By Nicole Renehan and David Gadd 

As the Probation Service moves towards a ‘new generation’ of programmes for domestic abuse perpetrators, it is important not to forget the lessons of the past. It is more than two decades since the inception of the Duluth Domestic Violence Pathfinder, the first probation-led programme for domestic abuse perpetrators in England and Wales. Despite the lack of an outcome evaluation, and a report critical about the early stages of its implementation (Bilby and Hatcher, 2004), the Integrated Domestic Abuse Programme, and an alternative Community Domestic Violence Programme, were rolled across all probation areas by 2005. The evidence in terms of what worked for domestic abuse offenders remained elusive nonetheless, with only one post-hoc evaluation more than ten years later suggesting marginally better outcomes for abusive men who at least start a programme (Bloomfield and Dixon, 2015). Both programmes were disbanded in favour of Building Better Relationships (BBR), currently the only accredited programme in probation for domestic abuse perpetrators, now about to be retired with a very limited evidence base against which to judge its effectiveness. As BBR is replaced with Building Choices, we must learn whatever lessons we can about how to intervene safely and effectively with perpetrators of domestic abuse. We do, however, know that the BBR era will not leave the intervention landscape unblemished. Two ethnographic studies, two inspections, and an evaluation feasibility study all raised substantive concerns regarding the quality of its implementation, unsustainable waiting lists, a less-than-impressed probation client group about the service received, and a stressed and overstretched workforce (Renehan and Gadd, 2024; Hughes, 2024; Teasdale et al., 2023; HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2023; 2018). The most critical lesson of Duluth – that effective work with men who abuse cannot be secured without adequately supporting their partners – has not always been heeded. It will need to be if Building Choices, a more generalised strengths-based programme, is to enhance the safety of adult survivors and their children at risk of repeat victimisation and to protect any new partners that men – who have been domestically abusive – form relationships with. Both the Home Office and the VCSE sector have agreed clear standards in terms of working with domestic abuse perpetrators (Home Office, 2023; Respect 2022). These include centralising victim safety; multi-agency working; timely, accessible and gender-informed interventions; and suitably skilled and supported intervention practitioners who can foster motivation for change. Fostering motivation, of course, relies upon the quality of the relationship between practitioner and client, something that can be hard to achieve for practitioners with high caseloads. The working alliance, therefore, should not be subordinated in any intervention, generalised or otherwise. There is scope for this within the Building Choices model, though it still requires considerable elaboration. Three elements provide the scaffolding of a preliminary, optional module ‘for those that need it’: • establishing a sense of safety • building working relationships • stimulating curiosity in change In this Academic Insights paper, we argue that these three elements should form the bedrock of – and be embedded throughout – any safe and effective intervention.  We explain some of the challenges that must be surmounted if the Probation Service is to achieve this.    

Academic Insights 2024/05 Manchester, UK:  HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2024. 14p.