INTERVENING IN INTIMATE
PARTNER VIOLENCE
NICOLA GRAHAM-KEVAN PHD
UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL LANCASHIRE, UK
MID SWEDEN UNIVERSITY, SWEDEN
OVERVIEW
• UK Approach & Duluth based programmes for men
Efficacy
• ‘What works’ literature
• Risk factors for domestic violence
• Strength based interventions: Inner Strength
• Women’s violence & Mutual violence
• Next generation
• Conclusions
UK APPROACH TREATING MEN
Change & LDVPP
DAIP
CDVPP
IDAP
• Low quality or no published evaluations
• Orientation “pro-feminist signifying that they
consider violence against women to be an issue of
gender power & domination” (Dobash 2000)
• High attrition
PROFEMINIST DULUTH APPROACH
• Not based on strong empirical evidence
• Educational not designed to be therapuetic
• Ineffective: ”there is little support for the Duluth
Model regarding the effectiveness of these types of
programs in reducing violence … Meta-analytic
reviews of outcomes for these approaches have
consistently found them to be of limited
effectiveness, with effect sizes near zero” (Jewel &
Wormith, 2010)
HYBRIDS
• Both Duluth and Duluth/CBT hybrids: “Even those
who do complete programs do not fair substantially
better, on average, than those who drop out or
those who do not attend at all” (Babcock, et al., 2004; see
also Babcock & La Taillade, 2000; Daly & Pelowski, 2000; Feder &
Wilson, 2005)
– lack of treatment effect
ATTRITION: THE FIRST TEST OF
INTERVENTION EFFICACY OLVER, STOCKDALE, &
WORMITH, 2011
MoJ report 35-40% (Weatherstone, 2010)
Meta-analysis of attrition from Offender programmes.
The overall attrition rate was 37.8% from domestic violence
programmes
“The clients who stand to benefit the most from treatment
(i.e., high-risk, high-needs) are the least likely to complete
it. Offender treatment attrition can be managed & clients
can be retained through an awareness of, & attention to,
key predictors of attrition & adherence to responsivity
considerations”
SECOND TEST: REOFFENDING
(FEDER & DUGAN 2002)
• Broward County, Florida
• These offenders were randomly assigned either to
probation and a 26-week Duluth-model batterer
program or to probation only.
• At one-year follow-up, they found no differences
between BIP participants & the control group on
measures of attitudes toward women, beliefs about
wife-beating, attitudes toward treating domestic
violence as a crime, & victim or official reports of
recidivism
BROOKLYN, NEW YORK
(DAVIS ET AL., 2000).
• RCT 376 domestic violence offenders to either a
batterer program or 40 hours of community service.
1. No effect of actually attending BIP
2. Among assigned men, those who completed their
BIP were no less violent than those who attended
only some group sessions or those who never
attended a single session.
REOFFENDING UK
• Bowen et al., (2010)
• DVPP completers: 21% were alleged to have
reoffended within an 11-month post-treatment
period.
• Completing the programme was not significantly
associated with either alleged reoffending, or time to
first alleged incident.
• MoJ:
“overall, approximately one in three cases, regardless
of intervention, had a new episode of DV within 6 mo
nths, according to victim reports”
• BUT SOME PROGRAMMES MAY
WORK
INNER STRENGTH
MEDIUM/HIGH RISK: HMP FOREST
BANK
REOFFENDING DATA
• Psychometric data from a cohort of 31
individuals who completed the Inner Strength.
• Reoffending data from the 18 (58 %)
participants who have been released from
custody
system checks using Police computers
including PNC, OPUS and Icis.
additional checks for involvement in
Domestic Abuse calls to the police.
• No evidence could be found to link any of the
cohort with Domestic abuse reoffending since
release = 0% proven reoffending.
•What may be different with
this programme?
“…regardless of whether a shortterm suppressive effect of BIPs is
found, evidence is mounting that
batterer programs based on the
Duluth model have no discernible
therapeutic benefits… those
offenders who pled guilty to DV &
then attend BIPs do not internalize
the material taught in the course...
consistent with the failure to find a
therapeutic effect of BIPs”
SUPPRESSION/SUPERVISION EFFECT
• Evidence of suppression effect: suppresses bad
behaviour during treatment but does not change
the hearts of perpetrators beyond treatment.
• Lack of evidence for a therapeutic effect:
therapeutic means a treatment benefit that lasts
longer than the treatment because of some quasipermanent change in the defendant.
EDUCATION V THERAPY
Educational
Therapuetic
• Programme centred
approach
• Challenging approach
• Confront
• Ridgid
• Ineffective
• Client-centred
approach
• Empathetic approach
• Engage
• Responsive
• Effective
‘WHAT WORKS’
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Understand the behaviour who are interested in
Identify risk factors likely to be criminogenic
Conduct individualised assessment of need
Target dynamic need/risk factors
Use responsive techniques
Target multiple needs
Appropriate intensity
Behavioural
Skills based
Therapists sensitive & constructive
SLABBER, 2012
“Perpetrators of domestic violence have
complicated psychosocial & psychiatric histories.
Many have witnessed or suffered abuse as children &
research suggests that these offenders have a range
of individual problems such as anger, hostility,
emotional dysregulation & personality disorder that
are amenable to psychological treatment. Despite
the frequent co-occurrence of these problems,
domestic violence interventions typically do not
target the perpetrator’s own trauma history,
personality disorders or other individual difficulties”.
PERPETRATION: COURT MANDATED
MEN (WANG ET AL., 2008)
FO
GV
All
Sole perpetrator
47%
49%
48%
Bidirectional IPV
53%
51%
52%
IPV Father
24%
19%
20%
IPV mother
16%
10%
12%
Physical abuse as child
31%
26%
27%
MR FO = Bidirectional IPV*, father IPV. Explaining 39% variance
MR GV = Bidirectional IPV*, mother IPV & child abuse. Explaining 37%
variance
BPS November 2011
19
•Women’s & men’s
childhood maltreatment is
associated with subsequent
IPV (e.g., Ehrensaft et al., 2003; Kwong et al., 2003)
BPS November 2011
20
NEUROCOGNITIVE MODEL REACTIVE
AGGRESSION
BPS November 2011
21
RETRAUMATISATION
• “one’s reaction to a traumatic
exposure that is coloured,
intensified, amplified, or
shaped by one’s reactions and
adaptational styles to previous
traumatic experiences” (Danieli, 2010)
BPS November 2011
22
But are we in danger of
addressing only half of
the problem?
BUT: HMP FOREST BANK SAMPLE
• High levels of bidirectional physical aggression, no
significant difference, d = 0.29 (men higher)
• High levels of bidirectional verbal aggression,
significant difference, d = 0.28 (men higher)
• High levels of bidirectional controlling behaviours,
no significant difference, d = -0.21 (women higher)
• High levels of bidirectional using children to control,
significant difference, d = -0.59 (women higher)
•Women’s IPV &
Mutual/Bidirection
al IPV
STRAUS (2008)
03
20
01
20
99
19
97
19
95
19
93
19
91
19
89
19
87
19
85
19
83
19
81
19
79
19
77
19
75
19
73
19
63
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
19
Number of Studies
CUMULATIVE NUMBER OF STUDIES SHOWING SIMILAR
RATES OF ASSAULTING A PARTNER
BY WOMEN AND MEN
But are men more
controlling, aren’t they?
BEHAVIOURAL CONTROL: CROSSSECTIONAL STUDIES
• Lack of sex-differences in controlling
behaviour:
• Graham-Kevan & Archer (2005; 2009)
• Replicated: Bates & Graham-Kevan (in press)
25,000 men & women;
• Bates et al (2013).
• LaRoche (2008) 24,000 men & women
Any
violence
M→F
F→M
M↔F
Population
surveys
16.3%
13.8%
28.3%
57.9%
Community
samples
47.0%
17-5%
22.9%
59.6%
School &
college
samples
39.2%
16.2%
31.9%
51.9%
Female
orientated
clinical
samples
70.6%
13.3%
14.4%
72.3%
Treatment/
Military/
Male
perpetration
99.9%
43.4%
17.3%
39.3%
ASSORTATIVE MATING
• The tendency for people to pair up with others who
have similar personalities and interpersonal styles to
themselves (Brown, 2004; Kim & Capaldi, 2004; Moffitt, Caspi,
Rutter & Silva, 2001)
• This pattern has also recently been found in male
help-seeking victims (Hines & Douglas, 2010) and Gay &
Lesbian relationships (Frankland & Brown, 2010)
• In adolescence dating samples, with similar risk
factors often found for boys & for girls (Capaldi &
Crosby, 1997; Feiring et al., 2001; Gray & Foshee, 1997; Riggs &
O’Leary, 1996; Williams et al., 2008).
MUTUAL IPV: WHY IT MATTERS
• Mutuality is a risk factor for more frequent and injurious
violence & hence the behaviour of both parties are
important to understanding IPV & risk prediction.
• To intervene in IPV relationships it is necessary to explore
both partners’ risk factors & difficulties .
• Treating one person’s problematic behaviour, but
ignoring the others may considerably decrease
treatment efficacy (e.g. Mattson, O’Farrell, Monson, Panuzio &
Taft, 2010).
RESPONSES TO WOMEN’S IPV
• Unlikely to get arrested (e.g. no injuries to
victim 1% women arrested v 52% men;
Minor injuries 23% women v 81% men (Millar
& Brown, 2009)
• Treated like victims
• Female ‘batterers’ significantly more likely
to express beliefs that it is acceptable to
hit than male batterers (Simmons & Lehman
2004)
• Women externalise blame (Holdforth, 2005)
•But men are stronger &
can just leave if they
don’t like it, can’t they?
WHY DON’T MEN LEAVE?
(HINES & DOUGLAS, 2012)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Concerned about the children: 89%
Marriage for life: 81%
Love: 71%
Fears may never see kids again: 68%
Thinks she’ll change: 56%
Not enough money: 53%
Nowhere to go: 52%
Embarrassed: 52%
Doesn’t want to take kids away from her: 46%
She threatened to kill herself: 28%
Fears she’ll kill him/someone he loves: 24%
Who are these
women?
THE OREGON YOUTH STUDY
(CAPALDI, ET AL., 2004)
• Women’s prior antisocial behaviour &
depressive symptoms predicted both
their own abusive partner behaviour,
as well as their male partners’ abuse.
• Notably, the women’s characteristics
were predictive over & above the
contribution of their male partners’
antisocial characteristics.
CONDUCT DISORDER (MOFFITT ET AL
2002)
• Women identified has having conduct
disorder 3 years prior to perpetrating partner
violence were:
a) more likely to become involved with
violent men
b) but regardless of whether or not their
partner hits them they hit their partners
• The results for women were the similar for
men
“Personality disorder trajectories.”
- A failure of personality difficulties
to diminish from adolescence to
adulthood predicted IPV in both
sexes.
Women with a pattern of distrust,
interpersonal avoidance, unusual
beliefs, & constricted affect were
more likely to assault intimate male
partners.
But it isn’t just IPV…
THE NEW YORK CHILDREN IN THE
COMMUNITY STUDY (EHRENSAFT, ET AL.,
2004)
• Exploring the effects of :
-parenting, exposure to domestic violence
between parents (ETDV)
-adolescent disruptive conduct disorders
(CD),
-substance abuse disorders
• on the risk of violence to & from an adult
intimate partner
• CD & ETDV → IPV
THE CONCORDIA LONGITUDINAL RISK
PROJECT (SERBIN ET AL., 2004)
• The Aggressive females had elevated levels of
depression and anxiety disorder by late teens.
• “When they married, their children had
higher health risks, & the aggressive
girls had become aggressive mothers,
exhibiting maternal aggression &
having children who had more visits to
hospital emergency rooms for
treatment of injuries”.
THE CYCLE CONTINUES
ACE
Aggressive
parenting
Internalising
Externalising
IPV
ADDRESS THE CAUSES
• Moffitt et al put it “ the argument that
women’s abuse perpetration in the
community is too trivial to research could
prove to be tantamount to arguing that
smoking in the community is too trivial to
research & scientists should focus on cases
of lung cancer” (Moffitt et al., 2001, p.69)
45
CONCLUSIONS
• Feminist informed approaches ineffective
• Trauma informed approach promising
• Educational approaches ineffective
• Strength based approaches show promise
• But the male perpetartor/female victim is simplistic
• Aggressive girls become aggressive partners & mothers
Where IPV in unidirectional treat perpetrator
Where IPV is mutual treat both partners individually
and/or in couples
Where there is IPV, children may need trauma informed
interventions
CONTACT ME AT:
• ngraham-kevan@uclan.ac.uk