The journalist Magdaline Boutros published, in the edition of last May 13, an article which leaned on the effectiveness of the programs of intervention intended for the violent men. The fact that we have no data on the effectiveness of the programs offered in Quebec is certainly worrying, considering that the justice system and youth protection services refer many violent men and fathers to these services. Especially since many of them have been accused or found guilty of criminal offenses and their behavior has been identified as compromising the safety of their spouse and their children.
We believe, like the various experts interviewed by the journalist, that recidivism is an imperfect measure of the effectiveness of these programs. However, unlike these experts, who argue that men may have made progress even when they reoffend, we argue that recidivism is an important indicator of no change and should be viewed as such by professionals and courts. .
A man who has been convicted of a criminal offense related to domestic violence and who, following his participation in a program, commits a new criminal offense is a man who has not really changed his pattern of behaviour. It is also very likely that this man also exhibited several other violent and controlling behaviors that were not brought to the attention of the police.
In fact, recidivism is an imperfect measure of the effectiveness of these programs because the vast majority of violent and controlling behavior by these men never comes to the attention of the police and does not lead to charges. The absence of recidivism can therefore absolutely not be considered as an index of change or as an indicator of the effectiveness of these programs.
Moreover, the fact that some men have found a job or have improved their quality of life should not constitute indicators of the effectiveness of these programs either, since these are absolutely not the objectives of these programs. Without being totally insensitive to the reality of these men, these programs should first and foremost aim to ensure the safety of women and children. If victims do not feel more safe and free at the end of the intervention process, it means that the program is not effective.
It is therefore essential that the organizations offering these programs establish effective mechanisms to carry out a systematic evaluation of the pattern of behavior of violent men at the beginning and at the end of the program, of the dangerousness and of the risk of homicide. Moreover, these evaluation mechanisms should not be based solely on observations made with the men or on what they say, but should above all focus on the experience of the victims and their feeling of safety and freedom. A good practice in this area is to do regular follow-ups with victims.
It is true that these programs can not work miracles, as mentioned by experts interviewed by the journalist, but programs focused on empowerment are the only measures that can potentially bring about positive changes in some abusive men and fathers. An accreditation mechanism for these programs would ensure that they genuinely prioritize victim safety, apply best practices in terms of accountability, meet quality standards and are subject to continuous evaluation.