| Stopping
Men's Violence: Can Programmes Help?
-Summary of research project carried out by Victoria University of Wellington |
|
Stopping Violence Programmes for respondents
-Summary of evaluation by Neville Robertson (University of Waikato) on the effectiveness of Men's Stopping Violence Groups |
| Stopping Men's Violence: Can Programmes Help? |
|
Stopping Men's Violence: Can programmes help? Thank you to everyone who helped in this research: men, women, programme providers and other key agencies. The brief overview below summarises key results. During 1998-2000 we evaluated violence prevention programmes for men in Living Without Violence programmes at Porirua, Takapuna, and Wanganui and He Waka Tapu in Christchurch. All four programmes aimed to reduce the amount of wife and child abuse and to reduce the intergenerational transmission of family violence. The full report describes the programmes and asks whether or not they are meeting their objectives. It examines their success in meeting the needs of men and their women partners, and of Maori and other cultural groups. It describes those who take part and what changed for them. It also explores what works best. The results presented here focus on replies from the 83 men and 41 women partners who gave their views of the programmes. Changes for men The main aim of the programmes is to help men to stop being violent and abusive. The results showed that men reported less violent and abusive behaviour at the end than at the beginning of the programme. Also reports of very serious violence declined. So, too, did the frequency of emotional abuse, controlling behaviour, threatening behaviour, and property damage. An analysis of the men's responses three to six months later showed that these changes were maintained. The men and women partners agreed, for the most part, over the frequency of observable acts of violence such as physical violence, destroying property, hitting children and forcing the women to have sex. They did not agree, however, about the extent of abusive verbal behaviour such as emotional abuse and controlling behaviour. They also did not agree about the levels of very serious violence and the overall level of power and control. These differences suggest that either the men were minimising the violence or that they had difficulty recognising the impact of some aspects of their behaviour on women. However, after the programme both the men and the women agreed on the level of violence that was occurring. Men were asked about their goals when they started the programmes and the gains they had made at the end. Generally, the gains exceeded the initial goals; especially in relation to understandings about violence. However, some men who wanted to learn to manage their anger and deal with conflict better reported that they still needed help with this. Men reported other changes between starting and finishing the programme: less involvement in crime, less problem drinking behaviour, fewer mental health problems and fewer hostile attitudes towards women. These results suggest that, as a result of the programmes, women will be safer and men's relationships with their partners will improve. All of these changes were maintained during the follow up period. On average, the men also reported improved wellbeing from before to after the programme. However, on follow up there was a decline in wellbeing and this may be related to them having lost the support and contact with other men that they had during the programme and the opportunity to discuss their feelings with others with similar problems. Changes for women partners Comments indicated that most of the women interviewed agreed with their partner about the positive gains that resulted from the programme. However, a few women reported no change or even that the men got worse. Another interesting finding, in this, admittedly small sample, is that, contrary to the belief of some workers in the field, overall the men improved in both their level of physical violence and in their level of emotional abuse and controlling behaviour. Overall, the women also reported that they were safer after the programme than they had been before and, as with the violence, the gains in safety were maintained after the programme ended. The women also reported less harassment at the second interview than at the first. Furthermore, at both first and second interview, most women said the programme had definitely had a positive impact on the men. Children living with the women were reported to be safer since the programme and less likely to be experiencing abuse and they were less likely to be witnessing emotional and physical violence. Quite high rates of abuse or violence by the children towards others were reported before the programme and there was a tendency for this to reduce by the second interview. Two thirds of the women thought that there were improvements in the children's behaviour- as a result of the programme. Changes for Maori The Maori men in the sample were different in some important respects from the non-Maori. In particular, Maori reported more abuse and violence before the programme, particularly physical and very serious violence, and they reported more adverse background factors. Nevertheless, the benefits for Maori appear, if anything, to be greater than for non Maori. Overall, the results presented here indicate that the programmes all appear to be successful in assisting Maori men to change. For those who did not experienced a tikanga based programme, Maori aspects of process were often seen as unimportant. However, those who attended the tikanga based programme at He Waka Tapu without exception endorsed most of the customary features of process that were part of the programme. The success of He Waka Tapu in recruiting, retaining and enabling change for some of the most violent men and the men from the most troubled backgrounds provides an endorsement of a tikanga based approach for Maori even if it is not desired by all. The lack of value men placed on cultural practices by those not on a tikanga programme may reflect their lack of any experience with a programme of this sort. What works best The programmes were fairly similar so that it was often difficult to test for what works best. However, some evidence is available on the impact of the programmes' length, on the value of having sessions that involve partners and family if they wish it, and on the importance of support in the maintenance of change. There was no firm evidence from this study, to indicate that a 24 week programme was more effective over the long term than a 16 week one. Results indicate that the bulk of the behaviour changes occurred within the first half of the programme (eight weeks for most programmes) although it is almost certainly the case that changes were consolidated during the final eight weeks. We suggest that, rather than extend programmes to 24 weeks, it may be more effective to arrange maintenance group meetings on a more infrequent basis to assist those men who require ongoing work. The sessions involving partners, if they wished, and other whanau members at He Waka Tapu appeared to be able to be arranged without endangering the safety of the women and were seen as beneficial by those who took part. This option for comparing men's views with those of their partners and for enhancing post-programme support is one that could be considered by other programmes, providing there are appropriate safeguards for the women. Finally, there is evidence in the data that post programme follow up could be helpful for many of the men. This evidence comes from the decline reported in wellbeing at follow up and from the comments of both the men and their partners. Conclusions The results reported here are very positive. Group programmes can be effective in helping men to change their abusive and violent behaviour. However, a number of improvements in practice are possible:
Some beliefs in the family violence field cannot be sustained. Theories that men minimise their violence before undertaking a programme but recognise its true extent after attending a programme were not supported. The belief that men's emotional behaviour gets worse as their physical abuse reduces was also not supported; our results indicated that levels of abuse of all kinds declined between entry and exit and diminished even further at follow up. The numbers in this study are quite small, especially in the women's sample. More research that builds on this study is needed to determine the effect of different approaches to programme delivery and why some men respond more than others.
Institute of Criminology, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington: January 2001 |
| Stopping Violence Programmes for Respondents |
| Neville
Robertson of University of Waikato has completed all evaluation of these
programmes. He reviews the reasons why men batter, the various models
and methodologies of 'treatment', and outcomes. Based on this he proposes
a 'Best Practice' model. Copies of Robertson's paper, published in the
NZ Journal of Psychology Vol.28, No 2, Dec99 are available from your SAFVPN
office ph26'3684 1. Here I simply offer a summary of his findings. (Rosemary
Nash, SAFVTN Co-ordinator).
In his article 'Stopping Violence Programmes: enhancing the safety of battered women or producing better educated batterers?' Robertson concludes that:
For women separation increases the risk of being killed (p72) and a concern is that the cycle of abuse may simply be enhanced in a variety of ways by attendance at programmes. Robertson points out that the range of programme methodology and structure, and of definitions of success makes the validity of evaluations questionable. He describes the different programme models used: the Ventilation Model, Insight-oriented Therapy; Systems Models; Cognitive Behavioural Programmes; and Pro-Feminist Models. The latter describe partner violence as a socio-political issue, and aim to re-socialize men in new beliefs, roles and behaviour. The pro -feminist approach is characterised by an emphasis on accountability: for men's actions: to women: by facilitators through co-gender facilitation: to whanau and hapu: to children: to communities. Commenting on OUTCOMES, Robertson notes that 40-60% Recidivism is apparent. Programme dimensions vary. Groups, because they can create a social context and encourage consciousness-raising, and accountability, seem to give better results A structure which provides a framework but allows room for exploration of issues offers an effective format. However men express a preference for individual or couple counselling, consistent with the factors identified as maintaining battering. Timeframes tend to be from 6-32 hrs, 1-2 sessions a week. Participants may be voluntary or mandated. A Typology of Abusers has been slow to develop, so match of needs to treatment is difficult. It is clear that while batterers can learn non-violent behaviour, treatment programmes on their own do not achieve a level of success that produces safety. However with the addition of several other key factors outcomes improve. Robertson finds that A Model of BEST PRACTICE is based on: a Pro-Feminist Analysis of power and control; Priority on the right of women to safety and autonomy; an Educational framework based on cultural and social learning; Cognitive behavioural change; and Responsibility for one's own behaviour. Important features are ACCOUNTABILITY to: oneself, partner, family, hapu, women, and community; and MONITORING by: Justice, Treatment providers, Women's Groups, Hapu, Family, Partner. Programmes offer the possibility of CHOICE, the opportunity rather than the certainty of change. Choice is not value neutral. Public Opinion must make it clear that society does care which choice is made.
|
