Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/13917 Record ID: cb602ade-36bc-43ea-914b-1f802c475a7d
Full metadata record
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Haaken, Janice | en |
| dc.contributor.author | Silvergleid, Courtenay S | en |
| dc.contributor.author | Mankowski, Eric S | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-06-30T23:09:42Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2022-06-30T23:09:42Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2002 | en |
| dc.identifier.citation | 17 (2), June 2002 | en |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0885-7482 | en |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/13917 | - |
| dc.language | en | en |
| dc.publisher | Kluwer Academic Plenum Publishers | en |
| dc.subject | Interagency work | en |
| dc.subject | Perpetrators | en |
| dc.subject | Service provision | en |
| dc.subject | Perpetrator programs | en |
| dc.subject | Theories of violence | en |
| dc.title | Collateral damage: an analysis of the achievements and unintended consequences of batterer intervention programs and discourse | en |
| dc.title.alternative | Journal of family violence | en |
| dc.type | Journal Article | en |
| dc.identifier.catalogid | 1905 | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | new_record | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | Journal article/research paper | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | International | en |
| dc.description.notes | Provides an overview and critique of two predominant models of batterer intervention – the unstructured group therapy model and the Duluth power and control model – identifying some of their major strengths and weaknesses. The historical development and key elements of each of the models are explored and some of the major differences between the models’ respective practices, programme structures, assumptions and theoretical underpinnings highlighted. These differences are then analysed in terms of their philosophical and ideological links to social institutions involved in the regulation of social deviance; in particular, the criminal justice system and the mental health system. Argues that an alternative model to the current ‘madness versus badness’ dichotomy is needed if more coordinated and effective community responses to interpersonal violence are to be developed. | en |
| dc.identifier.source | Journal of family violence | en |
| dc.date.entered | 2003-02-07 | en |
| Appears in Collections: | Journal Articles | |
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in ANROWS library are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.