Curriculum support for CDHS: Intimate Partner Violence and Children

Intimate Partner Violence

And

Children

Training for Child Welfare Workers

Nicole Trabold

Doctoral Student

University at Buffalo

School of Social Work

Meg Brin, Child Welfare Administrative Director

CCO2 Child Welfare/Child Protective Services Outcome-Based Training

Vivian Figliotti, Child Welfare Trainer

Diane Porcelli, Child Welfare Trainer

Leita King, Child Welfare Trainer

Betty Flemming, Child Welfare Trainer

Mike McNally, Child Welfare Master Trainer

Funding for this research project was provided by NYS Office of Children and Family Services, Contract Year 2003: Project 1029104 Award 27447 Contract year 2004: Project 1037122, Award: 31183; Contract year 2005: Project 1044698, Award 34851, through the Center for Development of Human Services, College Relations Group, Research Foundation of SUNY, Buffalo State College.

Overview:

Increasing literature and information is being published about the possible effects of exposure of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) on children and adolescents. In addition there has been increased attention by New YorkState on the need to train child welfare workers on the dynamics of Intimate Partner Violence. The importance of this issue when developing appropriate interventions with families while in the field is vital to the safety and well being of children.

Rationale:

A better understanding of the interrelationships between child welfare and IPV is necessary for child welfare workers to effectively screen for IPV, address safety needs within the family system, barriers to parenting which may impact bonding, attachment, and the basic needs of the children such as: shelter, food, clothing, and schooling, and to appropriately address the impacts on children’s development, their health and mental health, and their ability to learn and socialize.

Purpose:

Child welfare workers will have a larger knowledge base on the relationships between intimate partner violence and child welfare which will enable them to; assess for short term and long term effects of IPV on children and adolescents and aid in the development of appropriate interventions for the safety, health and well being of children and the family system.

Objectives:

  1. Identify children who have been exposed to violence
  2. Identify risk factors for these children
  3. Identify safety concerns
  4. Explain impacts on the family system
  5. Explain cycle of violence and safety planning process for women and children
  6. Assess behavioral concerns for children exposed to violence
  7. Develop skills for intervention that are empathic and non-judgmental
  8. Assess for and make recommendations for potential longer term impact on child/adolescent development
  9. Assess for and make recommendations for potential long term physical/mental health issues for children and adolescents
  10. Relate the above stated objectives with child welfare issues of abuse/maltreatment and safety

Background from the Literature

Intimate partner violence is a public health concern plaguing our society today. Violence against women has begun to receive more attention since the passage of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-109). Intimate partner violence (IPV) frequently referred to as battering or spouse abuse has been defined as violence committed by a spouse, ex-spouse, current or former partner (same or opposite sex) in any of the following four forms: physical, sexual, threats of physical or sexual violence and psychological/emotional abuse (Saltzman, Fanslow, McMahon & Shelley 1999). It is purposeful coercion and acts or threats of violence to maintain power and control over an intimate partner.

Physical Violence: Is the intentional use of physical force with the potential for causing death, disability, injury or harm. Physical Violence includes, but is not limited to: scratching, pushing, shoving, throwing, grabbing, biting, choking, shaking, poking, hair-pulling, slapping, punching, hitting, burning, use of a weapon (gun, knife, or other object), and use of restraints or one’s body, size or strength against another person.

Sexual Violence: Is divided into three categories: 1) Use od physical force to compel a person to engage in a sexual act against his or her will, whether or not the act is completer; 2) An attempted or completed sexual act involving a person who is unable to understand the nature or condition of the act, to decline participation, or to communicate unwillingness to engage in the sexual act, because of illness, disability, or the influence of alcohol, or other drugs, or due to intimidation or pressure; 3) abusive sexual contact- which is intentional touching directly, or through the clothing, of the genitalis, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person who is unable to understand the nature or condition of the act, to decline participation, or to communicate wunwillingness to be touched.

Threat of Physical or Sexual Violence: Is the use of words, gestures, or weapons to communicate the intent to cause death, disability, injury, or physical harm. Also the use of words, gestures, or weapons to communicate the intent to compel a person to engage in sex acts or abusive sexual contact when the person is either unwilling or unable to consent.

Psychological/Emotional Abuse: Involves the trauma to the victim caused by acts, threats of acts, or coercive tactics, such as those listed below. This list is not exhaustive and other behaviors may be considered emotionally abusive if they are perceived as such by the victim. *The CDC indicates that any IPV surveillance system will alert on to emotional abuse they recommend that this only be considered a type of violence when there has been prior sexual, physical violence or a threat or either.

Humiliating the victim

Controlling what the victim can do and cannot do

Deliberately doing something to make the victim feel diminished

Taking advantage

Disregarding what the victim wants

Isolating the victim

Prohibiting transportation or telephone

Using the victim’s children to control the victim’s behavior

Destroying property of the victim

Denying the victim access to money or other basic resources

Reference:

Saltzman, LE, Fanslow, JL, McMahon, PM, Shelley, GA. Intimate Partner Violence Surveillance: Uniform definitions and recommended data element , Version 1.0. Atlanta (GA): NationalCenter for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 1999.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report on IPV (2003), 691,710 nonfatal violent victimizations perpetrated by an intimate partner (spouse, ex-spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend) were committed in 2001, 85% of those victimizations were perpetrated against women. IPV made up 20% of the violent crimes against women and 3% of violent crimes against men in 2001 (Bureau of Statistics Special Report on IPV, 2003).

Recently there has been more attention to the effects on children who are exposed to intimate partner violence. The literature remains unclear as to the actual number of children exposed to IPV, but estimates have been noted to be 3-10 million.

A study conducted at a Massachusetts Department of Social Services found through the record review of suspected or confirmed child maltreatment cases, 32% of the cases had documented IPV in the family (Hagen, 1994). In a study by Stark and Flitcraft (1998) they found after reviewing the medical records of mothers whose children were seen in a hospital setting and were referred to the local child protective hotline for child maltreatment, 45% of the women had a documented history of IPV. A study by Suh and Abel (1990) found that 40% of women who were seeking services at a battered women’s shelter reported that their spouse physically abused their children. According to two national surveys 50-70% of families with IPV also reported physical abuse toward the child (Bowker et al., 1988; Stauss and Gillis, 1990).

The effects of IPV harm the entire family. It can be concluded that the children who hear the violence, see the violence, who are victims of the violence as they make attempts to protect a parent, are themselves victims of violence, or have to witness an injured parent are at risk physically and emotionally.

Children who witness parental IPV may exhibit aggression, hostility, anxiety, social withdrawal, cognitive-functioning problems, depression, lower-verbal and quantitative skills and attitudes supporting violence (Edleson 1999). The effects of witnessing violence have been shown to manifest long into adult years. Retrospective studies have shown that adult depression, low self-esteem and criminal activity are prevalent in adults who were exposed to IPV in their home (Carter, Weithorn & Behrman 1999).

Research on children’s exposure to IPV has received growing attention in the past decade in attempts to understand the short and long term effects of exposure to intimate partner violence. It is evident that children’s exposure has implications in the epidemic of intimate partner violence; and can negatively influence development and behaviors of the children who are exposed to it. With the information about intimate partner violence largely being perpetrated by men against women, and the known information about learned behaviors, evaluating the effect of children who are exposed to violence is important in attempts to stop the cycle of violence and intervene with children early to assure that they are safe, have appropriate critical life resources and to minimize any short and long term effects of being exposed to this type of trauma.

Module One:

Goals:

  • To introduce and define IPV
  • Discuss causes of IPV
  • Develop cultural and social sensitivities in how participants understand and respond to IPV

Materials:

  • PowerPoint Module one
  • Handouts

Trainer: This module is to introduce the topic of IPV, its definition per the Center for Disease Control Recommended Definitions for surveillance purposes, address stereotypes of victims/perpetrators of violence and begin discussion of what are the root causes about IPV, reinforce the need for culturally and socially sensitive interventions and begin to bridge the gap between IPV and child welfare organizations, services and advocates. IPV is not an individual issue, it affects the entire family.

Activity to Introduce Topic:

Have participants break into small groups of two to three people and have them work on the following questions:

What is Intimate Partner Violence?

What causes IPV?

Describe a battered woman?

Describe a perpetrator of violence?

Why do women stay in abusive relationships?

What are the goals of services for victims of violence?

What are the goals of child welfare agencies?

After the completion of the worksheet brief discussion should follow and the use of PowerPoint module should be utilized. Discussion should include the following- that there is no one explanation to what causes IPV, and that it is a complex issue. While there may be stereotypes of who batters and who victims are, IPV impacts all races, all socioeconomic classes and both genders. Discussing “why women stay” need to begin to evaluate the cycle of violence and the legal, societal and community barriers that inhibit victims of violence from seeking help. This question can also lead into the power and control dynamic. Lastly, these questions should lay the groundwork that IPV advocates and child welfare workers have the same goal as safety and protection.

This model above seems to be an interesting model for the trainers to use to understand the dynamics of why women can not separate form the abuser-I also thought that is might be helpful to talk about the transtheretical model of change-

I was thinking that it would be interesting to discuss society’s response to IPV i.e. no specific IPV laws until 1994 – and no shelters until the 70’s would this be something to include

Introduction to Theoretical Frameworks that Explain IPV

The magnitude of IPV is great here in the United States and around the world and identifying this issue is a public health priority. As you evaluate the causes of IPV and make recommendations for interventions it is important to understand what is known and what needs to be considered about this complex phenomenon. There are many theoretical explanations of IPV; I would first like to frame what started us in this current trajectory of research and policy than there will be a brief overview of some of the common theoretical explanations of IPV.

Brief Overview of the “Battered Women’s Movement”

Intimate partner violence came to the forefront in the late sixties and early seventies in the wake of the feminist movement. Through dialogue women came to realize the commonalities they faced in their homes by violence directed toward them by their husbands. In response, at a 1976 Feminist Network Conference in Houston, Texas the National Battered Women’s movement was created. The feminist movement was split into the women’s right movement embodied by organizations such as NOW, who focused on equal rights and the women’s liberations movement, made up radical feminists and socialist feminists who were focused on equal rights but who were also focused on gender disparities. The women’s liberation movement advocated that violence that occurs in the home is not to be considered a private matter. Radical feminists challenged the structure of society with division of labor and power as a means to create exploitation of women with established patriarchy sustaining hierarchies as the cause of IPV. The socialist feminists added that the social structure supported violence against women; therefore focusing their attention on social change initiatives such as women only shelters (Schechter, 1982).

Since the early initiatives there have been numerous advancements in the field of IPV, but a huge amount of work remains in understanding the root causes of violence. So what causes IPV? This is likely the most common question posed when examining IPV and interventions that either serve to prevent violence against intimate partners or address the outcomes of violence. I will review four theoretical frameworks, that explain the phenomenon of IPV.

Characterization of Theory

Theoretical explanations of IPV have developed from many disciplines such as sociology, psychology, criminal justice, social work, public health and medicine (Calhoun & Clark-Jones, 1998a; Jasinski, 2001), and have generally been characterized into micro-oriented theories, the intra-individual and social psychology explanations and macro-oriented theories, which are more of the socio-cultural explanations (Jasinski, 2001). Theoretical development in the area of IPV generally have aimed at understanding the phenomenon of IPV, or have focused on understanding individuals who perpetrate violence against their intimate partner, with few theoretical frameworks that look at the characteristics of the victim (Jasinski, 2001).

Feminist Theory

We can see from the initiation of the battered women’s movement that the feminist perspective roots the cause of violence in a patriarchy (Dobash & Dobash, 1979), with societal sanction and support for use of violence against women by men to attain dominance (Campbell, 1992; Schechter, 1982). The existence of rigid gender roles reinforces patriarchy which ultimately contributes to IPV (Schechter, 1982; Yick, 2003). Dobash and Dobash (1979) concluded after their study of battered women in Scotland that violence against women is socially constructed and supported by cultural beliefs, and advocated against further evaluation of individual characteristics that influence violence. Yllo (1984) as cited in Campbell (1992) showed a high correlation of violence against intimate partners in highly patriarchal social structures another important contribution in support of feminist theory.

Empirical support for feminist theory can be seen from anthropological ethnographic research of culture. (Campbell, 1992) summarizes: cultures with patterns of high male sexual jealousy (e.g. Iran) coexist with high incidences of “wife battering” (p. 235), where cultures such as the Wape of Papa New Guinea have virtually no jealousy and virtually no violence.

In Iran “men were raised to be aggressive, to devalue women and their activities, to use violence to get what they wanted, and to demonstrate the power and strength required for political survival”(Hegland, 1992). Beatings were a means to reinforce the role of women as submissive and dependent (Hegland, 1992). Within the Wape tribe in New Guinea gender differences are not emphasized, each gender has a role in society with no privilege favoring a particular gender; public aggression is not rewarded and violence directed at a wife is believed to be punished by ancestral spirits (Mitchell, 1992).

Resource Theory

Resource Theory has its roots in sociology and can be characterized as a micro-oriented theory used to explain IPV in the context of power. The individual in the relationship who has the greatest amount of resources maintains the majority of the power. Power within this framework is defined by ability to influence one partner over the other (Jasinski, 2001). Hyman Rodman argued that there is a meditating relationship between resource theory and cultural norms concerning gender- or gender ideology (Diefenbach, 2002). Therefore, this theoretical perspective shifts from gender as the primary variable to power as mediated by gender roles.

Resource Theory has also been applied in explaining the correlation of IPV and poverty (Campbell, 1992). In four studies in different cities, women who were receiving welfare (TANF) were screened for IPV. Three studies noted that there was a lifetime incidence of IPV of approximately 50-60% and the fourth study noted a lifetime prevalence of IPV at 33.8% (Raphael & Tolman, 1997). Increased incidence of IPV among women who receive public assistance compared to the general population of women support the disproportion of resources creating a power differential which is a medium for violence.

A criticism of resource theory has been the lack of explanation direction of increased resources and use of violence. (Hampton, Oliver, & Magarian, 2003) concluded that there was a correlation of decreased financial resources and IPV however they attribute underemployment and poor employment opportunities for African American males as a precursor for violence against African American women, noting that the rates of both poverty and IPV are higher in the African American population.

A concept frequently used with resource theory is status inconsistency. This concept hypothesizes that a husband who perceives that his status is inconsistent with social norms utilizes violence to reestablish his power (Campbell, 1992). This helps eliminate the limitations in direction and the inclusion of this component clarifies and strengthens the explanation of IPV in more general terms of disproportionate power and violence as a means to attain or maintain power disparity.