Visit Our Other Websites
empty
empty
CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) RESOURCE CENTER Read More

Add To Favorites



A Proposal For Healing Families Where There Is Violence: An Assessment Strategy


By: Family Non-Violence Inc.

PROLOGUE

It was not until the 1970's that a significant effort was made by our society to address the ongoing tragedy of family violence in our country. This happened because of the pressure primarily from thousands, perhaps millions of women, who challenged the status quo that seemed to view family violence as private matters, as "domestic disputes." It was in 1978 that two battered women in Cambridge opened their apartment to victims fleeing from abusers and the Massachusetts Legislature enacted the Abuse Prevention Law.

That law that provided the opportunity for any person suffering from abuse to obtain a restraining order against the abuser. Subsequent to that law have come other laws designed to provide ways to end family violence, especially using the auspices of law enforcement and the criminal justice system. These laws have included mandated arrest of batterers, custody decisions to take domestic violence against a parent into consideration, the strengthening of penalties against stalking, the prevention of batterers who killed their partner to visit their children and the establishment of batterer intervention programs. In order to address the violence that exists in families, society has developed two main efforts to "cure" family violence: the criminal justice system (to deal with the perpetrator, identified almost always as male) and women's services (to deal with victims, identified almost always as female and children).

Although there have been these resources made available to victims of family violence, the main response that is encoded into law has been law enforcement and the criminal justice system. What seems to be lost in this attempt to protect victims and to make batterers accountable has been the family unit. As soon as an arrest is made and the criminal justice system comes into play, immediately there is the labeling of persons as either victims or perpetrators.

This "fragmentation" was noted in an important volume Violence in Families: Assessing Prevention and Treatment Programs edited by Rosemary Chalk and Patricia King of the Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education of the National Research Council. This book was one of a series looking at research issues regarding family violence that was supported by the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U. S. Department of Justice. In the Executive Summary the editors state: "Service providers and researchers are realizing that family violence is an interactive, dynamic, and complex problem that requires approaches across multiple levels of analysis (individual, family, community) and multiple service systems. Services also interact with the characteristics of the client: some people need more support or stronger sanctions, depending on heir histories and life circumstances; others need only a limited amount of assistance, treatment, or sanction to improve." (p. 9) In the Introduction to the report, under the topic entitled "The Committee's Perspective," is written: "We could have sought to distinguish between victims and perpetrators and between treatment, prevention, and enforcement interventions by focusing on chapters on each approach. However, we decided that an approach that divides the targets of the interventions would perpetuate the fragmentation that has characterized this area of research, policy, and practice." (p. 29)

It is the position of this proposed model that, when we consider family violence, we must keep in mind the fact that the persons who are involved ñ both victim(s) and perpetrator(s) ñ are members of a family. One of the possibilities that should be taken into account is the assessment of the viability of the family unit ñ is the family salvageable? What is the best response to violence in the family that ensures both the safety of the members of the family and their opportunity to reach their highest potential?

THE PROPOSAL

What is proposed is that the Commonwealth should establish Family Assessment Centers that would be funded by the Commonwealth itself. These Centers would provide the opportunity for any family where violence occurs, whether brought to the attention of the police or not, to experience a skilled and caring evaluation of the needs of the family in the light of the tearing of the domestic fabric because of violence. This service, as proposed, would be open without cost to any member of the community including those who are brought to the attention of the police and the Courts.

This proposal is set forth in the awareness that the criminal justice system cannot solve family problems; it is set up to seek to protect the innocent and prosecute the guilty. It has also been established that not every victim utilizes the resources that the criminal justice system provides. In the July 2000 report on findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, "Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence," produced by the National Institute of Justice, the authors stated, "Less than one-fifth (17.2 percent) of the women raped by an intimate said their most recent rape was reported to the police." (p. 49) This report also states this about women and men who were physically assaulted:

"When asked by the police why they chose not to report their victimization to the police, nearly all of the physical assault victims said they did not think the police could do anything about their victimization, whereas 61.5 percent of the women and 45 percent of the men said the police would not have believed them. In addition, approximately one-third of the women and one-quarter of the men said they did not want the police or courts involved. These findings suggest that many victims of intimate partner violence ñ men and women alike ñ do not consider the justice system a viable or appropriate intervention at the time of their victimization." (p. 51)

There needs to be some alternative to the present approach of dealing with family violence.

A NEW CREATION

Corinne Kale of the Executive Office of Health and Human Services wrote a report to the Legislature about how the Commonwealth, through its various agencies should address the tragedy of family violence. The report, dated December 16, 1998, is entitled "An Integrated Response to Victims of Domestic Violence in Massachusetts." She suggested what the response system should look like: "The response system to domestic violence should be accessible, flexible, culturally sensitive and coordinated at both the state and local level." (p. 14). She went on to add: "In every community, entities should be trained to understand the dynamics of domestic violence and should be familiar with the other services that are available to assist victims in reaching safety. For example, there should be coordination between police, courts, battered women's service providers schools, churches and other community service providers." (p. 14)

The ideal of setting up local Coordinating Community Domestic Violence Councils throughout the Commonwealth has not materialized. But the need for such cooperation still exists. It is possible to conceive of the Board of Directors of an agency to provide coordination by bringing representatives of various agencies together. It might do this by focusing on providing a resource for families in trouble, families where there is violence, such as a Family Assessment Center.

Such a Center would be established and maintained not to provide treatment that would be expected from local agencies but to provide assessment of families where violence has occurred. This assessment would answer such questions as these: How deadly is the violence? What are the effects of the violence on the members of the family? How safe is everyone in the family? What kinds of services would be helpful to the members and to the family itself? What kinds of resources does the family have, such as extended family, interpersonal skills, and involvement in the community? What is the nature of use/abuse of alcohol and drugs? Is there a need for restraining orders to provide some temporary or permanent distance between family members?

This Center would receive referrals for their services from three main sources:

  • 1. The community at large, that is, the mental health agencies, the Department of Social Services, the women's centers, professionals such as psychologists and social workers, friends and relations
  • 2. Self-referrals by families who identify their need for help; and
  • 3. Personnel of the criminal justice system, especially the Departments of Probation and the Office of the District Attorney

The assessment process for referrals made by the community at large and by families themselves should include the following elements:

  • 1. It should begin with an interview of the family as a unit to hear from all of them together what happened as well as to begin to understand the relationship within the family
  • 2. It should include interviews with each one of the family members individually especially with the intention of discovering how much is the danger to each member as well as seeking the truth about what was happening within the family dynamics
  • 3. A third step would be meetings of the whole family together to provide feedback on what has been learned and to listen to the response of the family members
  • 4. The next step would be to make specific referrals to local agencies to meet their individual and family needs
  • 5. The final step is an intensive follow-up to monitor the family's participation in the suggested services

The assessment process for members of families referred by personnel in the criminal justice system is more complicated.

That process should also include the procedure stated above. However, there is the additional involvement with the legal requirements. On the one hand, as experience has shown with the referral by the Courts to batterer intervention programs, the power of the Courts has been helpful. On the other hand, there is apt to be a decision made by the Courts that are not in the best interest of the family even though the safety of the victim(s) is uppermost. In addition the introduction of restraining orders that forbid contact between those identified as perpetrators and those identified as victims can interfere with any attempt at evaluating what is the best way to provide helpful resources for the family. When one (or more) of the family members is under the authority of the Court, then there should be some evaluation on the part of the Probation Officers as to whether it is safe for the offender to be involved in the Center process and to take seriously any suggested treatment plan.

THE STRUCTURE

The recommended organization of the Family Assessment Centers would be under the Department of Public Health. It would be set up according to the same guidelines as Public Health Councils, with membership on the Board of Directors made up mostly of representative persons within the local communities.

Membership on the Boards could include the following representatives: Women's Center, Office of the District Attorney, Probation Departments of Probate and Family Court and District Courts, Police Departments, Batterer Intervention Program, Department of Social Services, Department of Transitional Assistance, local ethnic/linguistic services, clergy, Legal Assistance Corporation, Mental Health/Substance Abuse Provider, and representation from local school system(s).

This Board would be responsible for recruiting and hiring staff, developing personnel policies, overseeing the operation of the Center, deciding on policy, making budgetary recommendations, and performing other responsibilities germane to the responsibility of a Board of Directors.

The staff would consist of the following: Executive Director, Secretary, Clinicians, and Clinical Associates. The Executive Director would be responsible for the overall management of the Center, being responsible to the Board of Directors, being an agent of collaboration with community agencies, providing public relations, being responsible to the Commonwealth. The Clinicians (psychologists or social workers) would have standing in their professional disciplines and expertise in both violence and family therapy although they would not be doing therapy within this setting. Their main tasks would be training and supervision of the Clinical Associates, oversight of the assessment process, making decisions regarding the safety of individual members of the family, with the Clinical Associates formulation of recommended treatment plans and providing training to staff of local agencies in family violence. The job tasks of the Clinical Associates would be interviewing the family members and the families as a unit, the formulation (with the Clinicians) of treatment plans, being informed of the clinical resources available in the community, and follow-up contacts with the members of the families with whom they have been involved. The Clinical Associates would be recruited from the community, especially where there exists the need for staff who are linguistically and ethnically able to relate to the larger community. They would need to undergo a rigorous training and orientation to the work of the Center.

A Proposal For Healing Families Where There Is Violence: An Assessment Strategy by Robert Heskett

Source: Family Non-Violence Inc. http://www.familynonviolence.org/articles/healing.html