1. Intervening in Intimate partner Violence
Nicola graham-kevan PhD
University of central Lancashire, UK
Mid Sweden University, Sweden

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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)

5. 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

6. 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”

7. 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

8. Brooklyn, New York (Davis et al., 2000).
RCT 376 domestic violence offenders to either a batterer program or 40 hours of community service.
No effect of actually attending BIP
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.

9. 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 months, according to victim reports”

10. BUT SOME PROGRAMMES MAY WORK

11. Inner Strength medium/high risk: HMP Forest Bank

12. 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.

13. What may be different with this programme?

14. “…regardless of whether a short-term 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”

15. 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 quasi-permanent change in the defendant.

16. Education v Therapy Programme centred approach Challenging approach
Educational
Therapuetic
Programme centred approach
Challenging approach
Confront
Ridgid
Ineffective
Client-centred approach
Empathetic approach
Engage
Responsive
Effective

17. ‘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

18. 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”.

19. Perpetration: Court Mandated Men (Wang et al., 2008)
492 men mandated to BIP in US 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

20. Women’s & men’s childhood maltreatment is associated with subsequent IPV (e.g., Ehrensaft et al., 2003; Kwong et al., 2003)
BPS November 2011

21. Neurocognitive model reactive aggression
BPS November 2011

22. 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

24. But are we in danger of addressing only half of the problem?

25. 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 = (women higher)
High levels of bidirectional using children to control, significant difference, d = (women higher)

26. Women’s IPV & Mutual/Bidirectional IPV

27. Straus (2008)

28. Evidence on Sex-Similarity
Archer (2000) Meta-analysis use of IPV, combining the results of 82 studies (approx 65,000 men & women)
Archer (2006) cross-national meta-analysis
Fiebert’s 2007 bibliography > 200 studies
Longitudinal studies (e.g. Daly et al., 2000; Ehrensaft et al. 2004; 2006; Giordano, et al., 1999; Moffitt et al., 2001; Serbin, et al., 2004), See Dutton, 2007 for a review
Counter evidence? Sample on your DV e.g. Dobash & Dobash (2004)

29. But are men more controlling, aren’t they?

30. Behavioural Control: Cross-sectional 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

31. 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%
PASK 3# Rates of bi-directional versus unidirectional IPV

32. 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).

33. 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).

34. 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)

35. But men are stronger & can just leave if they don’t like it, can’t they?

36. 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%

37. Who are these women?

38. 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.

39. 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

40. “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.

41. But it isn’t just IPV…

42. 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

43. 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”.

44. Internalising Externalising
The Cycle continues
ACE
Internalising Externalising
IPV
Aggressive parenting

45. 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)

46. 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

47. Contact me at: