children and young people - northern rock foundation · dvpps. in 2010 rayns, working for the...

December 2013 briefing note 3

The third of a series of Project Mirabal briefing notes -see www.dur.ac.uk/criva/projectmirabal for more information.

CHILDREN ANDYOUNG PEOPLE

DOMESTIC VIOLENCEPERPETRATORPROGRAMMES AND

BackgroundThe last twenty years has seen a growth in the body ofliterature exposing the negative effects on children ofliving with, and witnessing domestic violence. Researchhas shown that domestic violence and abuse of childrencommonly co-occurs, whereby children are frequentlyphysically or sexually abused in addition to witnessingthe abuse of their mothers (Humphreys and Thiara, 2002;Mullender et al, 2002).

Edelson (1995), in a review of 84 studies on the impact of domestic violence on children,concluded that children who witness domestic violence develop more behaviouraland emotional problems than other children.Evidence relating to the adverse effects ofdomestic violence on children hassubsequently led to changes in law and policy.Section 120 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, for example, defines ‘significant

Sue Alderson, Durham UniversityCentre for Research intoViolence and Abuse.

Professor Liz Kelly, Child andWoman Abuse Studies Unit,London Metropolitan University.

Professor Nicole Westmarland,Durham University Centre for Research into Violence and Abuse.

39541_Children_and_Young_People_39541_Children_and_Young_People 28/11/2013 16:40 Page 2

harm’ as including ‘any impairmentof the child’s health or developmentas a result of witnessing the ill-treatment of another person, such as domestic violence’.

In Britain, law and policy stronglypromote the preservation ofchildren’s relationships with non-resident parents and othersignificant family members afterparental separation (Hunt andMacleod, 2008). In a key courtruling (Re O, 1995) it was statedthat contact with the non-residentparent is ‘almost always’ in theinterests of the child. The privatefamily court presumption thatchildren want contact with theirdomestically violent father and the risks involved, has beenhighlighted in a range of studies(including Hester and Radford,1996; Aris and Harrison, 2007).DVPPs are increasingly beingoffered as one response to theproblem of violent dads wantingcontact with their children.

Despite the aims of most Britishdomestic violence perpetratorprogrammes (DVPPs) being toincrease the safety of women andchildren, and four of Westmarlandand Kelly’s (2012) measures of

DVPP success being linked directlyto children (see also briefing note 1 in this series), there is a paucity of research available on children’sperspectives of domestically violentdads (Houghton, 2008) and DVPPsin particular.

We are aware of only one otherBritish study that has askedchildren about their views ofDVPPs. In 2010 Rayns, working for the NSPCC, carried out apractitioner-led research project for the Children’s WorkforceDevelopment Council (CWDC).Rayns interviewed 16 children and young people aged between 8-18 whose dad/male carer wasattending a DVPP and found:

• children had limited knowledge of perpetrator work, but saw it as a helpful and an appropriateintervention;

• children considered their motherto be “safer” when a perpetratorwas on, or had attended aperpetrator programme, but did not necessarily feel saferthemselves.

• there was little consistency withregard to safety planning work for the children in this sample;

2


• children were aware thatperpetrator work was linked to violent/angry behaviour bytheir father/male carer and thatattendance was an attempt tochange this behaviour;

• perpetrator programmes did not appear to lead to violentfathers/male carers talking openly to their children abouttheir violent behaviour.

The aim of this briefing note is to add to this emerging body of literature and include bothprofessionals and children andyoung people’s views of the effects of domestic violenceperpetrator programmes.

Research methods This briefing paper draws on thefollowing data:

• An online survey of 44organisations (members of Respect running DVPPs);

• Interviews with 13 members ofstaff working in a range ofdomestic violence perpetratorprogrammes (perpetratorprogramme facilitators, children’s

support workers and women’ssupport workers);

• Observation of one DVPP men’sgroup work session focused onthe impact on children;

• Interviews with 13 children andyoung people aged 7-16 years old (6 boys, 7 girls) using a taskbased ‘research book’. Theyounger children were helped tocomplete the research book bythe interviewer, particularly thetasks that involved reading andwriting, and the research bookoperated as more of a topic guidefor older children if they felt thetasks were too childish. Thechildren’s dad/male carer hadcompleted at least 2/3 of a DVPPand most had recently finished.

All of the children interviewed were receiving support fromchildren’s workers at the time of interview and all but one saidthey remembered witnessing theviolence – either being in the sameroom or overhearing it. The‘research book’ and the questionsin it were designed in collaborationwith organisations working withchildren. Information sheets andconsent forms were used, with

3


special child-friendly ones designedfor the child participants - availablefor download at www.dur.ac.uk/criva/projectmirabal. Ethicalclearance was granted by the Schoolof Applied Social Sciences ethicscommittee at Durham University.

Findings There is a need for moredirect support servicesfor the children of men on domestic violenceperpetrator programmesDespite a desire to improve thesituation of children, very feworganisations provided a directsupport service to the children ofmen on programmes. Instead, workwith men and support for theirex/partners operated as some formof proxy service to children. Wesummarise our data linked to thisfinding below, which can be read inmore detail in Alderson,Westmarland and Kelly (2012).

The survey found that, despite adesire to improve the situation of

children, few DVPPs provide directsupport services for children of menwho are participating onprogrammes. Only half of the 44organisations who responded saidthey did any form of direct work withchildren. This work was carried outthrough various channels:preventative work in schools; supportfor any child who had been referred,where the perpetrator had left thefamily home; floating support; andparent and child programmes. Onlythree of the organisations workedspecifically with children and youngpeople whose dad is participating ina perpetrator programme, despitethe overall aim of perpetrator workbeing the promotion of safety forwomen and children.

These three programmes all offeredboth one-to-one work and group-work. In interviews, staff explainedthat care was taken to select whichchildren would benefit from each of these interventions. Children withsimilar family circumstances andhistory of domestic violence weresometimes placed together ingroups to challenge isolation andfoster recognition of having livedthrough similar experiences.

4


However, for other children orthose who were struggling in thegroup work sessions, one-to-onework was offered.

Overall, these findings indicate that most therapeutic services are only available to children whono longer live with the perpetrator.There remains a distinct lack of community based services,including in refuges, but this isparticularly the case for childrenwho remain living at home withboth the non-abusing parent anddomestic violence perpetrator.

Men on domestic violenceperpetrator programmesshould be activelyencouraged and supported,where safe and appropriate,to tell their children abouttheir attendanceIn an earlier part of the research, we interviewed men on programmes and partners/expartners about what their childrenwere told about their dad'sparticipation perpetratorprogramme (also reported inAlderson et al., 2012). We foundaround half had not told theirchildren anything (the proportionwas the same whether the dad wasor was not living with the children).This supports Rayns’s research - a third of the children in her sample

5

“Sometimes they thinkthey are the only onegoing through this so agroup situation is oftenbetter for them.”(Children’s support worker)

“I see the referrals comingin and I think ‘oh my god -there are so many’!” (DVPP Children’s support worker)

“Some children won’topen up in groups. Somechildren’s needs are socomplex that they needone to one support.” (Children’s support worker)


had never been told about theprogramme. In our research, themain reasons offered for not tellingchildren were: the children weretoo young to understand; parentsdid not want children to feeluncomfortable; or that shame and stigma prevented them frombeing honest.

In the interviews for this part of theresearch, staff were divided on whothey thought would be best placedto talk to the children about theirdad/male carer being on a DVPP.While most thought the dad/malecarer should be the person to tellchildren, some staff argued thatmothers would be most able tocommunicate this information.

When we interviewed the children andyoung people, it became apparentthat some had only been told abouttheir dad’s/male carer’s attendance onthe DVPP in light of the invitation toparticipate in the research. Other’s hadknown for some time, with terms suchas ‘on a course’ and ‘working withDad’ commonly used rather than theterms ‘domestic violence’ and/or‘perpetrator programme’.

6

“[My partner] doesn't want to tell his daughtersdue to the stigma attached to being involvedin a domestic violenceprogramme. Maybe in the future.” (Partner of man on programme)

“Well we tell them thetruth… we wanted to be open with them… wedidn't want to lie. I don'ttell them everything thatgoes on there, ‘cos I mean, it shocked me whenI went there.” (Man on programme)

“Dad introduced us. Dadtold us that [name ofprogramme facilitator] was going to help him sortout his anger problems. He said he was going on an anger management typething and that it would helphim to calm down.” (Boy, age 15)


Where children in this study wereaware of their dad’s/male carer’sparticipation, most said it was theirmother who told them, althoughsome were told by both parents (3)and some by dad/male carer alone(2). All of the children were positivein some way about their dad/malecarer attending the programme,and many were optimistic aboutpositive changes. One girl (age 8)explained how she was told:

C: It was both of them, just before he was going to go.

Int: Did mum and dad tell you why,and what would happen whenhe attended?

C: That he would be morerespectful to her.

Int: Ok, how did you feel about that?

C: Happy.

Another girl aged 8 filled in theresearch book, describing how they felt happy their dad/malecarer was attending a programme,because they felt ‘SAD’ before andthat now they had finished they felt ‘QUITE HAPPY’.

Since a core principle of DVPPs isto hold men accountable for theirbehaviour, we argue that moreconsideration should be given toextending this to their children.

7

“I didn’t know at first that [name of programmefacilitator] was workingwith my dad - I justthought he was just afriend of his.”(Girl, age 14)


This might take the form ofprogramme sessions on finding the right language to talk tochildren about violence and abuse and about positive, healthyrelationships. This may also addressthe lack of consistency around how and by what processesperpetrator work is explained tochildren described by Rayns (2010)and start to reduce, where safe to do so, the burden on the motherto always be the one to explain and provide support others on topof her own victimisation-survival.More openness with childrencoupled with (linked to theprevious finding) direct support for children, may also help manageexpectations about the programmeand change, especially if things arenot going well. Just as managingwomen’s expectations aroundchange and supporting them intheir decision making aroundstaying/leaving relationships is a core part of women’s supportwork, similar work may be neededfor children – particularly in thosecases where DVPP participation isexplicitly linked to child contact.Where a DVPP has an integrated

children’s service, this is something they would be wellplaced to support.

For many men, the sessions on the impact of domestic violence onchildren and fatheringwere linked to men’smotivation to changeAll of the DVPPs that we haveknowledge about include specificmodules promoting safe and childfocused parenting. This work isinformed by an understanding that,firstly, it is not possible to be a‘good’ parent whilst perpetratingdomestic violence. Secondly,women’s abilities to mother their hildren are undermined byongoing abuse. There are nospecific guidelines regarding theappropriate allocation of time tothis topic and the number ofsessions on the impact of domesticviolence on children and parentingprovided by DVPPs therefore varies.

8


The interviews with DVPP staffshowed enthusiasm about the hugeimpact that these specific sessionscan have on men’s motivation tochange. Specifically they werethought to:

• increase men’s awareness of child centred fathering;

• helped to improve parenting skills;

• developed men’s capacity tounderstand the impact of theirviolence on their children.

DVPP staff reported that thesessions on the impact of domesticviolence on children appear to havea profound effect on many men.

Staff reported that many men start off under the illusion that theirchildren are somehow ‘protected’from the impact of their violence. A common strategy within theseprogramme sessions is to ask mento reflect on their own childhoodsand any experiences of domesticviolence within this.

9

“They [sessions onchildren] have a massiveimpact on the men, andthey are shocked at whatthey have done to theirchildren.” (DVPP children’s support worker)

“I think they get anawakening when they dothe [children’s] module on the programme. Whenthey can see themselves as they were as children or see what they are doingto their children, then thatis a wakeup call… It doesreduce some of the men to tears. It gets them tothink ‘That was me as achild’. It’s not in theirconsciousness and it’sshocked the back of themind. It’s a trigger tomemory and it gets themto realise.”(DVPP Women’s worker)


This was not only the case inrelation to young children, but alsofor adult children in some cases.

Within the groupwork, men areencouraged to talk about theirchildren, in particular how they feel each child has been affectedby the violence. Workersconsidered that talking about each child in turn, and the effectsof domestic violence on themspecifically, was a catalyst to reflecton range and depth of impacts oftheir behaviour.

One groupwork session involvedthe men’s worker working together

with the children’s support workerby asking the children in thechildren’s support group ‘whatwould you say to a person who was abusive to you?’.

10

“One man has startedtalking to his grown up sonabout the violence andnow they have a muchbetter relationship. Thisguy is in his 50s and he hasbeen a domestic abuseperpetrator all those years.He knows now what he’sdone to his child.” (DVPP men’s worker)

“There were responses like;‘why did you do it?’ ‘Goaway you shit’, ‘I don’t wantto ever see you again’, ’Areyou going to change?’‘Why should I believe you,because you said itbefore?’ ‘Don’t makepromises you can’t keep,don’t say you are going tovisit unless you mean it’,‘Don’t blame mum, it’s yourfault’. These are statementsfrom kids who aresupposed to know nothingabout the domestic abusegoing on in their home!The children also say thingslike ‘when you visit don’task us questions aboutmum’. These are all realstatements from children


Workers noted that while men’sinitial motivation to attend wasoften due to pressure fromchildren’s social services/partners’,as the programme progressed tothe specific sessions on children,men seemed more intrinsicallymotivated to engage. They arguedthat the new found awarenessfunctioned as a means for men toimprove their relationship with theirchildren and to generally become a ‘better dad’. These sessions wereunderstood as simultaneouslyaddressing children’s needs andmen’s use of violence.

Including children’sperspectives in riskassessments and safetyplanning is important

The interviews with DVPP workerssuggest that the principles ofwomen’s empowerment combinedwith the pooling of knowledgebetween agencies, provides auseful way to obtain a completepicture of the risks posed tochildren who live with domesticviolence. However, supportingwomen as a way to protect thechild may be so well known that it is taken for granted, and thespecific risks to, and needs of,children overlooked (see alsoRadford et al., 2011). Focussedefforts to include children in riskassessment and safety planningcan often help reduce the stresschildren can feel as a result ofdomestic violence and children asyoung as three years old are ableto understand and contribute tothe safety planning process(Gewirtz and Menakem 2004).Interviews with DVPP children’sworkers revealed their commitment to the empowermentof children and their accountsillustrate how the development ofsafety planning is a crucial step inaddressing and enhancingchildren’s safety. This also fulfils

11

and we use these in oursessions with the men. Real is much better thananything that is made upand they have an impact.”(DVPP men’s worker)


the participation principle of theUN Convention on the Rights ofthe Child – that they should beinvolved in decisions about their future.

Positive outcomes weredescribed by children who were receivingintegrated children’ssupport servicesalongside their dad’s DVPPOver the course of the DVPP, as men begin to acquire anenhanced ability to empathise and communicate, the progressand processes of these changes

became visible to their children.Children were articulate in theiraccounts of having an improvedsense of well-being, feeling safer,spending more quality time withtheir dad/male carer, having moretrust in their dad/male carer, andan overall enhanced father/childrelationship.

All of the children, bar one, saidthey could remember ‘witnessing’the domestic violence, either being physically present or inanother room. The children whocompleted the research book were asked to draw a face andwrite a word that indicated howthey felt about their dad/malecarer before he attended the DVPP.By far, the most common responseto this question ‘sad’, one child saidshe was annoyed and wrote ‘grrrr’and another felt ‘confused’.

12


One of the tasks for the childrencompleting the research book wasto indicate on a ladder scale, theirperception of how safe they feltbefore their dad/male carerparticipated in the DVPP and thelevel of safety they felt at the timeof interview. Rung 1 on the ladderindicates feeling unsafe, rung 10 indicates feeling very safe.Before the programme all of the children indicated that theythought their level of safety was at or around level 1 and 2 (veryunsafe). Current perceptions ofsafety following their dad’s/malecarer’s participation in theprogramme were considerablyhigher. One child circled rung 5(unsafe/fairly safe), two childrencircled rung 9 (safe) and fourchildren circled rung 10 (very safe). Thus, all of the children felt safer at the time

of interview compared with before their dad/male carer startedthe programme.

13


Children who completed theresearch book were asked to circle alist of feelings relating to how theyfelt about their dad/male carer priorto attending DVPP and how theyfelt now that he is currentlyparticipating or has completed theprogramme. Seventeen differentfeelings were listed in columnheadings before and after. Thetable below shows that mostchildren felt sad, worried and upsetbefore their dad/male carerattended the programme. Fourchildren felt disappointed, threechildren felt angry, scared and hurtand two children felt confused,guilty, bored and nothing. Incontrast children’s feelings towardstheir dad/male carer changed whilsthe was on the programme or hadcompleted the programme. Sixchildren felt ‘loving’ towards them,five felt ‘happy’ and ‘okay’. Fourchildren said they felt ‘joyful’ and‘excited’ towards their dad/malecarer and three said they felt ‘warm’ towards him. Interestinglyone child said he felt ‘nothing’towards his dad/male carer after his participation on the programmeand one circled ‘worried’. This lastfeeling was clarified with a note

next to ‘worried’ which explainedhow he was afraid that, ‘a bigargument might happen’.

Certainly, it was not the case thatall children now had forgiven andforgotten their dad’s/male carer’sactions and what things were likeliving in a household controlled byviolence and abuse. Another partof the research book asked children what they would like tosay to their dad/male carer. Mostsaid things were calmer at homeand most wanted to spend moretime doing activities with him.However, many wanted their dad to acknowledge and be sorry forhis behaviour, as the text from the following ‘letters to dad’ show:

To Dad,I love you so much but when youhave finished [the course] wouldyou be sorry and would youargue with mum again?Lots of love from R (age 8)

Dear Dad,Please don’t argue with mumanymore. Every time you getangry can you please go andcalm down in your room on yourown. When you are nice and

14


calm all our family is a happy and we can go for a nice sunnywalk and have a picnic.Lots of love G (age 7)

Dear Dad,I think that our family is happiernow that you have stoppedbeing angry with mum. Can yoube sorry to her and us? Can wedo things together like playfootball and computer games.I love you lotsFrom P (Age 7)

There is an important caveat runningparallel to these positive outcomes:all children participating in the studywere receiving an integratedchildren’s support service. Theintervention was helping children to rebuild their self-esteem, expresstheir feelings about the violence in a safe environment, and importantly,to receive reassurance that theviolence was not their fault.Threaded through this, children werefeeling a greater sense of stability intheir lives. It is not clear then,whether the positive outcomes forchildren found in this study wouldbe different had they not been ableto access such support services.

ConclusionsThis briefing paper has argued thatthere are not enough direct servicesavailable for children of men ondomestic violence perpetratorprogrammes. Those that do existprovide one-to-one work and groupwork, children’s workers ofteninteract with staff working withwomen and men in innovative ways.We suggest more openness andclarity with children around men’sattendance on DVPPs. Although onlya small sample of children and youngpeople were interviewed, for thesechildren the outcomes were largelypositive – children reported feelingsafer, happier, and doing more withtheir dads/male carers. We reiteratethat these children were among thevery few who received integratedservices through a DVPP, and thisfinding cannot be extrapolated toDVPPs without integrated children’sservices. However, it does show thepotential for improving the lives ofchildren and young people throughcommissioners including funding ofintegrated services forchildren/young people alongsidewomen’s support and men’sprogrammes.

15


ReferencesAlderson, S., Westmarland, N. and Kelly, L.(2012) The Need for Accountability to, andSupport for, Children of Men on DomesticViolence Perpetrator Programmes, Child AbuseReview, 3, 182-193.

Aris, R. and Harrison, C. (2007) Domesticviolence and the supplemental informationform. London: Ministry of Justice.

Edelson, J.L. (1995) Mothers and Children:Understanding the links between womenbattering and child abuse, Paper presented atthe Strategic Planning Workshop on Violenceagainst Women.Washington DC: National Institute of Justice.

Gewirtz, A., & Menakem, R. (2004) Working withyoung children and their families:recommendations for domestic violenceagencies and batterer intervention programs,Series Paper 5., Iowa: University of Iowa.

Hester, M. and Radford, L. (1996) Domestic violence and child contactarrangements in England and Denmark. Bristol: The Policy Press.

Houghton, C. (2008) Making A Difference:Young People Speak to Scottish Ministers abouttheir Priorities for the National Domestic AbuseDelivery Plan for Children and Young People.Edinburgh: The Scottish Government.

Humphreys, C. and Thiara, T. (2002) Routes to Safety: Protection Issues Facing AbusedWomen and Children and the Role of Outreach Services. Bristol: Women’s AidFederation England.

Hunt, J, & Macleod, A. (2008) Outcomes of applications to court for contact orders after parental separation or divorce. London:Ministry of Justice.

Mullender, A., Hague, G., Imam, L., Kelly, L.,Malos, E. and Regan, L. (2002) Children’sPerspectives on Domestic Violence. London: Sage.

Radford, L., Aitken, R., Miller, P., Ellis, J., Roberts,J. and Firkic, A. (2011) Meeting the Needs ofChildren Living With Domestic Violence inLondon, London: NSPCC/Refuge.

Rayns, G. (2010) What are children and youngpeople’s views and opinions of perpetratorprogrammes for the violent father/male carer?London: NSPCC/ Children's WorkshopDevelopment Council.

Westmarland, N. and Kelly, L. (2012) Whyextending measurements of 'success' indomestic violence perpetrator programmesmatters for Social Work. British Journal ofSocial Work, 43(6), 1092-1110.

16

Please cite this briefing note as: Alderson, S., Kelly, L. and Westmarland, N. (2013)Domestic Violence Perpetrator Programmes and Children and Young People.London and Durham: London Metropolitan University and Durham University.

This research was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council [grantreference ES/H038086/1], the Northern Rock Foundation [grant reference20080739], and a Durham University doctoral fellowship.

Copyright © Durham University 2013

Durham University and the Durham University Logo are registered trade marks of theUniversity of Durham trading as Durham University. All rights reserved. ®

Design and Print by hpmgroup. HPM/11/13/177


children and young people - northern rock foundation · dvpps. in 2010 rayns, working for the...

Documents