1. ‘Treatment’ or ‘rehabilitation’ suggests individual pathology. The NY Model does not define domestic violence as an individual pathology but rather as a manifestation of sexism, deeply rooted in the history, law and culture of the United States. Furthermore, centuries of patriarchy have defined men’s relationship to women in terms of ownership and entitlement, making it men’s right and responsibility to control the woman who is “his,” and to use a wide array of strategies to do so. 2. Focusing on ‘fixing’ gives a false sense of security and creates a distraction. Abused partners, family members, the courts and the community – literally everyone involved has, at one time or another, wanted batterer programs to “work.” It is a reasonable and predictable hope. However, batterer programs don’t reliably work. At best, results are inconclusive. And those programs that purport to achieve some individual change indicate, by their own admission that “successes” are few and far between. What batterer programs do give, unfortunately, is a false sense of security that a man will be fixed simply because he is enrolled in a program. Focusing on ‘fixing,’ ‘treating’ or ‘rehabilitating’ men who are abusive inevitably detracts energy and resources better placed on changing systems, social norms and community response efforts. “Even in programs considered to be successful, only a small percentage of men who batter will ever stop abusing.” – Lundy Bancroft In the early development of the NY Model, we believed that it was vital that battered women’s advocates understand the dubious results of batterer programs. We also believed that this information should be disseminated to battered women by battered women’s advocates. In one such instance, when a battered woman cried, “You are taking away my hope,” the response developed by advocates was, “Do not give up hope. . . but we urge you to make your plans based on the man you know you have, NOT on the man you hope he will someday become.” 3. Batterer programs are a smokescreen. Batterer programs point to the number of men enrolled, as if they are the only ones committing acts of domestic violence. The number of men who are actually committing acts of domestic abuse is exponentially larger. We believe that the vast majority of these men will never be seen in a court of law. In fact, most men who are being abusive are doing so in a manner that is not against the law and would not be ordered to batterer programs anyway. 4. Men can change. However, batterer programs are not an effective vehicle. Individual men can change. They always have and will continue to do so. Sex role socialization norms for men and boys can change. They too will continue to do so. Community standards for acceptable male behavior towards intimate partners can change as well. They can. And they must. The question is whether batterer programs contribute to, or detract from, this goal. Suzanne Pharr said that the greatest single failure of the battered women’s movement was that we became too much of a service delivery system and too little a social change movement. (Suzanne Pharr, economic and social justice organizer, founder of the Women’s Project, Little Rock, AR) It was at this same time that batterer programs were born prematurely. Serving individual men and/or helping them to stop being abusive was intuitively right and sensible to many. Decades of anecdotal experience, research and tragic failures, however, have proven it was wrong. Our hopes and expectations were misplaced. “It is time, even overdue, that we think about what this means without fearing the possible damage that a realistic appraisal could do to the [batterer program industry]. The NY Model suggests batterer programs may NOT need to go – just the expectations of what they can do.” (O’Sullivan 2005) Reference: Non-Random Thoughts on the Past, Present and Future of Batterer Programs: Hope in Negative Findings; Chris S. O’Sullivan, Ph.D., 2005 5. Behavior in a program has no reliable relationship to behavior at home. Men's exemplary behavior in a program is too often NOT an indicator of their behavior with their intimate partner. This is proven tragically, at times. After many years, we have learned that we can know nothing about the way a man behaves at home, in the privacy of his intimate relationship with his partner, based on his behavior in our program. The implications of this fact inform what we report to the courts1. 6. The NY Model for Batterer Programs is to be utilized within the civil and criminal court systems. The NY Model for Batterer Programs’ place is one in a graduated series of sanctions available to the civil and criminal court systems. Men who are sent by the courts to “batterer programs” should be recognized as domestic violence offenders who have been “caught.” It is important to clarify that those who are caught do not represent all men who are committing domestic violence crimes. (A comparison to those appearing for speeding illuminates this point.) Where batterer programs exist, attention is directed at the specific men who are enrolled. Unconsciously, this gives the appearance that the work being done with those men is all the work that needs to be done toward stopping offenders. It also suggests that most or all of the men who are battering are enrolled in these batterer programs. This exonerates the majority of men who are not in programs but who are committing domestic violence offenses. Energy is then displaced away from more comprehensive solutions to ending men’s violence against women. The NY Model sees the solution to ending men’s violence against women, not in treatment of individuals, but in changing the cultural norms that continue to allow epidemic numbers of men to commit this violence. For these reasons, we are supportive of work done outside the criminal justice system with men, by men and for men with regard to ending men’s violence against women. We do NOT, however, support any aspect of that work being done under the banner of batterer programs. 7. Though individual men batter. . . society allows it. We believe that our society continues to allow untold numbers of men to be abusive to their intimate partners. The use of batterer programs inadvertently supports this status quo. Historically, courts have used batterer programs as “dumping grounds.” Offenders would be ordered into programs, would rarely comply fully with the order and there would be no consequences. In this way, offenders were not held accountable and avoided consequences. To undo this, attention must focus on batterer programs being used seriously by the courts. Every woman wants her abusive partner to stop being abusive. So do we. But until batterer programs become a part of the real solution, working on fixing the individuals who attend is proven to have a net, negative effect. It’s the society, our systems and institutions, that must be changed. 8. We do our work within the context of an understanding of oppression. The United States of America, brilliant in its construction, was none the less built on laws and policies that were overtly sexist (i.e. women could not vote), racist (i.e. slavery), classist (i.e. land-owning entitlements) and otherwise favoring of some. Though much has been done to redress these early paradigms, oppression theory explains the disparities that continue to exist. On issues of oppression, there are very different experiences for those who are privileged and those who are marginalized. A significant feature of our understanding of oppression is that the privileged may truly not see, feel or experience the privilege. At the same time, those who are marginalized are aware, often in a moment by moment way – of the impact of the oppression on them as individuals, on their communities and on their entire group. [Click to download reference article: White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack, by Peggy McIntosh, 1988] NY Model batterer programs accept the realities and implications of oppression theory in all aspects of program development, service delivery and community coordination. 9. Community coordinated response required. National research on batterer programs has revealed inconclusive results. Recent studies purporting to deliver conclusive evaluations have been widely criticized for (a), not being reproducible, and (b), for being focused on behavior change in the batterer, not on accountability. On the whole, published reviews of program evaluations conclude that batterer programs must exist in the context of a larger community response and court sanctions. On a national level, states and individual communities have long ago realized that the most effective method of reducing domestic violence is to have a comprehensive coordinated community response. This should include all systems (health, human services, education, faith communities, businesses and corporations, etc.) working together, along side the criminal justice system, to change the social norms that allow domestic violence to continue. 10. We take guidance from the Battered Women’s Movement. The NY Model for Batterer Programs takes its leadership from the local, state and national battered women’s movement. Every element of the NY Model is reviewed by the battered women’s program(s) as to the extent it would least compromise battered women, least undermine the efforts of the battered women’s movement, and would most contribute to changing the social norms that allow men’s violence against women to go unchecked. NY Model batterer programs sustain their accountability to battered women by engaging the services of local battered women’s programs and participating fully in local community coordinating efforts. NY Model batterer programs will defer to battered women’s programs on all issues, all of the time. [Click to download reference article: The Politics of Accountability by Jon Cohen, 2002] 1 Courts or agent of the courts (Probation, Social Service Caseworkers, Parole, etc.)