Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
N I C O L A G R A H A M - K E V A N P H DU N I V E R S I T Y O F C E N T R A L L A N C A S H I R E , U K
M I D S W E D E N U N I V E R S I T Y , S W E D E N
INTERVENING IN INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE
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 & LDVPPDAIPCDVPPIDAP• 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, reg
ardless of intervention, had a new episode of DV within 6 months, 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 custodysystem 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 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”
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.
EDUCATION V THERAPY
Educational
• Programme centred approach• Challenging approach• Confront• Ridgid • Ineffective
Therapuetic
• 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”.
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
19BPS November 2011
PERPETRATION: COURT MANDATED MEN (WANG ET AL., 2008)
492 men mandated to BIP in US
•Women’s & men’s childhood maltreatment is associated with subsequent IPV (e.g., Ehrensaft et al.,
2003; Kwong et al., 2003)
20BPS November 2011
21BPS November 2011
NEUROCOGNITIVE MODEL REACTIVE AGGRESSION
•“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)
22BPS November 2011
RETRAUMATISATION
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/Bidirectional IPV
CUMULATIVE NUMBER OF STUDIES SHOWING SIMILAR RATES OF ASSAULTING A PARTNER
BY WOMEN AND MEN
020406080100120140160180
Nu
mb
er
of
Stu
die
sSTRAUS (2008)
But are men more controlling, aren’t they?
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
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).
• 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).
MUTUAL IPV: WHY IT MATTERS
•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)
RESPONSES TO WOMEN’S IPV
•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?
•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.
THE OREGON YOUTH STUDY(CAPALDI, ET AL., 2004)
• Women identified has having conduct disorder 3 years prior to perpetrating partner violence were:a) more likely to become involved with violent menb) but regardless of whether or not their partner hits them they hit their partners• The results for women were the similar for
men
CONDUCT DISORDER (MOFFITT ET AL 2002)
“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…
• 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 NEW YORK CHILDREN IN THE COMMUNITY STUDY (EHRENSAFT, 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 CONCORDIA LONGITUDINAL RISK PROJECT (SERBIN ET AL., 2004)
THE CYCLE CONTINUES
ACE
Internalising Externalising
IPV
Aggressive parenting
• 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
ADDRESS THE CAUSES
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 &
mothersWhere IPV in unidirectional treat perpetratorWhere IPV is mutual treat both partners individually
and/or in couplesWhere there is IPV, children may need trauma informed
interventions
