Search

Purpose: Systematic reviews have an important, and growing, role to play in the global evidence eco-system of domestic violence and abuse. Alongside substantive contributions to knowledge, such reviews stimulate debates about ethical reviewing practices and the importance of tailoring methods to the nuances of the field. This paper aims to pinpoint a set of ethical and methodological priorities to guide and enhance review practices specifically in the field of domestic abuse. Method: The five Pillars of the Research Integrity Framework (ethical guidelines for domestic abuse research) are used to interrogate the systematic review process. To do so, the Framework is retrospectively applied to a recently completed systematic review in domestic abuse. The review included a rapid systematic map and in-depth analysis of interventions aimed at creating or enhancing informal support and social networks for victim-survivors of abuse. Results: Ethical and methodological priorities for systematic reviews in domestic abuse include (1) Safety and wellbeing: maintaining the wellbeing of researchers and stakeholders, and appraising the ethics of included studies, (2) Transparency/ accountability: transparent reporting of research funding, aims and methods together with explicit consideration of authorship of outputs, (3) Equality, human rights and social justice: developing diverse review teams/ Advisory groups, and review methods that aim to search for, and report, diverse perspectives. Considering researcher positionality/ reflexivity in the review, (4) Engagement: collaboration with non-academic stakeholders and individuals with lived experience throughout the review process, (5) Research Ethics: independent ethical scrutiny of systematic review proposals with input from researchers with expertise in systematic reviews and domestic abuse. Conclusion: Additional research is required to comprehensively examine the ethics of each stage of the review process. In the meantime, attention should be given to the underpinning ethical framework for our systematic review practices and the wider research infrastructure that governs reviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For Baby's Sake is an innovative whole-family intervention that works with parents from pregnancy to two years postpartum to break cycles of domestic abuse and improve outcomes for children. The programme launched in 2015 across two community settings in England, with an independent evaluation led by King's College London. This paper aims to (1) summarise the process of developing For Baby's Sake and how it has been embedded within two different settings and (2) describe the evaluation design using early data to illustrate successes and challenges. The programme was developed following a review of the evidence and extensive stakeholder engagement. Three experts co-designed the content in partnership with the Stefanou Foundation and the programme delivery teams have been integrated into two local authorities. The evaluation uses mixed methods to assess abuse victimisation/perpetration, mental health, parenting and child outcomes, alongside service user experiences of early engagement. Forty individuals (27 women and 13 men) have been recruited to the evaluation. Early findings suggest that parents value the novel approach of For Baby's Sake and their relationships with practitioners. Data on parents' mental health and childhood adversities supports the decision to create a trauma-informed intervention. Interventions for domestic abuse are necessary to improve health and behaviour outcomes for families and prevent intergenerational transmission of abuse and developmental trauma. For Baby's Sake addresses limitations of existing interventions, through its trauma-informed, attachment-based, whole-family approach. Early data from the evaluation suggests that the programme is reaching its intended audience and that service users appreciate the supportive approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Addressing sexual and relationship violence (SRV) on campuses requires coordinated engagement from all members of the campus-community; however, many campuses do not yet have the infrastructure or institutional commitment to build an all-campus action plan. In such cases, campuses lack the metaphorical table around which collaboration happens. This paper presents tensions and lessons learned so far from a faculty-staff-student partnership to build a movement toward university-wide collaborative practice. Through iterative, collaborative reflection on our context, practice, and intermediate outcomes, we identified recommendations for improving praxis in campus-based, intersectional anti-SRV organizing. Our analysis explores how our individual positionalities both open up and limit our potential to move this work forward. We share our guiding values and frameworks, including intersectional feminist attention to power and oppression; centering survivors and students; strategic collaboration within systems; and integrating self-care and other supportive practices for building a sustainable movement. Our emergent strategy, illustrated through ten lessons/tensions and four case examples, focuses on finding close collaborators with shared SRV analysis; making the best use of resources and spaces we control; identifying meaningful “small wins;” and pursuing opportunities to connect to others through positive collaborations. Efforts to intentionally raise awareness and grow strategic institutional connections build momentum toward institutionally-supported campus-wide evaluation and reimagining of prevention and survivor-support efforts. While feminist collaborative social change is challenging, we celebrate and learn from our “two steps forward” to sustain us through the inevitable steps back. We write to stir a conversation where we help each other interpret and learn across our varied contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Sexual violence (SV) and adolescent relationship abuse (ARA) are common in the U. S. and have strong associations with negative health and wellbeing outcomes. Manhood 2.0 is the first U.S. program designed for community settings to build bystander skills while also challenging harmful gender norms. A cluster-randomized trial comparing Manhood 2.0 to Job Skills, a job readiness training control condition, demonstrated that it is a promising strategy to prevent sexual violence and adolescent relationship abuse. Such community-based interventions may be particularly relevant in lower resource urban settings, and the costs of such prevention programs have not been considered previously. Methods: The aim of the present study is to perform systematic and standardized cost calculations associated with implementing Manhood 2.0 among adolescent males. In addition, this study provides detailed cost information of the community-based intervention program, as well as costs associated with implementing the Job Skills control program. Program implementation data were recorded throughout the study period (2015–2019) by the Manhood 2.0 study team. Results: The cost of implementing Manhood 2.0 is $4,771 per complete round of program delivery and $451 per participant, which is approximately the same cost as the control Job Skills program ($4,432 and $453 per participant). The marginal cost per additional round of Manhood 2.0 program is $3,682. Conclusion: Implementation of a community-based program requires substantial resources and collaborations with community partners especially in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods. This study provides a snapshot of the cost information of a community-based intervention program from the implementing agency's perspective, which is essential in helping decision-makers understand the costs they will incur by implementing prevention programs and ensuring program feasibility and sustainability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Collaborative and supportive partnerships among academicians and community agency members represent one method of working successfully toward ending violence against women. Members of academia and service agencies are uniquely poised to collaborate with one another to foster both domestic violence and sexual assault research agendas as well as direct service to survivors. This paper provides suggestions and methods of how to create positive, collaborative relationships between academicians and service providers in the field of domestic violence (DV) and sexual assault (SA). Specifically, we will discuss the reasons for collaboration, useful steps in developing a partnership, issues of trust and time investment, research methods, and giving back. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: While intimate partner violence (IPV) has been widely researched in the past several decades, there remains a need to investigate culturally specific ways to respond to IPV survivors. Clergy play a crucial role as respondents to IPV in the Korean American (KA) community, yet further investigation is needed on what variables positively influence clergy response to IPV survivors. Thus, this study sought to examine the impact of acculturation, adherence to Asian values, generational status, and clergy-mental health professional collaboration on KA clergy responses to instances of IPV in their congregations. Method: A total of 84 KA pastors were recruited through snowball sampling and completed surveys measuring demographics, adherence to Asian values, acculturation, generational status, and level of clergy-mental health professional collaboration. One-way ANOVA and hierarchical regression analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS. Results: Results revealed significant generational differences in IPV intervention and referral behavior. In addition, while acculturation significantly predicted IPV intervention, clergy-mental health professional collaboration also significantly predicted referral behavior and intervention behaviors even after generational status, acculturation, and adherence to Asian values were accounted for. Conclusions: These findings suggest that acculturation and clergy-mental health professional collaboration are particularly relevant variables in facilitating safety-promoting IPV interventions and referral behavior among KA clergy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Children of young parents are at elevated risk for child abuse and neglect due to myriad challenges. Despite the dual need for parenting support and mental health support, most literature and programs separate these and do not address maltreated parenting youths' intergenerational context. The current study explores parenting and mental health needs as intertwined, uplifting experiences of young adult mothers with child maltreatment histories, professionals serving them, and mothers' own caregivers. Method: Through a community-engaged research process, this grounded theory study was co-conceptualized and conducted through a university-community-based organization partnership. We conducted in-depth interviews with 23 participants: nine young, maltreated mothers aged 18–25 (M = 20.9) years, 14 professionals and two caregivers. Data were collected in the community and analyzed using grounded theory methods. We transcribed each interview and analyzed the transcripts using a structured process of open, focus, axial, and selective/theoretical coding. Rigor was enhanced through several strategies including reflexivity and member checking. Results: Grounded theory analysis produced a detailed model of the process of accessing and receiving mental health and parenting support among young, maltreated mothers, including (1) Reckoning with the Impact of Childhood and Adolescent Trauma on Mental Health and Parenting; (2) Reaching Out; (3) Receiving Parenting Support; (4) Receiving Mental Health Support; and (5) Seeking a Change. Conclusions: Findings support a comprehensive approach for supporting young parents in improving the trajectories of their families through integrated approaches to parenting and mental health intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Concerns have been expressed regarding the efficacy of services for heterosexual men who use intimate partner violence. In addition, there has been limited research into the perspectives of these men regarding their use of services. The Australian study outlined in this article sought to examine the experiences of heterosexual men who use intimate partner violence (IPV) when they access domestic violence services. Collaborative inquiry was undertaken with men who were attending a residential domestic violence service to explore the research question; What does expertise look like in domestic violence services for men? When discussing expertise, twenty men identified four themes: lived experience and book knowledge, services and supports, professional helping skills and expertise, and non-professional helping and expertise. These collaborative researchers described expertise as a product of book knowledge and lived experience knowledge, indicating these knowledges could be located within the one person or shared between professionals and service attendees. The informants suggested cultural mentoring, peer support and co-production are important inclusions in men's domestic violence services. They also highlighted positive peer affirmations as supporting their behaviour change and suggested sociological frameworks are central to successful interventions with men. Men who use IPV may have important insights about expertise in domestic violence services for men which can inform future practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provided funding (U01 CE002668) to evaluate bystander program efficacy to reduce gender-based violence on college campuses (Aim 1) and to create a mentoring network (Aim 2) for young campus-based researchers interested in violence intervention or prevention (VIP). While an evaluation of this mentoring program is ongoing, our purpose here was to document the strategies used to create, implement, and begin evaluation of this national multi-college mentoring network. As each public college was recruited into this evaluation named multi-college Bystander Efficacy Evaluation (mcBEE), each college was invited to nominate a researcher interested in receiving mentorship as a mcBEE fellow. Senior faculty with active VIP research careers were recruited as mentors. Mentorship occurred through annual meetings over time (2015–2019), weekly to bimonthly calls or video conferencing with 2–3 other fellows, and a mentor forming a group with 3–4 mentees, termed a hive. The initial focus of hive meetings was 1) creating and maintaining an active daily writing practice and 2) developing productivity plans, to include research, personal, and professional goals. Manuscript and grant writing feedback was provided throughout the network electronically or 'live' workshops. Annual surveys were implemented to investigate program efficacy. Our mcBEE team was able to successfully assemble a national network of VIP fellows and provide small group and individualized mentoring. Our ultimate goal was that of supporting our fellows' own trajectories in gender-based VIP research, teaching, administration, or service. Evaluation of our fellow and mentor cohort is ongoing (2015–2019). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Violence against women and violence against children are distinct research fields. Quantitative studies have demonstrated their intersection, but qualitative data provides an opportunity for a comprehensive understanding of this interface. Interviews with 22 parents/caregivers convicted of child homicide provided an opportunity to explore the context of violent experiences in their lives including their use of violence and their experiences of it in their intimate and parenting relationships. Using a feminist framework, we found that patriarchal family structures, gender and power dynamics contribute to the use of violence. Revenge child homicide was common with distinct gendered differences. This study calls for closer collaboration between the two fields to assist in developing prevention interventions to address and eradicate both forms of violence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this special issue is to explore how researchers, evaluators, and practitioners use community-based, participatory research (CBPR) approaches to prevent gender-based violence, support survivors, and transform communities and systems. In this introduction, the editors define gender-based violence (GBV) and briefly discuss how systemic inequities exacerbate the prevalence of GBV. The authors featured in this special issue aim to dismantle these inequities by engaging in research approaches that center those who are most impacted by the social issue, ensure that community members guide the research process, build community capacity, and aim to transform oppressive conditions. The issue includes six empirical studies across the United States that cover the process and outcomes of conducting transformative CBPR. It also contains six commentaries from GBV adult practitioners and young people who provide pertinent insights on their experiences working with academic researchers and/or engaging in participatory research. The articles in this special issue cover the major themes of defining community, working in inequitable conditions, and transforming individuals and communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since 2000, the RYSE center located in Richmond, CA has centered the voices of youth to combat issues in their local community. Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR) has been one of the key tenets of RYSE’s approach and implementation of radical inquiry. RYSE’s radical inquiry strategy aims to shift what research looks like, sounds like, and feels like with an inquiry process that is humanizing and moves toward liberation. This involves ongoing listening and dynamic responsiveness to the priorities, needs, and interests of young people of color. This commentary documents two recent YPAR projects that developed from youth who were interested in exploring gender-based violence, bullying and coping. The commentary documents findings and youth reflections highlighting the liberatory and collaborative nature of YPAR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Grassroots community efforts intuitively understand the physics of relationships—that you cannot interact with something or someone, even if that interaction is simply observation, without having an impact. Research shapes the way our lives are imagined. There’s no way around it. But developing relationships with researchers or others who can help document and disseminate ‘by and for’ information can be challenging for grassroots and community led initiatives. When institutions seek to include marginalized community priorities into pre-existing frameworks or study initiatives, or when researchers come from the outside, extract information from our community organizations and grassroots efforts, and then leave to analyze and make meaning of it elsewhere, the result is never accurate and our own community led trajectories of learning are disrupted and undermined. From significant changes to how research collaborations are conceived and funded, to simple fixes to approaches used in the field, researchers can be better partners to community led efforts to document and understand our own lives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Domestic Violence Program Evaluation and Research Collaborative (DVPERC) was formed in Massachusetts in 2011 as an effort to connect research and practice. Initially, we consisted of a few programs and researchers, but we quickly evolved into a regional collaboration spanning several states. From the outset, we have followed community-based participatory research values, including co-learning, power sharing, and relationship-building. Several aspects of DVPERC make it unique. Our collaboration is informal, ongoing, and comprised of an array of programs, practitioners, and researchers. Although we are abundant in number, we are regional in scope, which allows for regular, in-person meetings. In this article, we describe the history of DVPERC, the five elements of the DVPERC model, and the model’s inherent benefits and limitations. Throughout, we infuse our practitioner and researcher perspectives on DVPERC involvement. We hope our honest description of DVPERC assists others interested in launching their own CBPR practitioner-researcher partnerships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]