Blog

View from the Inside

View from the Inside

July 24th 2014

Nick Young, facilitator on the Domestic Abuse Perpetrator Service (DAPS) at Bracknell Forest Council,  presents our first guest blog spot.

View from the Inside: Working with false compliance

For three years I’ve been delivering Ignition’s two-part model of engagement and treatment for men from families where a Child Protection Plan is in place due to domestic abuse concerns. One of the most enjoyable aspects of my job is the opportunity to talk to others at conferences and forums about the work I do with domestically abusive men. These events are great opportunities to make new connections and get inspired by the great work others are doing.

The daunting part is always the Q and A's after speaking. As someone who runs a programme for perpetrators of domestic abuse, I'm used to having to justify the work I do. In such an emotive field, in a particular area that comes with many inherent pitfalls, it is inevitable - and wholly right - that I face tough questions about how I go about working with men who have victimised others.

At a recent conference, the first question was "Do you think that a perpetrator service embedded in Children's Social Care is a good idea?" This seemed like a statement posed as a question, and after a bit of digging it transpired that this person's concern was common and justified: disguised compliance.

For the purpose of this piece I'll reframe the question: "Does a domestic abuse perpetrator service embedded in Children’s Social Care provide manipulative abusers with the opportunity to trick you into thinking they're trying to change, leading to a risk of children being removed from protection plans when there is still potential for significant harm?"

So what's the answer?

The short answer is "yes", but it's not the full answer. Those who simply want The Social out of their lives as quickly as possible have long adopted the strategy of disguised compliance. Indeed, research has described this kind of resistance as ‘ubiquitous’ in child and family social work. The Motivational Interviewing (MI) approach at the heart of the programme understands this resistance as a normal, non-pathological, human response to any unwanted external control; appear to do what they want and hopefully they’ll leave you alone.

The non-confrontational, empathic style of Motivational Interviewing allows me subtly to ‘guide’ the client towards the issues, reducing defensiveness and challenging him without increasing resistance through confrontation. Research shows that MI skills can reduce false compliance by increasing engagement.

However, there are still problems when the partner does not want to engage with Women's Aid or the perpetrator and victim collude. Sometimes getting Social Services out of their family's life is more important to them than making change; but most times in ‘phase 1’ of the programme I can work with the man to build his internal motivation and increase importance for change. This is a vital precursor to looking at how we put the change into action, which is ‘phase 2’.

It can strongly be argued that any service that is offered to parents with children on Child Protection Plans offers the opportunity for disguised compliance, in the way that a perpetrator programme may offer the opportunity for an abuser to paint a falsely positive picture to professionals, or attending a parenting programme offers the same opportunity to neglectful parents. However, the risk of services being misused by a minority of clients does not mean they should be withdrawn, leaving those who need them without help.

So what's the question?

Through the programme, since September 2011 there have been 30 children whose Child In Need plans were successfully prevented from escalating to Child Protection plans after DAPS intervention with the perpetrator helped increase safety, and 57 other children safely de-escalated from Child Protection, with a linked reduction in children being taken into care. 

Keeping families together safely and working for change with the abusive parent improves outcomes for children and even where men do not complete the programme, they often re-engage with wider services, so reducing ‘hidden harm’.

So to answer the question put to me at the conference: Yes. I think a perpetrator service embedded within Children's Social Care is a good idea.

I think it's a good idea because as independent evaluation of the DAPS shows, non-abusive partners have said they and their children feel safer and happier after men's engagement with the service, because the men have changed. So Children's Social Care is exactly the place for an effective non-convicted domestic abuse perpetrator programme to be.