View Full Version : Should funding go to programs for perpetrators of violence?
When I worked in the social work field, many workers had strong feelings about not wanting to work with perpetrators of DV - usually men. Furthermore, many believed that funding that went to programs that work with the perps was a waste of money, and should be diverted into funding the victims.
So what does everyone think? Should there be funding for perpetrator programs, or should the meagre funding for DV solely go to the victims to fund women's refuges, legal support for victims, counselling for the kids etc etc??
I think so.
From my fairly limited experience with DV, the perpetrators seem to do it over and over again. they just move onto a new partner.
I have similiar views on paedophiles. Unless you're going to jail them forever, you can't just wash your hands with them.
I think both groups need extensive rehabilitation, support etc. Even if you loathe them, it will have a positive flow-on effect for so many others.
Definitely. Anything that will help. I like the idea of the programs that people can contact *before* things get out of hand too.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment MsMummy. I have a definate opinion on this subject but I don't want to influence people's reponses and the direction of the thread so I'll wait to give my 2c:D
yep i think more funding needs to go into programs for perpetrators, i think there are often underlying issues that need sorting out, and if they can work through these, there is more of a chance they can stop their violent behaviour.
Having said that, I also think money needs to keep going into women's shelters etc and helping people leave abusive partners.
The womans shelter I volunteer at is so bloody underfunded it's just .. heartbreaking to be honest.
So I can understand how someone involved heavily with the 'victims', people who are essentially emotionally being of the opinion that money spent on those who commit violence being funds spent in the wrong direction, because they are purely looking at the benefit of those in need that they can.. relate to, or rank higher.. yk.
But even though I see the people going without that are in need... well to be honest I feel resentful that our government is so blind to the needs of it's citizens that it even makes it an issue..yk?
I also feel proactive change needs to happen for the generations to come, hopefully we will all be taught how to deal with hectic emotions and reach out and ask for help and support when needed so we don't have this cycle of abuse being accepted or normalised within the abusers own life and role modeled by parents.
I think it needs a huge, defcon 1 attack from all angles simultaneously to really tackle it effectively, rather than running around trying to just keep up with the backlog of what is already occuring,
Yes Zeltronica that is the problem - victim programs arent funded enough let alone intervention programs etc.
I suppose I see it along the lines of - if you put skate parks in (or whatever) to suburbs then you get less youth drinking...
It is far better to prevent someone becmoing a victim than have to help one recover.
Yes, but I also think that there should be more money for programs for their victims.
I do, but I think early intervention is best for everyone, with regards to a whole range of social issues and in of course with regards to domestic violence.
If things are intervened early, then it can prevent children seeing and modelling the same behaviours later in life.
I see it as all interconnected with poverty, sexism, child abuse, drinking, criminal activity and so on. If the government put the money into proper early intervention in every aspect of peoples lives then we would see less social problems in every area.
I'm also of the belief that there are underlying issues, and often these perpetrators can be helped and go on to lead productive lives. That's not to say I think funding should be taken away from the victims, but often times victims go back to their abuser, so helping the abuser gain self-control will prevent it from happening again, and even if the person doesn't go back to the abuser, it will stop the next person going into a relationship with the abuser from becoming a victim.
I think rehabilitation depends on the type of abuser a man (in the majority of cases) is. Old school thinking about domestic abuse centred on anger and its 'control', whereas newer thinking recognises that domestic abuse is far more calculated, more deliberate and more interwoven with our culture than what has been given credit for. To focus on the individual offenders is to miss the bigger picture.
I see the basis of domestic abuse as being built on gendered power differences, many of which are condoned, normalised, even celebrated in our broader culture. Until that changes, real rehabilitation is made that much harder - you're not just fighting the demons inside a perpetrator's head, you're fighting the internalised misogyny and the real life support that misogyny receives.
Thus, I have a hard time advocating for more resources to be allocated to rehabilitating individual abusers, though it's a 'less bad' option than leaving them to fester in a jail cell for years. I would prefer to see resources and commitment go towards cultural change, to a zero tolerance attitude towards misogyny and abuse of all descriptions. That would seem a far more effective use of scant resources.
I would prefer to see resources and commitment go towards cultural change, to a zero tolerance attitude towards misogyny and abuse of all descriptions. That would seem a far more effective use of scant resources.
I agree, I didn't mean to make it sound like I thought all offenders simply need counselling, it's a huge issue and one I don't really have time to put into single posts on BH.
hmmm, some really great points raised. My take on it is that I do believe perpetrator programs should get funded. Otherwise we save and protect a victim, get her out, get her supported and set up. She becomes strong and she won't take him back. So he moves onto another woman and the cycle continues. Only funding victim programs becomes a band aid measure where the real cause (both the perp and society, who are the onces that have reinforced this violence, sense of entitlement, that she is property etc) slips through the cracks to wreek havoc is someone elses life.
Unfortunately I don't think offender programs have really 'got it' yet. There are some great steps where one type of program has a male and a female presenter/counsellor amongst other things. Some of the male professionals that run these courses really challenge these men and their beliefs.
But on the whole it's really just dealt with as anger problems, so send them to anger management. So at least short term, they learn to calm their moods and how they react, but their faulty thinking around male and female roles, their need for power and control, are never really addressed.
Zel, I have also felt dispondent about funding to DV, and really every area of social or welfare needs. I read the govt plan to tackle DV head on with some new inititives, but I'm not holding my breath. It will be some new help line for women :rolleyes: (which is better than nothing but so much more is needed).
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.