Identifying the key components of a ‘whole family’ intervention for families experiencing domestic violence and abuse

Abstract

‘Whole family’ interventions for families living with domestic violence and abuse (DVA) are emerging and some international practice examples are available. This study reports a process evaluation of a pilot delivered in Northern England that aimed to work with all members of families experiencing DVA. The evaluation involved analysis of detailed accounts of practice from learning logs and case workbooks as well as interviews with practitioners and family members. The voluntary nature of families’ involvement with the pilot, together with an explicit service philosophy of ‘meeting families where they are at’ appeared successful in engaging families. Pilot staff worked flexibly, seeing family members together and separately, but there was evidence of lower levels of confidence in work with perpetrators. Co-work enabled skills to be transferred to other professionals and social workers increased their use of risk assessment tools in DVA cases. However, there was uncertainty as to whether interagency communication improved across local agencies, and joint protocols and tools were slow to develop. This study is one of the first evaluations of ‘whole family’ interventions in DVA, and it illustrates how, when additional resources and organisational support are made available, a non-blaming approach that families find engaging can be developed.

Child protection and fathering where there is domestic violence: Contradictions and consequences

“…As with other studies (Blacklock & Phillips, 2015;Stanley & Humphreys, 2017), when such linkages do exist, there is a need to make the cooperative relationship between the two services a significant and visible part of the accountability process. Linkages that may exist were not evident to participants.…”

“…Strengthening the linkages between these two services emerged as an important area for policy and practice development. As with other studies (Blacklock & Phillips, 2015;Stanley & Humphreys, 2017), when such linkages do exist, there is a need to make the cooperative relationship between the two services a significant and visible part of the accountability process.…”

Violence Against Women in Intimate Partner Relationships and Institutional Response to Women’s Needs

“…Thus, interpreting violence against women in an intimate partner relationship as individual and psychological (rather than as a political, economic, or social problem) can be powerful in blaming the victim (or reducing her powerlessness) (Romito, 2008). Referral to psychotherapy treatment, family therapy or mediation can (completely) ignore the violence, or treat it as an incidental manifestation of a covert disorder (the victim receives a mental instability label, which confirms what the perpetrator says to her: "You are crazy", "The children will be taken away from you"), and it harbours a number of risks (Päivinen & Holma, 2017;Stanley & Humphreys, 2017). Moreover, psychological programs for perpetrators of violence may also show insufficient concern for women's safety, and examinations of their effects have shown controversial results (Gondolf, 2002).…”

Ethical implications in teaching and learning about intimate partner violence and femicide prevention

“…Learning about prevention in schools should also form part of a co-ordinated community approach to IPV, which involves the response of the criminal justice system, support services and programmes aimed for victims, survivors and perpetrators. Emerging studies on interventions with all family members experiencing domestic violence and abuse show some degree of success in identifying potential for recovery and positive change for all family members (Stanley & Humphreys, 2017). In some cultures, learning about the intersection of race and gender and racialised femicide and IPV is considered more pertinent.…”