Facilitators of probation-based domestic violence perpetrator programmes: ‘Who’s in the room?’

Nicole Renehan

doi:10.1177/02645505211025083

Abstract

The role that probation practitioners play in the desistance process has begun to receive much needed attention. Yet, the experiences of facilitators of probation-based, domestic violence perpetrator programmes have long been neglected. This article explores the experiences and wellbeing of eight facilitators from one cohort of the Building Better Relationships (BBR) programme in England. Drawing upon five-months’ observations and in-depth interviews, I demonstrate how working with domestically violent men with insufficient knowledge, experience, or support, exacerbated within the context of Transforming Rehabilitation reforms, impacted significantly on facilitator well-being, professional identities, and practice. Practice implications are discussed.

Highlights

The above quote captures the growing sentiment amongst desistance-focused probation practitioners and researchers that skills, personal attributes, and relationality are key features in motivation and offender outcomes (Burke, 2014)
Following the Appreciative Inquiry (AI) framework, the final section sets out the practice implications according to what facilitators perceived they needed to support them in their role, accompanied by some of my own observations
Contrary to the thematic inspection (HMIP, 2018), this study found that even experienced facilitators were unsure about some aspects of Building Better Relationships (BBR) and unable to provide appropriate answers to questions posed by some abusive men

Summary

Introduction

The above quote captures the growing sentiment amongst desistance-focused probation practitioners and researchers that skills, personal attributes, and relationality are key features in motivation and offender outcomes (Burke, 2014). BBR, alongside the supervision of low-to-medium risk offenders, was transferred to the private sector in 2013 and was delivered by programmes teams within Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs). The consequences for probation services and the wellbeing of probation practitioners has received growing attention (Burke and Collett, 2016; Burke et al, 2020; Kirton and Guillaume, 2015; Phillips et al, 2016; Tidmarsh, 2020a, 2020b). To date, there has been no research that has considered the impact of these organisational changes on facilitators who deliver accredited programmes within CRCs or, crucially, how working with highrisk domestic abuse perpetrators impacts on them

Methods

Results

Conclusion