Domestic Violence Policy
| DOI | 10.1177/026455059804500321 |
| Date | 01 September 1998 |
| Published date | 01 September 1998 |
| Author | Fiona Morton |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
190
Domestic
Violence
Policy
Dear
Editor,
I
am
responding
to
some
of
the
concerns
raised
about
the
Domestic
Violence
Policy
of
the
Inner
London
Probation
Service
(1995),
as
mentioned
in
the
review
of
Supporting
Women
and
Challenging
Men:
Lessons
from
the
Domestic
Violence
Intervention
Project,
by
Burton
et
al
in
the
June
1998
edition
of
Probation
Journal
45
(2).
The
authors
of
the
report
comment
that
they
have
doubts
about
the
ability
of
probation
officers
to
run
violence
prevention
programmes
&dquo;in
house&dquo;
without
specific
training
on
domestic
violence.
Another
concern
is
that
there
is
a
lack
of
clarity
to
do
with
the
implementation
of
service
policy,
particularly
in
relation
to
work
with
victims
and
survivors
of
domestic
violence.
At
the
time
when
the
research
for
the
report
was
carried
out
(October
’94 -
September
’96),
the
Inner
London
Probation
Service
(ILPS)
Domestic
Violence
Policy
had
been
formulated
but
not
implemented.
In
that
context,
I
think
the
above
criticisms
are
valid
and
well
made.
Since
launching
the
policy
document,
ILPS
has
moved
forward
by
establishing
a
22
week
violence
prevention
programme
at
our
probation
centre
in
Camberwell.
As
a
pilot
project,
we
have
experimented
with
providing
a
linked
service
to
women
through
partnership
arrangements
with
the
Domestic
Violence
Intervention
Project.
We
have
trained
three
members
of
the
groupwork
team
in
violence
prevention
work,
the
fourth
already
having
attended
several
training
courses
by
Ellen
Pence
from
the
Duluth
Project
and
visited
other
state
of
the
art
projects
in
the
United
States
and
Canada.
Twenty-four
family
court
welfare
officers
have
received
awareness
training,
and
we
are
about
to
pilot
similar
training
for
field
officers.
Training
is
only
one
aspect
of
a
successful
training
strategy.
We
are
trying
to
change
our
information
gathering
systems
so
that
domestic
violence
is
accounted
for
in
pre-sentence
report
monitoring,
supervision
plans
and
risk
assessment
documents.
This
will
help
us
plan
future
resource
allocations
as
well
as
make
the
practice
of
each
individual
worker
more
transparent
and
measurable.
The
domestic
violence
group
at
Camberwell
is
subject
to
continuous
evaluation
in
line
with
Home
Office
expectations.
We
have
also
supported
and
undertaken
substantial
pieces
of
work
in
the
field
of
interagency
projects
in
several
of
the
London
Boroughs.
Within
the
confines
of
this
response,
it
is
not
possible
to
do
justice
to
the
scope
of
our
work.
Perhaps
a
more
thorough
paper
on
the
role
of
the
Probation
Service
in
relation
to
community
responses
to
domestic
violence
is
due.
While
it
is
useful
to
bring
colleagues
up
to
date
with
the
improvements
ILPS
has
made
to
its
own
practice,
it
is
worth
re-emphasising
the
main
findings
by
Burton
et
al.
A
properly
resourced
group
work
programme,
using
cognitive-
behavioural
methods,
substantially
reduces
the
use
of
violence
by
men
in
their
relationships
with
women.
Provided
they
complete
the
programme,
their
use
of
the
more
subtle,
yet
no
less
abusive,
aspects
of
controlling
behaviour
also
declines.
These
findings
are
consistent
with
earlier
research
by
the
Professors
Dobash
in
their
work
which
evaluated
similar
programmes
in
Scotland
(Home
Office
Research
Findings
No.
46).
These
two
important
findings
on
British
projects,
should
inform
the
effective
practice
debate.
Other
styles
of
intervention
cannot
claim
to
have
been
so
thoroughly
evaluated,
not
only
by
independent
To continue reading
Request your trial