ABUSE INTERVENTIONS Working With Male Batterers: A Restorative-Strengths Perspective Katherine van Wormer & Susan G. Bednar Abstract The Duluth model of batterer intervention is based on a feminist critical theory paradigm that makes sense from the point of view of the victim/survivor, Male batterers in treatment, however, may resist many of the precepts of this model. Applying a restorative-strengths perspective to the group process and evaluation may enable us to meet participants where they are and help reduce the resistance, denial, recidivism, and high dropout rates com ‘mon with this group. Principles of restorative Justice may be applied at the community level as well to reinforce community standards of behavior. THE DULUTH DOMESTIC ABUSE Intervention Pro Tis paper will focus primarily on providing rehabilta sam (DAIP) fas been a revolutionary force in its creation tion opportunities for abusers, The goal isto broaden per of the Coordinated Community Response to domestic vio-—_spectives about appropriate trearment by. suspending. our lence, Since its inception in 1980, this Minnesota group feminist, critical cheory paradigm focused on male power has become nationally recognized for suxcessflly coordi- arnt male privilege and assuming a strengths-restorative nating the efforts of communitics on behalf of battered approach geared toward the needs of all pacties women in an effort to end domestic violence (Pence & Paymar, 1993; Shepard & Pence, 1999), Recognizing the Duluth Model Education Groups furiiy of intervening solely-on a case-by-case basis in a per” for Men Who Batter ase social problem, Duluth mode! community interven = tion projects are organized around eight key components The Duluth model education group design is based on the premise thar violence is used by men in order to control 1. Creating a coherent philosophical approach centralizing women’s behavior and reinforce male dominance. Its focus. visti sary is therefore on reducing batterers’ power over thei victins, 2. Developing “best practice” polisies and protocols for and teaching these men new relationshipy skills (Pence 8 intervention agencies that are part ofan integrated Payihar, 1993) response; The curriculum is built around the power and control 3. Enhancing networking among service providers; wheel (Figure 1), a teaching aid created with the input of 4. Building monitoring and tracking into the system 200 battered women, and which illustrates theie perceptions 5. Ensuring a supportive community infratructuee for Of the dynamics of abuse in their relationships, The cogs of barred women; the wheet describe methaxls used by abusive men, in ad 6. Providing sanctions and rehabilitation opportunities tion to or instead of physical violence, to maintain power for abusers, and control in the relationship. ‘These methods are: coer 7. Undoing the harm violence to women does to children; and! cion and threats, intimidation, emotional abuse, isolation, 8. Evaluating the coordinated community response ftom the minimizing, denying and blaming, using children, using standpoint of victim sitfety (Pence & Shepard, 1999, p. 16), male privilege, and economic abuse. Over the course of a Families in Soclety: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services Copyright 2002 Families interationa, neFAMILIES IN SOCIETY + Volume 83, Number 5/6 ——— Figure 1, Power and control wheel Figure 1 Pre ed otal we aayseat WIOLENGE syyy USING COERCION AND THREATS, “Making an or carrying out threat to do someting 19 taut er © Threatening 10 lease her, to comin suicide, report Bee to ‘rlfite * making her drop charges aking her do ‘egal things USING ECONOMIC ABUSE # Preventing her fe ering x kexping pb * Mating ber ak For mene « Ging hice an allowance ‘Taking her money * Not lting her leone about o have acest fal income ests MALS PRIVILEGE | itera “State bane “ete see ic ifRngetecmacee merino USING CHILDREN + Making her fel guy about the children * Using the ches to relay messages « Using visitation ro harass her © Threatening to take te hilren away Se USING INTIMIDATION + Making he fi by using Tooke, ations, gestes| «+ smaing things # desroying hor property * abusing pes * playing weapons USING EMOTIONAL ABUSE + Puig hee down # Making ber feel bad about herself Calling her ames # Making he think she's erry ‘ Taying mind gazes * Huniiaing her ® Making her fel guy USING ISOLATION + Controling what she does, who she sees a alls to, what she reads where she goes * Limiting her ouside invalvement © Using jealousy 1 jst actions ‘MINIMIZING, DENYING AND BLAMING * Making ph of the abuse and not taking er concerns aout it seriously Sang the abuse did't happen © Shing responsibilty for abusive behas- ion Saying she caused i , “sic VIOLENCE. sex 2 Used with permission ofthe Domestic Abuse Intervention Project 26-week program, participants are challenged to identify their controlling behaviors from the power and control wheel, replacing them with more respectful behaviors taken from a complementary teaching aid, the equality wheel (Figure 2). The cogs of the equality wheel describe methods fof negotiation and fairness, nonthreatening behavior, respect, trust and support, honesty and accountability responsible parenting, shared responsibility, and economic partnership (Pence8 Paymar, 1993), Although itis acknowledged that men enter the program vxith differing backgrounds, problems, and circumstances, and therefore differing accounts oftheir battering, i is pre sumed that the central issue is always the use of abusive tae ties to gain power and control. The facilitators are expected to avoid getting sidetracked by discussion of participants’ personal problems, and to maintain a continuous focus on power and control tactics, and methods for changing them, TThe intent to control is presumed to be present in all parvan Wormer 88 jednar + Working with Mole Batterers: Restorative Strengths Perspective Figure 2, Eyuality wheel” NONVIOLENCE = NEGOTIATION AND FAIRNESS, Seeking mutuals ans reslions cn # / Accepung change * Reng / Ning i compromise / coxomte PARTNERSHIP | Making money dessons toether Making see oe purines bei hom anil arrangements NO SHARED RESPONSIBILITY ‘Mowali agreeing on a ie Adsributio of work © Making Family decors together S RESPONSIBLE PARENTING. Shan paretal respons * Being A petive nonolent re ale forthe ck . NC / POWER \ and ce ~~ NONTHREATENING BEHAVIOR Ss Taking an acing wo that she feels ale and coasrtable expressing hers doing tings RESPECT Lenin to her ssonjmdgemennally* Being motional affcming and under ‘sabng # Ving opine —— TRUST AND SUPPORT Sppering ber goals lite # Respecting her right to her own fecings, ends, sstitge and onions } / \ HONESTY AND ACCOUNTABILITY / Accepting roponstty N\ for self © Acknowledging past use violence» Adintiag —/ being wrong © Communicating pe and truly watt NONVIOLENCE * Used with permission of the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project ‘icipants, and denial anc minimization are eypected behav iors, The falitators must therefore be prepared to engage in frequent and possibly almost continuous confrontation (Pence & Paymar, 1993), Limitations of the Model Evaluation has been an integral part of the Dom Abuse Intervention Project since the project's beginning, (Ritmeester, 1993; Shepard, 1993; Shepard, 1999; Shepard, Falk, & Raschick, 2000), While a comprehensive review of the literature is heyond the scope ofthis paper, questions will be raised regarding the implications of observations made at \arious levels of the system. Such questioning may serve to broaden our perspective and suggest other modes of practice and lines of inquiry Melanie Shepard reports on a 1987 DAIP study examin ing changes in abusive behavior both during participation in the program and at J-year follow-up (Shepard, 1993).