Leveraging Privilege: A Primer for Domestic Violence Intervention and Other Anti-Oppression Work by Oppressor Classes

[I often add links to deepen the discussion of topics I write about, to illustrate points, and to reference my work - however in this article, reading some of these links is critical if you feel discomfort at a topic, get angry at the article, or don't understand a section. Please read the links to see if they answer your questions, anger, or confusion - particularly if you feel a desire to help, but at the same time feel that oppressed people treat you poorly, are angry at your contributions, or do not help you to better understand. This article was written with much discussion and feedback with friends, mentors, and peers - and thank you to you all for the challenges, the arguments, and the work that resulted from your feedback.]

Since his inauguration, there have been an unprecedented number of protests against US President Donald Trump. The rallies and marches have sought to put light on women's rights, and to a lesser extent, human rights as a whole which protestors believe are heavily threatened by President Trump and his policies. In a prior article, I discussed the nuances of how political leanings contribute to domestic violence responses - but politics impact much more than that.

Protesting Trump and his policies is one potential tactic of resistance, but there need to be mindful reflections on how to leverage privilege and be aware of the impact of personal power and what it means to be an oppressor class who is working to stand against oppression. This article is designed to challenge readers to question places in their lives where they are blind to the struggles of those with relatively less power. As such, this article will most likely make many people uncomfortable, perhaps even angry - and that is a feature, not a fault of this article. We don't move forward and improve by being comfortable, and if you have not felt discomfort in working to end domestic violence (or in any other anti-oppression or human rights work) - you might need to reconsider your strategies and self-reflection.

1) What is Oppression Theory?
Before discussing leveraging, we need to talk about and identify oppression as a concept. While we may talk about it in different ways, unless the concept is clear and workable, it is not going to be possible to make efforts to end it. There are several methods of understanding oppression theory (some examples include Iris Young or Paulo Freire), each offering complementary insight into the phenomenon of oppression. My initial exposure to Oppression Theory came from attending a domestic violence conference early in the start of my career thanks to a presentation by the Midvalley Women's Crisis Center (now Center for Hope and Safety).

The presenters discussed Oppression as built by three components: Power, Privilege, and Prejudice. All three had to exist in order for oppression to manifest. Power is defined as the ability to change yourself and others. Privilege is the history of that power and where it comes from. Prejudice is attitudes, behavior, and thoughts about someone not based on who they are as an individual, but based on characteristics of a group that person represents.

The presenters immediately explained why concepts such as "reverse-oppression" do not exist. For instance, with racism as a form of oppression, someone who is non-white may have prejudice against someone who is white... But without power within society, and without that privileged history of having power that prejudiced, non-white individual does not have the societal precedent and acceptance of that prejudice necessary to reach the level of oppression. Prejudice is problematic, sure, but separating prejudice as a concept separate from (but a part of) oppression helps to create clarity for ending racism (in this example) or other forms of oppression.

This discussion led to a woman in the audience (I was the only man present, in a room of approximately 30 women) claiming that this was ridiculous as a concept because an example about women not feeling safe alone at night walking down a street was not true for her. She felt perfectly comfortable in her neighborhood, therefore women who feel fear about potentially being harmed by men were just being overly sensitive. The presenters (two women) responded by saying that this woman, in making that statement, was diminishing and eliminating the experience of any woman who had been sexually or physically assaulted by a man, or had experienced fear due to the threat. While her individual experience may have been to not have fear, it is important when considering oppression, for each individual to resist putting their sense of safety onto someone who may not feel that same level of safety.

Then the presenters turned to me, which in the moment shocked me. They said, "and you, as a man, not taking a moment to speak out against her claim that women were overly sensitive if they felt afraid - your silence supported that statement. Having the power and privilege you inherit by being a man means your silence supports your own power and privilege." This was how I began to understand what it means to leverage privilege. To start, it means not being silent when witnessing oppressive statements or behavior that support your personal power and privilege, and at the same time knowing that in places where I have power, I have a layer of impunity to harms that oppressed groups feel regularly.

2) What is Intersectionality?
Oppression Theory is the concept of the interaction between Power, Privilege, and Prejudice - and it leads into an opportunity to understand Intersectionality. While the idea of interactions of varying kinds of oppression is not new - Kimberlé Crenshaw coined the term in 1989 when working to communicate the difference between white and non-white women responding to sexism.

Crenshaw outlined the experience of Black women as being often excluded from feminist theory and anti-racist politics. A big part of her analysis focused on the idea of a "single axis framework" that was used to view feminism and racism. Over time, feminism has often focused on white women's experiences. Racism has often focused on men of color. The feminist concerns of Black women were often assumed to be addressed by the feminist concerns of "all women" - the difference and nuance of their experiences, as Black women, was excluded.  Black women's experience of racism, similarly, were often assumed to be included in the "racism" framework, and their experience as women was excluded. Crenshaw argued that for Black women, there is a multi-layered experience of oppression that needs to be considered beyond a singular axis of understanding.

When I attended the Women of Color Network conference in 2010, the focus was on looking at where experiences of victims and survivors of domestic violence fit in the realm of intersectionality. The conference attendees were divided into three groups - women of color, white women, and men (of the 500ish attendees, only 50 or so were men, leading to a smaller combined group). Throughout the conference, I heard white women complaining about being divided from women of color. Many were hurt by this division, and there was arguing and conflict throughout the conference driven by these same white women. This "white feminism" seeks to make experiences of sexism "single axis" - making the experiences of all women the same when considering men's oppressive behavior toward women, but the reality is that women of color experience different layers within that oppression.

In work to end domestic violence, and when intervening with domestic violence offenders, understanding intersectionality can prevent BIP/DVIP classes from narrowly considering abusive, violent, and controlling behavior as being a product solely of sexism (male privilege). Abusers have many levels where they believe in their superiority over their partners/victims/children, believe others are less than they are, and believe in being personally deserving of special consideration and care from those they harm. In work to empower victims/survivors of domestic violence, intersectionality offers opportunities to analyze environments of shelters, accommodations that are culturally sensitive, and an ongoing reflection on the significant variance in experiences of those harmed by domestic violence.

While sexism is, certainly, often a predominant factor in men's abuse of women, many male abusers can also be controlling and abusive due to class (more financial resources or control, more educational experience or value), race, ability (whether their partner/victim is disabled mentally or physically), faith/religion, or any other oppressive advantage they might hold over their partner. Viewing these intersections of oppressive behavior can provide insight into understanding an abuser's patterns of harm, but can also offer avenues to insight and empathy for oppression the abuser has personally experienced (this may involve trauma-informed responses to domestic violence offenders).

3) What does it mean to "leverage" privilege?
Privilege is the history of power in different categories. To begin the process of leveraging, first it is critical to understand where you individually have power in your life. To use myself as an example, I have many layers of power that I hold due to history and groups which have had patterns of controlling others with less power. To describe what it means to leverage privilege, I will use these examples to highlight some of the many places privilege brings invisibility to people who are oppressed.

I am white, and as a white person, I need to understand the history of colonialism that is behind this racial designation and identity, as well as the illusion being white holds. If I am doing work to end racism, I need to listen to those who have been the victims of racism and colonialism - and I need to be able to understand how white people are blind to the experience of non-whites, and often fail to listen or care about perspectives of non-whites who describe experiences of harm. To leverage my privilege in this category of being white, I need to speak to others who are white, work to communicate these experiences and work to shed light on experiences that are often made invisible. I need to pay careful attention to my silence when racism and colonialism are topics discussed around me, and work to stand against racism and not dismiss when non-white people shed light on their experiences.

I am heterosexual, cisgender, and I need to understand how homophobia and heterosexism fit as a weapon of sexism. I need to be able to notice and see how transgender people are discriminated against and harmed by misgendering, direct and indirect violence, and their experiences ignored even within LGBTQ+ movements. A part of listening to those with less power, and leveraging privilege, involves an ongoing dedication to learning about threats to communities and gaining cultural learning in cultures which I am not a part of. Heterosexual people simply "supporting" the LGBTQ+ community are not leveraging privilege, and in fact can often be practicing silence and maintaining blindness to those they have power over. This is a main reason the concept of being an "ally" can be problematic, and there has been a shift within some communities to work on utilizing the concept of being an "accomplice" in working alongside oppressed groups toward gaining footing and influence (if you struggle with thinking the term "accomplice" seems criminal, it might be important to click on the link).

There are several articles naming and describing male privilege, and it has its own wedge dedicated on the Duluth Model's Power and Control Wheel. Like much that fits into being an oppressor class, being male does not automatically mean harm and disrespect toward women and girls. Part of the challenge in leveraging privilege is understanding that power is often not a chosen thing and can be neutral, destructive and disrespectful, or constructive and healthy (or anywhere in-between). As a man, I have more ability to speak to men and hold them accountable than women might be able - because like other oppressor classes, men can easily make women's experiences or feedback invisible. I can leverage that privilege by working as an accomplice to my female co-facilitator in BIP/DVIP groups, listening to her experiences and amplifying her voice to men who have been abusive and may not hear her words or examples. I can be mindful of my behavior and attitude and where my privilege as a man might make it easy to dismiss her as a cofacilitator, and as a partner in the groups.

Men often want to be given recognition for their "good behavior," and invest in anti-sexism causes on occasion to gain congratulations and thanks for work that women have been struggling over forever. Women feel compelled to reward men for doing anti-sexism work, joining at rallies or marches, or giving support. Leveraging, in part, means being able to do work without asking for recognition or reward, and being able to directly speak to your motives for doing that work. If the answer in part has to do with "feeling good" it may be playing to that power, not helping to address it.

I have an advanced college degree, a master's of social work, and I am of middle socioeconomic class. Some layers of privilege do not shift, or only shift when changing location. Monetary resources can fluctuate over a lifetime, as educational access can shift when someone is able to learn more through a trade or school. I had to work to gain my MSW, but I also had to have financial ability to go back to gain this education. I have been impoverished and experienced financial devastation in my past, but I also grew up surrounded by family who assisted me a number of times to keep me from being completely destitute. People of middle or upper socioeconomic classes can easily develop power and privilege and be blind to the reality of skill sets (and social rules) being different by class. As my class position has shifted over the years, to leverage my privilege when I am in more advantageous places of power, I need to remember my experiences and my sense of safety without imposing my experience on others.

An ongoing challenge in anti-oppression work overall is when people in positions of power (oppressor classes) take their knowledge and experiences in life and believe others should have or do have the same sense of comfort and safety as they have. As I mentioned, I have experienced financial devastation in my life - but I had family to help at the worst times. If I took that sense of having a safety net and projected that experience onto someone without family supports, it would be oppressive of me (as I would be speaking from my power and privilege, and would be prejudging someone and expecting them to have the same resources I had when I was in financial hardship).

Power is about ability to change self or others, and gaining recognition for standing against oppression may change how you feel about yourself, and change how others feel about you. This is not to say that feeling satisfaction is wrong or bad, but speaks to motivation and begs the question: If you do not get recognized or rewarded, will you feel resentful toward an event or toward a group due to that lack of kudos? As a man, if a woman feels slighted for you getting recognition over her, is that man able to listen to anger without being upset or becoming oppressive as a response?

A huge challenge for leveraging privilege - if you are in a privileged class, the freedom, agency, health, safety, and well-being of other groups are not tied to you. As a man, I can always step away from the struggle to end violence against women and girls and it would not impact my privilege as a man. As a white person, I can do nothing to try and end racism and my life is not in any way changed if non-white people continue to be oppressed, subjugated, murdered, and scapegoated. I have to take my privilege personally, and I have to choose to leverage it outside of personal benefit because often the personal benefit is not there. If I make getting praised my benefit, then I struggle for my own desires, not for freedom, respect, and agency for others.

4) What are some ways to leverage privilege?
I hear the question "what actions can I take?" and that question can sometimes be a genuine request to become more involved in addressing oppression, and is sometimes a defeatist question where the person believes they cannot do anything that will make any difference. Both reasons for asking that question can have the same results, and the same sorts of answers. It's not enough to do independent action, and often it's hard to measure impacts by doing so. The best starting point, as mentioned above, is to actively educate and reflect on a personal level.

For most anti-oppression work, and for most efforts at leveraging privilege, there are many groups that work to end oppression - and a big part is simply joining groups and becoming willing to listen to their experience and wisdom. Go to an LGBTQ+ training. Attend an anti-racism event and ask about being more involved. Volunteer at a domestic violence program. Any of these actions is contributing to efforts. The key component, for those who represent an oppressor class the group is resisting, is humility

An oft used tool in leveraging the privilege and power of middle and upper socioeconomic class involves donating money to charity. The challenge in this leveraging is that many donations are given with little thought to where funding might be more effective. Donating $200 to a large nonprofit might not do much in their overall efforts, but that same amount given to a local agency that struggles to maintain services might be significantly more useful. Researching the needs in your local area and finding ways to give with impact, or to volunteer time or efforts to support the work can make a big difference, and while all the challenges and warnings above still apply (particularly the "savior complex" of wanting recognition and reward), it is a simple and direct way to leverage.

If you are white, then understand why an anti-racist group might be suspicious of a white person asking to join or assist. If you are heterosexual, it is possible that you might experience distance from the LGBTQ+ community when starting to join in efforts. It is possible that fears of being seen as a racist, or as a homophobe (or fears of others thinking you are not straight), lead to discomfort. Be okay with that discomfort, and notice where that is a process of leveraging privilege. Because leveraging privilege means resisting the power you have, and being okay with doing that at the same time you use it in respectful and healthy ways (being an accomplice).

Speaking up to those who are in the same group as you are is an important part of leveraging privilege. Calling out attitudes, statements, or beliefs which are oppressive is often difficult but ultimately critical to making the invisible, visible. If you are not effective in calling out your peers, or if you receive anger from groups you are trying to help - don't focus on others as the problem, rather think about how you can be more effective in listening or intervening.

When encountering resistance - it is not about others, it is about YOU. Think again about oppression theory and intersectionality. When people are oppressed, they resist. If you are being resisted, it might be due to a layer of oppression you might be relying on to try and get your points across. In doing so, you are likely enhancing the layer of oppression you represent, and making the oppression you are trying to work against worse.

To make a direct comparison to BIP/DVIP work - when doing intervention with domestic violence offenders, facilitators of groups have direct power of their class (their position as facilitator, power over participants regarding potential termination and/or reporting to referral source, often educational or monetary advantages over participants, and race or ability may play a factor as well). Participants sometimes resist material in the classes, and if that comes up, facilitators need to reflect and consider ways the material presented may not have worked to intervene.

Sometimes resistance comes from an oppressor being angry at getting called out for abusive, disrespectful, and hurtful behavior. Sometimes resistance comes from a participant feeling oppressed by the facilitators or the system. Sometimes it might be that the material is not effective because of how the facilitators present it. There are many factors that may be involved, but ultimately, it is up to the facilitators to consider their own complex interplay of privilege, position, and intersectionality as a part of the class and where that interplay fits.

To summarize these leveraging tactics:

• Work to understand the history behind your privilege, and the impact of the power behind that privilege.
• Work to practice cultural humility and learning; expand your experiences in understanding groups who are oppressed.
• Work to notice how oppressed people's voices are ignored or silenced by people with power and privilege (including ways you might personally ignore or silence others).
• Work to understand suspicion or wariness oppressed groups or individuals might be toward places of your personal privilege and power, and learn to both be okay with that suspicion and not be defensive as a response to it.
• Know your motives behind doing anti-oppression work and question yourself - are you motivated primarily (or in a large part) to receive recognition or congratulations for your efforts?
• Engage in community trainings, volunteer with groups, donate effectively, and research current services in your community before starting your own work.
• Know who is in your own groups of power and privilege and use those connections to educate, intervene, and discuss with people who might ignore those who are oppressed.
• Work to understand resistance both in terms of feedback about your efforts, and as a way to understand more how others experience you.
• Make commitments to be active in ending oppression, and to constantly seek education and learning formally and informally.

Leveraging privilege is a process, and is constantly evolving if you are open to personal growth and the struggle with others to seek respect, health, equality, and justice for all. To conclude, here are some examples of people leveraging their privilege:

• Timothy Dempsey, a high school history teacher who has co-facilitated BIP/DVIP groups in addition to teaching history, he writes about how teachers can leverage their privilege and power within their classrooms. 
• Sandra Kim and B. Cole discuss leveraging privilege from an organizational standpoint, and the need for personal reflection as a part of leveraging.
• Cynthia Silva Parker analyzes her layers of privilege and her responsibilities in leveraging the privileges she has in her life.
• Anthony J. Williams talks about looking at his privileges by stating "although my Blackness and my queerness affect my treatment in a structurally racist, classist, heterosexist, and ableist society, I’m still a man in a patriarchal society" - and then considers how he needs to use that privilege to work for rights of people who are transgender.
• Kevin Powell works to use his personal reflections, and leverage his platform and voice as a public speaker and educator to both do anti-oppression work and lead discussions on respect and health.
• Food Not Bombs is an organization that I have seen consistently work on several levels of intersectionality as they fight for food as a right, and leverage their privilege as they do so - if nothing else in here moves you to action, consider volunteering and learning more from them.

Is Domestic Violence a Bipartisan Issue?

By Christopher Hall

I've found comfort during several political seasons in remembering that as a society, we tend to be against domestic violence. We've reached a point in history where there are several different criminal charges that can be brought up in DV situations. Most states have guidelines and standards that create certain quality assurances for intervention programs. While I have my own political views, I can be comforted -- win or lose -- that victims and perpetrators of domestic violence will be addressed, and societal laws and politicians will work to support such efforts.

Are there differing political positions regarding domestic violence?

Let's consider the history of intervening in domestic violence. I have spent a prior article discussing some of the challenges of how the United States of America responded to the issue. The nation started on the concept of certain "unalienable human rights" and noted life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as the values we held to be "self-evident." At the time, being "equal" meant something very specific: male, white, an adult of age, and own land. "Equality" was only for some people, and there were several justifications as to why these rights were not to be held by all.

Relationships between men and women at that time, and for nearly 200 years after, were rigidly defined. Adult White rich men were the ones with equality so they were the ones to set the standards. Deviation from that standard, and showing care and value for women and children was perhaps looked favorably upon, but wasn't a requirement. The main focus was on maintaining the ability to control women and children—making them do things they did not want to do, and keeping them from doing things they wanted to do.

During that period, one could argue that domestic violence was indeed a bipartisan issue. Neither side of the political fence held a particular interest in women's rights, or rights for anyone who did not meet the standards of being deserving of "equality." Their focus was much different at the time, working on creating independence and empire, establishing a stable government (as 1777 to 1789 were particularly precarious due to the Articles of Confederation), and demonizing Native American peoples.

English Common Law established the "Rule of Thumb" allowing men the ability to apply "moderate chastisement" of their wives with an implement no wider than their thumb. Much of early laws in the United States did not directly address women's safety, but instead enforced what men were and were not allowed to do to their wives. It wasn't until 1871 that there was any direct movement to prevent or reduce domestic violence (outside of some work within the Puritan church in the 1600s, read Elizabeth Pleck's work "Domestic Tyranny" for details of how that system operated similarly to our criminal justice system today). During the post-Civil War Reconstruction, notions of slavery and freedom became political hot topics.

While analysis of the foundation of domestic violence law focuses on the "Rule of Thumb," it is important to consider the politics of "English Poor Laws" from the 1500s. The distinction between the "deserving" and "undeserving" is strong within that history, and as far as domestic violence law and societal responses are concerned, women and children as victims of harms were seen as not deserving of protection. Legal responses -- and media reporting -- to this day find ways to blame victims for their own experienced abuses, finding "loopholes" to justify the harms, and making it easy to drop charges of domestic violence if a victim refuses to testify (and in some cases, courts seeking to charge victims if they do not testify [1] [2] [3]).

In efforts to weigh political support against domestic violence, analyzing this history and these foundations are important in understanding conservative and liberal viewpoints of fairness and societal responsibility. Conservatives believe in tradition and hierarchy. Fear is a strong motivating factor, along with purity of moral values (often religious), and individual ability being more important for one's success in life. Liberals, on the other hand, believe in societal progress and creation of egalitarian systems. Equality and fairness are strong motivating factors, along with purity of environment and body. Environmental surroundings contributing to individual success are considered, and left-leaning people tend to want power and wealth to be redistributed to create what is thought to be a more just system.

Taking these differences in value systems and orientations to differences in societal ethics and morals, each apply differently to domestic violence responses. Conservative beliefs of traditional family roles, and support of patriarchy can lead to responses that come from religious settings (such as Christian churches) and aversion to public airing of circumstances that might be seen as private. Intervention can be seen as a "do what I say" educational approach using materials that lecture and create comparisons to "good" vs "bad" behavior. Use of law enforcement and punishment are important conservative responses that lead to changes and reduction of domestic violence based on ideas of fear as a change agent. Judgments of domestic violence offenders as having moral failings, and the need to shame such individuals into ending their hurtful behavior are also strong desires for right-leaning responses.

Liberal beliefs in societal progress, and in egalitarian systems, focus on the ability of abusers to make changes through guidance and education, and consider the challenges and grey areas of relationship issues and domestic violence. A focus on self-care, and a look at an individual abuser's environment can be important factors, and non-traditional family systems are kept in mind as a part of where such environments might be respectful and healthy or disrespectful and hurtful. While law enforcement is still often a factor in liberal responses, it is looked at as a way to push people into entering into education/counseling/intervention. Domestic violence can be looked at as an aspect of toxic masculinities, sexism, or other forms of oppressive values and beliefs.

Both sides of the political fence, due to these ideas of ethics and morals, will consistently argue and push for different sorts of interventions, legal responses, and funding for programming. The first major federal focus on addressing domestic violence was the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) which was mostly focused on law enforcement responses and creation of grants to fund hotlines and educational programs. As both conservative and liberal perspectives value the involvement of law enforcement (for much different reasons), the initial voting in 1993 was partially bipartisan. Of the Senate, there were 67 sponsors of the bill with 50 Democrats, and 17 Republicans. In the House, of the 225 sponsors, there were 185 Democrats (including Bernie Sanders as an independent), and 40 Republicans.

This bill was seen as a great success for the United States, and created a global leading stance on addressing domestic and sexual violence. The only major component of the initial bill that was challenged, and later removed as unconstitutional, dealt with civil rights of a victim/survivor to sue an abuser directly. While this limits civil lawsuits in cases of domestic violence, VAWA created a more consolidated response to abuse and violence in relationships across the nation.

However, VAWA was also a part of a greater bill, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act which created increased incarceration funding (while eliminating inmate education programs), added funding for 100,000 new law-enforcement officers around the country, and VAWA accounted for 16% of the budget of the overall bill.

In the name of bipartisanship, the greater bill included things that both sides wanted. On one hand, law-and-order politics have been a great boon to conservatives since the 1960s. On the other hand, quality-of-life concerns for the oppressed are a part of liberal agenda, and VAWA became a way of addressing domestic and sexual violence within the system in ways it had mostly been ignored before.

Vice President Joe Biden was the initial sponsor for VAWA, and has been proud of that aspect of the bill even if he and other Democrats have expressed reservations about where the bill has been directly associated with increased incarceration, sentencing minimums (such as a federal "three strikes" policy), and overstepping of police authority. Domestic violence advocates have questioned the wisdom behind much of the funding for law enforcement but little to no resources provided for restorative justice, transitional housing, and methods of creating prevention and treatment/counseling options. In the rush to legitimize systematic responses to domestic violence, there has been a question if we as a society went too heavily into punishment, and not enough into opportunities for treatment, empowerment, and cultural change.

Politically, we find ourselves in an interesting situation where conservatives have had their desire for law and order (to assuage their fear of crime) met by liberals enacting law to protect victims/survivors. Both sides come down hard on abusers who commit acts that have historically been seen as private affairs against people who are considered less important or valid than their aggressors. Democrats felt a sense of success behind validating the experiences of the downtrodden victims of violence, but only upon reflection noticed the side effects of their compromises in the name of law and order.

Biden noted his desire to create "holistic" reforms, and while initially focused on easing penalties for drug offenses in the name of better treatment options, added in the idea of addressing family violence as a part of this. Unfortunately, the reforms have been far from holistic. VAWA has evolved, somewhat, from its initial setup - adding in some "second chance" clauses - but it has not addressed aspects of racial disparity, issues of mandatory sentencing guidelines, has not included victims/survivors in decisions about legal responses and penalties, and has not provided funding options for prevention and education.

Included in the 2013 update were provisions to protect LGBTQ+ victims, and ability for Native American Tribal Authorities to more directly respond to non-tribal offenders on reservations. These provisions were hotly debated by Republicans, and a bill that had once been mostly bipartisan, fell much more along party lines.

The question of domestic violence as a political issue is that it is inherently partisan. It is a issue about values and beliefs, not about mental illness or addiction. The ethics and morals against domestic violence are going to be held by both sides, but unfortunately the values and beliefs about how to address it are vastly different. Liberals take action to try and help those who are hurt, and try to offer changes and education to those who are doing the hurting. Conservatives take action to stop those doing the hurting, while narrowly defining who is worthy of assistance and support out of fear of being "unfair" toward men, and helping those who are undeserving (this also serves to support the social hierarchy).

For those with right-leaning ideas, treatment and potential for change is not as important as getting those offenders out of the picture, by both shaming and claiming "batterers never change." Even if our reflection and experience with treating offenders through shaming them demonstrates such responses are ineffective and potentially inflict greater damages on individuals and communities, there has been a rise in shame-based responses to crime in general over recent years.

President Barack Obama, taking a liberal approach to leading the nation, successfully implemented changes that worked toward equal treatment for the LGBTQ community, created the White House Council on Women and Girls, and ushered in the Affordable Care Act to address health insurance disparities for the poor. His policies and responses have supported domestic violence work as it has been conducted with VAWA funding, and added in additional protections for communities that had previously been ignored and invisible to systematic responses.

With an incoming president who has a history of admitting to inappropriate sexual behavior with women, has engaged in direct physical assaults of women, someone who has been directly accused of domestic and sexual violence (albeit retracted), and denies that "marital rape" is a thing - where will we tread in our responses to domestic violence as our society moves forward? To project potential answers, it's important to reflect on Donald Trump as a candidate that is in many ways a personification of viewpoints politicians held in the early years of the nation.

Trump is one of those White, wealthy, male landowners who can afford to ignore the perspectives and experiences of groups that are often the targets of hurtful, controlling, and abusive behavior. He would like to keep his personal affairs private, and sees no conflict of interests in having his family continue to run his global businesses while he makes decisions that lead our nation. He is quick to mete out compliments to those he believes are deserving, and viciously attack those who he believes are undeserving. Trump believes in the hierarchy of his control over everyone and everything. He uses fear to motivate others, and believes he is solely responsible for his own success.

Remember that the core ethic and value against domestic violence is common to both sides, but the ideas on to address it are not. We will certainly be bipartisan in condemning violence and abuse in relationships, but moving forward with a conservative-empowered government, our methods of intervention will likely turn in a different direction. Under President George W. Bush, there was a certain focus on religious-based responses to family violence and other national policy issues. With Trump's take on right-leaning politics, chances are we will begin to lean toward punishment, shaming, and incarcerating offenders. In these responses, we will be more apt to question the stories of victims/survivors, holding those experiencing pain and fear to certain standards of "being deserving" of assistance, and increasing funding for law enforcement while reducing or eliminating funding for treatment options, education, prevention, and resources for both victims and perpetrators.

I know there are people working to end domestic violence on both sides of the political fence. Each side has had various things to contribute to the cause, some that have been successful, some that have not. Domestic violence is an inherently political issue, and those of you working in intervention need to know where you stand, both politically, but also within your values, ethics, and morals in doing this work and what you are trying to accomplish when you say you are working to end domestic violence and create a safer state of family.

Stalking Behavior: Building Hurtful Patterns

January is National Stalking Awareness Month, and a time for highlighting a pattern of behavior that often gets portrayed in extremes with little detail on where it might originate, and how it builds over time. In general, when asking people to think about stalking, these extreme examples portrayed by entertainment media and focused on by news sources are the commonly discussed and explored aspects.

Sadly, such a focus leaves little room or opportunity for intervention - it leaves us picking up the pieces and wondering what went wrong rather than actively seeking methods of noticing and stopping patterns of behavior as they build and develop. In this article, I'm going to be breaking down some different categories of hurtful behavior and addressing ways irritating and alienating behavior in relationships might build to stalking behavior. So I hope you take some time this month to use this to reflect on opportunities for intervention, both to honor the purpose of the awareness month, but also for your own ability to adequately and appropriately respond to danger signs.

Emotional Harms:
Broadly defined, emotional harms entail patterns of behavior which create distress in others. This is a huge category of ways abusers might commit acts we commonly define as domestic violence, and as such, it is useful to be as specific as possible when considering emotional harms. I find in my BIP/DVIP groups, a part of the classes involve creating clarity for terms and concepts that are often poorly understood or identified. Emotions are some of the most common terms and concepts that people may feel instinctively, but can be unable to adequately express or discuss due to lack of concrete definitions.

A big part of this confusion is due to the fact that as children, some of the first words we learn are emotions. Parents identify behavior patterns and name them as emotions, such as "Johnny, you're angry right now" or "aren't you happy your friend is visiting?" So we associate those sensations with words, rather than being able to break down why we feel them, or what to do about them.

Stalking is a heavily emotional-based pattern of behavior. Abusers stalk their victims/partners/survivors due to justifications of jealousy, anger, desire for revenge, suspicion, or even projecting their own lack of fidelity onto others.

I enjoy doing an exercise of attempting to define emotions using two criteria - do not use another emotional word within the definition, and do not use an example of the emotion itself. When people go to define emotions, that is the default method of describing what something feels like rather than identifying what it actually is.

An example of this in action is considering the emotion of jealousy. When I define it, I talk about jealousy being an emotion that gives you signals that someone is doing something you would like to be a part of, and gives you energy to do something about it. When defined like this, it is simple to understand that jealousy is not a "negative" emotion, but the actions that come out of it might be.

Abusers who choose to stalk their partners find various things they want to know about or be involved with in that person's life. Over time, this desire grows and an abuser may want to know all details and be present at all times. Emotionally, abusers can create distress in their partners/victims by increasingly pushing boundaries and denying personal space. It starts small, however, and often for many it can seem endearing.

After all, "he wants to spend all his time with her! Isn't that sweet? I wish MY partner wanted to spend more time with me! Honey, you should just appreciate him for the attention he gives to you because it won't last forever!" This is an example of how we readily place our sense of safety onto someone who may not have safety in their life or relationship. It is also an example of how common these warning signs present themselves to family, friends, coworkers, and others - and how often they are ignored or pushed away because considering the danger, or the unhealthy display of control is frightening to others who want to believe the patterns fit into healthy pro-social patterns.

While it is not practical to associate all desires to be together in a relationship as a warning sign for stalking, considering an overall pattern, and listening/noticing discomfort or distress in the person who is the object of these "affections" is critical to prevention and providing support and opportunities for reflection - both for victims/survivors, but also for perpetrators who may be clueless for how their patterns violate boundaries and are problematic due to their justifications and thinking they are just attempting to be loving.

Spiritual Harms:
It behooves BIP/DVIP to discuss spirituality and culture directly during groups. That is, what provides value and meaning to each participant's life, how do they understand their cultural background and conflicts in culture between them and their partners, and how any religious beliefs fit into both areas in their relationship with themselves and others.

Stalking behavior is in part based in a foundation where the stalker values a sense of omnipresence and omnipotence - seeing/hearing all, and knowing all. This can overlap in values and beliefs on several levels. Men who believe in patriarchy and control of women by men can easily have a value in questioning and finding information and desperately seeking discrepancies to justify those behavior. And part of the charm behind initial buildup of stalking is that victims/survivors often feel a sense of protection and care by the behavior (abusers may think they do it in their partner's "best interests"). The abuser might try to limit contact with friends and family, but says the only reason given is due to the expense of the visits, or that they should spend more time together, or that certain family are mean or abusive or have bad history. All of these justifications sound, on surface level, like caring gestures - but under that surface is the potential to build patterns of isolation, monitoring, and stalking.

This pattern may build up through the use of technology and social media, scouring of mail and records, seemingly innocent questions to friends and family. Asking a partner to use Foursquare/Swarm/Facebook to check-in wherever they go might be a simple way of playing a game together, or might be a way of knowing where a partner is, and questioning when a check-in does not occur. Going through mail and internally keeping track of various correspondence until there is an inconsistency or material that is not mentioned might be an organizational method, or might be a way of pressuring someone to divulge random information that appears unimportant. Inquiring about a partner's childhood or prior relationships with friends and family could be small talk, or could be information to use later.

Some of these examples appear on surface level to be a more "simple" form of control, and not stalking, but that is in part what makes these methods so effective. Stalking is often not obvious at its start, or as it builds, but only makes sense in hindsight. This is a major challenge of intervention, is being open to the idea that side comments and random patterns might be a small piece of a bigger, dangerous attack against a partner's agency. The goal of stalking in these cases is more about creating dependence and removing a partner's ability to think or make decisions. These values and meaning behind the control suffuse a person's life until their values become their abuser's values. Their beliefs mirror their stalker's beliefs because disagreeing is not allowed.

This form of stalking is often not addressed, or is addressed in indirect ways because it can be so hard to put a finger on. As mentioned at the start of this section, including extensive reflection on culture, beliefs, values, and meaning in life can help ferret out patterns and discover patterns that are otherwise easily obscured.

Sexual harms:
BIP/DVIP can easily skirt around discussions of sex outside of rape or other forms of assault. Talking about sexual health and respect can be awkward for facilitators and participants if they are uncomfortable with the topic, or do not fully understand how pervasive human sexuality is as a part of relationships.

The layers of harm in sexual behavior are also often missed. How frequently have BIP/DVIP groups discussed "selfish sex," non-sexual flirting with others, how they talk about their sexual desires or dislikes in their relationships, or discontent with frequency and how to communicate this?

Stalking behavior pushes boundaries. Stalking behavior seeks domination, omnipotence, and omnipresence - and sexual behavior can provide illusions or reality for those things. Extreme behavior that is often mentioned with stalking involve things such as the stalker smelling/investigating a partner's panties or genitals as a method of determining sexual behavior outside of the relationship. This is, of course, a humiliating and horrible experience for victims/survivors, but that extreme does not start at that level.

A stalker who suspects a partner of cheating may do these investigations without that partner knowing. That stalker may ask probing questions about contact with friends, or even discuss his/her own sexual past in attempts to gain info from their partner. If the information does not come up during that discussion - that is fodder for tactical attacks about personal vulnerability and the partner not reciprocating. If the information does come up from the stalker's partner, that sexual past can be used to compare, judge, and save for later control.

Even if a victim/survivor is cheating, how does the abuser/stalker handle this information? Some stalkers are actually seemingly happier with this information, because it is an instant trump card to be used during arguments, and justify any controlling behavior from that point forward. When abusers discuss their partner cheating on them, and their desire to continue their relationship despite this, interventionists need to ask probing questions about reasons for this decision as well as gain more details about their relationship's sexual history.

Sadly, with the proliferation of men's rights groups and their large overlap with the "art of seduction" hawkers, there are several techniques taught in these groups to have sex with women. Often these lend themselves to stalking behavior. The concept of "negging" is one which undermines someone's confidence in theory that they will be easier to seduce. Talking to / flirting with another woman who is friends with the "target" in attempts to create interest. That level of manipulation sounds a lot like the interviewing friends and family technique above, doesn't it? Consider how these tactics fit into an overall strategy to remove agency and create dependence.

Manipulative Use of Children:
Children can be excellent tools for parents to use against each other. Even in the healthiest of relationships, there are going to be arguments about parental decisions and care, but in relationships that are respectful, there will be negotiations, compromises, listening and caring during discussions, and consideration of personal desire vs. what the needs/wants are of the children will all be a part of managing parenting styles and decisions.

For an abuser who is out of the familial home, it can be a simple thing to drop by uninvited to "check on the kids," or to drop off things for them. When doing so, adding in comments about new purchases, suspicions of guests the abuser does not approve of, asking probing questions to the children to monitor behavior, or outright sabotaging the household to try and force a situation where the family needs to be reunited (such as leaving water running or turning up heat to make a higher utility bill, refusing to contribute to finances if not living at home, questioning any contributions and where the money is going when they are made).

In BIP/DVIP, these behavior are often separated out from stalking behavior and labeled as "using children" - however, as a pattern these sorts of manipulations feed into methods of gaining that sense of omnipotence and omnipresence. It is no small thing that abusers often fight for full custody during a separation or divorce - having the children is a huge source of control that can be exploited in many ways. It also makes sense why victims/survivors often make clauses in protective orders that allow for visits with children. There is a lot of guilt put forward both by abusers, and by society, for blocking contact with a parent.

Even if an abuser is required to stay away from his/her partner, if there is a clause allowing contact/visitations with children, there are ways to casually ask questions to children to gain information that can make it seem like a stalker is using technological tracking devices. "Does mommy/daddy have any new friends?" "What do you do after school?" "Is there anything new going on around the house?" "Where do you go grocery shopping now?" In these examples, an abuser might learn potential new dating partners, patterns of activity and places a victim/survivor might go after picking up the children from school, different activities that may lead to more intimate knowledge of changes in routine, and even specific locations the children and the other parent go to.

Child visitation centers have workers who are trained to notice these and other questions asked by a visiting parent mainly due to these manipulations. These traps are smooth and work well because they sound so casual, like small talk, and make it seem caring and interested. And since children can often feel saddened by parental separation, they may choose the abusive parent and want to divulge information that they believe will bring their parents back together.

Financial Harms:
Money and finances are an ongoing stressor for most relationships. Negotiation regarding budgeting, individual spending vs. family/couple spending, ideas about "needed" purchases, and financial mistakes are all contributors to this stress. Finances can also be a concrete and "safer" method of stalking a partner/victim.

If a couple shares finances, there are several methods people use to pay bills and separate out responsibilities. Some relationships create a shared pool and pay everything from that pool. Some create a pool based on the percentage earning of each individual, and have independent spending money separate from the pool. Some relationships have one person who pays bills and monitors budgeting. The most focused on economic strategy used by stalkers is the final example, however all the others also can be places where a stalker can build a pattern of monitoring and domination.

Stalking is separate from economic equality. A couple can seem economically partnered and seem independent while behind the scenes, an abuser can make sidelong comments about spending to make a victim/partner question themselves. A stalker can make a majority of the money and assure a partner that he/she doesn't need to worry about finances and then create various checks and balances on that partner's spending. Someone who chooses to be abusive can even buy gifts that seem nice, but have controls connected to them (of course that might include technology with installed tracking and spyware, but it could even be expensive gifts that once accepted are a leveraging point from then on).

Marriage proposals and pregnancy/reproductive coercion can also fit into economic controls. Does the person being abusive choose to make these proposals of having children or entering into marriage when things seem to be falling apart? Does the partner/victim have the option to decline or to wait when considering the request? Is there pressure to make decisions quickly in other aspects of their relationship?

Stalkers commonly press for immediate answers, and hesitation is grounds for suspicion and justifies patterns of monitoring, following, and tracking. Another pattern that is subtle and potentially non-abusive is long term planning for a relationship. The hidden factor may be if the individual's partner has been informed of this plan, had input into this plan, and has had concerns addressed/incorporated into this plan.

There is a fantasy and comfort for stalkers in a world completely planned out, and with technology granting illusions of divinity (virtual omipotence and omipresence) it is a simple thing for any abuser to develop these methods of dominating their partner. The challenge for interventionists is to find the profound in the subtle, the danger in the seemingly innocent, and the intentional in behavior that seems coincidental. It's not just about finding inconsistencies, however, it has a lot to do about caring enough to get to know each abuser as an individual, complicated human being and in doing so begin to put the pieces together of the puzzle of their pattern of hurtful, controlling, abusive, and violent behavior.

Resources:

• Victims of Crime: Stalking Information for teens
• Stalking Resource Center
• RAINN
• CDC Intimate Partner Violence Survey
• Human Rights Campaign: Sexual Assault and the LGBTQ Community
• Rutgers Office for Violence Prevention and Victim Assistance

The Emerge Model - An Overview

When I started working at a domestic violence agency on Long Island (The Retreat), one of the first pieces of community feedback I heard from my executive director was from another batterer intervention program in the area who had heard that I had revamped my program to begin using the Emerge Model. He warned my ED that he had never heard of the "Emerge Model" and attempted to attack my work at the agency and undermine our program.

This is not an uncommon response, sadly. While Emerge is the first agency in the world to start batterer intervention, the history of the work and the variety of models available for use is not a commonly understood part of domestic violence intervention. Most agencies in the United States use what is known as a "Duluth-like" model. The Domestic Abuse Intervention Program (commonly known as the Duluth Model) is most commonly known due to the proliferation of the "Power and Control Wheels." For many individuals and agencies, it is the only model that is known.

It is unfortunate that there is not more discussed and known about the many models that are a part of this history (such as Men Stopping Violence, Oakland Men's Project, ManAlive, AMEND, RAVEN) and since I worked at Emerge for nearly eight years, I was exposed to and interacted with people doing this work all over the world - many of whom were using different ways of intervening with domestic violence offenders.

In 2002, David Adams and Susan Cayouette (Co-Directors of Emerge) wrote an article outlining the approaches Emerge takes as a part of its model of intervention. As I began working there in 2002, I was able to see the evolution in action, and grew to appreciate how Emerge has constantly pushed their work forward.

I have always experienced Emerge as an "organic" model of intervention. The techniques used by facilitators adapt based on individuals in the classes, the group dynamics as they shift, and make considerations on how co-facilitator teams work together. There is no stronger example for this than how Emerge approaches intakes for new participants.

Most agencies I have experienced have conducted intakes by using individual interviews of new class members. These interviews ask about background, use collateral information (such as police reports or child protective service plans) as a part of understanding the individual, do simple psychological testing (such as the MAST/DAST or an adapted Lethality/Risk Assessment). These appointments tend to last from 60-90 minutes, and for some agencies these also serve as the full assessment or "evaluation" for a referral source.

Practices like this may be helpful in mental health or substance abuse settings, where individual treatment plans are created, and insurance may be billed (requiring diagnosing of the client), but this is neither the purpose of BIP/DVIP, nor is it likely that such layered belief systems behind a choice to hurt self and family is going to be revealed in a first time meeting.

Instead, Emerge takes a group educational approach to intakes. Initial paperwork orientation collects basic info on each participant (which they tend to fill out on their own, with an orientation worker reading through the answers and asking follow up questions as needed), and has the Danger Assessment scale intermixed with questions about background and history. Initial Emerge paperwork also includes a "Violent and Controlling Behavior Checklist," a simple check-off the box and circle the items instrument that is a simple identification and reflection on personal choices and behavior (prospective Emerge facilitators must also fill this form out to demonstrate awareness of their own hurtful patterns).

The real work of the intake is the eight class "First Stage" wherein eight educational lessons are discussed in a group setting. The lessons are designed to be interactive, and engage participants to consider where they fit without pushing them to admit to specific behavior. Lessons include the following:

1. What Counts as Violence
2. Self-Talk
3. What Counts as Abuse
4. Quick-Fixes vs. Long-Term Solutions
5. Effects of Domestic Violence on Children
6. Disrespectful Communication
7. Respectful Communication
8. Effects of Domestic Violence on Women

Each lesson provides a background on the impact of harms, identification of a build-up of hurtful behavior, individualizing and understanding the context of harms, and discussing alternative behavior that might lead to repairs and amends. Throughout these eight sessions, individuals are also tasked with discussing their day-to-day interactions with their partner and children, conflict and challenges, identifying their thoughts behind behavior, and humanizing their family members by naming them (this is referred to as a "Short Check-In"). This works to integrate each individual into the classes and humanize them and their behavior.

At the end of Stage One, an individual is required to complete a "Long Check-In" where they must identify their most recent hurtful behavior, and their "worst" hurtful behavior, as well as the history of their relationships, in brief. This activity helps to build Emerge's "Assessment Report" wherein each individual receives a written report that details the quality and content of their participation, how they describe their hurtful behavior, concerns about the individual's patterns, and recommendations.

The advantage of this approach is that it can create more buy-in to the discussions and allow for reflection over time that may influence a report of harm. I think of it this way - when I meet someone for the first time, I am highly unlikely to tell them about my worst and most embarrassing secrets. Yet in BIP/DVIP, not only is this sometimes expected during a first interview, but is expected each week that someone directly name the reason they are in the classes. This is a shame-based approach that may lead to compliance, but may not lead to work toward changing thinking and behavior.

Emerge's "Second Stage" is more dynamic, and consists of the remaining 32 class sessions (Massachusetts' state requirement by the Department of Public Health mandates all BIP/DVIP to be 40-sessions long). During this time, individuals are tasked with joining in discussions, giving feedback to each other, continuing to disclose the challenges and patterns in their ongoing lives, and to eventually complete an individual activity. The "Relationship History" is the most commonly used exercise where an individual (typically completed somewhere between sessions 25-35) outlines 14 patterns in their relationships. This can be a way for the individual to discover things they had not previously considered, a method of having others in the class see where their patterns may be similar, and can be a great place of practicing respectful and healthy feedback.

Each participant also completes a "Goals" activity in one of their final sessions where their activity is reviewed and they are given an opportunity to outline 5-6 goals for improving their life and relationships while the group separately comes up with 5-6 ideas on goals that might be good for that individual. It is a shared experience that again can expose shared patterns but also is work toward accountability for the future.

Throughout the 40-sessions, Emerge also attempts to conduct "partner/victim contacts" where an advocate initially interviews an abuser's partner or ex-partner by asking for their experiences, then group facilitators check in directly with the partner/ex-partner halfway through the program, and at the end of the participant's time in the classes. All of these contacts involve providing referrals to resources as well as informing about the process of the class sessions and how they work.

One of the distinguishing characteristics of Emerge is that it has a much different approach to the Duluth Model in discussing hurtful behavior. Emerge does not use "Power and Control Wheels" in favor of  considering the continuum of harm - how irritating and alienating behavior shift into controlling behavior, which can then shift into abuse or violence. Instead of categorizing harm by type, Emerge takes the approach that any behavior can be hurtful, and the harm is based on the context of the relationship, the history of the partnership, and individual factors that may be involved.

Another major difference focuses on Duluth's primary component: their Community Coordinated Response. This works well within the Duluth city and region, as their population is approximately 250,000 residents and systems can effectively be coordinated to work together and follow similar protocols. Emerge is in Cambridge, MA where the catchment area includes approximately 4.5 million people. With over a dozen probation offices, and about as many individual child protective service offices, it is impossible to create protocols that everyone follows consistently. Emerge follows more of what I think of as a "inside-out" approach, where their reports to referral sources show the values of respect and health, of accountability and responsibility. Facilitators talk to these referral sources on an ongoing basis, answering questions and expressing concerns to hold abusers accountable.

Emerge is a model which engages domestic violence offenders through discussion, like almost all models. There is mindfulness within the agency and model to apply Motivational Interviewing techniques (understanding how to roll with resistance, humanizing interventions, working to understand hurtful behavior patterns that are individualized to the abuser), and their "inside-out" approach provides the ability to interact with community on several levels without coordinating an entire region. Educational activities are designed to be grounded in the complications of relationship issues, while differentiating "normal" human behavior from abuse and violence. Individual activities address unique patterns of harm that may fit for each participant, but have overlap with others.

The agency has also been a national leader in LGBTQ+ interventions in domestic violence, and has both a lesbian and gay men's group. They have been consistent in creating community and cultural specific groups to address varying language and cultural barriers to ending domestic violence. The Emerge model has the advantage of being flexible in how it addresses individual patterns of behavior, as well as considering where unique cultural challenges might need to be addressed in more specific groups. Emerge has a process for developing such groups, and this process involves direct consultation with the communities in question, as well as assessing support and counseling for victims/survivors within the community well before providing services for abusers.

Challenges with the model include the need for facilitators to be conscious of time and agenda setting weeks in advance so that each participant has time to do all the activities in the Second Stage, the need for facilitators to be flexible in discussing topics beyond standard lesson plans, and the need to allow time for weekly check-ins without allowing them to dominate the entire class time. There tend to be more thoughtful and detailed report writing involved as a part of the model as well, which can lead to necessary work outside of classes themselves.

David and Susan recently wrote an end of year newsletter requesting your support, providing an outline of their work in 2016, and discussing some of their referral sources. Another excellent way to support them is to consider attending one of their trainings, purchasing materials, or contacting them for more information. Emerge can be reached at 617-547-9879 or at info@emergedv.com.

Again, in the interest of full disclosure, since I worked at Emerge from 2002-2009, I have a certain buy-in to their model and their methods (I am fond of their administrative practices as well). However, I have also worked to learn more about other models of intervention and try to incorporate other approaches in my own work when I see their value. I hope you join me in making this work a constantly evolving process, both for the individuals in our groups, but also for ourselves as facilitators. In the future, I will try to offer my experience and insights into other models of intervention. Send me an email if you have any questions or would like to see other topics discussed here.

Discussing Holidays in BIP/DVIP Group Sessions

The last quarter of every year is filled with cultural, familial, and individual stressors that impact and increase hurtful patterns of behavior. Everything from children returning to school, Halloween activities, Thanksgiving, Jewish High Holy Days, Christian celebrations of Christmas, and several Muslim holidays can build expectations behind how others follow traditions, create challenging conflicts between family members, and contain mixtures of nostalgia, memories of pain or trauma, and feelings of connection or disconnect.

Every year, batterer intervention / domestic violence intervention (BIP/DVIP) groups struggle with how to discuss holidays and maintain a focus on accountability/responsibility. There seem to be few options, and so many agencies and facilitators choose to ignore the topic altogether, or perform a basic check-in that is more about plans and less about looking at patterns of harm and/or personal trauma.

One option could be to watch a video. During the holidays, the only video I have seen that was helpful was "Deck the Halls" which is nearly impossible to get a copy of (there are only a few copies available at select libraries in the USA).

With that video, when I was at Emerge we would watch it in each group during the month of December. It was short (~20 minutes) and could facilitate discussions about the holidays in a way that was relatively authentic. The clothing and hairstyles were heavily outdated, but the father's decision to treat his family like second class citizens while seeking a promotion are timeless. When the son, in a rage against his father's behavior toward his mother trips and breaks his guitar Christmas present, he laments with a "Merry Christmas" that is both disheartening, and an opportunity to reflect on troubled holiday experiences both as children and adults.

However, are those the only options? Ignore holidays, superficially address them, or watch a video? At times, I think it feels that way, and with the minimal support BIP/DVIP facilitators receive, it's one small component of a greater problem.

If we are limiting our options in how we provide interventions, it makes it harder to provide services that engage men who are abusive in ways that guide respectful and healthy change. If facilitators are thinking in December what they are going to do to discuss holidays, it may be a bit late to plan something thought provoking. If facilitators don't talk among themselves (or get ongoing supervision), then how can the status quo of groups be challenged?

There is also potential to focus on the holidays because of beliefs that domestic and sexual violence increase during those times of the year. Over the years, I have heard many people working in the domestic and sexual violence field spout various statistics that can end up either being unfounded, composed of urban legends, or lacking any specific citations or information on the research being quoted (such as the Superbowl Myth). I've seen this so often I have tried to avoid quoting statistics in my BIP/DVIP groups unless I can reference the research they come from.

The challenges are that entitlement is year-round, disconnect builds over time, and while holidays can be a place of growing expectations and controlling behavior - any reason during any other time of the year can justify hurtful behavior toward a partner, a child, a family, or oneself. Vacations, work stress, health issues, school, conflict with friends or extended family, addiction issues, avoidance, self-centeredness - all these things and more are present regardless of holiday season.

I fully encourage discussions about holidays, to talk about traditions and stress during such times of the year. But on an ongoing basis not connected only to November and December. Connect to the present day lives of the participants in your group. Ask about challenging conversations, arguments, harms to self and others, conflicts outside of the family. Show care toward the members of the class by investing in their lives beyond a focus on their abuse, harm, and control. Develop caring, respectful, benefit-of-the-doubt approaches to conflict and connection with others.

Use such discussions of tradition not only to pinpoint failures, but to expand on successes - to think about times holidays bring families closer and why. To discuss materialism that can flood our culture and how that disconnects us from our relationships with each other. You don't need videos for that. You don't need an educational exercise for that. You need to have an ongoing value in guiding reflection, care, and respect.

Reflecting Forward at BISC-MI Conference Summary (Day Three)

(Most links within this article connect to the Facebook Domestic Violence Intervention and Education group, where I detailed most of the conference. I apologize in advance for the length of this article, the details and information are extensive so I tried to do them justice in brief, which for the content of a blog entry are not brief at all. I hope those who attended can use this to reflect on the presentations you witnessed, and maybe expand your learning beyond the conference itself. Those who did not attend - I hope you can see the content of a BISCMI conference and join us next time!)

Day three of the "Reflecting Forward" Batterer Intervention Services Coalition of Michigan conference began with Rene Rennick of the National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV) discussing some of the history of batterer intervention work. A huge challenge involves the early start to the work which had several groups attempting to create programs of intervention for domestic violence offenders that lacked any connection with an analysis of power/control, entitlement, or feminist analysis. For programs providing counseling, support, and advocacy for victims and survivors of domestic violence, the stories they heard from their clients, and their interaction with these programs (who often took an anger management, mental health, or addiction model approach) led to beliefs that batterer intervention was not effective at all.

This history is important to note, as it has not left us today. There are still many states where guidelines and quality assurance is minimal for BIP/DVIP work, and many communities have advocates and victim/survivor counselors and programs who continue to believe work with abusers is ineffective, or can lead to enabling abusive behavior. While the Violence Against Women Act provided funding for domestic violence services (and a large chunk to law enforcement), funding for BIP/DVIP has not been included in most grants or monetary sources partially due to this history. Research has often followed BIP/DVIP who are not following national models adequately, which also hampers the ability to work past these perceptions.

I would add in that while some state guidelines require supervision time for BIP/DVIP facilitators, many do not - and this is a major problem in this work. Those states with requirements for programs often include as a part of those requirements some form of monitoring by personnel who visit sites and look for compliance to guidelines, offer feedback and required updates, and provide sanctions or closure to programs that do not meet these requirements. This is, however, an expensive process that requires paid staff. Many states have standards that are only followed on a voluntary basis, further muddying the waters of perceived effectiveness for BIP/DVIP.

Ed Gondolf is often described as the preeminent BIP/DVIP researcher, and his focus on this year's conference was to highlight some of the overarching problems with research on domestic violence intervention, and to also speak to interviews he conducted with prominent practitioners around the country. To start, he wanted to clarify much of the confusion about calls to create "Evidence Based Practices (EBP)" within BIP/DVIP. He informed the audience that EBP is founded on a biomedical service delivery system (initial use of EBP was for physicians in healthcare settings to create standards and quality of care approaches that had the highest degree of success). The challenge with this outlook is that health has a "sick" and a "healed" continuum where an illness is addressed through various methods, and there is a definitive "end point" to treatment and care. However, within social service delivery systems, it is not so cut and dry, nor is it any one thing that is "fixed" in an individual abuser. Our systems (such as courts, legislators, and even community members) when focusing on EBP are usually doing so at the expense of alternative research (such as outcomes not tied to recidivism, or more difficult to analyze qualitative analysis), and tend to ignore the practice based wisdom of facilitators, program leaders, and administrators who work within BIP/DVIP settings.

In this pursuit of looking at practitioner wisdom, Gonfolf compiled the answers from his interviews of facilitators and program leaders and discovered the complexities of philosophy and presentation of BIP/DVIP class educational material and session structures that have not been captured by research. Some of the varying approaches included supportive confrontation, broader sharing and disclosure, curriculum that focused on drawing out discussion, and focusing on respectful and healthy changes. Commonly identified changes that practitioners discussed included increases in validating, empathizing, and providing supportive confrontation that has been designed to engage abusers respectfully and guide changed behavior. There have also been more concrete and real connections with victim/survivor services, and more emphasis on facilitator self-awareness, reflection, and analysis.

When he asked practitioners for their recommendations for future/further research, they asked for more direct observations of groups, to be more aware of outcomes beyond simple rearrest, a need for more national meetings to share information and work together, more ongoing discussion among BIP/DVIP professionals, more resources and funding, and a need to develop younger staff through mentorship and training. There was also noted a need for funding and emphasis on prevention, building alliances, and practitioners being more willing to widely express their knowledge, engage with communities, discuss domestic violence more broadly, and to be more definitive about what BIP/DVIP is as a service.

The next panel presentation was from the "AQUILA Truth Squad," consisting of Bob Agnoli, Jeffrie Cape, Chris Huffine, Eric Mankowski, Scott Miller, Lisa Nitsch, Pam Wiseman, and myself. Each of us discussed various ways that practitioners can interact with resources from AQUILA that include articles on comparing anger management to BIP/DVIP, resources and responses to judges, research and articles on positive impact of BIP/DVIP, and several other items of interest. During my small section, I again focused on the opportunities we have to see the internet as a community that needs to be coordinated to end domestic violence - and in the future I will be putting together a more user-friendly discussion board that will hopefully improve our ability to do that (which will be announced here, as well as via the AQUILA listserv).

Eric Mankowski talked about his research on batterer intervention standards throughout the United States. He started by polling the audience on how we saw advantages within having standards or guidelines for programs, and responses included opportunities for grant writing; can assist courts in understanding process of change for abusers and buy in for using BIP/DVIP; standards can create a quality control that otherwise might not be present. Disadvantages voiced included if standards have very specific required programming, it could negate or ignore culturally specific interventions; challenges with memorandum of understanding documents that are paperwork without any real connections; training requirements for facilitators and programs can be expensive and difficult to implement; problems with limited or absent quality control and evaluations/observations of programs.

Mankowski discussed that recent content analysis of standards included commonalities of treatment philosophies, length of programs, kinds of assessments, contact with victims/survivors, confidentiality, facilitator training. The function of standards were to create best practices to ensure victim/survivor safety, create consistency, provide accountability for community coordinated responses. In theory, creating standards can eliminate programs which are dangerous or increase quality of those who do interventions that are problematic. Some research has suggested and cautioned that requiring a specific intervention might limit the ability for programs to adapt and add on information and practices that could assist in evolving their work. Other cautions look at limited research on BIP/DVIP and where that fits into setting standards. There is limited/no data on effectiveness of standards, which highlights some of the research issues on BIP/DVIP work noted by Gondolf. One purpose of standards can be creating directories of BIP/DVIP (there is a Facebook group I manage that has links to programs in most states, and BISC-MI has a list of state standards), and Mankowski has been working on a website that collects information on state standards around the nation and results of his study (I will post here with the link when it is ready).


To follow up, Chris Huffine described the blended model he has worked on for Allies in Change (AIC) over the past 20+ years. He describes AIC as a gendered analysis model, using examples from Paul Kivel's work to consider how men are socialized to choose violence in relationships and beyond. Huffine includes discussion beyond a power/control analysis by considering disconnects that abusers have to partner, family, self, and others as well as how abusers will distrust intimate relationships and build up an overall disregard for others. To guide change, AIC works on creating connections to self awareness, building regard for others, practicing humility, and using the concept of the "platinum rule" - treating your partner the way that THEY want to be treated, assuming your partner is an ally, and working to give benefit of the doubt. The group format is open ended, with discussions generated by group members and directed to points of abuse/control, accountability, assertiveness, beliefs, cognitive awareness, self-care, or self-compassion.


To end the conference, Melissa Jeltsen discussed her work on highlighting the overlaps between mass shooters and domestic violence as a part of her journalistic work at Huffington Post. She discovered that most mass murderers have had a history of domestic violence as a part of their patterns leading up to mass shootings, yet in the details and articles on these murders only 7% of stories listed resources for victims/survivors of domestic violence. She highlighted the need for more direct consideration of patterns of domestic violence rather than the red herring of mass shootings being random tragedies that are impossible to prevent, or are due to mental health issues.

Thank you for spending time reading the summaries of the presentations at BISC-MI 2016. I hope you are able to join at the next conference. Please feel free to visit the DVIE group on Facebook or visit the DVIntervention Twitter feed for links and more information. For links to conference materials, including presentations, click here.