The perspectives of intimate partner violence service providers regarding men as clients: between ‘gender’ and ‘gender-inclusive’

ABSTRACT

Practitioners who work in IPV services have over the years addressed core questions regarding causes and accountability for IPV. Accordingly, service providers’ perspectives on IPV and treatment of men reveal that different organisations hold different ideologies, policies, and practices. The present study focused on the perspectives of directors of IPV services in Israel about IPV and men’s treatment, and the way they are reflected in practice and policy. 29 directors of centres for violence prevention and treatment in Israel participated in in-depth, semi-structured focus group interviews. The analysis offered three main themes: (1) A process of changing from a ‘gender’ to a ‘gender-inclusive’ perspective. (2) A question of whether service providers should confront men about their role as aggressors at the beginning of treatment. (3) Who is the main client? The study reveals a tension that exists between a ‘gender’ and ‘gender-inclusive’ approach and stresses the need to raise professionals’ awareness about assumptions and stereotypes regarding gender roles, and the way they reflected in policy and practice. In addition, the study emphasises the need to extend training to a variety of stakeholders, allowing them to see IPV as a complex problem, thus, improving policy, treatment, and working models of IPV.

תַקצִיר

מטפלים שעובדים בתחום אלימות במשפחה התייחסו לאורך השנים לשאלות ליבה בנוגע לסיבות והאחריות לבעיה זו. בהתאם לכך, נקודות המבט של נותני השירות אלימות בין בני זוג והיחס לגברים חושפות שארגונים שונים מחזיקים באידיאולוגיות, מדיניות ופרקטיקות שונות. המחקר הנוכחי התמקד בנקודות המבט של מנהלי שירותים לטיפול באלימות במשפחה ישראל לגבי סוגיית האלימות וטיפול בגברים, ובאופן שבו הם באים לידי ביטוי בפרקטיקה ובמדיניות. 29 מנהלי מרכזים למניעת וטיפול באלימות בישראל השתתפו בראיונות עומק, חצי מובנים בקבוצת מיקוד. מניתוח ממצאי המחקר עלו שלוש תמות מרכזיות: 1) תהליך של שינוי מנקודת מבט מגדרית למערכתית. 2) שאלה האם נותני שירות צריכים להתעמת עם גברים לגבי תפקידם כתוקפנים בתחילת הטיפול. 3) מי הלקוח העיקרי? המחקר חושף מתח הקיים בין גישה מגדרית למערכתית, ומדגיש את הצורך להעלות את המודעות של אנשי מקצוע לגבי הנחות וסטריאוטיפים לגבי תפקידי מגדר, והאופן שבו הם באים לידי ביטוי במדיניות ובפרקטיקה. בנוסף, המחקר מדגיש את הצורך להרחיב את ההדרכה למגוון בעלי עניין, ולאפשר להם לראות באלימות במשפחה בעיה מורכבת, רב מימדית, ובכך לשפר את המדיניות, הטיפול ומודל העבודה.

KEYWORDS:

• Intimate partner violence
• men
• gender
• service providers

מילות מפתח:

• אלימות בין בני זוג
• גברים
• מגדר
• נותני שירות

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is an alarming worldwide phenomenon and universal social health problem that occurs worldwide, across societies and cultures (Abramsky et al., 2011). Throughout the years, practitioners who work in IPV services have addressed core questions regarding definitions, causes, and accountability for IPV. Studies that have examined the perspectives of service providers in this area have revealed that practitioners hold different ideologies, policies, and practices regarding male perpetrators and male survivors of IPV as clients (Audet, 2002; Dallaire & Brodeur, 2016). Nevertheless, these studies were based on small samples or comprised several different groups of service provider professionals (Labarre et al., 2019).

The uniqueness of the present study is that it focused on a specific group of managerial-level IPV service providers: the directors of centres for violence prevention and treatment in Israel. The aim of the study was to focus on these directors’ perspectives regarding IPV, and specifically regarding male perpetrators and male survivors of IPV as clients, and how these perspectives are reflected in policy and practice. Increasing the knowledge about the perspectives of this specific group of professionals in practice settings is important, especially in raising awareness about the variety of viewpoints that exist and the effect these viewpoints have on professionals’ day-to-day work. As such, this study contributes to improving policy, treatment, and working models of IPV.

Service providers’ perspectives

From the latter half of the nineteenth century into the mid-twentieth century, the women’s movement played an important role in bringing the subject of women’s physical and mental subjugation to the public’s attention (Dunphy, 2001). Through the feminist paradigm, IPV has been seen from a ‘gender perspective’ and viewed as the expression of men’s power over women, and reinforced by a patriarchal culture (Stith et al., 2012). Therefore, policy and practice have to a great extent been informed by second-wave feminist initiatives which were formulated in the 1970s and early 1980s (Dobash & Dobash, 1978; Pence, 1989; Schechter, 1988; Walker, 1979).

National surveys conducted in the mid-1970s and mid-1980s (Straus & Gelles, 1986) challenged the dominant perspective by suggesting that men and women were perpetrating IPV at comparable rates, thereby setting off an ongoing controversy over this social problem (Loseke & Kurz, 2005). A number of studies have provided support for this ‘gender-inclusive’ approach (Bates et al., 2014; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2012; Straus, 2015), with a general consensus that physical violence is more severe for women than for men, and women should indeed be provided with greater protection (Jose & O’Leary, 2009).

In an attempt to integrate the ‘gender’ and ‘gender-inclusive’ approaches, Johnson (1995, 2001) produced a comprehensive typology and proposed to capture the broader cultural context in which acts of IPV occur. Johnson distinguished between four types of violence: (1) intimate terrorism, (2) violent resistance, (3) situational couple violence, and (4) mutual violent control. Two of these four types are symmetrical, and one of them (intimate terrorism) was initially described as patriarchal terrorism, which is a product of patriarchal traditions including men’s right to control ‘their’ women. Indeed, aspects of patriarchal ideology and societies have been meta-analytically associated with the occurrence of assaults on women (Stith et al. 2004; Sugarman & Frankel 1996). However, the controversy regarding these two approaches has yet to subside and, as a result, theory, research, policy, and practice have been impeded (Labarre et al., 2019).

Studies regarding IPV service providers’ perspectives about IPV and men as clients show a tension between these approaches. For example, studies conducted among IPV practitioners have revealed that some, expressing views of a ‘social approach’ nature, consider stereotypical gender roles to exacerbate IPV. These practitioners subscribe to a feminist ideology (Arnold, 2011; Audet, 2002; Lehrner & Allen, 2009). Wathen et al. (2015) found among 68 domestic abuse shelter directors in Canada differences both in philosophy and in how abuse was defined, directly affecting decisions about who received services as well as about the shelters’ role in the greater community. The criteria for the directors’ decisions tended to be based on the abused woman’s perceived vulnerability, including type and severity of abuse. These perceptions affected the primary services received by the women and their children. Alongside these studies, Roy et al. (2020) found among practitioners working with violent partners that they viewed IPV as a complex, multifactorial problem, involving individual risk factors for the most part, alongside contextual and social ones. The practitioners saw both perpetrators and victims as accountable for their choices.

IPV and treatment for men

A review of the literature regarding interventions for men indicates that over the years, the focus has changed from victim-centred to perpetrator-centred treatment, with the aim of preventing the perpetrator from reoffending (Stover, 2005). A few studies have also pointed out that men are usually cast as the perpetrator and that the interventions offered them by social services align with this perspective (Bates, 2019; Huntley et al., 2019). The same picture was found in a study conducted among IPV service providers in Israel (Eisikovits, et al., 2015). In addition, in recent years there have been those who criticised service providers in terms of their ability to see men in general as clients and to recruit them for treatment (Baum, 2006). The argument has been that IPV service providers’ treatment of men is limited and biased, with interventions lacking gender sensitivity (Gilbar et al., 2020). This criticism, alongside studies revealing that 28–90% of men who begin treatment do not complete it (Daly & Pelowski, 2000), indicates that the answers to questions regarding the role of services providers’ perspectives and the way providers shape their practice in order to keep men in treatment remain unclear.

In an attempt to understand how an organisation’s structure, ideology, and perspectives can give rise to gender inequality, which in turn shapes practice, Acker (1990, 1992) in her theory of gendered organisations suggested that organisations were in and of themselves sites of gendered structures and processes. Acker’s theory is especially relevant to organisations that work in the field of IPV, as gendered institutional structures have wide-ranging effects: on those who work with these organisations, on those who work within these organisations, and on their clients, both women and men.

Many studies have applied the theory of gendered organisations as it pertains to women, with the main focus of these studies being the embeddedness of power in gender relations, and processes and structures that subordinate women and privilege men (Britton & Logan, 2008; Gherardi, 1995). There seem to be only a few researchers who have dealt with gendered organisations and men as clients in IPV services. Among them, Corvo and Johnson (2003) claimed that service providers stigmatised men and discriminated against them via the popular ‘vilification of the batterer’ approach in policy and research. In accordance with this view of IPV, perpetrators can only be male, and they are secondary in importance to the women as IPV services clients. According to Corvo and Carpenter (2000), this perspective ignores a variety of other psychosocial risk factors. Newer studies call for an integration of services and a change in the ‘black and white’ approach, which views IPV perpetrators as men and villains (Labarre et al., 2019).

Based on the literature review and the understanding that alongside the importance of providing aid to women who are in IPV relationships, men are an essential link in IPV interventions, the following research questions were addressed in this study: (1) What are the perspectives of the directors of the centres for violence prevention and treatment in Israel regarding IPV and specifically regarding men as clients? (2) How do the directors’ perspectives shape the recruitment of men for treatment and how do they shape organisational practices? (3) How do the directors’ perspectives affect the dialogue that is conducted with these men throughout treatment?

Method

The research paradigm and perspective

The present study drew on the paradigm of constructivism (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011), which assumes a relativist ontology (i.e. there are multiple realities) and a subjective epistemology (i.e. individuals understand themselves and their world through subjective meanings). As Creswell (2013) emphasised, because these meanings are varied and multiple, the researchers must rely on the participants’ views. Guided by these theoretical grounds, the present study followed an inductive rationale, aiming to generate emic knowledge: namely, the participants’ constructions of IPV, specifically regarding men as clients. Rather than testing previous assumptions, we sought to delve into the participants’ interpretations and professional experiences of how to treat abusive men, as well as their relations with this population.

Participants

The study population included 27 female directors and two male directors of centres for violence prevention and treatment in Israel. All of them had been counsellors at these centres in the past. In Israel, violence against women is prevalent among all sectors of the population. However, the women in three minority groups in Israel stand out in the literature for the high rates of domestic violence they suffer. These three groups – Arab women; Former Soviet Union (FSU)-born women; and Ethiopian-born women – are all characterised by social norms that legitimise intimate partner violence and put the blame on the women themselves for the partner violence carried out against them (Ben-Porat, 2010; Crandall et al., 2005; Haj-Yahia, 2000). Yet findings from the first and only national Israeli survey (Eisikovits et al., 2004) demonstrated that the prevalence of domestic violence in Israel is generally similar to the prevalence in the United States. More specifically, the researchers found that the rates of psychological aggression in Israel were slightly higher than in the United States, whereas the rates of physical aggression were found to be lower. In an attempt to deal with this problem, over the years 14 shelters for women and their children have been established in Israel, as well as 107 centres for the prevention and treatment of IPV.

The legal basis for the work conducted by these centres is provided by the Prevention of Family Violence Law (1991) and the social work ordinance in Israel which relies on a systemic approach to intervention, views all of the family members as clients, and allows for the possibility that both men and women contribute to IPV. The main interventions in the centres are assessing risk, providing individual and group therapy to both men and women, referring high-risk women to shelters, and developing prevention strategies in the community. Nevertheless, despite the systemic approach that informs these centres, according to data published by Israel’s Ministry of Welfare in 2017, 65% of clients were women, 25% were men, and the rest were children and youth.

Procedure

Data were collected by in-depth, semi-structured focus group interviews that lasted three hours. Focus groups are an effective means of understanding perceptions, opinions, and beliefs among a relatively large number of respondents over a short period of time. Moreover, focus groups can enrich the discussion through group interactions in which participants are asked to share, clarify, and question others’ responses (Freeman, 2006). Focus groups were held at a seminar for directors and supervisors of these centres. Four groups were included: three for directors and one for national supervisors in the field of family violence. Most of the participants were from cities located in the centre of Israel, which is where two of the researchers’ university is located. The focus groups were conducted in Hebrew, audio-recorded, and later transcribed. The participants in the three directors’ groups were divided randomly to each group. Each group was guided by a representative of the research team alongside a professionally trained group counsellor. Participants were promised confidentiality.

The interviews were based on an interview guide, and we drew on a constructivist foundation, which provided an inductive rationale (i.e. to data coding and treating analysis as a bottom-up approach). In that way, the codes and themes derive from the data content itself (Braun & Clarke, 2012), and the interviews consisted of broad open-ended questions, so that the participants could construct their own meanings (Creswell, 2013). Thus, several questions were asked about the participants’ perceptions of the phenomenon of treating men who are in heterosexual IPV relationships. Specifically, the interview guide included seven questions, beginning with the following general question: ‘What is the policy you lead in your center regarding men?’ More specific questions followed, including, ‘What actions does your center take in order to recruit men to treatment? or ‘What works in recruiting and keeping these men in treatment?’

Data gathering and analysis

A thematic analysis was conducted in this study. Braun and Clarke (2012) define thematic analysis as ‘a method for systematically identifying, organizing, and offering insight into patterns of meaning (themes) across a data set, through focusing on meaning across a data set.’ In line with Moustakas’ phenomenological approach (Creswell, 2013), the analysis included three phases. First, significant statements were identified in the texts – that is, sentences that provided an understanding of the participants’ experiences (‘horizontalization’). Analysis was carried out for each group separately, followed by comparisons between the different focus groups in order to find the shared themes for all of the groups alongside the specific themes which arose in each discrete group (Miles et al., 2014). These statements were then merged into clusters of themes, with the aim of offering detailed descriptions of ‘what’ the participants had experienced – in terms of their IPV intervention for men – and ‘how’ they had experienced it. These significant themes were then used to write a ‘textural description’ of the detailed descriptions of what the participants had experienced, in terms of the study questions and the contexts that influenced these experiences (a ‘structural description’). These statements were then merged into clusters of themes, with the aim of offering themed content. The goal of the analysis’s last phase was to provide a composite description that would present the essence of the phenomenon under study.

Credibility

A trustworthy qualitative study is credible, transferable, reliable and reproducible (Guba & Lincoln, 1985). In an effort to ensure the study’s credibility, three main tasks were performed. First, throughout the analysis, a research diary was kept, in an attempt to bracket the first author`s personal attitudes and feelings toward the participants, so that these would not colour the interpretation. Second, the analytical insights were regularly discussed among the three authors, with the goal of reaching a consensus. Third, all three researchers were involved in the analysis process. The third author created the first phase of the analysis and gathered the initial themes. Subsequently, the first and second authors created the second and third phases of the analysis. Initially, each one reviewed the material from the focus groups individually and identified the main themes derived from the material (Unrau, & Coleman, 1997). Afterwards, they discussed their respective evaluations of the main themes they had identified, until they reached a consensus on the main themes. All authors reviewed the final results. In addition, the major findings were presented by the first author at a meeting of the directors of the centres to receive their feedback regarding the main results. The directors’ comments on the integration of the findings increased the study's credibility.

The third vehicle by which to attain credibility is the ‘reflexive gaze’ (Guba & Lincoln, 1985). As Creswell (2013) notes, researchers adopting this interpretive framework understand that they are not without bias and that their own personal, cultural, and historical background exerts an influence over their ideas (p. 25). In the current study, the three researchers who were involved all brought their own clinical and research experience to the study. Because these researchers consisted of one man and two women, who had been exposed to different manifestations of IPV among Israeli clients, they did not approach the current study with uniform attitudes or expectations regarding the correct way to treat men.

Ethical aspects

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the university at which the research was being conducted. Participants were told that if they did not wish to continue the interviews, they could stop immediately. To protect anonymity, participants’ ages, names, and the names of anyone else mentioned in the interviews were disguised in the paper. The names of all places and domestic violence centres were disguised as well.

Findings

The directors, in terms of treating men, maintained the ideology and policies of the centres of which they were in charge. The analysis of the focus groups offered three main themes: In the first one, most directors declared that over the years a change had transpired either within themselves, or within the field, and that the problem of violence within a couple’s relationship was now conceptualised from a ‘gender-inclusive’ perspective rather than a ‘gender’ perspective.

From a gender approach to a gender-inclusive approach point of view

The directors in all of the groups used the words ‘system approach’ many times; this phrasing is common in Israel and expresses the attitude that both partners bear some responsibility for the violence in the relationship, a perspective that aligns with the claim of the gender-inclusive approach. For example, one of the participants expressed this perspective in the following way:

First of all, we are talking about a system. A system approach where we think it is not right to treat only the women. There is a great need, and we think it is right to engage the men as well. (PF)

Another participant said:

As a family center we see the problem as a systemic problem. That is why we treat men right from the beginning. We see the problem as being a systemic one, and not as a woman-gender-focused problem. (TD)

Some of the directors acknowledged a process which has developed over the years both within themselves and among other workers in the field. Specifically, a paradigm shift has taken place: from a feminist approach which dichotomises the man as the aggressor and the woman as the victim, to a system approach which recognises the possibility that the violence between the couples might be two-sided.

One of the directors articulated these ideas, as follows.

At our center we changed our approach, from one of seeing the problem as ‘violent, aggressive men’ to one of seeing it as ‘inter-couple violence.’ We do our best to look at things from a system approach point of view: Sometimes the man will come to us, and then we will make an effort to engage the woman (in treatment), and sometimes the woman will come to us so we will try to engage the man. (SB)

And another participant said:

Today we talk about dynamics; we do not talk about a violent man. We don’t see things from a dichotomous point of view. I believe all centers are already discussing inter-couple dynamics: her role, his role. It is obvious that something is happening here. (MT)

These citations illustrate the directors’ awareness of the shift that has evolved in their own perspectives as well as in the perspectives of the social workers who work in their agencies: from a one-perpetrator-one-survivor phenomenon to a conceptualisation of violence as a two-sided problem for which both partners are responsible. The directors hold each partner accountable for the violence and see each partner as containing aspects of both victim and aggressor.

Alongside the above-described perspective, which was the perspective most often voiced by participants, other views were also heard in the different focus groups. Some participants were skeptical as to how deeply the change in approach had actually permeated not only the field but also themselves, as one of the directors said:

I think we still have a long way to go; we are not there yet. For instance, when we get a report from the police, we will contact the woman first and offer her help. The police report describes both the man and the woman. Now, I understand that this comes from our desire to evaluate the risk. But I think we still don’t properly see violence as a dyadic problem. Subconsciously, we tend to reach out more to women than to men. (FT)

And in the words of another participant:

I think that this area started with perceptions of ‘classic’ violence. In most cases the man is seen as the violent one and the woman as the victim, no matter what, and violence is only physical violence, right? But we have moved on, we conceptualize violence as something much wider, and still when we say violence to our clients and to our colleagues, the first image is the old classic perception of violence. I feel I have great difficulty even facing social agencies. (KV)

As can be seen, the two directors indicate that in their opinion the change in approach has not yet made its way into every corner of the field, sometimes not even to the social workers at these centres themselves. Although there has been some degree of change in perspective, the question regarding who is responsible for the violence and who should be treated is still very much approached in a one-sided way, according to these participants.

Alongside the criticism of social workers working in the field, the participants also expressed obvious criticism toward policymakers – that is, the Ministry of Welfare – as well as academic institutions that have disregarded men as clients equal in status to women:

I have this feeling that we sometimes ‘pretend’ in terms of engaging men in treatment, and when it comes to what we can offer them, I am in doubt. Even though we keep learning different approaches in this course and that one, something is based very much on the personal professional development of the worker in question. This is not something I feel has been pushed seriously enough, not by the Ministry (of Welfare) and not by universities. (PQ)

And another participant added:

Apart from the family violence caseload, we also have a unit for treating sexual abuse, in our center. This unit officially treats women only. Why? Because that is what the Ministry of Welfare has designated. (OB)

Based on the directors’ words, it seems there is some sort of tension regarding the question of who is responsible for the violence. Although there has been a change in approach, it is a change that is still in process, and the workers feel that they themselves and their instructors and supervisors are still in the midst of this process. This tension exists mainly in practice, and the participants brought up two themes related to the treatment of men.

Should we confront men about their violent behaviour (‘put it on the table’)?

This central theme reflects the dilemma regarding whether a man should be confronted with his role as aggressor at the beginning of treatment. Some directors gave voice to this dilemma through the terminology used in the name of the centre, and whether the name included the word ‘violence.’

Some call them centers for family welfare, some call them violence prevention centers. There’s a very big difference. We eventually chose some sort of a mix: The Center for Family Welfare and Violence Prevention. (KV)

And two other directors said the following:

The way I see it, he knows the place he’s coming to right from the very start. I put it out in the open, it is obvious to me that the person facing me is not stupid. He came, he was referred, there was an event, we discuss it, maybe gently, but it is obvious the person knows where he has come, he has arrived at The Center for Violence Prevention. (MT)

The man enters and even when he sees the name of the center he won’t immediately come out with: ‘I’m an aggressor.' First of all (we consider) what has brought him to this situation, I understand he was in much distress and I will try to connect with his pain. We will not go into this title of aggressor, but it is obvious he is the aggressor. (LM)

The dilemma regarding the terminology that the directors choose for their centre’s name can teach us a great deal regarding the perception that most of them have as to who is accountable for the violence. Namely, it seems that although most of them declared that their perspective was in line with the system approach, the starting point for many of them remained that men were the perpetrators.

The tension between these two perspectives was also evident among the directors in regard to the outset of the clinical relationship. Two strategies were discernable: one advocating confronting the man with his role as aggressor and the other avoiding it. Two of the directors described it this way:

The women say: Finally, the word ‘violence’ is being put out in the open, finally someone understands what I have been going through. There is no point in sugarcoating the truth, it should be put out in the open (MT).

And another one said:

I’ve got an issue with that. I have to say I’ve been sitting here awhile and I’m a little uncomfortable. My center is a violence treatment center, period. I’m not running a couples treatment center, I’m not a marital dispute center, and not a center for couples’ arguments. (MW)

The approach that avoids confrontation promotes a gradual, empathetic process, which brings all of the aspects of the man’s personality out into the open and enables him to voice his story and distress. This approach acknowledges men’s life circumstances and, among certain directors, also allows for a recognition of the possibility that two-sided violence exists. In the words of one participant:

I really connect to our shift in the way we perceive men. I see more and more people coming to us who don’t fit the stereotypes. I can really see the dynamics between both partners. Many of the men are super good-natured, eager to please, really want their spouse to be happy. Many of the men have a different role and say if there is violence, then it is she who is violent towards me and I am the victim in this story. We go with him, I don’t, we don’t, argue with that point of view. (KV)

And another one said:

I would like to say that this has been a dilemma over the years: How much do you put the subject of violence as the first and central thing on your agenda? It is true, we put the spotlight on the violence, the question is how you get there, and over the years, which way you go. Are you straightforward, or do you address the other many issues on the way and see them as victims, the traumas they have been through in their past? I think we are closer to that point today. (PQ)

Who is the main client?

The tension between the two approaches is reflected in clinical practice – in initiating and reaching out to both the man and the woman in order to engage them in treatment. Some of the directors declared that efforts are made equally toward men and women.

When I get a report from the police, I will call both the man and the woman. Even three times, we’ll try to reach out to the man, the same way I would reach out to a woman. (IA)

A number of directors declared their preference for engaging women over men because of a lack of resources. These directors mentioned that due to an overload in their assigned casework, as well as a small staff, they gave preference to women. These directors illustrated the point that a lack of resources has resulted in focusing on risk evaluation among women alone:

I would like to add that I wish I would be able to contact the men. The way it works today there is no chance of that, because even without doing that, I have 40–50 names on a waiting list, and this is without initiating contact with male partners. If I were to call them as well there is no way it could be done. But it is clear that it should be done. (TY)

And another one said:

Because we are a small center, our agenda is that our first response is geared towards women’s risk assessment and treatment. The price we pay is often that we miss the male population. Very often the referrals we get from the police have been based on some sort of legal measure, arrest, suspension. Other times nothing is done, so we contact the women to check if they are safe, and then we don’t have enough resources to contact the man. (FZ)

According to the directors, it is the lack of resources that leads them to prioritise women as the centers’ main clients. At the same time, it can be seen that the directors’ preference in this situation is prioritising women in treatment. These factors – that is, the efforts (or lack thereof) to engage men in treatment, alongside the lack of available resources – raise the question of whether men can be seen as equal clients.

Discussion

The present study focused on the perspectives of management-level IPV service providers regarding IPV and men as clients. The importance of the study lies in it enabling us to obtain the viewpoints of the managers of the organisations that deliver services. These individuals have different viewpoints, which shape practice in the area of IPV.

The study reveals a sense of change over the years, on the part of these managers, from a ‘gender’ approach to a ‘gender-inclusive’ approach. Nevertheless, the study reveals a tension that still exists between these two perspectives and the way that this tension is reflected both in practice and policy. On the basis of the study findings, it seems that the ‘gendered organization’ point of view can be used in understanding men in IPV treatment services. These findings are in line with additional findings among practitioners and other service providers in the field of IPV, suggesting that although there has been a change in perspective, there is still a tension that manifests on all levels from the policymaking and organisational level to the individual level (Labarre et al., 2019).

It is important to keep in mind that the two perspectives on IPV and the tension between them can be attributed not only to the practitioners’ work contexts but also to individual and political factors, such as directors’ gender and years of experience. In Israel, IPV services have been established in cooperation with women’s organisations and the government. The dominant ideology has been feminist and dichotomous: Men have been seen as the perpetrators and women as the victims. In addition, it has only been over the last two decades that these agencies have started treating men as their clients (Baum, 2006). Moreover, most of the service providers in this field are women, as was the case in the current study; according to Hester et al. (2012), the sector of IPV services providers is a ‘female domain’ which does not recognise men, and the stigma associated with male perpetration therefore remains.

Nevertheless, there has been a change in perspective, as reported by the directors, which can at least in part be attributed to their years of experience in the IPV field. Experience in the field seems to enable them to undergo a personal and professional development process, to expand their knowledge in more advanced academic settings, and to embrace a worldview that contains complexity. Practitioners are thus exposed to the influence of larger social changes, theories, research, ideologies, and perspectives of other stakeholders, optimally leading to change.

A study that Bailey et al. (2012) conducted among practitioners working in the IPV field revealed that at the beginning of their professional practice, these practitioners tended to psychologically distance themselves from their male clientele, having an image of these men as being the villains. As they gained experience, however, they began to recognize similarities between their clients and themselves and as such gained a more integrated perspective.

The current study also revealed a tension that exists between directors of violence prevention and treatment centres and other stakeholders, such as social workers at the Welfare Ministry (which stipulates policy and provides resources to deal with IPV) and other social welfare services, as well as researchers/academics at academic institutions. The Labarre et al. (2019) review of the literature suggested that practitioners who adopt a multifactorial perspective open themselves up to the criticisms of other stakeholders who believe that taking individual or health elements into consideration, rather than adhering to a social approach perspective, allows violent partners to deny responsibility for their acts.

Our study also indicates the way that the tension between the two perspectives is reflected in practice. Specifically, alongside the directors’ declarations about the changes they have undergone, if one reads between the lines, it seems that most of them still see men as being accountable for the IPV (i.e. the perpetrators). This tension is encapsulated in the dilemma that practitioners reported regarding the names they give to the centres and the interventions themselves. These findings are supported by Labarre et al. (2019) who found in a review of the literature three types of viewpoints among practitioners working in the IPV field. The majority believed that the perpetrators of the violence were solely responsible for their behaviour (Audet, 2002; Eisikovits et al., 2000; Virkki, 2015). A second group thought that in some cases, the two partners may have been jointly responsible for the violence (Eisikovits et al., 2000; Virkki, 2015), and a third, much smaller, group believed that the victim may have been solely responsible for the violence via provocations of the partner (Audet, 2002; Eisikovits et al., 2000). As is evident, such findings reveal the difficulties that exist for many of those working, teaching, and conducting research in the field of domestic violence. The code of ethics which obligates professionals to be compassionate witnesses to human pain, whether of victim or perpetrator, may increase tensions regarding how to approach men in treatment and whether they should be labelled offenders right at the intervention’s outset.

Summary and conclusion

The current study focused on the perspectives of IPV management-level service providers in Israel, and emphasised that the way in which we perceive the IPV phenomenon may be an important factor in determining our policies and practices toward men. That said, the study had some limitations. First, the study participants represented only 30% of all the directors of the centres of violence prevention and treatment in Israel; as such, this sample does not reflect such perspectives in their entirety. In addition, the study did not take into account how race, class, sexual orientation, and other such contexts may have affected the perspectives of these directors or the processes that take place in IPV organisations.

The study further stresses the need to extend education and training to a variety of stakeholders, beyond social service practitioners, such as law enforcement officers, judges, legal services, and policymakers. It is important to extend the knowledge regarding IPV among these professionals and expand their points of view, allowing them to see IPV as a complex, multifactorial problem. In addition, the awareness among these professionals must be raised in terms of commonly held assumptions and stereotypes regarding gender roles.

Embracing a multifactorial point of view would enable all of the stakeholders to build an alliance with males as clients and to see them as equally in need of help (i.e. as the female clients are). It seems clear, given the continued high rates of IPV, that the time has come for thinking ‘outside the box,’ which in this context may simply mean seeing men as clients. That said, developing an alternative motivational framework for interventions with men that do not see them in ‘black and white’ terms, but still hold them accountable, is certainly a challenge.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Anat Ben-Porat

Anat Ben-Porat, PhD is a Senior Lecturer at the Louis and Gabi Weisfeld School of Social Work at Bar-Ilan University. She is a clinical social worker whose area of expertise is domestic violence. She has practiced, supervised, taught, and conducted various research projects in the area of domestic violence for the last two decades.

Rachel Dekel

Rachel Dekel, PhD has been involved over the last two decades in various research projects examining different facets of human coping with traumatic events such as war, terror, road accidents, and family violence. She has published more than 120 articles and book chapters and has supervised more than 50 students. More information can be found at http://www.racheldekel.com/.

Ohad Gilbar

Ohad Gilbar, PhD is a Senior Lecturer at the School of Social Work and Social Welfare at the Hebrew University. Dr. Gilbar, both in terms of research and clinical work, has focused on the contribution of traumatic event exposure, PTSD/CPTSD, and gender to both in-person and cyber intimate partner violence. Additionally, he is working on developing and validating measurements to assess these issues.