Integrating 'Principles of Effective Intervention' into Domestic Violence Intervention Programs: New Opportunities for Change and Collaboration

The Uptake and Measurement of Alternative Approaches to Domestic Violence Intervention Programs: A Scoping Review

This scoping review explores the breadth and depth to which Domestic Violence Intervention Programs (DVIPs) in the United States and globally: (a) incorporate components that address the relationship between intimate partner violence (IPV) and social injustice, racism, economic inequality, and adverse childhood experiences (ACEs); (b) use restorative (RJ)/transformative justice (TJ) practices, individualized case management, partnerships with social justice actors, and strengths-based parenting training in current programming; and (c) measure effectiveness. In 2021, we searched 12 academic databases using a combination of search terms and Medical Subject Headings. In all, 27 articles that discussed at least one key concept relative to DVIP curricula were included in the final review. Findings suggest that very few DVIPs address ACEs and/or the relationship between structural violence, social inequality, and IPV perpetration. Even fewer programs use restorative practices including RJ or TJ. Furthermore, DVIPs use inconsistent methods and measures to evaluate effectiveness. To respond to IPV perpetration more effectively and create lasting change, DVIPs must adopt evidence-informed approaches that prioritize social and structural determinants of violence, trauma-informed care, and restoration.

Which battering interventions work? An updated Meta-analytic review of intimate partner violence treatment outcome research

This meta-analytic review is an update to the first meta-analysis of battering interventions (Babcock et al., 2004) and includes 59 studies that evaluated treatment efficacy for domestically violent men and women. The outcome literature of controlled quasi-experimental and experimental studies was reviewed to test the relative impact of Duluth, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and novel types of treatment on subsequent recidivism of violence. The first model examines studies comparing interventions to no treatment control conditions. The second model compares novel interventions to treatment as usual (i.e., the Duluth curriculum). Study design and type of treatment were tested as moderators in both models. Consistent with previous meta-analyses, effect sizes were in the small range, smaller in true experiments as compared to quasi-experimental designs when recidivism was based on partner or police reports. However, new experiments comparing novel treatments to the Duluth curriculum reveal effect sizes comparable to when comparing novel interventions to an untreated comparison group. Novel interventions, including Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and Circles of Peace had the largest effect sizes when put head-to-head with Duluth control groups. Future research directions include testing moderators and mechanisms of change of the battering interventions that work. Implications for evidence-based practice in criminal justice include broader implementation and continued testing of these novel interventions with demonstrated efficacy in stopping intimate partner violence.

Assessing States' Intimate Partner Violence Offender Treatment Standards using a Principles of Effective Intervention Framework

Court-ordered treatment programs are a widely used response to intimate partner violence (IPV) and many states have developed standards to guide programs. The current study provides an update to Maiuro and Eberle's. (2008) review of states' standards and extends the literature by using the principles of effective intervention (PEIs; i.e., risk, need, responsivity, treatment, and fidelity) as an organizational framework to examine standards. Findings showed that 84% of states had standards in 2020, compared to 88% in 2007, and extensive changes both within and across states' standards had occurred. Regarding the PEIs, in line with the risk principle most states mandated the use of risk assessments; inconsistent with the needs principle, few states used these assessments to classify clients into risk levels or inform individualized treatment. The majority of standards addressed the treatment principle by outlining a required structure and duration, but few attended to responsivity factors (e.g., identifying treatment modalities, attending to specific client factors). Regarding the fidelity principle, most standards outlined education or training requirements for staff and required periodic program reviews or audits, but few standards were evidenced-based and only about half required that programs collect data to measure effectiveness. Taken together, findings suggest that standards have continued to evolve and that the integration of PEIs into IPV treatment is only just beginning. Standards provide a rich opportunity for future researcher-practitioner partnerships in the field of IPV intervention.

Re-positioning workplace aggression interventions: a violence framework

Purpose

This paper aims to investigate the socio-psychological systems in organizations that structurally support workplace aggression.

Design/methodology/approach

Using both a structural and contextual model of intimate partner violence (IPV), the factors supporting workplace aggression were analyzed. The narratives were provided from the participants’ lived experiences of workplace aggression, producing clear indications of where formal and informal power reside.

Findings

The methods of power and control used by workplace perpetrators parallel those illustrated in IPV. The inaction of management and the lack of social support enabled informal power asymmetries and the organizational norm of silence. The findings have implications for how workplaces view and intervene in relationship-based violence.

Originality/value

Workplace aggression has been studied from a conflict management perspective, without exploring the components that enable and support organizational abuse. As a result, organizational responses to workplace aggression have failed to address the complex relationship-based components and consequences. The primary contribution of this study is the disruption of the conflict-based perspective of workplace aggression into a more appropriate framework of violence, power and control.