An updated definition of domestic abuse is “any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive, threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are, or have been, intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexual orientation” (HM Government, 2018, p.13). This defines multiple forms of abuse; however, this initiative focuses on male-to-female domestic abuse, particularly of a violent nature. The cause of this abuse is not well understood; theorists focus on individual explanations for violence, such as psychopathology or impulsivity, or social and political explanations such as gender-power inequalities (Heise, 1998).
3.2% more women experience domestic abuse in comparison to men, with 70% of domestic homicide victims being females, ¾ of those killed by a male or previous partner. Many women fail to report incidences to police due to the negative portrayal of the criminal justice system. A victim’s experience of the justice system can be enhanced by improving police response and increasing prosecution rates. In 2014, four in five victims did not report abuse to the police, with no marked improvement since then (Cottrill, 2018).
In recent years, the Ministry of Justice have provided £68 million per year for support services, targeted at supporting victims and encouraging the development of interventions, with the use of knowledge from professionals. For women and girls specifically, an extra £17 million was donated from the Violence Against Women and Girls Service Transformation Fund. Between 2007/08 and 2016/17, the Crown Prosecution Service reported a 61% increase in convictions (HM Government, 2018). This has been achieved with new initiatives such as the Domestic Violence Protection Order, introduced in England and Wales in 2014, allowing police to place protective measures after an incident of domestic violence. This prevents the perpetrator from seeing the victim for 28 days when there is insufficient evidence to immediately charge them, allowing victims time to prosecute and seek support (Cottrill, 2018). Improvements such as these are particularly beneficial, thus the necessity to produce effective interventions to prevent this form of abuse is paramount in order to save women’s lives and protect their children from witnessing violent behaviour.
Initiatives to combat domestic abuse involve prevention and reduction in recidivism of perpetrators. Prevention describes measures used during childhood that supports those who may be, or are being, affected by domestic abuse, which prevents children from modelling this behaviour later in adolescence and adulthood. Domestic violence impacts children’s mental health and later attitudes and behaviour. Their early environment acts as a scaffolding mechanism which they later use to direct responses to situations and coping mechanisms (Radford et al., 2011). Safe Lives estimated 52% of children who witness domestic violence suffer from behavioural and social developmental problems, difficulty adjusting to school and 25% exhibit abusive behaviour (Safe Lives Policy Report, 2014). Effective interventions in schools help prevent the manifestation of potential abusive behaviour later on (HM Government, 2018).
The government must produce educational approaches to violence against women in England and Wales, as supportive anti-violence training in schools helps children to understand how to form healthier relationships (Mullender, 1994). Wales’ ‘Good Practice Guide’, teaches children about equality and challenges gender stereotypes in an interactive way. Teachers must be trained by professionals under the ‘National Training Frameworks’, ensuring they can effectively support children and direct them to additional support services. This must be a long-term solution to counteract the negative effects of growing up amongst domestic abuse (HM Government, 2018). As the exact attitude-behaviour link is unknown, a multi-faceted curriculum facilitates the change of attitudes and behaviour, so children learn to build relationships based on respect and understanding (Hester & Westmarland, 2005). Garbarino (1992) explains that it is possible for children who have lived with domestic violence to become more resilient and overcome negative impacts. The notion is that violence prevention programmes change their attitudes and behaviour, and acts as a deterrent from behaving in this way in the future.
Projects such as the ‘Thurrock Respect programme’ are problematic as they are gender-focused (Hester & Westmarland, 2005). Teachers find this uncomfortable and boys become disengaged due to the repeated focus on males (Fox, Hale & Gadd, 2014). Teachers were unable to detect when to intervene and changes were only short term. A more effective approach is the ‘Cheshire Schools project’. Students and staff concluded this was highly effective, were fully engaged and long-term changes were instilled within students. The teachers were extensively trained by social services, providing them with interactive lesson plans, and were confident as they had the support of Women’s Aid. With this change to a more interactive, non-gender focused approach, involving specific training by knowledgeable individuals, this acts as an important prevention method. This needs further development to increase its efficacy, by improving community links, understanding how to make long term changes into children’s behaviour and selecting those children particularly in danger and creating tailored support (Hester & Westmarland, 2005). There must be a more integrated approach with social services, health care and community projects to bring about improvements, and reduce the effects that domestic violence has on children, and subsequent violent behaviour. This can be achieved with the use of the ‘Identification and Referral to Improve Safety programme’ which properly trains clinicians to refer and support victims (Bristol.ac.uk., 2018).
Currently, the evidence is inconclusive concerning which interventions are effective at reducing recidivism. Improving understanding of the theoretical framework that interventions are based on may aid this. The ‘Duluth model’, created in the United States in 1981, is widely used and many programmes used by the criminal justice system have derived from it (Bates, Graham-Kevan, Bolam & Thornton, 2017). ‘Respect’ accredits programmes that are based on the feminist views the model originates from. They conclude that most domestic abuse is committed by men, and gender is the main predictor (Dixon, Archer & Graham-Kevan., 2012), however this is ineffective at reducing recidivism (Babcock, Green & Robie., 2004), increases dropout rates, and inhibits prosecutions (Dutton, 2006). This pro-feminist approach explains patriarchy and the subordination of women as the cause, as men exert control and power. Interventions are based on re-educating men on the role of a man, and their place in a relationship (Scourfield & Dobash, 1999).
Cognitive-behavioural therapies (CBT) are more effective as they focus on changing attitudes and behaviour towards women and the perpetrator taking full accountability for his actions (Dixon et al., 2012). Bandura (2005) notes that change only occurs long-term, if the individual learns to control and self-regulate their behaviour. Perpetrators learn to control their emotions and create a ‘toolbox’ for how to react to certain situations, for example, when they are with their partner and they feel frustrated. Most interventions are based on anger management, improving coping skills and communication. 87.5% focused on CBT, 52.4% had elements on control and power, and 19% on feminist views. Those providing the treatment programmes, had varied levels of training, and only 57% thought they were effective. The standards provided from ‘Respect’ are concluded as restrictive, overly complicated, having little relevance, particularly in their gender focused nature, and having high numbers of drop-outs. Although CBT is theoretically more effective due to its basis in attitude-behaviour change, neither have dramatically reduced recidivism (Bates et al., 2017). By using ineffective interventions, this puts more victims at risk as perpetrators are likely to reoffend.
Another improvement of efficacy is to focus on typologies, such as personality sub-types in domestic abusers, as it is not homogenous. 60% fit the violent/antisocial group, linked to previous convictions and troubled school years. The borderline cluster (28%) had issues with attachment styles, high levels of abuse in childhood and alcohol dependence. The other two clusters were narcissistic and low pathology, suggesting there are varying backgrounds and personality types for each cluster; further research must therefore be done to understand this possible link and to tailor specific interventions. However, data is collected from the perpetrator, with no input from partners, therefore possible issues with validity and reliability must be noted (Johnson et al., 2006).
Additionally, focusing on the risk of domestic abuse that the perpetrator imposes, can direct which programme may be of use. A first time, low-risk level programme is the ‘Domestic Abuse Awareness Course’, offering an introduction to identify unhealthy behaviours and their impacts, in two sessions (Rise Mutual CIC, 2018). A more rigorous approach for violent, medium- to high-risk offenders, is the ‘Building Better Relationships programme’. This 24-week programme focuses on men understanding issues with intimate partner violence, encouraging them to change and reflect on their aggression and creating permanent strategies to change behaviour (Bates et al., 2017). By understanding the risk that a perpetrator poses, the National Probation Service (NPS) and Community Rehabilitation Companies can use their risk assessments to inform the courts about appropriate sentencing. Those who pose serious risk are managed by the police and NPS, so behaviour can be monitored (HM Government, 2018). Records can be accessed under ‘Clare’s Law’ which states individuals have a right to ask about a partner’s history of violence (Cottrill, 2018).
Identifying possible motivators to engage perpetrators may increase the efficacy of interventions. The ‘Strength to Change programme’ in England found that many male domestic violence perpetrators were parents, and engagement increased with the incentive of access to their children. There was a decrease in offences with treatment (Stanley, Graham-Kevan & Borthwick, 2012), as they did not want their children to have bad perceptions of them (Stanley, Fell, Miller, Thompson & Watson, 2012). A perpetrator may change to see his child due to an internal motivation as individuals are self-motivated, thus will be more likely to change if it will personally benefit them. Maintenance is an important stage of change; thus, treatments will reduce recidivism when perpetrators are motivated and ready to change their abusive behaviour (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983). Direct, perpetrator-focused counselling is advised (Miller & Rollnick, 1991), hence a CBT style of intervention, based on maintenance of behaviour change is an initiative that should be further developed (Croghan, 2005).
There must be various improvements to facilitate effective intervention changes. Police officers need better training to encourage victims to prosecute. Improvements are being seen, with improvement plans published and the introduction of oversight committees and specialist forces. The use of body cameras and domestic prevention orders must be utilised further, so victims can convict with confidence. Victims must understand support within their communities, such as refugee houses. Independent domestic violence advisors act as a bridge between victims and support networks, thus their training must be a priority. This aids the prevention of domestic abuse, as women can identify controlling or coercive behaviour which may later turn violent. Giving victims the chance to convict places more perpetrators in prisons and, with the introduction of more effective interventions, decreases recidivism.
Finally, consequences for non-attendance and reoffending must be introduced to prevent domestic abuse. Cautions may be acceptable for those who are first time, or low-risk perpetrators, however the courts rarely use these since their efficacy is not well understood. These would only be beneficial if they coincide with interventions to change behaviour. Those who reoffend, and repeatedly do not attend intervention programmes, must be imprisoned so they do not pose a risk to victims, but must have access to tailored interventions as this is how behaviour change will come about (HM Government, 2018).
Consequently, current interventions are ineffective, and not tailored correctly to individuals. The gathering of data is paramount, as much of the data on efficacy of programmes is descriptive, with few collecting recidivism data; how can we expect to improve interventions without understanding the efficacy and quality of those currently being used (Bates et al., 2017)? There is great variation in the style of data collection, with prisons often conducting much more rigorous assessments in comparison to probation and community services (Bullock, Sarre, Tarling & Wilkinson, 2010). By utilising improved data, we are better equipped to raise awareness with informative campaigns that challenge gender stereotypes, promote mutual respect within relationships, and direct victims to support to prevent domestic abuse.