Smurtinio elgesio artimoje aplinkoje kaita: darbo su smurtavusiais asmenimis plėtros perspektyvos Lietuvoje

• TI leidinių archyvas: knygos tekstas

• Michailovič, Ilona
• Justickaja, Svetlana
• Vaičiūnienė, Rūta
• Viršilas, Vaidas

LT[...] Atlikti moksliniai tyrimai taip pat rodo, kad Lietuvoje trūksta nuoseklaus institucinio požiūrio į smurtinio elgesio artimoje aplinkoje korekciją, o kartu ir tarpinstitucinio bendradarbiavimo, ypač tarp SEKP įgyvendintojų ir specializuotą kompleksinę pagalbą nukentėjusiems nuo smurto žmonėms teikiančių institucijų. Pažymėtina, kad socialinių ir psichologinių paslaugų keičiant smurtinį elgesį teikimas probacijos sistemoje ir vyrų krizių centruose (dažniau apsiribojant tam tikros informacijos ar teisinės pagalbos suteikimu) vis dar yra sunkiai prieinamas visos Lietuvos mastu. Artimoje aplinkoje smurtavusių asmenų korekcijoje pasigendama tam tikro nuoseklumo, sistemiškumo ir tęstinumo teikiant socialinio-psichologinio pobūdžio paslaugas, prisidedančias prie smurtinės elgsenos kaitos (Michailovič et al., 2019). Išvardytos priežastys apsunkina nuoseklaus institucinio ir bendruomeninio požiūrio vystymą ir tarpinstitucinį bendradarbiavimą bei užkerta kelią siekti bendro tikslo – darnaus ir efektyvaus atsako į smurtą artimoje aplinkoje. Taigi iš esmės matomas platesnio smurtinį elgesį keičiančių programų taikymo galimybių tyrimo poreikis. Viena vertus, dėl to, kad veiksmingumo vertinimo tyrimai vienareikšmiškai neleidžia daryti išvados dėl šių programų (ne)efektyvumo (tiek dėl Duluto modelio, tiek dėl kitų intervencinių programų), kita vertus – dėl siauros programų taikymo apimties ir sisteminio institucinio požiūrio trūkumo. Būtini ir papildomi tyrimai svarstant intensyvesnę bendruomenių įtrauktį vykdant smurtinio elgesio korekciją, kuri galėtų prisidėti prie ankstyvųjų prevencinių veiklų ir sąmoningumo didinimo priemonių.Todėl būtent šia mokslo studija ir ketinama užpildyti išvardytas spragas, išanalizuojant smurtinio elgesio artimoje aplinkoje keitimo plėtros galimybes instituciniu ir bendruomeniniu lygmenimis. Remiantis empiriniais duomenimis, surinktais pasitelkus kokybinio tyrimo metodologiją, šioje studijoje: apibrėžiama esama SEKP įgyvendinimo situacija Lietuvoje; aptariami instituciniai resursai, kuriais disponuoja už SEKP įgyvendinimą atsakingos suinteresuotos institucijos, identifikuojami įvairūs probleminiai klausimai ir iššūkiai, su kuriais susiduria programų vedėjai, pristatomos bei analizuojamos pačių SEKP dalyvių patirtys; nagrinėjamas SEKP vaidmuo bendrame koordinuoto atsako kontekste; galiausiai formuluojamos SEKP taikymo plėtros perspektyvos bei kryptys. [Iš Įvado]

ENAlthough researchers and policy makers both recognise that a coordinated community response to intimate partner violence is hardly possible without batterer intervention programmes (BIPs), the implementation of these programmes remains marginal in research and social policy discourse. In Lithuania, little consideration is given to the possibility of involving the community in the correction of violent behaviour. The main conclusion that can be drawn from this study is that working with perpetrators in order to change their violent behaviour should be treated as an integral element in a well-functioning domestic violence prevention system seeking to achieve the most effective response to domestic violence. The study is based on the project “Change in Domestic Violent Behaviour: Perspectives for Developing Work with Perpetrators at Institutional and Community Levels”, carried out from April 2020 to December 2021, and funded by the Research Council of Lithuania (LMTLT), agreement No S-GEV-20-4. As part of the research strategy, the case study method was applied in order to analyse the phenomenon and tackle the issue in a deeper and more detailed manner while examining one or several specific cases, using different data sources or methods for data collection and analysis. The practice of implementing programmes to change violent behaviour in the Klaipeda and Vilnius regions was chosen as the focal point for the research. The selection of these territorially defined research fields is based on the fact that batterer intervention programmes function more consistently in these regions compared to the other areas of Lithuania. During the research, 50 semi-structured interviews and 3 focus-group discussions were carried out.Researchers conducted 50 semi-structured interviews in both regions by interviewing: 1) participants in correctional programmes (24 interviews) who were perpetrators of intimate partner violence and who took part in BIPs); 2) BIP facilitators (probation officers, representatives of public institutions and NGOs, as well as specialists from the municipal administrations and volunteers engaged in intervention and prevention activities changing violent behaviour) and 3) representatives of law enforcement institutions (judges and prosecutors of district courts), who are authorised to make decisions in domestic violence cases. Furthermore, representatives of the child protection service, victims’ advocates and other NGO representatives and municipal officials, as well as police officers and prosecutors took part in the focus-group discussions. The study is divided into three chapters. The first describes the main areas of work with domestic violence perpetrators: the peculiarities of correctional programmes, their diversity, and programme application issues. The second chapter looks at the practice and challenges of implementing BIPs in Lithuania. Thus, the problematic aspects of BIP individualisation and the main challenges faced by programme providers are discussed in depth. The third chapter, in turn, focuses on the opportunities for developing BIPs and strengthening their role in the context of a coordinated community response to domestic violence. Finally, the study makes practical recommendations to relevant authorities that should help to advance work with domestic violence perpetrators.Although the Lithuanian Probation Service has evidence-based tools for working with domestic violence perpetrators, the process of using these tools is not systemati cally and clearly regulated. First, an evidence-based criminal behaviour risk assessment tool is used only for probationers, and because the vast majority of domestic violence perpetrators are not on probation, the risk of their criminal behaviour is not assessed. Instead, risk assessment is replaced by an initial interview between the probation officer and the abuser where decisions on working with the perpetrator (form of intervention and programme, evaluation of motivation) are implied. However, these decisions may be influenced by a variety of practical circumstances. Second, it should be noted that more than half of the violent perpetrators are not required to participate in a BIP, and in some cases, the judge’s implied deadline for completing the programme is too short. In 2020, only about 8 % of domestic violence perpetrators participated in the Duluth programme, which is the most widely used. As a result, there is an urgent need to en sure that programmes are applied more broadly while providing differentiated treatment. Because Lithuanian probation services mainly use the ‘one size fits all’ approach, only in rare cases is a programme based on cognitive therapy preferred to a Duluth-based pro gramme. It is worth noting that participants in the programme emphasised various aspects of its benefits [...]. [From the publication]

• Teisė / Law
• Sociologija / Sociology