TOP 10 REASONS (otherwise known as Underlying Principles) The NOMAS Model for Domestic Violence Offenders does not guarantee women's safety from abuse from the men who are in the program. It is not rehabilitation or treatment.
1. ‘Treatment’ or ‘rehabilitation’ suggests individual pathology.
The NOMAS Model does not define domestic violence as an individual pathology but rather as a manifestation of sexism, deeply rooted in the history, laws 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 tactics 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 when it comes to getting men to stop abusing their intimate female partners. At best, results are inconclusive. Programs that purport to achieve some individual change indicate, by their own admission that “successes” are few and far between. Frequently, the existence of a batter program in a community intuitively gives 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 that would be better used for 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 NOMAS Model, we believed that it was vital that battered women understand the uncertain results of batterer programs’ effectiveness. Upon receiving such disappointing news, one woman cried, “Oh no! If you say the program can't fix him - you are taking away my hope.” Our response, “Do not give up hope. . . but it is safest 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 the vast majority of these men will never be seen in a court of law. And of the men who do appear, the majority will not be ordered to batterer programs.
It is noteworthy that most men who are controlling and abusive to their intimate partners are doing so in a manner that is neither illegal nor otherwise against the law.
4. Men can and do 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; 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)
Serving individual men and/or helping them to stop being abusive was intuitively right and sensible to many. And while we believe that EVERY MAN is capable of treating his intimate partner respectfully, decades of anecdotal experience, research and tragic failures, however, have proven that goal 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 NOMAS Model suggests batterer programs do 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. Men’s behavior in programs is not an indicator of their behavior towards their partners at home.
Men's exemplary behavior in batterer programs is NOT an indicator of their behavior at home, with their intimate partner. This is proven tragically, at times. After many years, we have learned that we 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.
Information reported to the court is about adherence to program policies and is not an indication or inference about his interactions with his partner.
6. What can a NOMAS Model Batterer Program accomplish? It can be fruitfully utilized within the civil and criminal court systems as additional accountability and monitoring mechanisms.
The NOMAS Model for Batterer Programs is used as a disposition in a graduated series of sanctions available to the civil and criminal courts.
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 has given the appearance that the work being done with those men is all the work that needs to be done toward stopping offenders and that this is the solution to ending men’s violence against women. It also suggests that most or all of the men who are battering are enrolled in these batterer programs; exonerating the vast majority of men who are not in programs but who are also committing domestic violence offenses.
Energy is then displaced away from more comprehensive solutions to ending men’s violence against women. The NOMAS Model believes the solution to ending men’s violence against women, is not in treatment of individuals, but in changing the cultural norms that continue to perpetuate epidemic numbers of men (across the globe!) to commit this violence. (As an example, one such norm that the NOMAS Model shifts is that we do not assess individual men's "success." Instead, we track the court's "success" by tracking the court’s imposition of consequences for those men who do not comply with the order to attend the program.
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.
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 used batterer programs to clear court calendars; as one advocate said, “. . . as dumping grounds.” Offenders would be ordered into batterer programs. When they did not comply with their orders, there were little or no consequences. As such, orders to attend programs were a sham and the abused partner’s experience of abuse - trivialized. To undo this, attention must focus on batterer programs being used in a serious and conscientious manner by courts and mandating agents.
Every woman wants her partner to stop being abusive. So do we. But until batterer programs become a part of the real solution, working on fixing individuals will continue to have serious consequences. 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 established 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 some (those with privilege). 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 have greater insight and awareness - 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. [download reference article below]
The NOMAS Model does not define domestic violence as an individual pathology but rather as a manifestation of sexism, deeply rooted in the history, laws 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 tactics 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 when it comes to getting men to stop abusing their intimate female partners. At best, results are inconclusive. Programs that purport to achieve some individual change indicate, by their own admission that “successes” are few and far between. Frequently, the existence of a batter program in a community intuitively gives 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 that would be better used for 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 NOMAS Model, we believed that it was vital that battered women understand the uncertain results of batterer programs’ effectiveness. Upon receiving such disappointing news, one woman cried, “Oh no! If you say the program can't fix him - you are taking away my hope.” Our response, “Do not give up hope. . . but it is safest 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 the vast majority of these men will never be seen in a court of law. And of the men who do appear, the majority will not be ordered to batterer programs.
It is noteworthy that most men who are controlling and abusive to their intimate partners are doing so in a manner that is neither illegal nor otherwise against the law.
4. Men can and do 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; 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)
Serving individual men and/or helping them to stop being abusive was intuitively right and sensible to many. And while we believe that EVERY MAN is capable of treating his intimate partner respectfully, decades of anecdotal experience, research and tragic failures, however, have proven that goal 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 NOMAS Model suggests batterer programs do 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. Men’s behavior in programs is not an indicator of their behavior towards their partners at home.
Men's exemplary behavior in batterer programs is NOT an indicator of their behavior at home, with their intimate partner. This is proven tragically, at times. After many years, we have learned that we 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.
Information reported to the court is about adherence to program policies and is not an indication or inference about his interactions with his partner.
6. What can a NOMAS Model Batterer Program accomplish? It can be fruitfully utilized within the civil and criminal court systems as additional accountability and monitoring mechanisms.
The NOMAS Model for Batterer Programs is used as a disposition in a graduated series of sanctions available to the civil and criminal courts.
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 has given the appearance that the work being done with those men is all the work that needs to be done toward stopping offenders and that this is the solution to ending men’s violence against women. It also suggests that most or all of the men who are battering are enrolled in these batterer programs; exonerating the vast majority of men who are not in programs but who are also committing domestic violence offenses.
Energy is then displaced away from more comprehensive solutions to ending men’s violence against women. The NOMAS Model believes the solution to ending men’s violence against women, is not in treatment of individuals, but in changing the cultural norms that continue to perpetuate epidemic numbers of men (across the globe!) to commit this violence. (As an example, one such norm that the NOMAS Model shifts is that we do not assess individual men's "success." Instead, we track the court's "success" by tracking the court’s imposition of consequences for those men who do not comply with the order to attend the program.
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.
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 used batterer programs to clear court calendars; as one advocate said, “. . . as dumping grounds.” Offenders would be ordered into batterer programs. When they did not comply with their orders, there were little or no consequences. As such, orders to attend programs were a sham and the abused partner’s experience of abuse - trivialized. To undo this, attention must focus on batterer programs being used in a serious and conscientious manner by courts and mandating agents.
Every woman wants her partner to stop being abusive. So do we. But until batterer programs become a part of the real solution, working on fixing individuals will continue to have serious consequences. 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 established 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 some (those with privilege). 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 have greater insight and awareness - 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. [download reference article below]
| White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack, by Peggy McIntosh, 1988 |
NOMAS Model batterer programs embrace 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 program efficacy 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, alongside 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 NOMAS Model for Batterer Programs takes its leadership from the local, state and national battered women’s movement. Every element of the NOMAS 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. NOMAS 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. NOMAS Model batterer programs will defer to battered women’s programs on all issues, all of the time. [Download reference article below]
| The Politics of Accountability by Jon Cohen, 2002 |