1%
of perpetrators
of domestic
abuse receive
structured
interventionTHE MEGA AGENCY, PA
Would he consider going? “Yeah, I would give it a go,”
Steve replies. “I want to be able to say that I’m not
abusive. That I have thought about it, realised when
I am doing it, so I can stop it.”
The strategy of engaging with the perpetrators of
domestic abuse originated in Duluth, Minnesota,
in the early 1980s. At the time the city was reeling
from a murder case: a 20-year-old woman had shot
her husband five times in the chest. During the
investigation it emerged that she had been the victim
of a sustained campaign of domestic violence, one that
was well known to the police. The grand jury refused
to indict her. Ellen Pence, a feminist campaigner who
convinced the authorities to try a new approach, said
of the decision: “They realised there was a deeper
social problem at play.”
Police officers were told to prioritise domestic
violence cases rather than dismissing them as “another
domestic”. Each one was referred to a committee
with representatives from agencies including law
enforcement, child services and mental health services.
These professionals would consider how the victim
could be best protected, but perpetrators were also the
focus of “re-education work” — they were mandated by
court orders to attend a behaviour-change programme
so they could better understand why they lashed out
and learn ways to stop.
The Duluth model was replicated all over the world,
including the UK. But it has always been controversial,
partly because of its foundation in feminist ideology.
It taught that domestic abuse was a result of the
patriarchy, a means for men to maintain the power
and control that society told them to expect. Over
the years, studies into the programme’s effectiveness
have shown mixed results.
However, perpetrator programmes have evolved
since the inception of the Duluth model, says Professor
Marianne Hester, a leading researcher in gender-based
violence at Bristol University. Change has come about
partly because of a recognition of the enormous range
of people who commit domestic violence. “They can
be company directors, they can be down-and-outs,
alcoholics living on the street ... you have a huge, huge
range, so we have moved away from the one-size-fits-all
approach,” Hester says.Other approaches to the problem of domestic abuse
have been instructive. In Sweden, for example, there is
a tendency to treat it as a psychological issue and deal
with perpetrators in a therapeutic way. In the UK there
are 23 accredited organisations running programmes
for abusers and most will use a variety of techniques.
“Some input around cognitive behavioural therapy
can be useful,” Hester says, referring to the practice
of challenging negative thought processes and
improving the ability to regulate emotions. Motivation
coaching — an effort to understand why perpetrators’
lives look the way they do and how to improve them —
can also be beneficial.
Crucially, the programmes are delivered hand in
hand with support for victims and children, because
they are the ones who know whether they are having
any effect. The charity Cheshire Without Abuse (CWA)
has been helping families affected by domestic abuse
since 1977 but also started working with perpetrators
a decade ago after requests from victims. Saskia
Lightburn-Ritchie, the charity’s CEO, says victims of
abuse were reporting that the aggression continued
long after the relationship had ended, particularly when
there were children involved. “They were saying that
many of the issues got worse after separation and
co-parenting was a nightmare,” she says.
At first she found the idea of helping violent offenders
difficult to accept. “I rejected it. I didn’t think I could
work with the perpetrators having spent 20 years
working with victims and children. I didn’t think a
person could change, but increasingly there is
evidence to suggest they can and will.”
After years of short-lived trials and patchy results,
there is a growing body of evidence that perpetrator
schemes can make a dramatic difference. Project
Mirabal, a five-year investigation into the effectiveness
of 11 programmes in the UK, consulted abusers,
victims and their children. Its results, published
in 2015, showed that 12 months after perpetrators
started a programme the proportion of women
injured as a result of violence fell from 61 per cent to
just 2 per cent. The proportion of women reporting
the use of weapons against them and unwanted
sexual activity fell to zero (from 29 per cent and
30 per cent respectively); potentially lethalThe murder of Sarah
Everard, right, in
March sparked a
wave of protests
over male violence
against womenThe Sunday Times Magazine • 39