An effective vehicle for work with domestic abusers men and women - not the Duluth feminist version!

To pay hit the donate button on the left of this.
In that page if you don't have a Paypal account hit the very small "continue" button near the bottom to pay / donate by card.
 
Next Course Dates:  9.00 am - 6.00 pm
Our plan for 2017  is to run 10 courses in London, a new start virtually every month and 5/6 courses in Birmingham, a new start every other month.

Northampton:  no dates.

London:  9.00 am - 6.00 pm. 

Part 1                                        Part 2
May 13 / 14    plus      June 3 / 4
June 24 25    plus      July 22 / 23
Aug 19 / 20    plus      Sept  16 and 17

Birmingham: 9.00 a.m. - 6.00 p.mNext dates: 

Staffing difficulties mean no further dates will be offered until towards the end of September 2017.

Northampton:  No dates are offered.
We completed work with more than 350 men and women in Northampton before moving the Eddie Thomas project to Northwest London.
  
Contact numbers are:
London         0203   286 44 82 
Birmingham   0121   270 61 68, 
Northampton 01604 211 445,

Involved with CAFCASS?  Go to this page.

Much of this site talks about "feminism." It should be made clear from the outset that we have no arguments whatsoever with feminism as such, seeking, as many feminists very laudably do, to improve the global lot of women, objectives we would support. We do, however, take issue with many radical feminist driven policies, whose objectives, we would suggest, are simply to vilify all men and cause as much fear and chaos in society as possible, for their own purposes. The domestic violence and abuse agenda is, in our opinion, being used as a primary vehicle for this. So if you are feminist (and not radical) and are affronted by this, then imagine you are male and imagine how affronted you would be by being stereotyped in the way radical feminists stereotype men!   95% plus of men are never ever violent, let alone to a female partner! 

Erin Pizzey outlines the goals of radical feminism here.

From this link you can download a free copy of the first quarterly Journal which details, via research, all the many problems about Duluth abuser  programmes and also the radical-feminist viewpoints about "power and control" "female victims" and "violent men don't change".  

Radical feminism in Britain still insists on the "power and control" focus. This is what the developer of the notion, the late Ellen Pence, said in her book 1999!  Pence E. 1999!  Pages 28 and 29 Page 154 will also tell you of the 30 fold increase in risk of a woman being killed by a "separated" man.  
Other methods radical feminists use to obscure reality:  From Strauss' paper (2007) based on Graham-Kevan's paper 'Domestic Violence: Research and implications for Batterer programmes in Europe'
  1. Suppression of evidence
  2. Methods used which conceal and distort evidence of symmetry in IPV
  3. Cite studies that only show male perpetration
  4. Conclude that results support feminist beliefs when they do not
  5. Create 'evidence' by citation. Flawed evidence is transferred between papers.
  6. Obstruct publication of articles and obstruct funding research that might contradict that male dominance is the cause of PV
  7. Harass, threaten and penalise evidence that contradicts feminist beliefs

For the greater safety of children and  to have any hope of addressing the agenda  of abusive relationships effective work with abusers needs to be available. That is why we deliver it.

Radical feminism (RF) of the 1970's and 80's in America brought the plight of women in deeply abusive relationships to public attention. This movement quickly crossed the Atlantic to Britain. Later the plight of children caught up in these frequently nightmarish scenarios became highlighted. The safety of women in the UK is currently prioritised over the safety of children.  However difficult it is for adults to escape "battering" relationships adults do have opportunities. Children largely have none.  Either or both parents may abuse children. By volume, 62% of child abuse in America is by women. NSPCC quotes 49% - 40%. 

The dominance of the pro-feminists in the domestic violence agenda in Britain is over-powering. Based on their successful campaign in the United States their knowledge and understanding of abuse has led to a monopoly of ideas with, at one level,  the laudable motive  of supporting women and encouraging organisations to work together against domestic abuse. But, by thus securing all of the finance and a power-base they are virtually unopposed in the presentation of their dogmatic ideas which quite simply involve the beatification of women and the vilification of men. The facts of the political motivations of this are missed by most people involved.   The wider effects of various policies - intervention - coming between - are extremely divisive for society and, at a familial level, they risk causing much greater danger than they ever manage to help avoid - simply read Johnson's figures about post separation! The outcome of those policies will be in very many cases a true paradox, effectively precipitating, what they claim to be seeking to help stop!

We do not seek to overthrow much of what has positively been achieved but, in the face of reality and emerging research we do seek to oppose many radical feminist views about how to work with abusers. These radical feminist efforts have been constructed and funneled into a sound-byte stereotype which serves only the purposes of the radical feminist movement and their need to achieve a power and control of their own over this whole agenda, plus the personal interests of a very small group of people. By choosing to recognise only their own  stereotype, their interventions with abusers are both inappropriate and ineffective, and very probably highly dangerous, too. 

Our aims are to expose the merely political machinations and to bring a greater reality to the agenda of work with abusers. We seek to do this, positively, by working effectively mainly with the abusers, helping them to change their behaviour. Why else would one, honestly, wish to work with them?

POWER and CONTROL - Duluth, Minnesota.
Ellen Pence and Michael Paymar developed the first "Duluth" abuser programme in about 1981. It was largely copied into the UK.
Two early programmes in UK working with essentially court convicted /mandated abusers were DVIP (Domestic Violence Intervention Project in London and Peterborough), started in 1991 "permitted" by feminism and run in its early days by Neil Blacklock, Jo Todd, Kate Iwi and others, and Change (in Scotland), championed by the domestic violence research couple, Dobash and Dobash.

The Power and control wheel is the sound-byte  vehicle around which the abuser side of the progamme is based. The equality wheel is the other "half" of this vehicle.

In her book in 1999,  Ellen Pence honestly stated that the power and control agenda had been a soundbyte, and a mistake. It had not matched the reality of the men she had worked with. And with that statement a wheel dropped off the Duluth abuser programme vehicle!

Have the radical feminists noticed? It has been pointed out to them obliquely  in some detail by Mr Paul Wolf-Light in a document detailing some of the problems with the REPAIR project in Devon. Will it be heeded? No. I pointed it out at Respect's meeting in 2009. It was carefully misquoted in the minutes! Because it is not in the interest of RESPECT who are busy "accrediting" the DVIP process via  Blacklock, (now of  RESPECT) the method written up by Todd, when at DVIP, now Director of Respect, and Iwi, trainer in the method.   When Todd moved from DVIP to RESPECT in 2000 one of the first things that RESPECT did was to insist on the "recommended" length of attendance from 50 hours to 75 hours.That is now the length of the "required" work, to be accredited. Research commissioned by Joseph Rowntree Trust into DVIP, 1996,  reported the problems with drop outs; the number of men that complete DVIP's programme now, has halved from the time when they were criticised for "poor completion".  Blacklock on radio Northampton - "about a quarter of the men will make it through." Nov 2006
With "accreditation" by RESPECT - which very largely equals adherence to DVIP's revised Duluth programme) - the only thing to "train" is the DVIP's method.  RESPECT provides the marketing, the training is provided by former colleagues. Meanwhile, the extreme difficulties they face about engaging with abusers - in a method which is never going to succeed, is being circumvented by the gradual insistence of "Risk Assessments" to be undertaken mainly by "RESPECT accredited" individuals, you can guess who and where from. Financially these "Risk Assessments" are a much more reliable source of income. They do not require prolonged attendance by a reluctant abuser. They can be used to funnel abusers into programmes that will be unable to engage with them, via RELATE, for example, whose people can be neatly trained in a minimum of 5 days (and held to RELATE's RESPECT policy). Trained in the DVIP / RESPECT model. Tunarieu recommended DVIP to the whole of RELATE in her "Research document", linked on the right. Meanwhile the Risk Assessments will have caused maximum damage whilst achieving maximum income and minimum time investment.  The RESPECT recommendations for Cafcass are here: Link on the right. 

The pro-feminist efforts in Britain still run to the radical  feminist notion of "power and control", and are "enforced" by Respect's own organisational version of power and control.

Violent and abusive men and women need help to change their behaviour as quickly and effectively as possible.

A wide variety of methods is required to match the wide variety of circumstance. These need to be all of the methods which have been developed so far, plus new ones. 


Link Anger






      
The RESPECT accredited projects appeared to have been removed from the CAFCASS website so we listed them here along with the non-accredited, therapeutically based projects of which we knew. We have now got the link here once more.


North London - Introductory Offer to Social Services in  Ealing, Barnet, Camden,
2017- 2018

Normally we only work with Social Services referrals when the client is funded by Social Services. To enable Social workers to evaluate the content and impact of our work with their clients we herewith offer for early intervention cases the first four Social  services cases from each  of the above boroughs a place free of charge to Social Services. 
2017-18. In the early intervention offer we are prioritising working with men and women with very small children, below the age of 4, or where the woman is pregnant, and we will, for a further 6 places per authority at a cost of only £120, (covering the cost of an initial interview,) with the further work delivered free of charge to Social Services - but with reports to be paid for, if required.

As you read much of what I have written you will be struck by and maybe put off by my tone and the way in which I "attack" DULUTH, RESPECT and DVIP and other associated  liaisons. 

Let us just remember that RESPECT claims to advocate and support work in which the public and funders can have confidence. Their claims are very badly dented by the following 3 papers:
1) Dr Louise Dixon's paper published in Clinical Psychology Review, Volume 31, Issue 7, November 2011, Pages 1145-1155.) calling for the abandonment of the "Accreditation" process - the accreditation being  based on ideology not science. 
2) The 2012 Centre for Social Justice review paper, "Beyond Violence" quite rightly points out many of the practical failures in terms of outcomes and effectiveness.  

3) The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) paper 2014

"What is the impact on reoffending? The most recent systematic review of US evidence indicates that the Duluth Model appears to have no effect on recidivism.154 However, this review also identified substantial reductions in domestic violence reoffending by offenders who had attended other interventions. These interventions varied widely in their approach (including cognitive behavioural therapy, relationship enhancement and group couples counselling), and the reviewers were therefore unable to make recommendations about specific preferred alternatives to the Duluth Model."

It is really astounding that CAFCASS, which now works at the direction of the MOJ, should still be requiring "RESPECT accreditation" for domestic abusers - to reduce the risks to children when the recognition of the Duluth ineffectiveness is recorded in their own ministerial paper!

Confirming all this there is the debacle of the 2015 "Mirabal Project". Much trumpeted by RESPECT, the £1.2 m research project was really based on 4 projects running at least 7 programmes with just 36 men able to be interviewed. That would mean 5 men per progamme willing to complete research. The executive report, with percentages "looks" meaningful.    Read the full report and you'll  find mention of the number of interviews at time 2 on  page 8/9. The researchers claim to be "startled" by this. In fact it has been absolutely typical of all the Duluth based research. since the 1998  Joseph Rowntree research. 

Our work and experiences with abusive people over the last 22 years  differs very signficantly from what we read more or less everywhere else. Where others find a lack of motivation in men, in the vast majority we find plenty of motivation. Where they have drop-outs in very large numbers, 75% plus!  we have completions, 90% plus. Where they will not entertain female abusers, we included them. Where they would be looking for separate courses for gay men and lesbian women we found that they took part in our mixed groups without apparent additional difficulty  - albeit in very small numbers.  

Our effort is to loudly expose the short-comings of the RESPECT practices and those associated projects.   

 Dr Louise Dixon's paper appeared in November 2011. The Centre for Social Justice in a paper "Beyond Violence" appeared in September 2012, here  and the "snippits" referring to abuser work are largely included here.  

No doubt RESPECT and DVIP will now claim that they have revised their model in the light of their extensive experience - obviously we learn from our mistakes. They apparently did this in 1998  - it halved there completion rate!  RESPECT's and DVIP's  problem is the ideology. Then and now they do not have a simple clue about what is required or how to carry it out. The ideology says:  "Power and control".  The late Ellen Pence, the creator of the "power and control" notion in this domestic violence agenda had the decency and honesty to recognise in her 1999 published book that she had been mistaken.  At their last "public" meeting in 2009 when I read them the quotation RESPECT even carefully avoided putting it accurately in their minutes of the meeting.     You can also read of many of the concerns about RESPECT by others at that time,too.

Worse than this,  RESPECT and some others are simply marketing a risk assessment process which is still based on their unfounded beliefs and will no doubt be still attempting to funnel "remedial work" back into their ideological mind-set, thus the next level of "defense" is exposed! Mirabal confirms the lack of progress with engaging with abusers and they also quietly knock on the head the RESPECT  "must" about working with the victim - from whom very many of the men had already separated very completely, with only the children of the couple producing anything of a link, and over which the couple were fighting. 

I am also going to suggest that "risk assessment" in what is essentially couples work is a very dangerous concept. RISK assessments try to predict outcomes from "known factors". If you take a historical factor - what has happened in the past will be repeated at some time in the future, then you leave no opportunity for the recognition of change. If you take a "male liar" vs  "female truth teller" as well as being guilty of sexism you risk a repeat of the "Baby Peter" Coventry case.  

Many of the relationships in which there is violence are very brittle - as are many other relationships - just imagine a man or woman comes home and says; "I've had sex with somebody else, your best friend!  How do you imagine that would affect your risk assessment? 

I'm going to suggest that the "risk assessment" is, in non- human terms, the equivalent  of living on the slopes of an active volcano, located  on a tectonic plate on a coastal plain threatened by tsunami in a monsoon climate!  Despite its high profile, murder is in fact a very infrequent outcome. "Two women per week" of approx. 15.2 m women living in couple relationships means that a woman has very nearly the same risk of being killed as she would have of scooping the national lottery if she played twice a week. A child's risk of being killed is approximately 2.5 times greater than that, and a man's about 1/3 of the woman's. You can add to this that "high risk" individuals are not the main killers of partners, who emerge mainly from lower risk categories or "previously unknown to the authorities" individuals. For some "anecdotal insights" google "a year of killing".  

If you choose to read through the following you will notice different statistics and different times.  This means the document involved was written at a different time and the statistics relate to the time when it was written. 


From the link on the left we would draw your attention to chapters 1, 3 and 4 particularly. Google books will provide much of it!

A Visual representation of the Duluth vehicle for change  - the famous two wheels! They combine "power and control" with "equality" to be ridden by men only. Can you spot the likely outcome?


http://www.springerpub.com/pages/Journal-Sample-Request/19466560


Effective means: the work with abusers helps stop or significantly reduce their violent, aggressive, abusive behaviour with a partner or former partner. Effective means that the work can be achieved by the vast majority of those people that seek the help. And effective means that the cost of the operation bears some relation to what an individual might afford, or society can afford on that individual's behalf.    

Distortions
All abusive behaviour by men towards women is funneled into the definition of "Intimate Terrorism" coercive control which is then treated as "severe".
All abusive behaviour by women is displaced onto men by claiming it is "retaliation" or "insignificant" by volume and or severity when compared to men's violence towards women. As late as 2009 RESPECT were drafting explanations of women's "retaliatory" behaviour. The draft  met with internal resistance from the membership. We do not know what the outcome was. You could ask RESPECT for a copy!

Murray Strauss, one of the earliest researchers into domestic violence points out some of the problems in the linked document.
John Hamel, LCSW Family Interventions Tonia L. Nicholls, and
plus the following.


Statistics which point to so-called "common couple violence" or "situational violence" which are presented on the next pages are ignored or disregarded by RESPECT which wishes to define all abuse as "battering"/ "coercive control". As a "manager of RESPECT pointed out in her power point show - they misinterpret what he (Johnson) said - and in any case it does not serve our purpose!

Johnson and Graham-Kevan's research demonstrates the extent of equality in the sources of domestic violence :

The dominance of radical feminism is achieved by many different methods. - essentially all of those ascribed to "men that batter".
The front line of their "battle" is the Domestic Violence Forum. These are saturated by victim representing organisations only.  This way "votes" can be brought to count when it matters. They insist work with abusers must be part of their jurisdiction, and then prevent membership to organisations which cannot subscribe to their "methods".
"Training" is still all organised in the "power and control agenda" despite what Ellen Pence wrote herself in 1999. Read for yourself in the link below! 

Ellen Pence and her book cover and the quotes: See for instance Pence E. 1999!  Pages 28 and 29


Research which backs up the work with abusers is almost entirely based on "anecdote".
Stanko - "6 men could be found and interviewed who had completed a substantial amount of work". Link needed. 
More recently the South Tyneside Abuser research project found just 3 men they could interview. - my last attempt to link to this document claimed that "it is damaged and cannot be repaired".  Co-incidence. But above is the non copy-written original! 

Research Coercion which you can read about by Strauss etc.- above
 
The typical stereotype is the radical feminist starting point "all men are rapists".
The visual image is of the leopard not being able to change its spots, South Gloucester, 2004 - we would point out the spots are genetic; even the radical feminists claim the behaviour is learned!
Dr Jeckyl and Mr Hyde - as in he is a "Jeckly and Hyde" character is another allusion. In the story Dr Jeckyl took a potion to change to Mr Hyde - we wonder if the "potion" taken by a domestic abuser would be a hormone or a neurotransmitter?

More research into the outcomes of "Duluth batterer programmes" is contained in the next document.

Compare and contrast the outcomes of the above - 67% completion, compared with DVIP's completion, select committee link, http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.com/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmhaff/263/8021907.htm  questions 231 and 232 and the answers!
and completion statistics from 3 Relate programmes, http://www.relate.org.uk/domestic-violence-and-abuse-prevention-programmes/index.html
and the South Tyneside Domestic Abuser programme.

Now all that remains to be done in Britain is to verify the importance to women of the existence of the "Duluth abuser programme", DVIP's / RESPECT's version, of course, continue the argument about the effectiveness of "holding men accountable" and, hey presto the same problem will exist in Britain from which America is just beginning to emerge from 30 largely wasted years later.    http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/spr338.pdf
www.jrf.org.uk/publications/lessons-domestic-violence-intervention-project


The next level of research needed for Britain, according to Professor Ed Gondolf, will need to explore the intricate details of the way Duluth is being delivered, because this will account for the reasons for the poor attendance and outcomes - ref his email - Despite open research warfare in America, with amongst others Dutton and Corvo, Gondolf seems to believe that if only Duluth could be "pure" then it would deliver the goods. 
That will be why all programmes have to be the same, but for the purposes of achieving research funding from ESRC (£980K) a different, broader "focus"   is no doubt required: link http://www.esrc.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Images/RGB%20Successful%20Awards%20April%202010_tcm6-36524.pdf - so that in the face of failing to engage with and change the behaviour of a significant number of "male perpetrators" the notion of being "useful to an abused woman" by bringing her into contact with women's services, can be used in mitigation of the failure. The men are then blamed for dropping out, and then, in the separation that ensues, the full validity of Johnson's arguments about intimate terrorists emerge, as men (and women) fail to cope with the grief of "losing everything".  Thus these "feckless, Jeckle and Hyde men" men drop out, and cause much of the chaos and uncertainty that abounds in mainly impoverished families, that in many cases subside into an implosive sub-culture of children divided initially from their fathers, men that with no support become potential intimate terrorists, and mothers who are trying to get their various needs met, one of which leads many to a "mating meat market", where they meet......... ?  
And thus a social vortex is created. Very many of the children involved simply slip down the plughole, as The Centre for Social Justice and "Broken Britain" so clearly outlines.