VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAMMES FOR OFFENDERS OF
INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE IN BRITISH COLUMBIA*
By Jane Katz1 and Harry Stefanakis 2

I. INTRODUCTION
Recent reports (World Health Organization, 1997; Garcia-Moreno, 2000) estimate that one of every three
women around the globe has experienced violence in an intimate relationship at some point in her life.
(Nayak, Byrne, Martin & Abraham, 2003).
It has been almost thirty years since domestic violence entered public and political awareness as apervasive social problem in Canada. Prior to 1970, violence against women in relationships was hidden andusually managed through medical interventions with the women. This frequently involved the prescriptionof tranquilizers and a return to the relationship (DeKeseredy & MacLeod, 1997). Domestic violence started
becoming a public issue through the efforts of a grassroots women’s movement that viewed violence against
women as abuse of power in a patriarchal society. These women’s groups set about building shelters andsupportive counselling for women who wanted to escape abusive relationships. Mental health issues for
women in abusive relationships began to be seen as normal reactions to abnormal events.
In addition to shelters for women, by the late 1970’s “batterer’s” programmes were beginning to emerge in
Canada. Originally programmes for men were created to meet the demands of women who wanted help for
their partners. A parallel process was occurring in the United States. Over the subsequent 25 years in Canada,
a combination of public awareness, an increasingly aggressive response by the criminal justice system,
coordinated community responses, and attention to intervention needs for both women victims and maleperpetrators has helped create a more sophisticated response to domestic violence. Our strategy for
responding to male offenders has involved changes to criminal justice policy and legislation, research into
* Editors note: This paper was presented at the 130th International Training Course by Harry Stefanakis in his role as avisiting expert; however, the paper was written with Jane Katz.
1 Jane Katz, M.A. is a Registered Clinical Counsellor in British Columbia. She has been involved in domestic violence work for
25 years. She has worked with child and adult victims as well as with both male and female adult offenders. Ms. Katz and herhusband, Dr. Zender Katz, developed and co-facilitated the Ministry of Attorney General funded Fraser Valley Family Violence
Programme from 1990-2003. This programme provided group treatment for men on probation for spousal violence as well as
support groups for the women partners. Ms. Katz also developed and delivered the Family Relationships programme for the
Correctional Services of Canada and was involved in development of CSC’s national family violence programmes. Ms. Katz has
developed and delivered programmes for adolescents and for incarcerated women who have used violence in relationships.
She has provided training and supervision for programmes in B.C. and Nova Scotia, and more recently in Japan for a
programme funded through the Bureau of Gender Equity. Ms. Katz has been very involved in community coordination
initiatives and is a founding member of the Ending Relationship Abuse Society of B.C. (current vice-president). Currently Ms.
Katz is a consultant for the Ministry of Public Safety and Attorney General in programme development for male and female
offenders, a trainer for B.C. Corrections and the Justice Institute of B.C., a therapist in private practice and an associate faculty
member in the department of Organizational Leadership and Learning at Royal Roads University.
2 Dr. Harry Stefanakis is a registered psychologist. He has over 12 years experience working with men who have assaulted
their partner and has completed a research project on how men stop using violence and abuse. Dr. Stefanakis has intervened
with men in prison, court-ordered men on probation and with voluntary men using individual and group modalities. He has
designed several community and institutional programmes and has provided training and supervision on domestic abuse. Dr.
Stefanakis has presented his research and theories at national and international conferences. In addition, Dr. Stefanakis has
worked as an advocate for larger social and policy changes through his work with the Ending Relationship Abuse Society of BC(current president) and the BC Community Coordination for Women’s Safety Committee. Dr. Stefanakis was a consultant to
the Ministry of the Attorney General in their Family Violence core programmes initiative. He currently runs a clinical andconsulting practice in Vancouver, B.C.

39

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.69

understanding men’s violence against their intimate partners and identifying whether or not there is a “profile”
of the man who assaults his partner, all is an effort to provide effective treatment programmes for offenders. We
still have much work to do, but our path to date, with all the pitfalls and successes, may provide helpful
information for other Nations who are looking for ways to stop violence against women in relationships.

II. THE PREVALENCE AND SEVERITY OF DOMESTIC ABUSE
Domestic violence is a pervasive social problem causing significant physical, psychological and economic
impact in Canadian society. Many sources of statistics are available that demonstrate the prevalence, and a
few are cited here.

A. Incidence in Canada
The Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics (2004) cited the following information taken from a
representative sample of 94 police departments in Canada:• In 2002 27% of all victims of violent crimes were victims of family violence, and 62% of these cases
involved spousal violence (population 31,361,311). Over 34,000 cases were reported in this sample(this represents 56% of the national volume).
• Females accounted for 85% of all victims of spousal violence reported to the police.
• Young females aged 25-34 were most likely to be victims.
• 80% of incidents resulted in a charge being laid by police; 82% of incidents involving female victims
and 17% of incidents involving male victims.
• In 2002 there were 67 females and 16 males killed by an intimate partner (based on reports from theentire country, not a representative sample.) Over half of the homicide victims had a reported historyof domestic violence, and the majority (58%) had a previous conviction for a violent offence.
B. Incidence in British Columbia
According to the report Violent Crime in British Columbia (Ministry of Public Safety and Attorney
General, 2004), the following are statistics for 2003 (population 4,130,759):• The lifetime prevalence rates for spousal abuse are 25% in Canada and 32% in BC.
• Fourteen victims of homicide were killed by a spouse or ex-spouse.
• There were 9,186 incidents of spousal assault reported in British Columbia. 81% of offenders weremale, 11% were female. The remainder involved cases where both were charged.
• More than two thirds of those charged have a prior criminal record, and half of those are for aprevious violent offence.
• Over 40% were alcohol related.
III. FACTORS AFFECTING INCIDENCE OF ABUSE
The following are taken from The Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics (2004):• Rates of violence were higher when the spouse was looking for work.
• Rates were higher among those who are heavy drinkers.
• Spouses in step-families are more likely to experience violence.
• Spouses with children under the age of 15 living in the home are more likely to experience violence.
• 80% of victims of criminal harassment had some form of relationship with their stalkers. Females
were most likely to be harassed by a partner.
• Rates of spousal homicide have continued to decline over the past three decades; however data
continue to indicate women are more at risk than men. (Eight women per million couples as opposed
to two men per million couples.) The risk is higher for younger and common law couples.
• In 2002 there were 67 females and 16 males killed by an intimate partner (based on reports from theentire country, not a representative sample.)• Over half of the homicide victims had a reported history of domestic violence, and the majority(58%) had a previous conviction for a violent offence.
• The motivations for spousal homicide vary, but reportedly since 1993 44% resulted from theescalation of an argument, jealousy accounted for 22%, frustration, anger or despair was cited as
16%, revenge 3% and financial gain 3%.
• Between 1993 and 2002, murder-suicides were involved in one third of spousal homicides against
women and 3% of spousal homicides against men.
• From 1997 to 2001 35% of convicted violent offenders were spouses. 19% of these convictions
resulted in prison sentences. 72% resulted in probation. Those under the age of 25 and those
estranged from their spouses were more likely to receive jail sentences.

40

130th INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS•

Sexual assault against a spouse is more likely to result in a conditional sentence than sexual assault
against someone other than a spouse.

In general the rate of reporting has increased since 1993 as a result of policies, however, in 1993 12% of
women in relationships reported violence and in 2000 this had declined to 8% of women.
The number of reported assaults is staggering and reflects only a portion of what is actually occurring. It
is even more alarming to consider what this represents with respect to other forms of abusive behaviour inrelationships. We know that prior to and concurrent with incidents of domestic violence there are manyother forms of controlling and abusive behaviour (verbal and psychological) occurring that cause tremendous
emotional damage to individuals in families. Studies have indicated that while not all men who are abusive as
adults have experienced or witnessed physical violence as children, almost all report experiencing emotional
abuse and/or neglect (Widom, 1989). The consequences of abuse are far reaching and must be addressed at
the non-physical level in order to avoid escalation to physical violence.

IV. THE IMPACT OF VIOLENCE IN RELATIONSHIPS
Many studies have reported on the social impact of domestic violence. The Centre for Research onViolence Against Women and Children estimated annual costs of domestic violence in Canada to be at least$4.2 billion in 1995. These costs take into account findings that 45% of all women who had experienced
violence had suffered an injury, 43% of those injured required medical attention and 53% had taken time offwork. (Statistics Canada, 1993). In 2000 there were 96,359 admissions to 448 women’s shelters in Canada(57,182 women and 39,177 children). More than 71% of these shelters turned women away on one or more
occasion.
One of the most significant impacts of domestic violence involves children. Many studies have identified
the high co-occurrence of domestic violence against women and abuse of children in the home. In 28% ofchild homicides there was also a known history of domestic violence (Statistics Canada, 1999). In addition,
the impact on children who witness violence is profound. It is estimated that children see or hear over 80%of the violence between their parents. Many studies have suggested children have the same reactions towitnessing violence as children who are the victims of direct violence (Suderman and Jaffe, 1997; Groves,
2002; Jaffe, P. Baker, L. & Cunningham, 2004). These studies report the following: reduced academic
success, aggressiveness, non-compliance, irritability, being easily angered, anxiety, depression, withdrawal,
low self esteem and an increase in somatic complaints. Suderman and Jaffe (1997) also found that 56% ofchildren of women in shelters met the criteria for PTSD. In addition, they reported “subtle” symptoms inchildren, such as inappropriate attitudes regarding conflict and violence against women, condoning
relationship violence, and hypersensitivity about problems at home, and self-blame. These symptoms are
more likely to lead to victimization and/or aggression in relationships as an adult, as well as othersocialization problems. Robinson and Taylor (1994) found that 50% of federal Canadian offenders had
witnessed or been victims of abuse in their families of origin.

V. REDUCTION IN VIOLENCE
Five year prevalence rates suggest a decrease in intimate partner violence in Canada (Statistics Canada,
2002).3 The following reductions were reported:• Severe types of assault (beating, choking, sexual assault) dropped from 50% to 43% of all victims.
• Proportion of victims reporting injury dropped from 47% to 40%.
• Proportion of victims reporting injury requiring medical attention dropped from 21% to 15%.
• Fewer women experiencing chronic (10 or more) assaults.
• The rate of spousal homicide decreased by 26% between 1993-1999.

VI. WOMEN’S USE OF VIOLENCE IN RELATIONSHIPS
Police reports suggest that male on female spousal assault is much more prevalent than female on male.
Some research studies have suggested that women’s use of violence in relationships can be as prevalent as
men’s (Kwong, Bartholemew & Dutton, 1999; Statistics Canada General Social Survey, 2000). These
3 It is important to note that the same study showed the number of women who are afraid has gone up 3%.

41

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.69

findings have been criticized because the survey questions did not explore the emotional context in which
the violence occurred. In addition, the surveys did not explore sexual abuse in the relationship, othercontrolling behaviours or power imbalances. Furthermore, there is much evidence to suggest the severity ofviolence and the resulting emotional and physical injury is much greater for women (Jiwani, 2000; Dasgupta,
2001; DeKeseredy & Martin, 2003). Critics of the view that abuse is equal between men and women refer toevidence that women are more likely to experience injury, to require medical attention, to be victims of
multiple assaults in the same relationship, to be assaulted after separation and to be victims of domestic
homicide (Report to the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministers Responsible for the Status of Women,
2002).
In programmes in B.C. for men who have assaulted their wives or girlfriends it is common to ask theparticipants if they have also been physically assaulted by their partners (Katz, 2002). At least 70% will say
they have been. This is then followed by these questions:• Were you injured?
• Did you require medical attention?
• Were you afraid for your life?
While occasionally there are men who say they were injured or afraid for their lives, the majority said
they were not injured or afraid. Most state the emotion they experienced was frustration or anger.
It is often suggested that embarrassment prevents men from calling the police. This may be acontributing factor, however it is also likely most men don’t call police because they are not afraid of injury.
The emotional context of a violent argument is different for men and women. If a woman starts the physicalconflict by hitting her partner she may be angry at the time (or afraid.) If the man responds with physicalviolence it doesn’t take long before the woman’s anger will turn to fear (or existing fear will escalate) while
his anger likely escalates, and of course people are more likely to call the police when they are afraid. One
finding suggested that 38% of women feared for their lives compared to 6% of men (Report to the FederalProvincial-Territorial Ministers Responsible for the Status of Women, 2002).
Of course women can be violent and cause injury. In B.C. police are becoming increasingly responsive towomen’s use of violence in relationships and increasingly women are being charged. Men are still more
likely to be charged for less severe incidents of violence which may reflect a tendency for men not to call thepolice unless the violence perpetrated by the women is severe. Programmes for women who use violence
are currently only funded in institutional settings and are not available in the community.4

VII. THE DEVELOPMENT OF POLICY AND PROCEDURESFOR RESPONDING TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCEIn Canada, prior to 1983 domestic violence was considered to be primarily a social issue as opposed to acriminal justice issue; charges and convictions were rare, other than in the most extreme cases of violence
or in the case of homicide. In fact, it was not until a report on the prevalence, nature and social/economic
impact of violence against women in relationships was presented to the House of Commons in 1982 that itwas even considered to be a severe social issue. As a result of this report, in 1983 Solicitor General Robert
Kaplan directed police chiefs across Canada to engage in more aggressive arrest and charge policies for
those who engaged in violence in intimate relationships. This resulted in intimate partner assault becoming
recognized in Canada as a serious criminal act, and increased awareness of the pervasiveness of domestic
violence.
In British Columbia, the Ministry of Attorney General responded to the federal directive by creating the1984 Wife Assault Policy. This policy emphasized arrest whenever sufficient evidence was found. A
significant factor in this policy removed the responsibility from the victim to lay the charges against her
partner. Unfortunately, legislation does not change attitudes, and it took some time for attitudes andbehaviours of arresting officers to change and for police to respond with the laying of criminal charges as
4 One of the authors of this paper (Jane Katz) has developed programmes for incarcerated women who use violence inrelationships. In addition, both authors have delivered community programmes for partners of men who use violence, andmany of those women acknowledge having used some form of physical violence and many forms of emotional/verbal abuse in
the relationship, either offensively or defensively. A focus on safety and responsibility is important for both men and women.
When either a man or a woman uses violence in a relationship s/he is not only impacting others’ safety, but also her/his own.

42

130th INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

required. Over time the police and prosecution response became more aligned with the “zero tolerance”
approach outlined by the Ministry of Attorney General. Multiple revisions were required to create aneffective coordinated response, culminating in the 1996 Violence Against Women in Relationships (VAWIR)
Policy which is currently in effect.
The 1996 VAWIR Policy was founded on the principle that society must be given a clear message that
violence in relationships is unacceptable. In addition, to be effective coordination of services is essential. To
this end the following are cited in the policy as being absolutely necessary for an effective coordinatedresponse:••••

victim protection, safety and support through swift police response, shelters, education andadvocacy, no contact orders;involvement with the court system through strong pro-arrest policies, clear guidelines andprocedures for investigation and prosecution to increase convictions, enforcement of protection
orders, probation guidelines, interagency flow of information;legal sanctions with increasingly harsh penalties for repeat offenders;mandatory treatment programmes for offenders, in keeping with Canada’s criminal justice system
philosophy regarding the rehabilitation of offenders.

Since domestic violence is a criminal justice issue in Canada, it is helpful to look briefly at Canada’s
history of responding to criminal behaviour, particularly with respect to treatment. A watershed moment in
Canadian Corrections occurred in 1938 when the Archambault Commission first postulated that treatment
and rehabilitation of offenders (as opposed to just punishment) were objectives of the criminal justicesystem. This was influenced by humanitarian prison reform movements in the United Kingdom; there werealso parallel processes occurring in the United States in the 1930’s (Giardini, 1942). A corollary of thisincreased focus on treatment was the recognition of the differing needs of offenders, leading to the hiring ofclassification officers post WWII. In the mid 1950’s the Correctional Services of Canada began to employ
psychologists and those with psychological training for testing, counselling and psychotherapy.
In the early 1970’s a “nothing works” backlash from US prison reformers resulted in a decline in funding
for treatment programmes in many jurisdictions in the United States (Watkins, 1992). Although this had an
impact in Canada as well, Canada chose to persevere with the philosophy that treatment is required forrehabilitation. Two processes unfolded to help deal with the backlash: 1) a growing focus on ‘evidence-based’
treatment driven by research, evaluation and accountability and 2) an increased use of clinical and appliedsocial psychologists (either under contract or on staff) as practitioners, consultants and researchers in risk
assessment, programme development and programme delivery. The Correctional Services of Canada hasdeveloped a full slate of accredited programmes for offenders aimed at addressing all levels of risk and all
criminal needs, including domestic violence.
Canada has two correctional systems - provincial and federal. Any offender who is sentenced to over two
years of incarceration becomes the responsibility of the Correctional Services of Canada (CSC), whichmeans the vast majority of offenders in the country fall under the jurisdiction of provincial correctional
systems. As with all provincial systems, the Corrections Branch of British Columbia is expected to alignitself with federal policy, and as such was impacted by the initiatives of the federal system toward
rehabilitation. In 1946 the British Columbia Gaol Commission created the foundation for the development ofprocedures for offender management aimed at rehabilitation, including correctional programmes (Doherty &Ekstedt, 1992). As with CSC, the involvement of clinical, forensic and applied social psychologists in thedevelopment of evidence based programmes and risk assessment tools has been a significant focus ofoffender management and rehabilitation in B.C. Programmes in the past twenty years.
The majority of spousal assault convictions, then and now, do not result in federal sentences unless theassault results in significant injury or death. However, Robinson and Taylor (1994) conducted a file review offederal offenders and found that independent of the crime for which they were convicted, 25% had engagedin acts of violence towards a female partner (physical, sexual or psychological assault). This paralleled anearlier study by Dutton and Hart (1992). It is important to point out these reviews only identified those
offenders with reported incidents of violence. In keeping with evidence that all domestic violence isunderreported, it is estimated the actual incidence of domestic violence as defined by physical, sexual or

43

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.69

psychological abuse is much higher in federal offenders than this file review suggests. In addition, bothstudies found that file information suggested almost half of federal offenders had been victimized or had
witnessed some form of family violence as children. This is certainly a higher proportion than what is seenin the community, and again reflects only what is on the file. Finally, consistent with the general family
violence literature, both studies found that offenders who witnessed or experienced abuse as children were
far more likely to be abusive in their adult relationships. These studies clearly indicate that a focus ondomestic violence programming is important for male federal offenders. (It is also important for female
offenders as the rate of childhood abuse in women offenders has been shown to be equally high, if nothigher.)VIII. DEVELOPMENT OF MANDATED PROGRAMMESIN THE CORRECTIONAL SERVICES OF CANADAIn the early 1990’s CSC developed a ten session educational programme called “Living Without
Violence” which was delivered by trained correctional officers. In various parts of the country psychoeducational cognitive-behavioural, pro-feminist (i.e. viewing violence against women as grounded in a power
imbalance between men and women) treatment programmes were offered by contracted therapists.5 In thelate 1990’s CSC pulled together some of these therapists, along with researchers and other experts in thefield, to consult on the development of accredited National Moderate and High Intensity Family Violence
programmes for male offenders (MIFVP and HIFVP).
The MIFVP and the HIFVP are cognitive-behavioural and 26 and 72 sessions respectively were
implemented in 2000 in federal institutions across Canada. Admission to the programmes is based on the
Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA), identified incidents of physical violence and an offender
risk/needs assessment. Until April of 2005 the CSC Pacific Region in British Columbia also offered a
programme called Family Relationships as an alternative to the Moderate Intensity programme. It had agreater focus on meeting the relationship skills needs of all offenders, not just those who with reported
incidents of violence, and was more preventive in nature. Unfortunately, a focus on accreditation andworking only with reported criminal behaviour has put this programme on hold at this time. This
programme, however, had the highest completion rate of any programme in the Correctional Service ofCanada and speaks strongly to the need for male offenders to learn more about developing healthy, nonviolent relationship skills. Findings that suggest there is a high incidence of domestic violence and abuse in
offender intimate relationships, and that stable relationships are a significant factor in preventing recidivism,
suggests there is a need to address relationship violence pro-actively, not just when incidents have beenreported.

IX. DEVELOPMENT OF MANDATED PROGRAMMESIN BRITISH COLUMBIA CORRECTIONSThe sentences for spousal assault are usually under two years, which means most spousal assault
offenders end up supervised in the community by probation officers. After the implementation of the Wife
Assault Policy in 1984 the police became more efficient in arrest and charge policies, women were no longer
able to drop charges and as a result the incidence of conviction increased. This led to an increased number ofmen on probation for spousal violence. In the province of B.C. these men have been designated as K-fileoffenders, and currently K-files account for approximately 22% of sentenced offenders supervised throughprobation.6 Over 80% of these clients are considered to be medium or high risk.
By 1989 the B.C. Ministry of Attorney General had provided funding for three programmes for male Kfile offenders on probation. These were delivered by The Victoria Family Violence Project, The Vancouver
Assaultive Men’s Programme and the Fraser Valley Family Violence Programme.7 In 1992, based on the

5 Ms. Katz developed and delivered this programme in the Pacific Region for CSC from 1992-2005. It was called the Family

Relationships Programme.
6 This does not include probation clients who are on conditional sentences, peace bonds or bail.
7 Ms. Katz was the Director of the Fraser Valley Family Violence Programme from 1990-2003. Research on this programme’s

effectiveness is included in the study by Kropp & Bodnarchuk, 2001.

44

130th INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

ever increasing numbers of K-files, funding for spousal assault programmes was made available through the
Ministry of Attorney General to over 50 communities in the province.8 Most of these programmes wererequired to include therapist contact with the victims to ensure safety and to become involved in community
coordinating committees to help implement and monitor the VAWIR policies. Some programmes had
additional funding to provide support groups and/or counselling for the women victims.
In order to make it more likely offenders would comply with mandated orders, significant work was done
to ensure the wording of court orders was such that expectations to attend programmes were clear; e.g. Will
attend counselling as directed by the probation officer, and complete to the satisfaction of the probation
officer and the counsellor. Offenders who did not comply were considered to be in breach of their court
order, taken back to court and additional sanctions were levied. While there were significant challenges inthe early years resulting in relatively low completion rates in some of these programmes, it ultimately began
to work well. By 1995 there was a significant turn around in completion rates and many of the programmes
were running successfully.
Consistency in the delivery of these programmes was primarily guided by a set of principles developedby the BC Association of Counsellors of Abusive Men (ACAM). This association was founded in 1989 by agroup of therapists interested in promoting the development and implementation of high quality
interventions for men. A collaborative process between ACAM, representatives of provincial government
ministries (Attorney General, Health, Social Services, Women’s Equality), and community agencies
providing services to women victims of domestic violence resulted in a set of guiding principles for engaging
in responsible and effective work with the men. These principles were based on what was considered bestpractices at the time. They became embedded in programme contracts and provided some consistency forthe delivery of the programmes in the province, although programmes were not otherwise standardized.
The guiding principles developed by ACAM have been adopted by many programmes in Canada. The
direct goals of treatment as defined by ACAM are: to stop the physical violence, reduce the whole array ofabusive and controlling behaviours and provide men with alternatives to abuse which encourage sharing
power and decision making in a respectful relationship. The full document containing 31 principles can befound on the ACAM website (www.bcacam.bc.ca).9 They include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

The safety of women and children is paramount.
Access to women’s safety services and supportive counselling for partners is a prerequisite to theeffective implementation of men’s treatment.
Great care should be taken to be conservative in communicating expectations for change in men’s
behaviour so as not to bias women’s self-protective decision-making.
Ongoing contact with women partners is important for assessment purposes and assurance of her
safety. Contact should be based on her willingness to participate.
A coordinated system of services for women and men ensures a consistency in consequences andresponse.
Cooperation among men’s treatment programmes, probation, Crown counsel and the judiciary isnecessary to allow breach charges to succeed, thereby increasing accountability.
An approach to each individual man that demonstrates respect and compassion, while holding him
accountable, is fundamental to the process of change.
A treatment philosophy focusing on attitude change and skill development is considered mosteffective. A cognitive-behavioural approach is recommended.
Programmes should include strategies to reduce minimization, denial and blame, while raisingawareness of the nature of all forms of abuse, the impact of abuse and teaching skills aimed atmanaging difficult emotions without abusive behaviour. Use of anger management alone is notconsidered effective treatment.
Group counselling is the preferred treatment modality.
Men’s groups should be led by a two-person team, preferably male/female.
Couples counselling is not recommended in early stages of treatment.

8 Dr. Stefanakis facilitated programmes for the Vancouver Assaultive Men’s Programme and developed and ran the
Alternatives to Violence Programme at New Haven Correctional Centre between 1996 and 2001.
9 ACAM has recently changed its name to the Ending Relationship Abuse Society of B.C. Currently ERA is revising theguiding principles.

45

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.69

•
•
•
•

Careful assessment and evaluation techniques are necessary to maintain the effectiveness of the
programme.
Programmes should not advocate for men in legal proceedings.
Programmes must have a clear policy around responding immediately to situations that suggest
someone is at risk
Alcohol, while often involved, does not cause violence, however might be a barrier to treatment if
not addressed.

ACAM invited all counsellors in B.C. working in the field who agreed with the guiding principles to join
the organization. While not mandatory, most of the people delivering programmes in the province became
involved in the 1990’s. An important purpose of ACAM was to provide opportunities for networking andeducation in a new field; this was done primarily through an annual conference.
In the late 1990’s the Ministry of Attorney General felt pressure to develop greater standardization ofprogramme delivery across the province. In 1997 the Corrections Branch embarked on a new model fortreatment delivery. Between 1999 and 2002, B.C. Corrections consulted with experts in the field including
the authors of this paper, other members of ACAM, researchers from Correctional Services of Canada andvictim services in the development of a two phase treatment programme for men. The first phase is a ten
session pre-treatment educational group programme called Respectful Relationships (RR) that is deliveredby trained Correctional and Probation officers. This programme is delivered both in the provincial jails and in
the community. The second phase is a standardized 17 session psycho-educational, cognitive-behaviouralgroup programme called the Relationship Violence Treatment Programme (RVTP) which is delivered bycontracted therapists. This programme is primarily offered in the community since provincial jail sentences
tend not to be long enough to complete both RR and RVT. This restructuring of programme delivery wasdone in the service of achieving greater accountability and more accurate evaluation.
It is early days yet for these two programmes. Both have undergone revisions as the Corrections Branchappears to be committed to finding a process that is effective.10 A benefit of the RR programme is that allcommunity and many custody corrections staff are being trained to deliver it and therefore are learning tomodel skills and respond to clients both one-on-one and in groups in ways that promote non-violent
relationships. The RVTP programme is currently being managed by one contractor who is required to find,train and supervise over 60 counsellors delivering programmes throughout the province. As a result,availability of programmes and coordination of services have suffered somewhat in the early stages of thisnew initiative. In addition, there is now limited funding for voluntary clients as programmes are being
strictly held to a “corrections clients only” policy. There is also a concern that standardization ofprogrammes in such a new field will limit innovative efforts to meet the varied treatment needs of all
offenders and improve treatment outcomes. The very positive note in this, however, is that B.C. continues
to see domestic violence as a criminal justice issue and is committed to finding solutions.
Currently in B.C. the criminal justice response to violence against women in relationships continues tofollow the 1996 VAWIR policy. This includes the following procedures:• Police are required to respond quickly and arrest and charge if there is any sign of violence.
• Charges are not laid or dropped at the request of the victim.
• No-contact orders are put in place and not dropped solely at the request of the victim, but rather
through recommendation by the probation officer.
• Violations of no-contact orders can lead to a breach of probation charge.
• Victim services and probation officers contact the women and make appropriate referrals to sheltersand counselling services.
• Men are court-mandated to attend programmes and are breached for non-compliance.
Four of the possible outcomes of sentencing include:• Jail sentence and condition to attend counselling as directed.
• Jail sentence, probation and condition to attend counselling as directed.
• Peace-bond and requirement to attend counselling as directed.
• Conditional sentence and requirement to attend counselling as directed.
10 Ms. Katz provides training for facilitators of both RR and RVT, is the author of the current version of RR and significant

portions of the revised RVT.

46

130th INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

The last two sentencing outcomes do not result in a criminal record if the offender meets the conditionsof his sentence. If alcohol was involved in the charge there is also often a requirement to abstain fromdrinking.
The challenge for domestic violence, as with many criminal behaviours, is that without prompting
through the criminal justice system it is unlikely offenders will seek out intervention on their own volition.
The Criminal Code of Canada has made provision for court mandated treatment through the following
sections:• Section 732.1 (1) Optional Conditions of probation order: (3) (g) if the offender agrees, and subject tothe programme director’s acceptance of the offender, participate actively in a treatment programmeapproved by the province.
• Section 742.1 (a) Where the court imposes a sentence of imprisonment of less than two years, and(b) is satisfied that serving the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of thecommunity . . . . the court may, for the purpose of supervising the offender’s behaviour in thecommunity, order that the offender serve the sentence in the community subject to the offender’scomplying with the conditions.
• 742.3 (1) The court shall prescribe, as conditions of a conditional sentence order, that the offender doall of the following: (e) attend a treatment programme approved by the province, and (f) comply withsuch other reasonable conditions as the court considers desirable, subject to any regulations . . .
While the first section clearly states that the offender must agree, the following sections encourage
compliance with conditions that include counselling. In the federal correctional system an inmate is awarded
early release or parole based on the risk he poses to society. Offenders are considered to be more likely tobe able to manage their risk if they have completed a treatment programme. In the provincial system
programmes are often a condition of probation.
Mandating of programmes has frequently led to questions about programme effectiveness. This of course
has led to the importance of developing programmes that engage offenders in learning and change, and thiswill be discussed later in this paper. There are limited studies examining the differences between voluntaryand court-mandated referrals; however, there is some evidence to suggest voluntary convicted offenders areless likely to complete treatment, or be successful with treatment. Certainly in the many years ofprogramme delivery conducted by the authors of this paper this has been confirmed. With respect todomestic violence, it is frequently the case that even those who are “voluntary” are externally motivated toseek out treatment because their partner has left and refuses to come home, their children have been
apprehended or they are seeking custody. If these external factors are resolved early in the programme it is
not unusual for voluntary clients to drop out. A court mandate is more likely to result in completion oftreatment.

X. PRO-ARREST AND PRO-CHARGE
The pro-arrest, pro-charge guidelines that are part of the VAWIR policy in B.C. reflect a desire toemphasize the criminality of violence against women in intimate relationships. The literature about the
impact of arrest alone on recidivism has provided mixed findings. Studies seem to suggest it has an impactthat is short-lived and most significant with men who are married or employed and have “something to lose”(Sherman & Berk, 1984; Berk, Campbell, Klap & Western, 1992; Gelles, 1993). Studies do suggest,
however, that pro-arrest, pro-charge policies have a significant impact on the safety of women because they
promote the following: immediate protection, time to consider options, access to support services,
information about abuse and time to make alternative living arrangements (Buel, 1988; Jaffe, Hastings,
Reitzel and Austin,1993; Stark, 1996; Tolman, 1996; Varco, Jaffer & Kelln, 2002). Russell (2002) researchedcriminal justice responses in B.C. and found that arrest is the most effective strategy for ensuring safety ofvictims and decreasing the rate of abuse. These policies give a strong message to society about theseriousness and inappropriateness of the behaviour.
In Canada, police make the arrest and the Crown Counsel (prosecution) lays the charges. Pro-arrest, procharge policies have been shown to improve police and crown practice by minimizing the impact of individualbias. A review of the literature conducted by the B.C. Institute Against Family Violence (MacRae, 2003)
cited many research findings that supported the use of a standardized response for the following reasons:• The personal domestic situation of police officers made them more or less likely to arrest.

47

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.69

•
•
•
•

•
•

Opinions of fellow officers influenced arrest.
If police believed victims were uncooperative they were less likely to arrest. (Research suggests thatmost victims will cooperate with appropriate support.)
Inadequate or inaccurate information in police reports led to failure of prosecution.
Severity of injury, weapon use, property damage, violation of court orders and/or involvement of
alcohol made it more likely arrest would occur and charges would proceed. In the absence of these
obvious factors, police are less likely to arrest, putting the victim at risk by suggesting “call us when
it gets worse”.
Presence of witnesses impacted arrest and charge.
Prosecutors were less likely to charge, and police are less likely to arrest, when the victim’s
attributes lead to questions about her victimization.

Hanna (1996) found these policies have been responsible for a reduction in homicides, and suggests they
have created huge societal gains with respect to changing attitudes and behaviours.
These policies have not existed without criticism. These are typically based on the following factors:• Women feel disempowered by the process and feel their wishes are not being considered. Many
women don’t want a lengthy no contact order or for their partner to have a criminal record (which
could impact employment and travel outside the country). They simply want the abuse to stop.
• The policy has led to more cases coming in to the system than were ever expected (which reflects
the pervasiveness of the behaviour), and there is often not enough time or resources to do it
properly.
• Women (as well as offenders) sometimes complain the information gathered by police is limited andinaccurate in order to facilitate convictions. Victim (and offender) statements, although they may besimilar to one another and different from the police statement, are not seen to have more credibility
than the police statement.
• Overzealous compliance with the policy has resulted in some men being charged and convicted when
they were actually victims of assault themselves and were seeking help.
• Family problems are often multi-levelled. There is no room in the system to treat people asindividuals with varying needs; no room for discretion.
• Rigid policies result in some women not using the system.
These challenges speak to the need to have a coordinated response that takes into account the needs ofboth victim and offender.

XI. A COORDINATED RESPONSE
In a drive to ensure domestic violence is viewed as a criminal justice issue it is important to not lose
sight of the fact that it is also a social issue that involves individuals and families who care about each otherand who may have multiple needs. There have been many studies that demonstrate a coordinated response
which includes arrest, support for the victim and mandated treatment for the offender is more effective thanarrest alone (Pence, 1989; Steinman, 1990; Dutton & McGregor, 1991; Syers & Edleson, 1992). A study by
Steinman (1990) found that police interventions that were not coordinated with other criminal justicesanctions actually led to increased violence. Dobash, Dobash, Cavanagh & Lewis (2000) have reported
evaluation research that suggests arrest and treatment is more effective in reducing men’s physical andemotional abuse than criminal justice sanctions alone. This result is consistent with the general criminology
literature that has pointed out the important role of well developed and implemented programmes on
reducing criminal recidivism when compared to punitive measures alone (McGuire, 1995).
Effective responses depend on a philosophy that domestic violence is both a crime and a social issue.
Comprehensive programmes that engage in a coordinated treatment-criminal justice-victim advocacy
response have a greater impact at reducing recidivism (Gondolf, 1999; Dobash et al., 2000). MacRae (2003)
writes,The literature indicates that while arrest alone may have some positive consequences on the incidence ofrelationship violence, the best results occur when arrest is part of a multi-level, multi-faceted,coordinated criminal justice response in which prosecution is a key component (Russell, 2002;
Wooldredge & Thistlewaite, 2002: Gelles, 1993).

48

130th INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

XII. PROTECTION ORDERS
Emergency intervention is available 24 hours a day through a Justice of the Peace and allows police torestrain communication or contact, remove the abuser from the home and give the victim exclusive
occupation of the home. As soon as the respondent is served this order it must be ratified by the Court of
the Queens Bench.
In B.C. protection or no-contact orders are routinely implemented in cases of domestic violence. Whilesome studies show there is a positive benefit, there is also research that suggests they have little impact on
extremely high risk offenders (Finn, 1991). The effectiveness of protection orders seems to be entirely
related to how they are enforced by the police.
It is not uncommon for victims to willingly violate no-contact orders for a variety of reasons: a desire toallow contact with children, strained finances, the problem of avoiding contact when living in a small
community, wanting to include the spouse in family events. In addition, sometimes as stated above the nocontact order goes beyond the time frame that is helpful for the woman and her wishes to have it removed
are not considered. If a victim willingly violates a no-contact order the police are less likely to act on it if she
requests help. Education for police is critical in this case. A system that understands the difficult dynamics ofrelationships and responds appropriately to any or all incidents of threat or fear is required. An effective
response would include a standing no-contact order that indicates to the police the man can be dangerous,
and that could be invoked during times of threat.

XIII. DIVERSION
In some communities in the United States and Canada diversion has been used to respond to domestic
violence. Diversion means the offender stays out of the court process (i.e., is not officially charged) and isgiven the opportunity to either attend counselling and/or keep the peace. There have been criticisms thatdiversion is more likely to be used with those who are better educated and middle to upper-middle class,that it sends the wrong message about the criminal nature of the offence and puts pressure on the victim toagree to diversion. These issues might reinforce existing power imbalances in the relationship and diversion
is difficult to monitor. Suggested benefits to diversion include: greater flexibility for individual response,
quicker response time, possibly greater compliance with programmes and possibly more women will use thesystem. In B.C. at this time neither diversion nor any other alternate measures are being used to respond todomestic violence. An effective diversion programme requires many levels of coordinated, fully fundedresources which are currently not in place.

XIV. FAMILY VIOLENCE COURTS
The large numbers of domestic violence cases in Canada has led some provinces to set up specialized
court systems; this helps prevent lengthy delays in court proceedings and referral to programmes. Those
working in these systems have specialized training to raise sensitivity to all of the issues relating todomestic violence. Manitoba, Ontario, Alberta and the Northwest Territories have implemented thesesystems which include involvement of court, probation, victim services and programmes for offenders andvictims. These courts place a strong emphasis on victim safety, thorough investigation of the facts,
successful prosecution, appropriate sentencing, monitoring of orders and treatment. They are successful
because everyone working in the system has a knowledge of the issues. These courts are founded on abelief in the need to address this as both a crime and a social problem. Accountability and opportunity forchange are promoted. At this time B.C. does not have a Family Violence Court, however, evaluation resultsfrom these other jurisdictions are promising.

XV. CHARGE AND SENTENCE
In B.C., as in all jurisdictions in Canada, the Crown counsel will decide if there is sufficient evidence toproceed with a charge based on police findings. While victim testimony might be necessary for conviction, if
there is sufficient evidence the Crown will proceed regardless of the victim’s willingness to testify. The
maximum sentence for assault is a $2,000 fine or imprisonment for six months or both. Assault with a
Weapon or Assault Causing Bodily Harm can lead to imprisonment not exceeding ten years. Aggravated
Assault can lead to imprisonment not exceeding fourteen years. Manslaughter and Attempted Murder can
result in imprisonment for life. Murder results in an automatic life sentence. These are the maximum

49

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.69

sentences and offenders are infrequently sentenced to these maximums. For assault the usual sentence is
probation including an order to attend treatment. Occasionally offenders receive a suspended sentence witha requirement to attend treatment - this means if they complete all requirements they will not have acriminal record. This is more likely to happen for first time offenders who offer a guilty plea and who agree
to attend treatment.

XVI. MEN’S VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IN RELATIONSHIPS:FACTORS FOR TREATMENT
Since violence against women in relationships became a focus in public consciousness there has been agreat deal of effort made trying to understand the men who engage in this behaviour in order to develop
effective programmes. Most studies suggest there are similarities in some behaviours and attitudes, butthere is not a “profile” as such. Domestic violence occurs in all socio-economic groups; however those withlower educations and less income are more likely to find their way into the criminal justice system.
Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) conducted a meta-analysis of studies and concluded there are three
distinct groups of men who use violence in relationships: family only (which has the lowest levels ofphysical, psychological and sexual violence, dysphoric-borderline (which may or may not include some extrafamilial violence and is more likely to involve substance abuse and moderate to severe violence), andgenerally violent-antisocial (moderate to severe violence, likelihood of substance abuse and criminal
problems). Saunders (1996) found that 50% are men who assault their partners have problems dealing with
intimacy but are not violent outside intimate relationships, 25% are emotionally volatile and dependent and
25% are generally lacking in empathy. In one study higher levels of narcissistic personality disorder andobsessive-compulsive personality disorder related to increased severity of violence (Bodnarchuck, 2000).
The review of the typology literature by Cavanaugh and Gelles (2005) suggests that these types of batterers
are consistent with low11, moderate and high risk offenders and that it is unlikely for most offenders (lowand moderate categories) to escalate over time or move from one category type to another. Thus, theseauthors caution against matching offenders to wrong treatment (e.g., impulse control for anti-social men).
A number of factors are considered to be related in some way to men’s violence against their intimate
partners. These include: childhood and adolescent experiences including childhood trauma, attachment
disorders, patriarchal attitudes and beliefs, unrealistic expectations in relationships, substance abuse,inability to manage anger and other difficult emotions, head injuries, depression, marital distress, jealousy
and insecurity, dependency, personality disorders and biological and genetic variables.12
The perceived causes or theories for violence have an impact on the treatment that is provided. Theories
of biology, psychopathology, social learning, family systems and feminism have all informed programme
development. Biological theories include brain injury leading to violent impulses and genetic programmingaround safeguarding the sexual mate (jealousy and control). These theories lead to treatment primarily
based on pharmacology. Theories of Psychopathology focus on psychodynamic rather than organic variables;
the focus is often on childhood and other experiential events. Violence is seen to co-exist in a constellationof other interpersonal problems and functional deficits. Psychiatric diagnoses, specifically borderline andanti-social personality disorders, are inherent in a focus on psychopathology. Violent reactions and patterns
are long standing and firmly entrenched, and treatment takes many forms (cognitive-behavioural,
psychotherapy, pharmacology) with a strong focus on risk management.
Social Learning Theory suggests domestic violence is a product of learning and early modelling of
behaviours that achieve a desired result. Proponents of this theory state it is supported by research ontrans-generational violence. Interventions prescribed from this theory are usually cognitive-behavioural innature. Critics say that it does not explain why intergenerational transmission is not universal.
Feminist Theory explains violence against women as being influenced by a patriarchal societal structurethat reinforces men’s superior role and therefore their sense of entitlement to exert power and control over
11 This categorization of low risk is used as a relative reference in comparison to the other two categories in the typology andshould not replace a risk assessment by professionals to ascertain treatment needs.
12 These factors, along with many others, are regularly seen in group participants in varying degrees, and this speaks to thechallenges of providing effective treatment.

50

130th INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

women. Imbalances at a societal level are then reproduced within the family. Interventions are based on
advocacy, the provision of services for women and sensitization aimed at changing attitudes, beliefs andsocial structures that support violence against women.
Family Systems Theory suggests the family is a dynamic organization made up of interdependent
components; action and reaction leads to probability of reoccurrence. Treatment involves exploration of theattitudes, beliefs and behaviours in relation to the many systems in which the offender lives – family, culture,religion, community standards. Intervention includes individual work as well as couple or family counsellingto improve communication and problem solving skills within the family.
Dutton (1995) used the term “nested model” to also explore the belief that violence as multi-determined.
This model takes into account both the psychological features of the offender as well as the interpersonal
context, i.e. influences of family, couple and social systems. Dutton suggests there are four levels that
influence each other:• Macrosystem: Broad societal attitudes and beliefs regarding spousal violence.
• Exosystem: Social structures that influence the immediate context where the assault occurs.
• Microsystem: Immediate environment within which the abuse takes place; the home, the couple’s
relationship pattern.
• Ontogenic Level: Perpetrators individual histories and characteristics.
No one theory emerged as having unequivocal support. Human behaviour is complex and there are noeasy ways to explain it. Integrated approaches that incorporate all aspects of these theories seem to be mostbeneficial.

XVII. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND ALCOHOL ABUSE
The involvement of substance abuse, particularly alcohol, in domestic violence has been well
documented. Estimates of concurrent use of violence and alcohol range from 25% to 60%, and “use” does
not imply a drunken state. Abuse of alcohol and drugs contributes to risk and can be a significant barrier totreatment effectiveness, however, it is currently a generally supported view that alcohol does not cause
violence. Some studies found that substance abuse only increased the risk for woman abuse for men who
already approved of situational violence against women, were under socioeconomic hardship, had high levelsof hostility and low levels of marital satisfaction (Kantor & Straus, 1987; Leonard & Blane, 1992). 13
Pernanen (1991 ) found the average amount of alcohol consumed prior to the violent episode was only a few
drinks, which suggests the alcohol is an excuse.
Gondolf (1995) suggests there may be common psychosocial factors which overlap, e.g. substance abuseand violence may share common origins in a need to achieve personal power and control. He cautions thattreatment approaches may have a very different focus in that alcohol and drug treatment is very selffocused.14 He suggests that treating one my have an impact on the effectiveness of treatment for the other.
Katz (1998) suggests that if men become motivated to act in ways that keep themselves and others safe thisshould have an impact on stopping violence in relationships as well as other self-destructive behaviours like
substance misuse.
Some important factors about the link between violence and substance abuse include:• Being drunk may provide a justification - or alibi - for behaviours normally proscribed by society.

13 Both authors have had many participants who claim alcohol as a reason for the violence. When challenged they will
frequently admit to having thoughts about assaulting their partner when they are sober and angry with her, but state they are
more able to control their behaviour more effectively at those times. Even under the influence of alcohol men control where,
when and how much violence they use. It has been both authors experience that when asked about particular behaviours manymen say “no matter how drunk I got, I would never….” which suggests limits have been set that will not be crossed drunk orsober. It is very unlikely that a person who never thinks about sex offending or robbing a bank will suddenly do it because they
are drinking.
14 It has been both authors experience that men in alcohol treatment who have not addressed the issues underlying theirabuse of their partners will use their need to maintain sobriety as an excuse for controlling behaviours. “It will be your fault if I
continue to drink.” Some men who have stopped drinking and continue to be abusive also blame the behaviour on being a “drydrunk”.

51

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.69

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Alcohol may contribute to the misreading of signals by both the offender and the victim.
By reducing inhibitions, alcohol may impair attention to internal behavioural cues and theconsideration of consequences.
Alcohol may decrease frontal lobe functioning, affecting ability to handle new or threatening
situations and to develop alternative strategies to solve problems. Alcohol may affect neuro-chemicalsystems that mediate aggressive behaviour (Boles & Motto, 2003).
Risk of serious violence increases with alcohol.
Cocaine and methamphetamines can increase violent behaviour.
Women with substance abuse problems have an increased risk of being victims of violence.
Completion rate is lower for those with addiction problems.
Addiction leads to increased conflict in the relationships.
Sobriety does not necessarily lead to non-violence or change the nature of the abuse in therelationship.

XVIII. THE NATURE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
Violence against women in relationships includes verbal, emotional, psychological, physical and sexual
abuse. Most programmes have lengthy lists of behaviours that describe these forms of abuse. Various typesof abuse inventories and scales have been developed to help those working with both victims and offenders
to identify the nature and severity of the abusive behaviour (Tolman, 1989; Marshal, 1992: Shephard &Campbell, 1992; Saunders, 1995; Strauss, 1995). The most commonly used document in programmes to dateis the Power and Control Wheel produced by a programme in Duluth, Minnesota (Pence & Paymar, 1993).
This wheel describes many types of behaviours that are designed to intimidate and control. These include:
threats of physical harm to others or to self; verbal abuse that degrades or humiliates; economic abuse
through attempts to control finances; use of the children to control or threats to hurt the children;
minimization, denial and blame for the abuse; property damage, in particular selective property that hasmeaning for the victim; acts of sexual coercion; acts based on beliefs about male privilege and men’s andwomen’s roles in society; acts intended to isolate the victim from others; harassment and stalking
behaviours. Although the violent acts that are sanctioned by the criminal justice system are physicalviolence, sexual violence and threats of physical violence, these other non-physical forms of violence are
equally damaging to individuals and relationships and are always precursors to physical violence.
Programmes must address these behaviours in order to stop physical violence.
The nature of sexual abuse in relationships has not been well researched or addressed in many
programmes. It is not uncommon for women who feel controlled in relationships to lose sexual desire for
their partner (this is also true for men). The loss of desire by a woman who is being abused may lead to anincrease in feelings of powerlessness or rejection in the man, and result in more abusive behaviour. Cycles
of interacting in abusive relationships are often as follows (Katz, 1999):
1. Abuse occurs.
2. Emotional distance between partners increases.
3. Feelings of rejection by the offender increase.
4. Abuse escalates.

IXX. TREATMENT OPTIONSThere are three principles for treatment: risk, needs and responsivity. The risk principle suggests thathigher-risk cases benefit from more intervention; lower-risk cases benefit most from low (or no) levels ofservice. The needs principle suggests the greatest reductions in recidivism can be achieved by targeting
criminogenic needs for treatment and supervision. The responsivity principle suggests treatment
programmes and supervision approaches will be most effective when geared to the offender’s own abilities
and learning style. Currently much has been done on risk and needs; however, responsivity is an area
requiring more attention and speaks to the process of delivery of programmes as opposed to the content.
The current state of knowledge about domestic violence is not sufficient to promote any specifictreatment modality or programme (Cooper, 1995; Hanson & Wallace-Capretta, 2000). Indeed, the question of
how and why cessation of violence occurs remains unclear and has not been directly examined in mostevaluation studies where the focus has been on the more general questions of whether treatment withspousal abusers is at all effective. Much of the focus has been on programme content, while for those52

130th INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

working in the field the process of therapeutic alliance and engagement with the offenders is considered
critical for improving responsivity and programme completion. Recent research suggests the highest risk ofrecidivism occurs in those who drop out of programmes (higher than those who never take programmes.)
This suggests keeping men in the room is critically important.
Healey, Smith, and O’Sullivan (1998), in their National Institute of Justice sponsored paper Batterer
Intervention: Program Approaches and Criminal Justice Strategies, conducted a very comprehensive reviewof spousal assault treatment. This study and other literature cited earlier in this paper and below point tosome common principles:
•

•

•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

A cognitive-behavioural focus is most frequently used in correctional programmes based on metaanalytic and theoretical reviews that have identified a cognitive – behavioural approach as the mosteffective treatment orientation to date in reducing criminal recidivism (Losel, 1996; Andrews &Bonta, 1998).
No treatment approach (cognitive-behavioural, psychodynamic or family systems) has been shown tobe significantly better than any other in stopping domestic violence; however the most common
approach is a psycho-educational cognitive-behavioural model that encourages pro-feminist attitudechange while building interpersonal skills (Hanson & Wallace-Capretta, 2000).
Research by Hanson & Wallace-Capretta (2000) highlight the importance of well trained andsupervised staff with a commitment to programme integrity. Modelling of skills and use of
motivational skills are paramount to inviting change. This point is consistent with the generalcriminology literature (Andrews, 1995) and highlights the importance of the facilitators’ skill inengaging men into the change process (Stefanakis, 1998a).
Rondeau, Brodeur, Brochu & Lemire (2001) have noted that, among treatment variables, therapeutic
alliance was the most significant factor in promoting programme completion.
Group processes that do not restrict men’s identities to offender status alone can facilitate
therapeutic engagement (Augusta-Scott, 1999; Stefanakis, 1998b, 2000; Trimble 2000).
Treatment effectiveness depends on matching treatment (intensity and type) and therapists torisk/need of offenders. (Gendreau & Andrews, 1990; Serin & Kennedy, 1997).
Therapists’ attitudes and competence that do not match the aims and content of a programme may
lower treatment integrity and reduce its effectiveness. (Serin & Kennedy, 1997).
Pre-group preparation programmes or treatment readiness programmes (such as the RR programmein B.C.) may be effective in reducing attrition in treatment (Cooper, 1995; Rondeau, Brodeur, Brochu& Lemire, 2001).
Well managed programmes delivering structured intervention focusing on the offender and offending
behaviours are more likely to be effective (Dobash et al., 2000; Gondolf, 1999).
A coordinated treatment/criminal justice system response has a much greater impact on reducing
recidivism than treatment alone or a criminal justice response alone. Programmes embedded within
the criminal justice system, with immediate and strong sanctions for non-compliance had relatively
low attrition rates in Great Britain (Dobash et al., 2000).

Treatment should acknowledge the complexity of the origins of the problem by addressing multiple
targets that are empirically shown to contribute to abusive behaviour. In 1990, B.C. ACAM introduced theterm “The Common Hybrid Model” to describe multi-model programmes that attend to all these theories
and emphasize safety, personal responsibility, self-awareness, compassion, skill development and thepromotion of attitudes of equality and respect that support the maintenance of non-violent relationships. All
programmes tend to have the following: a cognitive-behavioural foundation; pro-feminist based (viewviolence as tactics of power and control and promote equality); hold offenders accountable for the behaviour;
confront rationalizations and excuses; challenge beliefs, attitudes and expectations that support violence andinequality; help offenders identify high risk situations; teach skills which include emotions management,
conflict resolution, problem solving, assertiveness and respectful communication (Pence & Paymar,1992;
Cooper, 1995; Gondolf, 1997; Healey, Smith & Sullivan, 1998; Katz, 2005). Some programmes also
incorporate family systems strategies, trauma work, couple work, a focus on attachment theories andpsychodynamic approaches to meet some of the individual needs of the men in the programmes, but allwithin the framework of promoting personal responsibility and motivation to behave non-abusively toward
others. Modelling of respectful relationships in interactions with the participants and between co-therapists
is a foundation of the ACAM model. The emotional and physical safety of women, children and men is theprimary goal of programme delivery and is reflected not only in the treatment programme itself but also in
pro-active participation in a coordinated community response.

53

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.69

The Correctional Services of Canada programmes for moderate and high intensity family violence
offenders are accredited based on the following eight criteria that have shown to be effective:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

An explicit empirically based model of change.
Targeting of criminogenic needs.
Use of proven effective methods of facilitating.
A skills development orientation.
Attention to responsivity issues (e.g. culture).
Continuity of care or relapse prevention.
Sufficient intensity or dosage.
Ongoing monitoring of the integrity of programme delivery and programme evaluation.

XX. EVALUATION OF PROGRAMMES
Although programme evaluation of intervention for men who assault their partners is still at a relatively
early stage of development, there is a body of methodologically sound research that supports the overall
effectiveness of treatment (Edelson and Syers, 1990; Edelson, 1995; Dutton, 1995; Gondolf, 1997; Gondolf &Jones, 2001; Healey et al., 1998; Dobash and Dobash, 1999; Kropp & Bodnarchuk, 2001; Gondolf, 2004).
While results from different studies vary in the size of the effect, there is significant evidence to suggest
there is an effect. There remains much to do in identifying the most effective approaches.
Research on programmes report varying levels of effectiveness. In large part this is likely due to thevariability in programmes being measured. Some studies report that as many as 53% – 85% of abusers stop
violence after treatment in follow-up periods ranging up to 54 months (Dobash and Dobash, 1999; Edelson
and Syers, 1990). Jones, D’Agostino, Gondolf and Hekert (2004) found that treatment reduces probability ofassault by 26 – 34%. Dutton (1995) reported strong treatment effects for court-mandate programmes in B.C.;
after six months 16% of untreated and 4% of treated re-offended and after 30 months 40% of untreated and
4% of treated re-offended. Self-reports from men and women supported this reduction and demonstrated
that levels of verbal aggression dropped as well as violence. A more recent review by Gondolf (2004)
suggests variability in results in previous studies, including previous meta-analyses, has to do with problems
with methodological shortcomings. He found that programmes lead to a de-escalation of re-assault and otherforms of abuse, the majority of men do not re-assault but approximately 20% of offenders continuously reassault.15 Gondolf points out that the cognitive-behavioural approach appears to be appropriate, but needs toinclude more intensive programmes for high risk offenders, on-going monitoring of risk and a “swift andcertain response” to violations.
It is important to note that given the large number of incidents of domestic violence “even a small ormodest statistically significant result can have large clinical and social significance in reducing violence inthe community” Gondolf (1999). It is also important to highlight that intervention should be considered andevaluated as part of a larger community response to end violence against women (Edleson, 1995; Healey etal, 1998; Dobash & Dobash, 1999; Dobash, et al. 2000).
The authors of this paper strongly support research that suggests effectiveness of programmes has agreat deal to do with the ability of the therapist to build therapeutic alliance (Stefanakis, 2000, 2001; Katz,
2005). This involves acceptance of the individual with a focus on maintaining dignity, while at the same time
inviting and encouraging change in behaviours that are not helpful in keeping themselves or others safe andin maintaining healthy relationships. Of primary importance is the modelling of skills that help build
compassion (Stefanakis, 1999; Katz, 2001). Corvo and Johnson (2003) have written about the “vilification of
the batterer” shaping some policies around domestic violence interventions that simply serve to reinforce
the problem. This is consistent with research on barriers to desistence from violence (Stefanakis, 1998a). In
B.C. a training focus for those delivering the RR and RVT programmes is understanding the principles ofmotivation and change, learning skills to facilitate motivation and change and understanding the importanceof modelling the skills taught in the programme in order to facilitate offenders’ learning and motivation to
15 This is consistent with the authors’ findings in their own programmes - 20% stop all forms of violence, 20% continue to bephysically violent, and the remaining 60% stop physical violence but continue to engage in some non-physical abusive
behaviour that might escalate over time to a re-offence. In these cases the re-offence tends to be less severe and re-focuses
the offender on managing behaviour.

54

130th INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

change. Katz (2002) suggests viewing clients as “reluctant” to engage in change as opposed to “resistant”
leads to more effective motivational strategies and greater therapeutic alliance.
As stated earlier, offenders are individuals with varying treatment needs. Programme effectiveness isoften based on “one-time” attendance in a “one size fits all” programme, and focuses on a quantitative
measure of violent recidivism. Models of change suggest that offenders enter and leave programmes atdifferent stages of awareness, personal responsibility and motivation to change. It follows that evaluation ofprogrammes would be more meaningful if there was a greater focus on shifts in these factors as opposed tojust recidivism. Programmes must be able to take offenders through the stages from pre-contemplation(denial) of the need for change to maintenance of the change. One example of a process oriented model ofchange was developed from research on men’s desistence from violence (Stefanakis, 1998). A summary ofthis framework is presented below.

XXI. FRAMEWORK FOR CHANGE
Based on research and clinical experience with men who have desisted from violence and the current
literature on desistence, a framework for change was developed (Stefanakis, 1998ab, 2000). This frameworkis useful because it makes visible specific obstacles to change and highlights certain interventions that may
facilitate change by attending to the particular needs of offenders at particular stages in their change
process.
Stefanakis (1998a) identified the following transitional processes in men who desist from violence inrelationships: Acknowledging the Abuse, Creating Commitment, Stopping the Violence, and Sustaining
Change. These transitions are consistent with the stages of change identified by Prochaska, DiClemente andNorcross (1992) in their Transtheoretical Model of Change (TMC). The five stages of change in the TMC arereferred to as the Precontemplation (lack of awareness or acknowledgement of the problem, feel coerced
into changing, no intention to change), Contemplation (some awareness/acknowledgement of the problem
but no commitment to change, not accepting responsibility), Preparation (accepting responsibility, intention
to change), Action (accepting full responsibility, taking consistent steps to change) and Maintenance (relapse
prevention) stages.
Men entering services for assaulting their partners usually enter in the precontemplation orcontemplation stages. This is evident in the vast repertoire of denial, excuses and justification strategies
they offer when accounting for their violence against their partners. An examination of the cultural context
highlights that these responses reflect the common social myths and excuses present in society in general(Davidson, 1998; Stefanakis, 1998b). Men in the preparation stage may still offer some excuses andjustifications but they are also beginning to claim agency and responsibility for their actions. In addition, they
are beginning to talk about the need to change their lives in some way. In the action stage men are taking full
responsibility for their actions and actively using non-violent strategies (e.g., time-outs, appropriate listening
and assertiveness skills, respecting boundaries). Their dialogue about violence begins to centralize aroundthe idea of having choices across most contexts and situations. Finally, the maintenance stage ischaracterized by men’s active involvement in relapse prevention efforts. These efforts may include ongoing
involvement in men’s treatment groups or finding other ways of becoming part of the solution instead of the
problem.
Understanding where each man is at in the stages of change helps identify issues that need to beaddressed in order to facilitate and invite change. Movement past the precontemplation stage involves
Acknowledging the Abuse. Here the men need to accept the notion that they are responsible for their acts ofviolence, while maintaining a belief that they remain redeemable as people. Helpers can engage men in theprocess of change by recognizing this dilemma. This involves naming the abuse explicitly and educating themen around the various forms of abuse without judging the character of the men. It is important to speak
about actions rather than identities (Stefanakis, 1997). For example, it is possible to explicitly label a man’s
actions as abusive without labelling him as an abuser. The difference in emphasis may seem minor but theauthors believe it is an essential component to engaging men in the early stages of treatment andovercoming reluctance to change. It increases the men’s willingness to be accountable. Another usefulstrategy involves helping the men to identify how they have resisted the use of abusive and controlling
behaviours in some difficult situations in the past. This exercise helps the men identify that they are not

55

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.69

simply seen as abusive men and it challenges the common excuse of “losing it” since, by their own accounts,
they have demonstrated control in difficult situations and reinforced the notion that violence is a choice.
Movement to the preparation stage involves Creating Commitment to change by the men. One way tohelp this process is to document the effects of the violence and abuse across all aspects of the man’s life.
The men are often surprised by the extent of the harm and the amount of people affected by their acts ofviolence and abuse. In addition, they often do not recognize the harm they are causing themselves. Katz
(1998) suggests that commitment comes primarily from recognition of how their abusive behaviour isaffecting their own lives and preventing their own safety, security and sense of self-worth. In addition, theauthors have both witnessed strong motivation in men who suddenly recognize the impact of their behaviouron their children. A need to have a “good father” as part of their identity helps to build commitment. All ofthese factors create a reasonable justification to change; it is easy for participants to recognize that any
reasonable person would move towards change. The decision to change, in the context of this new
knowledge, has the positive effect of supporting a positive identity for the man while allowing him to accept
responsibility for his past violence.
Another barrier to commitment involves the search for the causes of violence, a barrier that is often
supported by well-meaning professionals. Thus, the men identify many theories that explain their violent
behaviours. These may include anger management problems (e.g., impulse control disorder), substanceabuse or family upbringing. Although an identification of these issues is important, treating them as causes
tends to excuse the men from taking full responsibility for their actions (Jenkins, 1990). It is useful todeconstruct many of these misconceptions in a way that helps men recognize that these explanations areunacceptable and argue for their own change (Jenkins, 1990). Consequently, violence, as an inevitable
response to certain circumstances or experiences, cannot be as easily justified or excused and, therefore,
becomes less likely.
Another way to help the men take a stand against violence and abuse involves helping them identify theirown personal values and then contrasting these values with the abusive behaviour in which they haveengaged (Stefanakis, 2000). Similarly the men can be invited to identify with valued identities that areincompatible with abuse (e.g., a caring father). These strategies serve several goals. First, they move themen away from feeling coerced into changing by the system because they are invited to live up to their own
values. Thus, the men begin to argue for their own change rather than having others argue for them tochange. Second, the explicit recognition that their actions are incompatible with their values creates apersonal crisis in meaning that acts as a catalyst for change. Third, the process of identifying positive values
helps the men claim a positive identity even as they accept responsibility for their abusive behaviours. Thus,
they can distance themselves from pathological labels. Finally, a discussion of personal values brings forth, ina secular way, aspects of spirituality into the discussion of change. This spiritual dimension can be a powerful
resource for the men, for ourselves and for the change process (Trimble, 2000; Kiyoshk, 2003).
Movement to the action stage and Stopping the Violence involves helping men make non-violent choices
and helping them claim non-violent identities. Skill development is most appropriate at this stage (e.g.,communication skills, stress management techniques, etc.) with an emphasis on the meaning of the skills
taught. For example, the men can be guided to recognize that having/learning these skills means that they
have choices and, therefore, excuses for using violent or abusive behaviours become untenable. In addition,
it is useful to have the men bring forth situations when they have not acted abusively. This is useful in termsof identifying and reinforcing skills and also in terms of reinforcing the claims of a new non-violent self
identity.
As the men begin to demonstrate changes peer pressure to maintain the status quo may begin to act asan obstacle to ongoing change. The men may also be dealing with personal barriers such as the belief that
their changes will have an immediate positive effect on their relationships. Thus, helping the men form new
supportive relationships that sustain non-violent norms and supporting them in dealing with daily challenges
and unrealistic expectations can be very beneficial.
Finally, Sustaining Change involves helping the men stay active in the process of change. Setbacks need
to be talked about, not as failures of character, but as opportunities to learn. This needs to be done without

56

130th INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

minimizing the impact of an act of abuse on another person. The men will also face ongoing challenges indealing with contradictory cultural expectations (requirements to be aggressive at work or in sports) andpersonal difficulties that may have been hidden through the use of violence and controlling behaviours (e.g.,
personal experiences of victimization). Current and future issues need to be identified and discussed. If
necessary, other resources need to be made available to the men. Strategies that help the men become partof the solution instead of the problem are also useful. These can include helping other men stop violence orvolunteering in other domains of life. Helping others becomes a wonderful reinvestment in self and society.
Teaching others is a way of reinforcing learning in ourselves. In essence, sustaining change requires theability to argue for non-violent solutions to problems.
The strategies discussed here are not meant to be an exhaustive list of effective intervention strategies
for change. This framework of change is most useful as a tool that helps the therapist explore and identify
potential barriers to change and potential interventions to facilitate change. In addition, the framework
highlights that the responsibility for ending violence in our culture lies with everyone. Individual
responsibility by perpetrators of violence does not excuse social or community responsibility from creating
and reinforcing beliefs and institutions that support, legitimize and sustain non-violence in relationships
Therefore, although the men in these programmes must be held accountable for their actions, it isincumbent on society to create change by challenging notions that sustain violence (e.g., anger causes
violence, male-to-male violence is normal) and ensuring all violence is seen as a criminal justice issue.
Finally, any programme is only as good as the manner in which it is facilitated. While content isimportant, the process of interaction between the facilitator and the participant is of critical importance. A
process built on compassion for the individual along with invitations to change behaviour needs to be theframework in which this work is done.

XXII. PROGRAMME CONTENT
Regardless of treatment model, court-mandated programmes have common procedures that include
intake, assessment, participation agreements, victim contact, orientation, group treatment and follow-up(Healey, Smith, and O’Sullivan,1998). Typically programmes for male domestic violence offenders include
the following content areas:• identifying abusive behaviours• identifying the elements of respectful relationships• identifying individual factors that get in the way of having stable relationships and high risk
situations• confronting minimization, denial and blame• changing beliefs that lead to violence• teaching skills for managing difficult emotions• conflict resolution skills and assertiveness skills• understanding the impact of abuse on self, partner and children• empathy and compassion building• communication skills; problem solving skills• self-care• managing jealousy• family of origin work
• parenting skills• financial management• healthy intimacy and sexual interactions
There is a strong focus on stopping all forms of abusive behaviour in programmes since violence inrelationships usually starts with and exists in concert with other forms of controlling and abusive
behaviours. Katz (1998) has suggested that a focus on building the Emotional Intelligence Competencies ofself-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy and compassion and social skills is a useful frameworkfor programmes for both men and women who use violence in relationships. The ability to takeresponsibility for the emotional and physical safety of self and others is required.

57

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.69

XXIII. VICTIM SAFETY
This work with men has as its primary goal the safety of women and children in relationships. This
doesn’t suggest that the man’s needs are second. In fact, it is easily argued that the programmes are also
about keeping the men safe. It takes time for change to occur, however, and programmes need to provide
external structures for safety while the men are building internal structures. These need to include:• Contact with women partners before and during the programme.
• Referral to resources such as counselling, shelters and legal aid.
• Notification if the man stops attending the programme or if there is any indication she may be at risk.
• A clear message that simply because a man is attending treatment does not ensure her safety.
(Programmes must not be used as part of her safety plan.)• Safety takes priority over confidentiality.
• Programme facilitators do not advocate for custody, removal of no-contact orders or reconciliation.
• While the men are often very likeable in the group programmes it is important to remember the
potential for violence that exists in the primary relationship.
• The development of clear standards of practice regarding safety.

XXIV. COMMUNITY COORDINATIONAs this paper has stressed in various ways, one of the key features in effective programmes is integrationof services. One of the strengths of the response to domestic violence in B.C. in the early years was thestrong focus on community coordination. Many communities had committees comprised of representatives
from victim services, women’s shelters, police, crown counsel, probation, hospitals, mental health services,child welfare services, clergy and other family services. A key component of these committees was torecognize their shared vision of stopping violence and to work in their own agencies and together to develop
policies which would be more likely to lead to reduction of violence against women in relationships. The
following are recommendations that will help make coordination effective:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Get the right people on board. Include people with power to make change in their organizations.
Make a commitment to collaboration and hold regular meetings.
Work together on mission, vision and values.
Have the courage to speak up about personal experiences and problems in the system. Address
territoriality, confidentiality and inequality in status and power of those at the table.
Honour each other’s work.
Coordinate activities within and between organizations and initiate multi-disciplinary and interagency education and training.
Establish protocols for interdisciplinary collaboration and service delivery.
Collaborate on projects.
Build trust be undertaking concrete, achievable tasks.
Work together to educate and engage the public.

The benefits of coordination are many for those involved. They include: reduction in duplication ofservices and gaps in service, reduction in competition for resources, reduction of time it takes to get throughthe system, increase in innovative methods of preventing abuse, increased awareness of resources, andreduction in feelings of isolation.

XXV. FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Clearly there remains a great deal of work to do in stopping violence in relationships. In Canada, theeconomy and shifting political agendas has an impact on the funding and availability of programmes. Somesignificant issues we continue to find include the fact that funding for prevention remains limited in scopeand standardization of programmes has the potential to stop innovation and lead to a belief that the job isdone. Despite this, the work in British Columbia and Canada as a whole has done much to inform knowledge
and practice with respect to intervention and treatment.

58

130th INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERSREFERENCES
Andrews, D. A. (1995). The psychology of criminal conduct and effective treatment. In J Maguire (Ed.) What
Works: Reducing Offending. Chichester: Wiley.
Andrews, D. A. and Bonta, J. (1998) The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (Second Edition). Cincinnati:
Anderson Publishing Co.
Augusta-Scott, T. (1999). Reinventing the wheel. Finding new stories for men who batter. Thesis submitted
in partial fulfilment of the Master of Social Work, Halifax, N.S.: Dalhousie University.
Berk, R. Campbell, A., Klap, R. & Western, B. (1992). The deterrent effect of arrest in incidents of domestic
violence: A Bayesian Analysis of four field experiments. American Sociological Review. 57. 698-708.
Bodnarchuk, M. (2002). Psychological and behavioural typologies of men who assault their female partners.
Vancouver: British Columbia Institute Against Family Violence.
Buel, S.M. (1988). Mandatory arrest for domestic violence. Harvard Women’s Law Journal, 11, 213-246.
Boles, S.M. & Motto, K (2003). Substance abuse and violence. A review of the literature. Aggression andViolent Behaviour. 8, 155-174.
Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics (2004). Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile. Retrieved
May 2005 from: http://ivt.crepuq.qc.ca/english/justice/2004/.
Cavanaugh, M & Gelles, R. (2005). The utility of male domestic violence offender typologies. Journal ofInterpersonal Violence, (20), 155-166.
Cooper, M. (1995). Challenges in programming for wife batterers. Vancouver: B.C. Institute Against Family
Violence.
Corvo, K, Johnson, P. (2003). Vilification of the “batterer”: How blame shapes domestic violence policy andinterventions. Aggression and Violent Behaviour 8(3), 259-281.
Dasgupta, S. (2001). Towards an understanding of women’s use of non-lethal violence in intimate
heterosexual relationships. Violence against women online resources.
Available: http://www.vaw.umn.edu/documents/vawnet/towards/towards.html.
Davidson, A. (1998). The transtheoretical model of change – Working with women. In H. Stefanakis & A.
Hamilton (Eds.), BCACAM 1998 Proceedings (pp. 10-17). Victoria: BCACAM.
DeKeseredy, W. & MacLeod, L. (1997) Woman abuse: A sociological story. Toronto: Harcourt Brace.
DeKeseredy, W. & Schwartz, M. (2003). Backlash and Whiplash: A Critique of Statistics Canada’s 1999
General Social Survey on Victimization. Online Journal of Justice Studies 1(1).
Dobash, R. and Dobash, R. 1999. Rethinking Violence Against Women. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dobash, R.E, Dobash, R.P., Cavanagh, K. and Lewis, R. (2000), Changing Violent Men, Thousand Oaks,
Calif: Sage.
Doherty, D. & Ekstedt, J. (1992). Conflict, care and control: The history of the corrections branch in British
Columbia. Vancouver: The Simon Fraser Institute for Studies in Criminal Justice Policies.
Dutton, D. (1995). The batterer: A psychological profile. New York: Basic Books.
Dutton, D. (1995). The domestic assault of women. Vancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia.
Dutton, D. & Hart, S. (1992b). Risk markers for family violence in a federally incarcerated population.
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 15, 101-112.

59

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.69

Edelson, J. (1995). Do batterer’s programs work? Minnesota Centre Against Violence and Abuse. Available:
http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/battererprogram/battererprogram.html.
Edelson, J., & Syers, M. (1991). The effects of group treatment for men who batter: An 18-month follow-up
study. Research on Social Work Practice, 1(3), 227-243.
Gelles, R.J. (1993). Constraints against family violence: How well do they work? American Behavioural
Scientist, 36. 575-585.
Gendreau P. & Andrews D. A. (1990). What the meta-analyses of the offender treatment literature tells us
about “what works”. Canadian Journal of Criminology. 32, 173-184.
Giardini, G.I. (1942). The place of psychology in penal and correctional institutions. Federal Probation, 6(2),29-33.
Gondolf, E.W. (1995). Alcohol abuse, wife assault, and power needs. Social Service Review, 69, 275-283.
Gondolf, E. (1997). Batterer Programs: What We Know and Need to Know. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 12(1), 83-98.
Gondolf E., (1999). A comparison of four batterer intervention systems: Do court referral, program length,
and services matter? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(1). 41-61.
Gondolf, E. (2004). Evaluating batterer counselling programs: A difficult task showing some effects andimplications. Aggression and Violent Behaviour. 9 (2004). 605-631.
Gondolf, E. & Jones, A. (2001). The program effect of batterer programs in three cities. Violence and Victims
16 (6). 693-704.
Groves, B. McAlister (2002). Children who see too much: lessons from the Child Witness to Violence
project. Boston: Beacon Press.
Hanna, C. (1996). No right to choose: Mandated victim participation in domestic violence prosecutions.
Harvard Law Review, 109. 1850-1910.
Hanson, R. K., & Wallace-Capretta, S. (2000). Predicting recidivism among male batterers. User Report
2000-06. Ottawa: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.
Healey, K., Smith, C., & O’Sullivan, C. (1998). Batterer intervention: Program approaches and criminal
justice strategies. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Holtzworth-Munroe, A. & Stuart, G.L. (1994). Typologies of male batterers: Three subtypes and thedifferences among them. Psychological Bulletin, 116. 476-487.
Jaffe, P. Baker, L. & Cunningham. A. Protecting Children from Domestic Violence: Strategies from Domestic
Violence: strategies for community intervention. New York: Guilford Press, 2004.
Jaffe, P. G., Hastings, E., Reitzel, D., & Austin, G. W. (1993). The impact of police laying charges. In N. Z.
Hilton (Ed.), Legal responses to wife assault (pp. 62-94). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Jenkins, A. (1990). Invitations to responsibility. Adelaide: Dulwich Centre Publications.
Jenkins, A. (1991). Intervention with violence and abuse in families: The inadvertent perpetuation ofirresponsible behaviour. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 12, 186-195.
Jennings, J. L. (1990). Preventing relapse versus ‘stopping’ domestic violence: Do we expect too much toosoon from battering men? Journal of family Violence, 5, 43-60.
Jiwani, J. (2000). The 1999 General Social Survey on spousal violence: An analysis. [Online]. Available:
http://www.casac.ca/survey99.htm.

60

130th INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

Jones, A. S., D’Agostino, R. B., Gondolf, E., & Heckert, A. (2004). Assessing the effect of batterer program
completion on reassault using propensity scores. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19 (9), 1002-1020.
Kantor, G., & Straus, M.A. (1987). The drunken bum theory of wife beating. Social Problems, 34, 213-230.
Katz, J. (1998). Power replacement and maintaining dignity: Leading male offenders to non-violence. In A.
Hamilton (Ed.), BCACAM 1998 Proceedings Victoria: BCACAM.
Katz, J. (1999). Family Relationships Program for Federally Incarcerated Males . Chilliwack: J & Z
Consulting Ltd.
Katz, J. (2001). Be nice, be curious, be committed: Moving beyond empathy to compassion. In H. Stefanakis(Ed.), BCACAM 2001 Proceedings. Vancouver: BCACAM.
Katz, J. (2002). Respectful Relationships Program. British Columbia: Ministry of Attorney General.
Katz, J. (2005). Introduction to program delivery. Relationship Violence Treatment Program . British
Columbia: Ministry of Attorney General.
Kiyoshk, R. (2003). Integrating spirituality and domestic violent treatment: Treatment of Aboriginal men. In
D. Dutton & D. Sonkin (Eds.) Intimate violence: Contemporary treatment innovations. New York:
Haworth Press.
Kropp, P.R. & Bodnarchuk, M. (2001). Evaluation of three assaultive men’s treatment programs: A summary
report. Vancouver: BC Institute Against Family Violence.
Available: http://www.bcifv.org/pubs/Evaluation%20of%20Three%20Programs.pdf.
Kwong, M., Bartholemew, K. & Dutton. (1999). Gender Differences in Patterns of Relationship Violence inAlberta. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science. 31(3). 150-160.
Leonard, K.E. & Blane, H.T. (1992). Alcohol and marital aggression in a national sample of young men.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7, 19-30.
Losel, F. (1996) The efficacy of correctional treatment: a review and synthesis of meta evaluations. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 22, 91-105.
MacRae, J. (2003). Relationship violence and diversion: A literature review on pro-charge policies andCrown discretion. Vancouver: B.C. Institute Against Family Violence.
Marshall, L. (1992). Development of the severity of violence against women scales. Journal of Family
Violence, 7(2), 103-121.
McGuire, J. (1995). What Works: Reducing Reoffending, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Ministry of Public Safety and Attorney General (2004). Violent Crime in British Columbia. Available:
http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/police_services/publications/summary_statistics/Chapter_2.pdf.
Nayak, M.B., Byrne, C.A., Martin, M.K. & Abraham, A.G. (2003). Attitudes toward violence against women:a cross-nation study. Sex Roles, 49, 333-342.
Pence, E. (1989). Batterer programs: Shifting from community collusion to community confrontation. In P.L.
Caesar & L.K.Hamberger (Eds.), Treating men who batter . Duluth, MN: Minnesota Program
Development, Inc.
Pence, E. & M. Paymar (1993). Education Groups for Men who Batter: The Duluth Model, New York:
Springer.
Pernanen, K. (1991). Alcohol in human violence. NY: Guilford.

61

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.69

Prochaska, J.O., DiClimente, C.C. & Norcross, J.C. (1992). In search of how people change: Applications to
addictive behaviours. American Psychologist, 47, 1102-1114.
Report to the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministers Responsible for the Status of Women (2002).
Assessing violence against women: A statistical profile . Electronic resource: http://www.swccfc.gc.ca/pubs/0662331664/index_e.html.
Robinson, D. & Taylor, J. (1994). The Incidence of Family Violence Perpetrated by Federal Offenders: A File
Review Study. Correctional Service of Canada, Ottawa.
Rondeau, G., Brodeur, N., Brochu, S. & Lemire, G. (2001). Dropout and Completion of Treatment Among
Spouse Abusers. Violence and Victims, 16 (2), 127-142.
Saunders, D.G. (1995). Prediction of Wife Assault. In J.C. Campbell (Ed.) Assessing Dangerousness:
Violence by Sexual Offenders, Batterers and Child Abusers. (pp. 192-221). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Saunders, D.G. (1996). Feminist cognitive-behavioural and process-dynamic treatments for men who batter:
Interaction of abuser traits and treatment models. Violence and Victims. 11. 393-413.
Serin, R. & Kennedy, S. (1997) Treatment Readiness and Responsivity: Contributing to Effective
Correctional Programming, Research Report R-54. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada.
Shepard, M.F. & Campbell, J.A. (1992). The abusive behaviour inventory: A measure of psychological andphysical abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7(3) p.291-305.
Sherman, L. W., & Berk, R. A. (1984). The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic assault. American
Sociological Review, 49 (2), 261-272.
Stark, E. (1996). Mandatory arrest of batterers: A reply to its critics. In E.S. Buzawa & C.G. Buzawa (Eds.)
Do arrests and restraining orders work? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 115-149.
Steinman, M. (1990). Lowering recidivism among men who batter women. Journal of Police Science andAdministration, 7, 124-132.
Stefanakis, H. (1997). Using metaphors, symbols and stories in interventions with men who abuse theirpartners. In A. Hamilton (Ed.), BCACAM 1997 Proceedings (pp. 107-114). Victoria: BCACAM.
Stefanakis, H. (1998a). Desistence from violence: Men’s stories of identity transformation. Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario.
Stefanakis, H. (1998b). The trantheoretical model of change as a heuristic for exploring how to end men’s
violence against women-Part I: Working with men. In H. Stefanakis & A. Hamilton (Eds.), The
proceeding of the BC Association of Counsellors of Abusive Men Conference: 1998 (pp.1-7). Victoria:
BCACAM.
Stefanakis, H. (1999). Caring and compassion when working with offenders of crime and violence. Paper
presented at the Articulating a Space for Love and Compassion in the Teaching and Healing Arts,
Vancouver, B.C.
Stefanakis, H. (2000). Understanding and Facilitating Change for men who are violent. In H. Stefanakis (Ed.),
The proceedings of the BC Association of Counsellors of Abusive Men Conference: 2000. Victoria:
BCACAM.
Stefanakis, H. (2001). Engaging offenders in the processes of change. Paper presentation for the founding
conference of the International Association of Forensic mental Health Services, Vancouver, B.C.
Straus, M. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) scales. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-88.
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised Conflict Tactics
Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17: 283.

62

130th INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

Suderman, M., & Jaffe, P. (1997). Children and youth who witness violence: New directions in intervention
and prevention. In Child abuse. D.A. Wolfe, R.J. McMahon, and R. Peters, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Syers, M., & Edleson, J. L. (1992). The combined effects of coordinated criminal justice intervention in
woman abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7, 490-502.
Tolman, R.M. (1989). The development of a measure of psychological maltreatment of women by their malepartners. Violence and Victims, 4 (3), 159-177.
Tolman, R.M. (1996). Expanding sanctions for batterers: What can we do besides jailing and counselingthem? In J.L. Edelson & Z.C. Eisikovovitz (eds). Future interventions with battered women and theirfamilies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 170-185.
Trimble, D. (2000) Working with assaultive men: A deeper meaning. In H. Stefanakis (Ed.), The proceedingsof the BC Association of Counsellors of Abusive Men Conference: 2000. Victoria: BCACAM.
Varcoe, C., Jaffer, F. & Kelln, P. (2002). Protection women: Women’s experiences of seeking protection fromabuse by intimate partners.
Watkins, R. (1992). An historical review of the role and practice of psychology in the field of corrections.
Correctional Services of Canada.
Available: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/reports/r28/r28e_e.shtml.
Woolredge, J. & Thistlewaite, A. (2002). Reconsidering domestic violence recidivism: Conditioned effects oflegal controls by individual and aggregate levels of stake in conformity. Journal of Quantitative
Criminology, 18 (1), 45-70.
Widom, C. S. (1989). Does violence beget violence? A critical examination of the literature. Psychological
Bulletin, 106 (1), Jul, 3-28.

63