This paper offers reflections on the Integrated Domestic Abuse Programme (IDAP), and its implications for the Building Better Relationships programme (BBR), which has now replaced IDAP as the main criminal justice intervention for male domestic violence perpetrators in England and Wales. While the BBR programme should be regarded with optimism, many of the principles underpinning IDAP are of ongoing relevance for practice with abusive men. There has been a tendency to distort IDAP and the broader Duluth model in discussions of interventions for perpetrators of domestic abuse. Although the BBR programme constitutes some changes of direction, its successful implementation requires continuity in the application of facilitator judgement, knowledge of group dynamics, non-judgemental dialogue, willingness to ‘challenge’, and responsiveness to individual service users.
AndersonCABushmanBJ (2002) Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology53(1): 27–51.
2.
BloomfieldSDixonL (2015) Analytic Summary: An Outcome Evaluation of the Integrated Domestic Abuse Programme (IDAP) and the Community Domestic Violence Programme (CDVP). London: National Offender Management Service.
3.
BowenE (2011) The Rehabilitation of Partner-Violent Men. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
4.
BullockKSarreSTarlingRWilkinsonM (2010) The Delivery of Domestic Abuse Programmes. An Implementation Study of the Delivery of Domestic Abuse Programmes in Probation Areas and Her Majesty’s Prison Service. Ministry of Justice Research Series 15/10. London: Ministry of Justice.
5.
BurnettRBakerKRobertsC (2007) Assessment, supervision and intervention: Fundamental practice in probation. In: GelsthorpeLMorganR (eds) Handbook of Probation. Cullompton: Willan.
6.
CantonR (2011) Probation: Working with Offenders. London: Routledge.
7.
CavanaughMGellesR (2005) The utility of male domestic violence offender typologies: New directions for research, policy and practice. Journal of Interpersonal Violence20(2): 155–166.
8.
ChapmanTHoughM (1998) Evidence Based Practice: A Guide to Effective Practice. London: Home Office Publications Unit.
9.
DobashRPDobashRECavanaghKLewisR (2000) Confronting violent men. In: HamnerJItzinCQuaidSWigglesworthD (eds) Home Truths about Domestic Violence: Feminist Influences on Policy and Practice. A Reader. London: Routledge.
DuttonDGCorvoK (2006) Transforming a flawed policy: A call to revive psychology and science in domestic violence research and practice. Aggression and Violent Behavior11(5): 457–483.
13.
GilbertB (2013) Public protection? The implication of Grayling’s ‘Transforming Rehabilitation’ agenda on the safety of women and children. British Journal of Community Justice11(2–3): 123–124.
HughesW (2014) Service user engagement: What’s the big deal?Eurovista3(2): 97–104.
16.
KellyLWestmarlandN (2015) Domestic Violence Perpetrator Programmes: Steps Towards Change: Project Mirabal Final Report. London/Durham: London Metropolitan University/Durham University.
17.
KellyLWestmarlandN (2016) Naming and defining domestic violence: Lessons from research with violent men. Feminist Review112(1): 113–127.
18.
MairG (2004) The origins of ‘What Works’ in England and Wales: A house built on shifting sand. In: MairG (ed.) What Matters in Probation. Cullompton: Willan.
19.
MarunaS (2001) Making Good: How Ex-Convicts Reform and Rebuild Their Lives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
20.
McGuireJ (2005) Is research working? Revisiting the research and effective practice agenda. In: WinstoneJParkesF (eds) Issues for Probation and Community Justice. Collumpton: Willan.
21.
McNeillF (2006) A desistance paradigm for offender management. Criminology and Criminal Justice6(1): 39–62.
22.
MorranD (2013) Desisting from domestic abuse: Influences, patterns and processes in the lives of formerly abusive men. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice52(3): 306–320.
23.
PenceEMcDonnellC (2000) Developing policies and protocols in Duluth, Minnesota. In: HamnerJItzinCQuaidSWigglesworthD (eds) Home Truths about Domestic Violence: Feminist Influences on Policy and Practice. A Reader. London: Routledge.
24.
PenceEPaymarM (1993) Education Groups for Men Who Batter: The Duluth Model, 5th edn. New York: Springer.
25.
PhillipsR (2015) British domestic violence perpetrator programmes: ‘Programme integrity’ within ‘service integrity’. Unpublished PhD thesis, London Metropolitan University.
26.
PorporinoF (2010) Bringing sense and sensitivity to corrections. In: BrayfordJCoweFDeeringJ (eds) What Else Works? Creative Work with Offenders. Cullompton: Willan.
27.
RadfordJHarneL (2008) Tackling Domestic Violence: Theories, Policies and Practice. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
28.
RaynorPRexS (2007) Accreditation. In: McIvorGRaynorP (eds) Developments in Social Work with Offenders: Research Highlights in Social Work. London: Jessica Kingsley.
29.
RexS (2012) The Offender Engagement Programme: Rationale and objectives. Eurovista2(1): 6–9.
30.
ScottKStrausM (2007) Denial, minimisation, partner blaming and intimate aggression in dating partners. Journal of Interpersonal Violence22(7): 851–871.
31.
SykesGMMatzaD (1957) Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review22(6): 664–670.
32.
TraversR (2012) Engaging offenders in positive change through accredited rehabilitation programmes. Euro Vista2(1): 13–16.
33.
UnderdownA (1998) Strategies for Effective Offender Supervision: Report for the HMIP What Works Project. London: Home Office.
