Welcome to ADVIP
As the ADVIP founder and website administrator, I would like to welcome all of you to this wonderful new organization. Our mission statement can be found by clicking the ABOUT link. You can find our Advisory Board members in the BOARD section, and our current general membership list by clicking on the MEMBERSHIP link.
Because ADVIP is dedicated to evidence-based practice, we recommend strongly that you acquaint yourself with the articles and books in the RESEARCH pages. The lists of books and journal articles are not meant to be exhaustive, but they do include some of the most recent, relevant research on domestic violence intervention. They indicate is that while a fair amount of research has been amassed on the prevalence, dynamics, causes and consequences of intimate partner abuse in the United States, research from other countries is limited to investigations of prevalence rates. Furthermore, the state of research on the effectiveness of perpetrator programs in Europe is still in its infancy, and it is essentially nonexistent in the rest of the world. The most recent review by Eckhardt et al. found only a handful of rigorously-designed experimental studies in the United States.
Promising interventions include those based at least partly on Motivational Interviewing or other client-centered approaches, and interventions that include both partners. Conversely, there are indications that programs based on a Duluth-type of model, at least in the United States, do not substantially help to reduce rates of recidivism. But again, the research is scant and mostly inconclusive, and almost exclusively based on U.S. samples. Furthermore, very little of the empirical research, no matter how reliable, is reflected in the government standards regulating intervention programs, at least in the US.
Questions abound. Are gender-based programs more suitable outside of the Western world? In what cultural environment would couples or family therapy be contraindicated? Can sociological explanations coexist alongside psychological theories? Should treatment standards be the same for male and female offenders? Ought providers be required to be mental health professionals? How much training does a provider need before he or she can be trusted to facilitate perpetrator groups, and who should be entrusted to conduct such trainings? To what extent should government bodies be involved in regulating intervention programs?
Your thoughts?
Mar 11, 2014 @ 20:20:53
I believe that providers should be mental health professionals. In my state,Idaho, we have an independent governing body that has established training guidlines, BIP program approval, and trainings.
May 05, 2014 @ 17:18:24
In full disclosure of bias, I am not a mental health professional. My concern with a strictly mental health professional facilitator base is that causation would tilt too much away from sociological supported gender based violence and too much towards the psychological.
Another practical concern is that in rural areas you may lose programming due to a lack of licensed mental health professionals willing to do the work. We are the only BIP in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan that has been acknowledged by our governing body as meeting compliance standards in our state. One of the reasons we even have an opportunity to meet these standards is that we provide the service at cost which is still a huge struggle for our participants, something we could never do with strictly mental health professionals.
We see programs like AA being successful in the most rural of areas. Obviously AA is not an equivalent comparison, but it does speak to importance of accessibility.
Mar 17, 2014 @ 21:43:41
Regarding the idea of having women offenders be treated with the same curriculum designed for male offenders, I think there is strong evidence (folks from the EBP camp might even call it convincing) that women need a program curriculum designed around their needs. Setting aside the issue of patriarchy and its impact on the formation of the Duluth model, there is strong evidence that the developmental trajectory for women who engage in IPV is rooted in family of origin violence and other psychosocial issues. I hope that just such a curriculum emerges out of this collaborative organization.
Mar 24, 2014 @ 22:46:40
It was no nice to learn of this organization and website. I have been doing this work for 22 years and appreciate the mission and tone of this website. It is refreshing to be associated with other practitioners and researchers who are open to exploration of the treatment of family violence without exclusive focus on one treatment model. I do think models are important but not as important as the expertise and assumptions of the person doing the intervening.
That being said, I imagine most of you, my colleagues, are subject to various program certification standards enacted or recognized by your local or state legislatures or “agreed upon” by various organizations. Some of these standards facilitate good programming while other standards seem to limit what programs can do. Many states have certification standards which promulgate a particular model which unfortunately makes it seem to others that the programs not operating out of the status quo are “out there” and/or are not to be trusted somehow. Our field has to break out of the limitations of working from one particular model and the mission of this org and website seems to focus on that….”Awesome, I Say!!!!”
I think if the DV world, in general, was more aware of the poor outcomes stemming from an over-reliance on a single treatment model, it would be more friendly to alternatives to this approach.
Perhaps in 20 years we will have a greater understanding of not just which program models show/demonstrate promising outcomes but show which programs have positive impacts on what types of people. I say this as in some ways, this has begun to happen in medical and social science research. Asking what program is most effective is not perhaps as useful a question as, “What program is most helpful for what people with what problems/characteristics and perhaps at what stage of development?”
Each of the questions above could be a seperate discussion topic. In our program, ADAPT: Anger & Domestic Abuse Prevention and Treatment in Northern Virginia, our program is gender inclusive. Gender is an important construct for sure but by no means the only or most important factor in all cases. I think the model one uses and assumptions of program leaders and treatment professionals speaks volumes about how the role of gender can be used or not used toward the relinquishment of violence. Family of origin issues and trauma, psychological traits, the lack of emotional regulation (and a number of other) skills, beliefs about gender, genes, environmental stessors, reactivity, and consequences all play a role in family violence and intimate partner violence. My guess is that most programs, even the ones which have been called traditional Duluth-type programs do try to address a number of these factors. Our program puts more of a focus on the development of emotional regulation skills within a context of self-responsibility (derived from the Core Value Workshop model of Steven Stosny, Ph.D.). We have discussions and training about gender but this occurs only after participants have learned, practiced and demonstrated skills development. When our male and female co-ed group participants have learned to regulate thier feelings of shame and hurt (feeling disregarded, unimportant, accused-guilty, accused-mistrusted, devalued, rejected, powerless, unlovable and inadequate) and assume primary responsibility for those feelings (vs. blaming thier occurrance on the behavior/speech of others) the resulting gender discussion is very productive. There is very little (if any) gender-bashing, court/police/institution bashing and a deeper appreciation of gender similarities and differences.
Indeed we are aware that insight alone does not always lead to new behavioral choices and that sometimes having new experiences (of self and others) can be very supportive in the development of prosocial and egalitarian gender beliefs.
I agree with Scott Miller above, that, in general, treatment providers should be mental health professionals and it has only been in the last decade that Virginia programs have had to operate out of licensed facilities or be directed by licensed staff. That change has led to some difficult discussions and actions as non-licensed mental staff/programs have had to retool or in some cases leave the field.
I don’t agree with Fred Butell, however, that program services for male and female offender’s should neccesarily be gender segregated. There ARE differences between the common experiences of many women and men in violent relationships, but those differences are not a non-starter for gender inclusive group services. Women are in the minority of most of our groups….generally ranging from 10-60% of our groups (average is about 25-30%) but have continued over the past 16 years (since we adopted a more gender neutral curriculum) to tell us about how life changing our program has been for them.
Our business is helping male AND female participants get down to learning skills to prevent intimate/family violence in the future…that is our main focus and having some group heterogeneity is a good thing, whether due to gender, presenting index incident/relationship, admission status, etc. We have many community observers and one of my favorite experiences is to have a “traditional” treatment provider observe our group process. Inevitetably, such participants exclaim how collegial the group tone appears, how little “collusion” or gender glorifying/demonizing/scapegoating communication appears and how overall the group demonstrates that it is a “working group” and serves to support each participant’s development of peaceful and non-violent behavior and responses to others.
If you would like to witness this first hand, just call first and I’ll hook you up……!!!!
We have witnessed many women use the support of the group to decide that they don’t deserve to live in a continuing context of violence and threats. That’s right, a “so-called” perpetrator or offender group functioning to help a “victim” become a survivor and let go of an abusive relationship. It has happened many times.
Rarely do any of our clients seem to represent the position of a pure victim or perpetrator….most clients have violence saturated histories experienced at the hand of a caregiver or parent and many others witnessed domestic abuse as a child. Simply put, when domestic violence occurs everyone loses. The childhood victim and witnesses of yesterday are the perpetrators and victims of tomorrow in many cases. Everyone needs healing and trying to determine which mutually exclusive category each actor should fit in is an exercise in futility. Many of our participants have been on the recieving end of abuse at some point in thier development. Does it matter when? Yes and No. Victimization in one’s past does not justify abuse to another and my guess is that we are all very, very clear about THAT.
I think a variety of models can be effective and agree with the “About” statement with ADVIP that no one curriculum is the “be all – catch all” model. Not that we are all immune to the “Model of the Month Club”. I just think that it may be more helpful to ask each other what we think is particularly useful/effective/helpful/and even not helpful or destructive in the work we do. What do our clients report is useful in what we did or are doing? What do THEY think we did that was useful; or that really helped them, “Walk the talk”?
About 15 years ago, I was in a meeting where a BIP staffer from another location in the state stated that, “At least for the 90 minutes my men are in my group…..I can rest , knowing, at least for those 90 minutes they are not home abusing thier partners.” All I could say is, “Wow!”
Contrast that to the statement of Linda Mills, Ph.D. at her book opening at NYU (in which I was proud to be present) after publication of, “Violent Partners” in 2008. She stated that, “We can do better….We ought to do better”. It was a life changing moment for me as I recognized for the first time that I had a responsibiilty to “Be the change I wanted to see in the world”. It was pivotal as I had had so many experiences over the years of feeling that my work was invalidated and often by people who I thought would “know better”. I was confused at the time why so many BIP providers and other partners, often folks in victim rights advocacy or survivor counseling groups seemed so “angry” with clients they didn’t even know, towards BIPS and even towards the staff who worked in these programs. It was as if WE were part of the problem.
It was as if the unverbalized sentiment was, “Since research shows these programs have such limited success….you are actually offering false hope to victims.” And while I still hear this sentiment from time to time, it seems to be a rarer event to me now.
For me at least, Linda Mills and Steven Stosny are my violence intervention “heroes” as they were among the first few leaders who said to themselves and others, “We can do better”….and then went ahead and did so.
I have done this work for so long because I enjoy it….and I know I am making a positive difference; I know that if I do a good job, the lives of the clients my program serves will benefit in generations to come.
In summary Bravo to those of you who still “bring it” to the work you do. I don’t expect that you will “bring it” the way I do or the way my neighbor does, but I would urge you to bring hope, compassion and the capacity for believing in and activating the capacities of your clients! They need you to believe in them.
Mar 24, 2014 @ 23:00:33
Sam:
Your sentiments are shared by lots of other providers, and I think you will feel very comfortable being a member of ADVIP. I liked your tone: enthusiastic yet respectful of different viewpoints. There is indeed research finding that groups based on the Duluth model are somewhat less effective overall than groups based on CBT principles. However, there is also quite a bit of evidence indicating that the qualities of the group facilitator may be most important of all, so one should not dismiss any model if the facilitator has a client-centered approach, strives to maintain a supportive, caring atmosphere, etc. In California, we are precluded from conducting mixed-gender groups for court-mandated clients; however, I have conducted such groups for voluntary clients, with good success. If you are interested, there is an article in a previous issue of the journal that I edit, Partner Abuse, on mixed-gender groups for domestic violence offenders. I would be happy to provide you a copy if you contact me at johnmhamel@comcast.net.
Feb 17, 2016 @ 06:10:05
This website and all the valuable articles and thoughtful comments have been very encouraging. Thank you! I wonder if we could also share thoughts on desirable, undesirable and most important – best practices in monitoring of BIPs – practices that ensure transparency, objectivity and fair involvement and treatment of all providers. Your thoughts and experiences would be much appreciated.
Feb 17, 2016 @ 06:17:56
Vera:
Thank you for your comments. Will you be coming out to New Hampshire this summer for the first ADVIP world conference?