May 8, 1996
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Core Committee charged with the creation of Vermont Department of Corrections Statewide Standards for Domestic Abuse Intervention explored the work of many other states and programs during the course of the project. In addition to seeking the best and latest ideas the committee did not wish to "reinvent the wheel." We wish to acknowledge the following documents which were used for reference and often quoted directly:
New York State Standards for Batterers Intervention Programs (DRAFT), New York State Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence, 52 Washington St. Room 366, Rensselaer, NY 12144.
Accountability: Program Standards for Batterer Intervention Services, Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence,
910 N. Second St., Harrisburg, PA 17102
Other programs and state standards that were used for reference include:
Colorado Treatment Standards for Domestic Violence Perpetrators
Massachusetts Guidelines and Standards for the Certification of Batterers' Intervention Programs
"Domestic Abuse Intervention Project, the Duluth Model," Pence
Emerge Program, Adams
New Hampshire Department of Corrections Policy and Procedure Directive on Domestic Violence
"Batterers Treatment Standards Comparison" a national survey of 10 states/programs
After due respect to the fine developmental work done in other locations it's fitting to acknowledge the demonstrated work and ideas of the many Vermont folks who have committed themselves to this work in our local communities over recent years. Our presence is impressive in its own right, and it is scattered throughout this document as the development process tried to bring the best of OUR knowledge and experience to the task at hand. We can all be proud of what we have accomplished so far while simultaneously accepting the challenge of the difficult work that still lies ahead of us. The Core Committee:
Ingrid Jonas, Spectrum/Domestic Abuse Education Program, Burlington Annabelle Lowrie, Women Helping Battered Women, Burlington
Jeri Martinez, Vermont Council on Family Violence, Montpelier
Michael Hartman, DELTA, Montpelier
Jill Evans, Department of Corrections, Burlington
Terri Herbert, Department of Corrections, Southwest
Dick Powell, Department of Corrections, Central Office
Thomas Hunter, Department of Corrections, Southeast
******************************NOTE***************************
In the interest of trying to make each section of this document complete and independent the reader will find some repetition and overlap. What the authors worked hard to avoid was contradiction.
The reader will also notice that all intervention designs herein are formulated for male perpetrators of domestic violence. The interventions are created in the context of enormously disproportionate degrees of male violence against women currently, and throughout the history of our society. Other types of relationship violence do exist in much lesser numbers. While some of the intervention tools and processes outlined in this document may be useful and applicable to other clients manifesting violent behavior, it is believed that other programs created for these groups would necessarily be distinctly different.
VERMONT
DEPARTMENT OFCORRECTIONS
STATEWIDE STANDARDSFOR
DOMESTIC ABUSEINTERVENTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Acknowledgements 1
Table of Contents 3
Purpose Statement
Why provide domestic abuse intervention services?
Why develop/utilize standards for domestic abuse education services?
1.0 Introduction 6
2.0 Background 9
3.0 Definitions and Basic Concepts 12
4.0 Statement of Philosophy 17
Guiding Principles
5.0 Program Principles of Practice 18
6.0 Ethical Standards 21
6.1 Program Ethics 21
6.2 Staff Ethics 21
6.3 Research Ethics 22
6.4 Ethical Violations 22
7.0 Intervention Modalities 23
7.1 Appropriate Modalities 23
7.2 Overview of Modalities 24
7.3 Inappropriate Methods 25
Controversies
8.0 Provider Expectations 27
8.1 County Domestic Violence Task Force Membership 27
8.2 Providers Coalition 27
8.3 Program Teams 28
8.4 Protocol with Network Victim Organizations 28
8.5 Training and Experience Standards 29
8.6 Staff Expectations 30
8.7 Program Outcomes and Evaluation 30
9.0 Batterer Intervention Program Guidelines 32
9.1 Appropriate Objectives for Batterer
Intervention Programs 32
9.2 Intervention Format 33
9.3 Group Composition 33
9.4 Group Capacity 34
9.5 Program Duration 34
9.6 Referral Procedure 35
9.7 Intake and Registration Requirements 35
9.8 Program Phases 36
9.9 Attendance Policy 36
9.10 Program Completion Criteria 37
9.11 Dismissal Criteria 37
9.12 Confidentiality Guidelines 38
9.13 Limited Confidentiality and Waiver with
Release of Information 39
9.14 Substance Use Policy 39
9.15 Adjunctive Treatment 40
9.16 Fees 41
9.17 Program Contract 41
9.18 Documentation Requirements 42
9.19 Content Requirements 43
9.20 Suggested Content Options 43
9.21 Program Information to Victims / Partners 44
9.22 Public Information and Community Education 44
10.0 Intensive Domestic Abuse Program (IDAP) 46
Intermediate Sanction Program
10.1 Program Definition 46
10.2 Target Population 47
10.3 Eligibility Criteria 47
10.4 Program Duration 48
10.5 Referral, Screening, and Eligibility
Determination 48
10.6 Program Components 49
10.6A. Victim Protection 49
10.6B. Batterer Intervention Program 49
10.6C. Cognitive Self Change Domestic
Violence Program 50
10.6C1 Program Description 50
10.6C2 Program Objectives 51
10.6C3 Group Composition and Capacity 52
10.6C4 Referral and Program Entry 52
10.6C5 Attendance Policy 52
10.6C6 Program Completion Criteria 53
10.6C7 Dismissal Criteria 53
10.6C8 Confidentiality Guidelines 54
10.6C9 Substance Use Policy 55
10.6C10 Adjunctive Treatment 55
10.6C11 Fees 56
10.6C12 Program Contract 57
10.6C13 Documentation Requirements 57
10.6C14 Program Information to Victims 57
10.6D. Case Management Services 58
10.6E. Supervision Services 58
10.6F. Residential and Victim Contact
Requirements 59
10.6G. Adjunctive Program Services 60
11.0 Collaboration Guidelines for Batterer Intervention 61
Programs and the Intensive Domestic Abuse Program
11.1 Partners of Program Participants 61
11.2 Network Programs 62
11.3 Criminal Justice System 64
11.4 County Domestic Violence Task Forces 66
11.5 Coalition of Batterer Intervention Programs 67
12.0 Role of Department of Corrections 68
12.1 Definition of Legal Statuses 68
12.2 Influencing the Sentencing Decision 69
12.3 Victim Protection - Contact Guidelines and Collaboration Requirements 69
12.4 DOC Perspective on Batterer Characteristics 71
12.5 Intake and Case Assignment 72
12.6 Assessment and Case Plan Development 73
12.7 Offender Accountability 74
12.71 Probation 74
12.72 Intermediate Sanction (IDAP) 75
12.8 Discharge criteria 75
12.9 Documentation 76
12.10 Program Marketing and Evaluation 77
12.11 Position Roles and Program Team 77
12.12 Special Conditions 79
Appendix A Identifying an Abuser's Risk Factors 81
Appendix B Common Crimes Committed in the Context of 82
Domestic Violence
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Domestic violence is a widespread problem that has dire consequences for families and for the communities in which families live. "Domestic violence" is the term used in the Vermont Statewide Standards for Domestic Abuse Intervention to describe an extensive range of tactics used by men to control the lives of the women with whom they are/were partnered. These tactics include patterns of physical, sexual, and psychological abuse and result in an atmosphere of fear and/or terror for the victim.
Domestic violence may result in death, permanent or other significant physical injury. Domestic violence almost always causes serious psychological damage to the victims. Importantly, not only are the primary victims affected, but so are the children who witness this abuse or who themselves are abused as part of a batterer's controlling and abusive tactics.
Domestic violence is rooted in a patriarchal society with sexism, the imbalance of power between men and women, as its foundation. Given the lethal nature of domestic violence as well as its impact on all within its range, each community should have a vested interest in eliminating and preventing domestic violence. To do so, it is helpful to recognize that it is a political, social and cultural problem. As such, it requires political, social and cultural solutions. Communities committed to ending domestic violence in a safe and ethical way should prioritize their efforts to assure:
1. Shelter, advocacy and support services for battered women and children.
2. Improvement and coordination of the criminal justice response to domestic violence at all levels of the criminal justice system. The criminal justice response should include a strong pro-arrest response by law enforcement, rigorous prosecution, appropriate adjudication, close monitoring by probation, and sentences which reflect the seriousness of the crime.
3. Professional training of health, social services providers and legal services providers.
4. Widespread community education.
When the aforementioned efforts are organized and monitored in a community, it then becomes appropriate to provide:
5. Domestic abuse intervention programs for batterers.
It is our belief that all of the aforementioned efforts must be in constant pursuit of better coordination with each other in order to be a catalyst for social change.
Intervention programs for batterers provide the courts with a service appropriate for all men who abuse, whether or not they are going to receive more serious consequences. At the time of the writing of these Standards (5/96), possible sentences for committing crimes relating to domestic violence in Vermont include the following: probation or split sentences with mandatory batterer intervention programming, intermediate sanction with all the conditions of the Intensive Domestic Abuse Program (summer 1996); incarceration with long term violent offender programming; and incarceration until near maximum sentence for offenders who do not complete required programs.
Domestic abuse intervention programs for batterers will provide individual participants with the information they need in order to stop their abusive behavior. In doing so, approaches used in batterer programs must hold offenders solely responsible for their acts and must prioritize victim safety in every aspect of the program.
It is important to emphasize that modalities traditionally used in the mental health field, which are excellent for dealing with a wide range of problems, are not appropriate for batterer programs. These modalities include stress management, anger control, psychotherapy, couples counseling, communication skills building, mediation and conflict resolution. In his article "Treatment Models of Men Who Batter: A Profeminist Analysis" (1988), David Adams articulates how these clinical approaches fail to adequately address the domestic violence by focusing on individual psychological issues that, although important, are not the cause of the domestic violence. This article will be referred to later in Statewide Standards for Domestic Abuse Intervention.
The aforementioned interventions are not designed to stop the violence while prioritizing safety for women and children. In light of the fact that a batterer's participation in any program or services often gives his partner and children a false sense of security and/or hope that he will stop being abusive, the use of any of these approaches to stop a batterer's violence and abuse may be more dangerous for their partners and children than no intervention at all.
Domestic abuse intervention programs designed to stop a man's domestic violence must be based on a complete understanding of the most effective strategies for this specific problem and must not be confused with the idea that a batterer may well need or want other services, also. "The vast majority of men who batter are not psychologically disturbed in the conventional sense. . . Their abuse is related to cultural, social, and political practices." (Gondolf, 1985). Programs designed to stop battering begin with and continually focus on that thesis.
The modality of group education is generally recognized by experts and domestic violence service providers as the most effective batterer intervention program format. All interventions designed to stop a man's domestic violence should be implemented by those well-educated and skilled in this format and in appropriate program methodologies. Providers of intervention for batterers should meet the highest standards. Their training requires in-depth understanding of domestic violence, battered women, and batterer intervention. A provider of batterer intervention requires different information than does one who provides psychotherapy, or the treatment of behavioral or interpersonal problems.
In conclusion, all programs for batterer intervention must operate as integral components of a broad societal response. Programs for batterers which operate in isolation from the wider community, inherently do not prioritize perpetrator accountability and victim safety, and may send confusing messages to victims, offenders and the public. Such programs have the potential for causing a great deal of harm.
Vermont can be a leader in addressing the problem of domestic violence as the social problem of devastating consequence that it is. We must adopt an approach to encourage intervention programs for batterers across the state to operate as part of a much larger community response, and to provide interventions that are accountable to battered women, aimed at addressing batterer accountability for violence, and that best promote the safety of women and children.
2.0 BACKGROUND
In 1994 the Vermont Department of Corrections (DOC) began a process aimed at enhancing and increasing the Vermont criminal justice system options for responding to domestic violence. During the first year of this process presentations were made and ideas were solicited from the Vermont Council on Family Violence, programs of the Vermont Network Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, judges, State's Attorneys, defense attorneys, batterer program providers, DOC staff, and others. A plan was put together that spelled out specific tasks that needed to be accomplished to implement those plans and a collaborative task force was assembled to do that work beginning in November 1995. The "Statewide Standards for Domestic Abuse Intervention," was a direct result. These Standards, which have implications for program development and consistency, are slated for implementation in August 1996.
The Department of Corrections' context for this work has been a driving factor in terms of identifying the need. Fifteen years ago only the most heinous of domestic violence cases came into the purview of the Department of Corrections and these were usually aggravated assault cases where an offender was sentenced to incarceration. The DOC placed these offenders into available programs without any specific design aimed at intervening with domestic violence. Psychotherapeutic resources were brought to bear where they could be, but more often than not, these resources were unaffordable, unavailable, or inappropriate.
Substantial change has occurred over the past 10 years. Battered women advocates have instigated changes in the law and enforcement of the law which have led to a steadily increasing number of men convicted of domestic abuse crimes. As probation caseloads increased, Corrections again tried the mental health (i.e., fix the disease) approach but still found it inaccessible, unaffordable, and most importantly, ineffective. In the latter half of the 80's the Department of Corrections and a few forward-looking individuals introduced the domestic violence education programs developed in Duluth, Minnesota (Pence) and Quincy, Massachusetts (Emerge / Adams). These programs, their ever evolving development, and a few other influences have shaped the domestic violence response to batterers from then until now.
Independent of efforts by the Department of Corrections in the early 1980's some communities across the state did create batterer intervention programs, but most of these were short lived. Appropriately, the majority of communities focused their efforts on the creation of shelters and outreach services for victims. However, batterer programs did develop in Barre, Burlington, White River Jct., St. Johnsbury and other communities. In other areas it was the shelter and outreach programs that eventually spurred formation of some programs. In Springfield the Men's Education Project was the joint effort of New Beginnings and the DOC.
In 1988 there was some effort made by DELTA and DAEP, batterer intervention programs in Barre and Burlington, to form a statewide association of batterer programs. The effort, known as the Vermont Association of Domestic Violence Workers, lasted briefly, but faded by late 1989. In 1993 the same programs, with assistance of the University of Vermont Department of Social Work and the Vermont Network Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, again began to form a similar association. These meetings, combined with the concurrent interest of the Department of Corrections, led to the formation of a collaborative committee to examine how both DOC and batterer programs could benefit by working conjointly.
Today 30% to 40% of the Department of Corrections' high risk caseload consists of domestic violence cases. There are approximately 30 batterer education classes being offered in at least a dozen Vermont communities with over 300 men enrolled in these programs at any given time. Over 90% of these men are convicted of domestic abuse crimes and are court ordered to participate in these programs as a condition of probation.
For the most part, these programs have grown up independently of each other and there is no state-wide organization. Because the Department of Corrections is the primary referral source, it has an interest in uniform quality, consistency, and fairness. There is a need for similar standards regarding offender accountability and victim safety as well as the need for consistency in the message and information being promulgated. The Department of Corrections is attempting to fill this void by gathering a task force to develop standards for these programs. For now, the DOC can lead in developing an ability to compare, evaluate, and consequently distribute information prompting continuous improvement in the effectiveness of these interventions.
In addition to developing standards for the education programs the Department sought collaboration in considering the viability and then, in the development, of an intermediate sanction program. An intermediate sanction program is a community based corrections status more demanding and more restrictive than probation, but still short of incarceration. This status is actually a "pre-approved" furlough, which means that an offender is out of jail and may reside in the community only as long as he abides by the strict conditions of this sentence. He can be incarcerated immediately, within the guidelines of Corrections' due process, if he is non-compliant. The Department found widespread agreement that this would be an excellent additional option between probation and jail for domestic violence cases. In this program, the Intensive Domestic Abuse Program (IDAP), offenders will be involved in treatment intervention at least 3 times per week, and depending on need, they can be involved in many additional program resources. IDAP offenders will be supervised intensively including frequent contact with Correctional staff and control over where they live and where they go, on a daily basis.
The Department is engaged in a research project that will gather assessment information on domestic violence perpetrators. The goal is to validate specific indicators that can be predictive about the degree of future risk posed by an offender. If that can be accomplished, program placement and levels of supervision can be rationally assigned commensurate with the degree of risk, including identifying offenders whose risk cannot be managed safely in the community. This would be extremely valuable to the sentencing recommendation process as well as to determining the degree of DOC resources warranted.