Lessons from the Integrated Domestic Abuse Programme, for the implementation of Building Better Relationships

Abstract

This paper offers reflections on the Integrated Domestic Abuse Programme (IDAP), and its implications for the Building Better Relationships programme (BBR), which has now replaced IDAP as the main criminal justice intervention for male domestic violence perpetrators in England and Wales. While the BBR programme should be regarded with optimism, many of the principles underpinning IDAP are of ongoing relevance for practice with abusive men. There has been a tendency to distort IDAP and the broader Duluth model in discussions of interventions for perpetrators of domestic abuse. Although the BBR programme constitutes some changes of direction, its successful implementation requires continuity in the application of facilitator judgement, knowledge of group dynamics, non-judgemental dialogue, willingness to ‘challenge’, and responsiveness to individual service users.

Towards a desistance-focused approach to probation supervision for people who have committed Intimate Partner Violence: A digital toolkit pilot study

“…Therapeutic provision for people with IPV offences has traditionally followed deficit-orientated behaviour change approaches, which are based around the notion that making participants fully accountable for the harm they have caused is paramount to the change process (Pence and Paymar, 1993). Hughes (2017) documented the move away from this approach. In contrast to the deficit model, Morris et al (2019) (in line with the mainstream BBR), outlined a gender-inclusive, inter-agency approach to promoting desistance in people on probation with IPV convictions.…”

(En)gendering change: Understanding the gendered dynamics of domestic abuse perpetrator programmes

“…Discussions of perpetrator programmes have tended to be dominated by issues of 'what works', but there has been a neglect of 'how' they are experienced and understood by participants, or how dynamic factors associated with group based programmes can enhance or diminish their effectiveness (Hughes, 2017). While there has been considerable attention to specific forms of masculinity as a target of intervention, the way gender is played out within groups, and the implications of gendered interactions has not been subject to sufficient attention.…”

“…Instead, group facilitators and participants tend to be viewed as fixed variables who passively role out and consume the programme; the effectiveness of which tends to be viewed as being determined by design and content. The interpersonal skills and knowledge required of facilitators, and the understandings of participants is often overlooked (Hughes, 2017;Renehan, 2021a).…”

“…As such IDAP primarily targeted patriarchal understandings of gender. Gender is less central in BBR, (Hughes, 2017) which replaced IDAP as a primary probation perpetrator programme in 2013 (Bloomfield and Dixon, 2015). This reflected a broader cynicism about the role of gender in explaining and addressing domestic abuse, along with an assertion that individual factors, including trauma (Morran, 2013;Renehan 2021b) and personality factors (Dutton, 2006) are equally important.…”

An evaluation of the retrospective accounts of offenders as a means to promote desistance amongst acquisitive offenders

“…In the UK, under the accreditation of Her Majesty's Prison and Probation Service, there are behaviour programmes for offenders which address various types of offending behaviour (Justice, 2017). Examples of these include: Addressing Substance Related Offending (Justice, 2017), the Building Better Relationships Programme for male perpetrators of domestic violence (Hughes, 2017) and the Thinking Skills Programme (TSP) which addresses the way offenders think (Justice, 2017). Whilst addiction to illegal drugs has consistently been viewed to play a role in a significant deal of acquisitive crime such as burglary or vehicle crime (see Parker and Newcombe, 1987;Stewart et al 2000;Holloway et al 2004;Ceccato, 2009), there seems to have been less coverage of the thought processes, decision-making and effective triggers of desistance for this type of offender.…”