety work)
— Probation staff could deliver
some of the probation groups, with Respect accredited services
staff delivering the remainder (and some or all of the women's
safety work) in the probation office
— Probation could contract out
the delivery of IDAP/CDVP to Respect accredited services entirely
or
— Purchase places on a Respect
accredited service programme which it could use whenever probation
waiting lists reached a particular level
Capacity is an issue for Respect's members
as well as the probation service. Many of our members would be
interested in working with probation, but lack the resources and
infrastructure to do so. We are talking to the Home Office currently,
regarding the need for capacity building for the sector.
We have concerns about what the probation
service is doing in practice to address capacity issues and meet
demand:
— risk management and offender
management, with staff trained in domestic violence issues, should
be prioritised for any offender not offered a programme place;
— women's safety work often
only begins when a perpetrator begins a programme. Where there
is a delay (or where a perpetrator is deemed unsuitable) vulnerable
women and children often receive no support or information at
all; and
— also, it is impossible to
adequately assess risk without hearing from women partners / ex-partners.
If the probation service has not engaged with victims they are
unable to assess risk effectively and prioritise cases accordingly.
What is the current number of perpetrator programmes
per local authority area?
There are currently 37 programmes across
England and Wales—see attached list. These are all Respect
members and have signed up to work in accordance with Respect's
principles and standards. http://www.respect.uk.net/pages/Principles_and_Standards
Are waiting lists for voluntary sector programmes
as long as those for probation?
We don't currently have data on voluntary
sector programme waiting lists. However, we are in the process
of developing a national outcomes database, which will collect
this information from all Respect accredited services across the
country, from April 2008.
Most programmes don't advertise their
services, yet demand is still high. Priority is given to those
with funded places, which can lead to long waiting lists for self-referrals,
who ironically may be those most motivated to change. Anecdotally,
I'm aware of many services shutting their waiting lists for long
periods of time.
CAFCASS has a specific responsibility
under the 2006 Children and Adoption Act to provide interventions
that improve safety, including referral to dv perpetrator programmes,
but despite a clear willingness to do this, they do not have the
resources to take this further.
The capacity of the voluntary sector
to meet demand is not just about geographical availability, but
also about the resources available to provide effective services
to all.
What interventions are available for perpetrators
not deemed suitable for programmes?
It depends why they are unsuitable.
Some perpetrators:
— have drug and alcohol issues
or mental health issues which have to be addressed before they
are ready and able to engage with a domestic violence perpetrator
programme;
— are "resistant to treatment"—they
may deny their abuse outright, not see their behaviour as problematic,
be unmotivated to change, refuse to engage with the referral process,
or even pose a threat to workers;
— may not have the cognitive
ability to cope with a programme; and
— may not have the language
or literacy skills to cope with a programme.
There are several options for interventions
in these cases:
— harm reduction measures such
as increased containment and risk management should be prioritised
for all of these—particularly those resistant to treatment;
— increased levels of support
and protection for partners/ex-partners and their children;
— one-to-one work may be appropriate.
Some Respect members provide a one-to-one "programme"
adapted from their group programme which can be delivered with
an interpreter where needed; and
— intensive, motivational pre-programme
work can also work well with some of those initially resistant
to treatment.
However, in reality at the moment very
little is offered to these perpetrators—and many of them
pose higher risk than those who are suitable for programmes. There
is no statutory requirement on the voluntary sector programmes
to provide risk management and often there are no resources for
this.
Programme allocation should be based
on a combination of risk and suitability assessments—often
risk is the only factor considered, leading to valuable programme
places being wasted (and groups disrupted) by high risk perpetrators
who are not suitable for the programme (see below).
It is essential that quality isn't compromised.
Corners should not be cut in a bid to meet demand. A combination
of resources, flexibility and creativity is needed to develop
effective interventions with those not suitable for programmes.
There is evidence that male perpetrators are seeking
help from a variety of agencies, in particular GPs and Relate,
or that social services are putting pressure on them to attend
perpetrator programmes as part of safeguarding children. In what
ways are you working with these different agencies to meet
demand?
Respect works closely with Relate, whose
domestic violence policy and training directs its counsellors
to refer perpetrators to the Respect Phoneline and/or Respect
members.
GPs occasionally refer clients to the
Respect Phoneline and/or Respect members but this is very patchy
and to be honest, uncommon. There is a huge job to do in engaging
health professionals across the board with perpetrator issues.
There are opportunities for early interventions and appropriate
referral across a range of health settings, but without guidance
and training for health professionals, this does not happen. Respect
is extremely interested in taking this further.
The Association of Directors of Social
Services (ADSS) sits on Respect's accreditation panel and have
worked with us to develop the accreditation system and standards.
Currently social workers often don't engage with the perpetrator
at all, instead holding the mother to account for his behaviour.
When they do refer perpetrators to programmes, it is often in
an ad hoc way with no funding attached, but with high expectations
that a programme will stop his violence and keep his partner and
children safe. We hope that when accreditation is rolled out,
social services departments will work in partnership with accredited
services to address this and develop properly resourced referral
routes to get perpetrators they are working with onto programmes.
It's an area where there is huge room for improvement, and currently
a missed opportunity to keep women and children safe. We hope
to work more closely with ADSS on this post April 2008.
Obviously the same issues apply to perpetrators
who are resistant to treatment when forced or coerced to attend
programmes by social services as with probation—and similar
motivational work may need to take place to engage them in the
programme.
Are there any programmes available for perpetrators
aged 18-21?
Most of our members accept perpetrators
who are 18+. However, in practice, we don't think that many of
them actually work with perpetrators under 21. We will know more
once national data collection begins with all accredited projects
from April 2008. However, we believe that current programmes are
not effective for most young perpetrators (who are often victims
of childhood domestic violence as well as being perpetrators themselves)
and specialist services need to be developed.
We are pleased to announce that we have
been awarded funding by the DCSF Children and Young People's Fund,
for a three year project to develop work with children and young
people (under 21) who use abusive behaviours in their intimate
relationships.
What specific research could be commissioned,
to better understand the needs of young perpetrators, aged 16-18?
What research on similar issues already exists?
There is very little research on the
needs of young perpetrators.
Respect is aware of some research the
NSPCC is currently undertaking: Safeguarding young people from
exploitation and violence in teenage interpersonal relationships:
Christine Barter, Dr Melanie McCarry and Kathy Evans, University
of Bristol. This research seeks to explore with young people
their experiences of physical, sexual and emotional forms of dating
violence, including their coping strategies and views on intervention.
The more specific aims include exploring:
— the nature, frequency and
dynamics of different forms of exploitation and violence and the
contexts in which these thrive;
— if any groups are particularly
vulnerable to becoming victims and/or assailants; and
— wider social processes/structures
that support such violence.
A sample of approximately 1,500 pupils
aged between 13 and 17 from eight schools in England, Scotland
and Wales will be asked to participate in the survey, from this
a qualitative in-depth interview sample of between 70-80 young
people is being selected. The project is due to be completed June
2008. It looks like it will focus more on young victims than perpetrators.
Alongside our Young People's project
(see above) we would welcome further research to help us gain
more understanding of young people's use of violence and abuse
in intimate relationships. There are a lot of assumptions that
young people use violence and abuse in the same way as adults—but
there is no real knowledge about this. There are a range of issues
it would be useful to explore through interviews with young people,
including:
— violence and abuse in teen
dating relationships—including same-sex relationships;
— family relationships—eg
violence against siblings and parents;
— other violent offending; and
— self-harm amongst victims
and perpetrators.
It would be useful to explore the similarities
and differences with adult domestic violence, particularly looking
at risk management and effective interventions.
Are you aware of any programmes for female perpetrators
or other minority groups?
No. Some projects say they work individually
with female perpetrators, but none that I know of have developed
a programme. We would like more research to aid the development
of effective interventions with this client group.
We have three member organisations who
offer specialist services to BME communities. Respect has applied
for funding to do capacity building and development work in this
area.
We also don't know of any programmes
for perpetrators in same sex relationships—and again research
and development is needed in this area.
Many programmes are not fully accessible
for those with disabilities, which needs to be addressed.
What evaluation is there of the effectiveness
of perpetrator programmes?
It depends what you want to measure.
It's important to look at both behaviour change and risk management.
As with all interventions, victim safety is the key indicator
of effectiveness. Obviously perpetrator behaviour change contributes
to this, but even where perpetrators fail to engage with a programme
there can be successful outcomes for his partner / ex-partner
if adequate risk management strategies are adopted.
Most evaluations of perpetrator programmes
(eg Burton, Regan and Kelly; Dobash and Dobash; Gondolf) find
that about 70% of men who complete a programme cease using physical
violence and significantly reduce their use of other forms of
controlling behaviour. So, in terms of behaviour change there
is some good news—but of course that doesn't include those
unsuitable for programmes or those who drop out or are removed
from programmes. Programmes work (in terms of behaviour change)
for some men. But it's difficult to predict which men. Risk assessment
and management with the perpetrator plus support and protection
for his partner / ex-partner and children are essential. These
elements are integral to Respect's accreditation standards.
Attrition and re-assault are at their
highest in the early stage of perpetrator's attendance on programmes.
One of Gondolf's recommendations is to increase the intensity
of the early part of the intervention, which means getting men
into groups quickly, with two sessions per week at the start (and
for probation, weekly meetings with his offender manager (probation
officer)) moving to weekly sessions later on.
There is a need for a rigorous, well
designed multi-site evaluation of UK perpetrator programmes, similar
to the Gondolf study in the US. Respect has consulted with Gondolf,
held a research roundtable to explore the options and put together
a research proposal. The funding required is approximately £1.2million.
We have received £120k start up funding from the Lankelly
Chase Foundation and are talking to several other funders. We
would welcome government investment in this crucial piece of research.
How useful are reconviction rates as a measure
of effectiveness?
A reduction in reconviction rates is
often held up as a success, but:
— attrition rates from report
to court are still unacceptably high—reconviction rates
do not reflect the true picture of reoffending;
— reconviction rates do not
pick up non-criminal behaviour such as severe controlling behaviour
and jealous surveillance which are key homicide indicators; and
— reconviction / reoffending
rates do not take account of victims who have become too scared
to report further violence if they have been punished for doing
so before.
As well as collecting quantitative data
on convictions, reconvictions etc. we'd like to see all agencies
measuring victim safety. Data collection should reflect this and
include victim evaluations of safety—not just victim satisfaction—as
well as data on convictions, reconvictions etc.
Compliance hearings / judicial monitoring
Compliance hearings are a way of the
court checking back on a perpetrator's progress part way through
his order—with the option of alternative sentencing if he
is not compliant with the programme in any way (non-attendance,
refusal to participate fully, further offending).
Recent US research has called into question
the effectiveness of judicial monitoring. Here is a summary of
the research paper Does Judicial Monitoring Deter Domestic Violence
Recidivism?: Results of a Quasi-Experimental Comparison in the
Bronx; Michael Rempel, Melissa Labriola and Robert C. Davis; Sage
Violence Against Women 2008; 14; 185. The online version of this
article can be found at: http://vaw.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/2/185
This study looked at the effectiveness
of judicial monitoring in the Bronx, USA. A number of randomised
trials examining the effects of the judicial monitoring component
of drug courts have reported positive results, and previous studies
(in San Diego and Pittsburgh) also found some positive results
in domestic violence cases. This study calls into question the
domestic violence findings, saying that positive effects cannot
be put down to monitoring alone, or that monitoring increased
completion of programmes, not necessarily reduced recidivism.
The Bronx study found that judicial monitoring failed to reduce
the re-arrest rate for any offence, for domestic violence, or
for domestic violence with the same victim.
However, it appears that there are several
limitations of the Bronx court's form of judicial monitoring.
It does not meet the definition of judicial "supervision",
but is instead judicial "surveillance", where compliance
hearings are presided over by a judicial hearing officer (JHO),
usually a retired judge—apparently this is common for US
domestic violence courts. The JHO is not technically a "judge",
and is not empowered to impose sanctions. S/he has to send an
offender back to a sentencing judge in cases of non-compliance.
The researchers noted that the JHO's feedback was brief, matter-of-fact,
and often employed terminology that the offenders may not have
fully grasped.
When a case is sent back to a sentencing
judge, possible responses included re-sentencing the offender
to jail based on a failure to fulfil the terms of his order, continuing
the current sentence, or, in the event of a new domestic violence
re-arrest, simply adjourning the older case to await the dispositional
outcome of the new one. The sentencing judges did not apply a
formal sanctions schedule or protocol dictating exactly which
sanctions would be imposed in response to particular forms of
non-compliance, but retained case-by-case discretion.
This study was motivated by an interest
in testing the hypothesis that judicial monitoring deters future
domestic violence. They found that monitoring did not have the
anticipated effect; but it may be that simple judicial surveillance
is ineffective, rather than all forms of judicial monitoring.
The researchers therefore recommend further research exploring
the effectiveness of a more intensive and robust form of judicial
supervision.
What this means for the UK is that it
may be worth piloting a trial of judicial monitoring, so long
as:
— it is an intensive and robust
intervention (judicial supervision not surveillance);
— the offender is called back
to account for himself in front of the same judge;
— the judge has powers to re-sentence;
and
— clear guidance is available
for judges as to what re-sentencing options are appropriate for
different forms of non-compliance.
Respect would suggest that what is probably
more important in the UK at the moment is:
— appropriate sentencing (not
fines and bindovers);
— comprehensive monitoring and
evaluation of the outcomes / effectiveness of different sentencing
options; and
— consistency in breaching of
orders for non-attendance, non-compliance and reoffending.
Would there be scope for feedback from the victim?
Any process that involves feedback from
the victim needs to ensure that this is a safe process. If the
feedback is made known to the perpetrator, it may put the victim
at further risk. But of course, victim feedback is the most reliable
information on the perpetrator's progress. If such hearings were
to consider victim feedback, they would need clear information
sharing and safety protocols and tools, and training for staff.
What were the most successful elements of the
2005 MPS information campaign aimed at men?
Key elements of success:
— There have been many successful
campaigns targeted at women / victims (which obviously need to
continue). However, this campaign targeted men / perpetrators
directly. It did not try to address too many audiences at once.
It wouldn't have been so successful if it had also tried to engage
perpetrators in accessing support (although such a campaign would
also be welcome).
— This campaign had the highest
rate of recall of any MPS information campaign, across all demographics.
Domestic violence campaigns often have a low rate of recall among
men—but this one targeting men directly was successful in
reaching men, including BME men. Anecdotally I've heard of men
reading the ads on the tube slack-jawed; and men attending a perpetrator
programme I was running at the time had all seen and remembered
the campaign. One man mentioned how the police have changed over
the years and you can't get away with domestic violence now.
— The messages were simple and
uncompromising—that the police will seek out men who abuse
their partners and arrest them, even if the victim refuses to
make a statement or give evidence. They used clear, direct language—"we
will arrest you immediately", "we will track you down".
— The messages came directly
from the police. As well as telling current perpetrators that
they won't get away with it, the fact that the police are making
such clear statements has a preventative element and helps to
create and reinforce social change.
— The campaign was multi media
including: a radio ad, 48 sheet billboards—adverts in London
press and magazines, football programmes, washroom panel posters
and beer mats in pubs and bars. http://www.met.police.uk/dv/publicity05.htm
Who would be best placed to develop a similar
campaign, and through which media?
We'd like to see more criminal justice
system campaigns in a similar vein, giving uncompromising messages
about how the CJS will catch and prosecute perpetrators. Local
Criminal Justice Boards might be a good place for coordinating
and funding such campaigns.
We'd also like to see campaigns which
attempt to engage perpetrators in stopping / changing their behaviour.
These would be less confrontational, attempting to encourage and
support perpetrators to seek help, publicising the Respect Phoneline
and perpetrator programmes.
RESPECT VOLUNTARY SECTOR MEMBERS PERPETRATOR
PROGRAMMES WITH ASSOCIATED WOMEN'S SUPPORT SERVICES ACCURATE AS
AT 18.02.08
ENGLAND
1. Screams in Silence*—Cheshire
(Stockport) *specialists South Asian communities
2. Safe Domestic Abuse Team,
NSPCC—Cumbria (Barrow in Furness)
3. Let Go Project—Cumbria
(Penrith)
4. Ahimsa—Devon (Plymouth)
5. REPAIR—Devon (Barnstaple)
6. REPAIR—Devon (Exeter)
7. REPAIR—Devon (Newton
Abbot)
8. Family matters—Dorset
(Bournemouth)
9. Families without Fear—Greater
London (Camden)
10. SIRI behavioural health*—Greater
London (Haringey) *specialists African and African Caribbean communities
11. DVIP*—Greater London
(Hammersmith) *Includes Al Aman project, specialists Arabic speaking
communities
12. DVIP—Greater London
(Southwark)
13. DVIP—Greater London
(Newham, Waltham Forest, Barking and Dagenham)
14. The Men's Centre—Greater
London (Islington)
15. Tryangle Project—Greater
London (Greenwich)
16. Hampton Trust*—Hampshire
*operates at more than one site but details not given)
17. Pendle DV Initiative—Lancashire
(Pendle)
18. Domestic Violence Integrated
Response Project—Leicestershire (Leicester)
19. INPACT—Merseyside
(Knowsley)
20. Merseyside Abusive Partner
Programme—Merseyside (St Helens)
21. NSPCC: Liverpool—Merseyside
(Liverpool)
22. S.A.F.E.—North Yorkshire
(Scarborough)
23. S.A.F.E.—North Yorkshire
(Redcar)
24. Relate Northamptonshire—Northamptonshire
(Northampton)
25. Somerset Change—Somerset
(Yeovil)
26. Somerset Change—Somerset
(Bridgewater)
27. Walsall DVF Ltd (SAFE)—Staffordshire
(Walsall)
28. South Tyneside Domestic Abuse Perpetrator
Programme -Tyne and Wear (South Shields)
29. Surestart Newcastle—Tyne
and Wear (Newcastle)
30. Chrysalis—North
Tees (Stockton)
31. Chrysalis—North
Tees (Hartlepool)
32. Relate Coventry—West
Midlands (Coventry)
33. S.T.O.P.—West Yorkshire
(Leeds)
34. 8 days a week—West
Yorkshire (Bradford)
35. SPLITZ support services—Wiltshire
(Trowbridge)
36. SPLITZ support services—Wiltshire
(Salisbury)
WALES
37. Montgomeryshire Family Crisis Centre—Powys
Notes:
— Many of the above projects
take referrals from a wider geographical area than the town /
borough they are based in.
— There is a new group starting
in March 2008—Relate Greater Manchester.
March 2008
| 
