Background to the ADP
Accreditation feasibility study
Between January and September 2004, Professor Jill Radford of the University of Teesside, and her research assistant Emma Martin, were commissioned by Respect (funded by the Lankelly Foundation) to carry out a feasibility study to explore the accreditation of domestic violence perpetrator programmes and associated support services.
Radford and Martin’s research comprised:
• A comprehensive literature review
• 1 focus group with Respect’s Executive Committee
• 4 focus groups with Respect members and other stakeholders, held in London, Edinburgh, Bangor and Sheffield
• Telephone interviews and postal questionnaires
Findings of the feasibility study
The researchers found that:
• “Overwhelmingly, participants in the consultation process were in favour of accreditation, citing Respect, or Respect with others, as the most appropriate agency to undertake the accreditation process.”
• “Respect principles and standards… should form the basis of accreditation standards.”
Accreditation:
• Is “complex, multifaceted, and still emerging as a concept and practice”
• “Represent(s) a shift in power from autonomous practitioners or agencies to the accrediting body”
• Can “address programmes, agencies or practitioner competencies”
Some potential advantages include:
• Quality assurance which provides a safeguard against poor practice
• Increased accountability
• Increased public confidence in services, through the provision of a ‘kite mark’ for the sector
• Its ability to accommodate variability and encourage quality improvement
The main disadvantages include:
• The accreditation burden: increased costs, bureaucracy and workloads
• Its time-consuming nature
• The unreliable nature of self and peer review; and in some contexts, lack of transparency
• There is no evidence that accreditation increases quality (there is also no evidence it doesn’t)
Funding for accreditation:
• It’s essential to ensure projects applying for accreditation can afford to go through the process
• The focus groups found that most people thought accreditation should be funded through central government (Home Office / Scottish Executive / Welsh Assembly)
Some issues to consider highlighted by the researchers include:
• The advantages of a ‘not for profit’ accreditation body, independent from government
• Potential conflicts of interest if programme developers are included in the accreditation panel
• The difficulty of constituting a panel representative of cultural diversity
• Allowing sufficient time for Panel members to fully acquaint themselves with programmes
• The Panel’s role in curriculum (programme content) development
• Accreditation will fundamentally change Respect’s relationship with its members
• How to provide support and advice for programme developers
• How programme developers and project staff perceive the accreditation process (how to get ‘buy in’ across the field)
• A passport system across different accreditation systems in the dv field