Location
Philadelphia, PA
Start Date
1-5-2024 1:00 PM
End Date
1-5-2024 4:00 PM
Description
Introduction:
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a pervasive problem with significant personal and public health effects. IPV is defined as acts of psychological, physical, financial, and sexual abuse between current or former intimate partners (Cameranesi & Piotrowski, 2020). According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV), ten million adults experience IPV annually in the United States (NCADV, 2020). Primarily, women are identified as the survivors or victims of IPV, while men are often the persons causing harm (PCH). Research indicates that one out of every four women is impacted by IPV within their lifetime (NCADV, 2020).
Objectives:
Currently, there is limited research on whether IPV preventative programs decrease recidivism rates amongst PCHs, similar to the SWF model. Therefore, this study aims to determine the SWF program's effectiveness in reducing IPV recidivism rates among families engaged in preventative services by comparing the number of DIRs six months before and six months into program engagement. Additionally, this study will compare ODARA scores with the client’s DIRs to assess if their recidivism level decreases after receiving SWF preventative services for six months. The expectation would be that the PCHs DIRs would decrease or remain the same after six months, while their ODARA responses would be more accurate self-reported responses to indicate accountability.
Methods:
This study will implement a within-subjects repeated measure design to examine changes in the number of domestic violence incident reports (DIR) and potential re-engagement in IPV (as measured by the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA) for participants in the Safe Way Forward (SWF) program. This study will utilize participant data provided by the SWF prevention program. Participant data will be extracted from the Connections electronic database system. The participants are referred to the SWF program by ACS for family court-mandated prevention services due to reported incidents of IPV.
Results:
It is hypothesized that the mean number of domestic violence incidents (as reflected by the DIRs) reported for PCHs during the six months before program enrollment will be significantly lower than the mean number of domestic violence incidents (DIRs) reported for PCHs during the first six months of participating in the program. Additionally, at the six-month program benchmark, the level of risk for re-engagement in IPV (as reflected by the ODARA raw score) for PCHs will be significantly lower than the levels at one month.
Conclusion:
Findings from this study can be used to inform future child protective service IPV-based prevention programs.
Embargo Period
7-1-2024
Included in
Rates of Intimate Partner Violence in a Child-Welfare Based IPV Prevention Program
Philadelphia, PA
Introduction:
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a pervasive problem with significant personal and public health effects. IPV is defined as acts of psychological, physical, financial, and sexual abuse between current or former intimate partners (Cameranesi & Piotrowski, 2020). According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV), ten million adults experience IPV annually in the United States (NCADV, 2020). Primarily, women are identified as the survivors or victims of IPV, while men are often the persons causing harm (PCH). Research indicates that one out of every four women is impacted by IPV within their lifetime (NCADV, 2020).
Objectives:
Currently, there is limited research on whether IPV preventative programs decrease recidivism rates amongst PCHs, similar to the SWF model. Therefore, this study aims to determine the SWF program's effectiveness in reducing IPV recidivism rates among families engaged in preventative services by comparing the number of DIRs six months before and six months into program engagement. Additionally, this study will compare ODARA scores with the client’s DIRs to assess if their recidivism level decreases after receiving SWF preventative services for six months. The expectation would be that the PCHs DIRs would decrease or remain the same after six months, while their ODARA responses would be more accurate self-reported responses to indicate accountability.
Methods:
This study will implement a within-subjects repeated measure design to examine changes in the number of domestic violence incident reports (DIR) and potential re-engagement in IPV (as measured by the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA) for participants in the Safe Way Forward (SWF) program. This study will utilize participant data provided by the SWF prevention program. Participant data will be extracted from the Connections electronic database system. The participants are referred to the SWF program by ACS for family court-mandated prevention services due to reported incidents of IPV.
Results:
It is hypothesized that the mean number of domestic violence incidents (as reflected by the DIRs) reported for PCHs during the six months before program enrollment will be significantly lower than the mean number of domestic violence incidents (DIRs) reported for PCHs during the first six months of participating in the program. Additionally, at the six-month program benchmark, the level of risk for re-engagement in IPV (as reflected by the ODARA raw score) for PCHs will be significantly lower than the levels at one month.
Conclusion:
Findings from this study can be used to inform future child protective service IPV-based prevention programs.