Lessons from the Integrated Domestic Abuse Programme, for the implementation of Building Better Relationships
| Date | 01 June 2017 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0264550517701199 |
| Author | Will Hughes |
| Published date | 01 June 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
Probation Journal
Lessons from the
2017, Vol. 64(2) 129–145
ª The Author(s) 2017
Integrated Domestic
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0264550517701199
Abuse Programme, for
journals.sagepub.com/home/prb
the implementation
of Building Better
Relationships
Will Hughes
London Metropolitan University, UK
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.
Keywords
accredited programmes, desistance, domestic violence, effective practice, engage-
ment, group work, relationships
Corresponding Author:
Will Hughes, Lecturer, School of Social Sciences, London Metropolitan University, 166–220 Holloway
Road, London N7 8DB, UK.
Email: hughesw@staff.londonmet.ac.uk
130
Probation Journal 64(2)
Introduction
The Integrated Domestic Abuse Programme (IDAP) was accredited in 2004, and
rolled out across probation services in England and Wales. The phasing out of
the programme commenced in 2013 (Bloomfield and Dixon, 2015). This fol-
lowed criticisms of its effectiveness, content and style (Dutton and Corvo, 2006).
IDAP continued to be delivered in some areas until 2015, during a transition
period which saw its replacement with the Building Better Relationships pro-
gramme (BBR). Drawing on research undertaken as part of a PhD (between
2014 and 2016), and wider literature, this paper argues that many criticisms of
IDAP, and the broader Duluth model on which it is based, misrepresent the way
in which these programmes are delivered, and distort their theoretical base.
Additionally, there has been a tendency to overlook empirical evidence which
indicates that Duluth style programmes can have a modest but significant impact
when appropriately targeted and delivered (Kelly and Westmarland, 2015).
The contributions of IDAP should not, therefore, be dismissed: there are learning
points which have emerged through its delivery, which are relevant to the
ongoing development of effective practice. There is a risk that the approaches
of IDAP and BBR are polarized, with the former characterized as being theo-
retically rigid and confrontational, and the latter being presented as theoreti-
cally flexible and therapeutic. This dichotomy obscures the complex dynamics
involved in the delivery of interventions with abusive men. BBR’s emphasis on a
non-confrontational and engaging style is positive. However, while it purports to
have a therapeutic theoretical basis, it has a heavily structured design. This risks
undermining a dynamic and responsive approach to participants.
Based on the above, the application of ‘programme integrity’ requires
reflection (Phillips, 2015). There is a need to balance consistency of the delivery
of content with an approach which gives sufficient space to facilitators to engage
participants and explore emerging themes. Evaluations and practice guidance
have tended to focus on content rather than the processes of delivery, or the
experiences of those who have delivered and attended perpetrator programmes.
Factoring into ‘programme integrity’ issues of ‘style of delivery’, ‘ethos’ and the
management of group dynamics is likely to be of benefit in understanding
effectiveness. Many evaluations rest on reconviction data, to demonstrate which
programmes are most effective; this paper seeks to contribute to an under-
standing of how particular programmes work, and which aspects are experi-
enced as most significant by men attending the group and facilitators. The
transition from IDAP to BBR has occurred during a substantial reorganization
of probation services, under the ‘Transforming Rehabilitation’ (TR) agenda.
Responsibility for domestic violence programmes has been transferred to
Community Rehabilitations Companies (CRCs), which are located in the private
sector. While this is likely to be of considerable significance for the delivery of
programmes, and prompts consideration about how domestic abuse is under-
stood and managed (Gilbert, 2013), these issues are beyond the scope of
this paper.
Hughes
131
Methods
The reflections in this paper are drawn in part from a research study involving
participant observation, undertaken while the author worked as a group facilitator
for both IDAP and BBR, between 2014 and 2016. This was combined with inter-
views with service users who had attended the programmes, and with facilitators
who had delivered them. Some direct comments from facilitators and service users
are included. These are not presented as being representative; rather, they are
provided to illustrate relevant themes which emerged.
The author co-facilitated a complete IDAP course (27 core sessions) and a
complete BBR course (24 core sessions). During the delivery of IDAP, 20 service
users participated in the programme, with one failing to complete it. IDAP was
delivered in a rolling format with men commencing and leaving the programme at
each module.1 The BBR programme commenced with ten men, six of whom com-
pleted it. Both programmes involve work with participants in ‘pre’ and ‘post’ core
group sessions. This is likely to be of significance. However, a focus on these
aspects was beyond the scope of this study. Semi-structured interviews were con-
ducted with six group facilitators. This included all members of staff who had
delivered the programme in the area where the research was being undertaken,
excluding two who were unavailable. Eight men who had recently completed each
group were interviewed (four IDAP and four BBR). The research was undertaken in
an area with limited ethnic diversity. Most participants defined themselves as white
British. The youngest participant was 21 and the oldest 70. Most of the facilitators
also self -defined as white British. Most of the facilitators were women. Only two of
the six interviewed were men.
The choice of methods reflects the exploratory nature of the research. It rests on a
small number of people and therefore no claims of generalizability are made.
Nonetheless, it aims to illuminate dynamic and interpersonal processes in group
delivery, and shed light on how group programmes are experienced. Participant
observation is problematic for several reasons. Reliability, ethics, note taking and
the lack of distance between researcher and participants are among the issues
involved.2 Inevitably, the researcher brings his own perspectives to the interpreta-
tion and selection of data. Nevertheless, this method was crucial in developing an
understanding of how perpetrators responded to the programme material, to
facilitators, and to each other, during delivery. This approach also facilitated access
to participants who may have been unwilling or unable to engage with other
methods of data collection. I endeavoured to maintain a reflective approach and
sought to capture incidents and statements which highlighted how individuals
respond to domestic abuse programmes.
Semi-structured interviews with participants and facilitators were conducted to
explore perceptions that were not observable within group sessions. These included
facilitators’ views about the difficulties posed by some group members and the
programme material. It also offered the opportunity to explore more detailed and
personal reflections with men attending the groups. I was known by some of those I
interviewed as a group facilitator. Mindful of the ethical issues involved, I expressed
132
Probation Journal 64(2)
clearly to facilitators that the interview process was not an assessment of their work,
and to perpetrators that it was not an assessment of progress or risk. While there are
possible pitfalls of this dual role, detailed knowledge of the two programmes
enabled me to explore more aspects than an external evaluator.
The Duluth basis of IDAP
The Duluth domestic violence project has been of significance in establishing a
model of intervention based on feminist principles (Pence and Paymar, 1993;
Dobash et al., 2000). This programme has had a substantial influence on the
development of other perpetrator programmes (Bowen, 2011). As its name sug-
gests, the programme has its origins in Duluth, Minnesota, where it was created by
Ellen Pence and Michael Paymar during the 1980s. It is explicitly feminist in its
theoretical basis and views violence against women as being rooted in patriarchy
and male entitlement. The programme is closely associated with the ‘Power and
Control Wheel’ (DAIP [Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs], 2015). This was
developed from support groups with abused women and is used to demonstrate
how violence is located within a range of strategies used by men to exert control in
relationships. The areas in which abuse occurs are included on the wheel: emo-
tional abuse, isolation, blame, parenting, threats...
To continue reading
Request your trial