As noted within the Underlying Principles, DV Offender Programs work in coordination with the community to affirm accountability, uphold fair and reasonable consequences, and provide education.

A program run under the guidelines of the NOMAS Model for DV Offender Programs functions within a community coordinated response that prioritizes comprehensive services to victims/survivors and holding domestic violence offenders accountable.

The Model believes that DV offender programs, working within the community coordinated response, must contribute to the social change efforts necessary to end domestic violence, and not undermine them. This process incorporates system change in that it affirms accountability, as opposed to the prevailing theme of “letting men get by.” The feminist movement has helped us all to realize that domestic violence is immoral and unjust. The battered women’s movement has, through organizing and activism, achieved legislative change, making many forms of DV (not yet all) considered illegal.

The NOMAS Model works within the criminal justice, civil justice, and child welfare systems. This is because they have authority to mandate program attendance and follow up with sanctions for non-compliance.* The community messaging is that this behavior is not acceptable.

*Mandating agents usually include the criminal and civil courts, probation, parole, child protective services and foster care services. Other entities with the authority to impose sanctions for non-compliance can be mandating agents.

Court’s and Referring Agents Role in Accountability

It is the role of courts or other referring agents to have a series of graduated sanctions, based on the domestic violence crime committed, to hold offenders accountable for their acts against their intimate partners.

An order to a domestic violence offender program is one available sanction.

Plea bargains, resulting in reduced charges and minimal penalties, should include an order to a NOMAS Model domestic violence offender program.

Why?

Minimized responses diminish the victim/survivor’s confidence in the system and the community’s sense of importance of the seriousness of domestic violence.

For example, in the state of NY, a typical judicial response to a domestic violence offense is an ACD (Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal) or CD (Conditional Discharge). This response is tantamount to a finger wagging and a statement of “don’t do it again.”

An order to a DV program adds a substantive measure that allows ongoing monitoring and contributes to a message that his domestic violence offenses are being taken seriously.

Why?

An order to a NOMAS Model program assures that participants will be provided information that suggests that all men are capable of treating women respectfully. The information presented through a NOMAS Model program can support a man in changing his behavior, but only if he chooses to do so.

It is important that both offender programs and community systems/mandating agents recognize that responsibility for individual change is placed upon individual men, as opposed to setting expectations that “programs will change men.”

The referring agents must recognize, separate, and focus on the domestic violence offenses,rather than other co-existing issues such as mental health, substance abuse, trauma, economic status, etc. This can be accomplished through other resources. Focusing on these co-occurring conditions diverts attention from the reason that the man is before the court, having committed an act of domestic violence against his intimate partner.

Not a Diversion

An order to a NOMAS Model program is not appropriate as a diversion from a more serious consequence.

Why?

Historical leniency by courts colludes with the unimportance of addressing men’s violence against women. The Court’s seriousness changes the message, thereby changing the community perception of the importance of the issue.

Additional reasons lenient responses are not appropriate include:

An appearance in court is rarely, if ever, for the first incident of abuse.

Victims experience the court’s response as a barometer of support for ending domestic violence.

In Order to Uphold Accountability, Courts Must:

Commit in advance to issue an additional consequence if the referred person does not comply with the court’s order to attend the program.

NOMAS Model programs will only accept referrals from courts who will issue an additional consequence for non-compliance.

Why?

Courts that require an additional consequence for non-compliance are fulfilling their role in changing community norms around leniency with domestic violence. To not issue a consequence for non-compliance makes a mockery of the original order. This has a negative ripple effect in the community and with the surviving family members.

In Order to Uphold Accountability, Programs  Must:

Hold men accountable for complying with clearly articulated and attainable program policies, procedures, and practices. All participants are held to the same standards. This can only be done with instructors who consistently acknowledge their own inherent bias around race, class, orientation, etc. In order to level the playing field, you must start by acknowledging that it is not.

From point of referral, a NOMAS Model Program rigorously monitors each participant’s adherence to the afore-mentioned program policies and procedures. Compliance reports, tailored to the request of each referring agency, are sent in a reliable and meticulous manner. We suggest that each report include the statement that “compliance and/or program completion does not guarantee that the participant will no longer be abusive.”

Program personnel model self-aware and respectful interactions amongst each other, with participants, and while participating at all community meetings and events.

Important:

NOMAS Model programs recognize that how a participant behaves in class is not necessarily a reflection of how he is behaving in the privacy of his intimate partner relationships.

Consider the following:

When there has been a domestic violence homicide, neighbors are often heard to say, in shock, “but he is such a nice guy.” (He often is, out in the community.)

When a respected public or religious figure is exposed as having been abusive to his intimate partner, the public expresses disbelief.

When a “star” student in the program is identified as having committed additional offenses, staff of DV offender programs are reminded of this truth.

And at the same time, those that are engaging in borderline disrespectful behaviors towards instructors and other participants are likely engaging in these behaviors against their intimate partners.

Collaborations in Program Policy

With Domestic Violence Victim/Survivor Programs

NOMAS Model Programs believe leadership on all aspects of how domestic violence is dealt with in a community should originate from local domestic violence victim/survivor programs. As such, DV offender programs share program policies and practices and remain open to input and edits from those local domestic violence victim/survivor programs.

With Mandating Agents

NOMAS Model Programs require that mandating agents agree to levy an additional consequence for those referred who are dismissed from the DV offender program for not complying with program policies. It is noteworthy that, for fidelity, NOMAS Model Programs do not accept referrals from mandating agents that do not agree to do so. At the outset, program policies are shared with mandating agents.

More Info Coming Soon On…

• Program role in holding offenders accountable
• Program monitoring
• Timely and Accurate Reporting to referring agents
• Minimum length of program
• Consequence for non-compliance
• Connections to the Battered Women’s Movement