Jump to Body Text

search | site index | faq | about us | what's new

Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse

Reducing Intimate Partner Abuse: A Look at National, State, and Local Strategies for Prevention of Domestic Violence

Barbara Johnson
University of Northern Colorado

Publication Date: April 8, 2002


Table of Contents


Introduction and problem assessment

Domestic violence is expensive, not merely in dollar amounts, but in the senseless loss of a victim's health, dignity, security, and freedom of self-determination. Beyond the visible signs of assault, which most often occur to the face, head, neck, breasts, abdomen, back, and genitals ( Kyriacou, Angelin, Taliaferro, Stone, Tubb, Linden, Muelleman, Barton, & Kraus, 1999), victims sustain injury to their mental well-being, performance at work or school, ability to carry on relationships, and capacity to provide for their children's needs. Furthermore, the couple's surrounding social network may suffer mild to severe distress, leading to additional intervention needs. The radiating impact of intimate partner abuse can be classified as first, second, and third-order effects ( Riger, Raja, & Camacho, 2002).

First-order effects of partner abuse are associated with the direct consequences to the victim. Both acute and chronic physical, mental, and behavioral health issues are common. For example, some women experience sensorimotor and language impairment due to repeated head injuries; many others experience symptoms of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), including persistent anxiety, panic, flashbacks, and hypervigilance; sadly, victims sometimes engage in activities which exacerbate their own impairment, such as substance abuse, self-mutilation, eating disorders, and prescription drug misuse in an attempt to cope with the maltreatment ( Riger et al., 2002).

The second-order effects of domestic violence affect the victim's ability to function in the world around her. Repeated battering may result in recurrent marks which make it humiliating for victims to be seen by others. The embarrassment then leads to absenteeism, secrecy, and isolation. Because of frequent periods of infirmary, and/or the dysfunctional coping mechanism of addictive behaviors, many battered women cannot keep steady employment. Some will also turn to others for help with the children, eventually risking custody loss. Economically, second-order effects often include instability in housing and financial resources as abused partners abandon their jobs, homes, and belongings in order to escape the violence.

Third-order effects are the outcomes incurred upon children, relatives, friends, co-workers, and even the community at large. Consider that even mild spousal abuse (i.e. throwing objects at partner) is associated with a 150% increase in physical child abuse; men who abuse their wives are nearly three times as likely to be violent toward their children, and ironically, battered women also showed a 50% greater likelihood of assaulting their children than non-abused women ( Tajima, 2002). Even when children are not direct victims of violence, they will carry deep emotional scars by being exposed to it. The most common consequences for youth are PTSD, depression, dissociation, aggression, and substance abuse ( Buka, Stichick, Birdthistle, & Earls, 2001). However, the radiating impact from children raised in violent homes is an exercise in heartbreaking contemplation. It is difficult to imagine how many people are wounded by a single abusive act.

National issues and statistics

Domestic violence is becoming an increasingly salient public health concern in the United States. The awareness could be related to the steady increase of women in government and other leadership positions, high-profile criminal events such as the murder of Nicole Brown-Simpson, or the achievements of coalitions and partnerships, now experiencing well-deserved recognition. Still, partner abuse remains a highly complex social problem, not easily remedied. When examining the data it is important to realize that a universal definition of domestic violence has not yet been adopted; consequently, a universal tool for detection of partner abuse has yet to be developed ( Loring & Smith, 1994). However, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence ( 2001) offers the following definition:

The National Domestic Violence Hotline ( 2002) outlines the following statistics to further illuminate the scope of intimate partner abuse in the United States:

State issues and statistics

In order to set guidelines for Colorado's treatment programs, The Colorado Department of Public Safety's Office of Domestic Violence and Sex Offender Management ( 2002) describes the state's classification of domestic violence as defined in §18-6-800.3 (1), C.R.S.:

  1. Physical violence:aggressive behavior including but not limited to hitting, pushing, choking, scratching, pinching, restraining, slapping, pulling, hitting with weapons or objects, shooting, stabbing, damaging property or pets, or threatening to do so.
  2. Sexual violence:forcing someone to perform any sexual act without consent.
  3. Psychological violence:intense and repetitive degradation, creating isolation, and controlling the actions or behaviors of another person through intimidation (such as stalking or harassing) or manipulation to the detriment of the individual.
  4. Economic Deprivation/Financial Abuse:use of financial means to control the actions or behaviors of another person. May include such acts as withholding funds, taking economic resources from intimate partner, and using funds to manipulate or control intimate partner.

In addition to creating its own definition of domestic violence, each state has different laws which govern the public response to partner abuse. Colorado is one of only 7 states with laws specifically mandating that health care providers report suspected intimate partner violence to the police ( Houry, Sachs, Feldhaus, & Linden, 2002). Yet despite mandatory reporting laws, multiple factors allow an unknown proportion of these crimes to stay off the record. Among the impediments, lack of awareness of the law by health care providers, reluctance to label injuries as partner abuse due to added reporting requirements, and desire to protect patient confidentiality ( Houry et al., 2002). Caralis and Musialowski ( 1997) found that while 80% of female emergency room patients support mandatory reporting by physicians, less than 20% had been asked about their domestic violence history by the ER doctor; the women assumed that physicians either did not possess the knowledge, time, resources, or interest to ask about partner abuse.

The following state statistics are from Colorado's 1999 Domestic Violence Report compiled by the Colorado Bureau of Investigations ( 2000). The data show that women suffer abhorrent levels of abuse in Colorado at the hands of significant others. Unfortunately, the home environment is the most dangerous place for a battered woman.

Crime in Colorado (1999): Domestic violence

Numbers
Domestic violence incidents in 1999 6,951
Domestic violence victims in 1999 7,302

Number of domestic violence victims per offense

Type of Offense Numbers of Domestic Violence Victims
Homicide 26
Forcible sex offenses 144
Robbery 27
Aggravated assault 755
Simple assault 5,899
Intimidation, non-force 319
Kidnapping 106
Non-force sex offenses 26
Total 7,302
Does not include the 12 Domestic violence homicides reported as UCR summary statistics as this information was not available.

Relationship of victim to offender

Numbers
Boyfriend/girlfriend 7
Common law spouse 0
Ex-spouse 3
Same sex relationship 1
Spouse 15

By type of weapon

Weapon Numbers
Asphyxiation 1
Firearm 12
Hands/fist/feet 5
Knife 8

Victim sex and race

Numbers
Female 22
Male 4
Asian 1
Black 2
White 23

Forcible sex offenses:Offenses (143)Victims (144)

Relationship of victim to offender

Numbers
Boyfriend/girlfriend 85
Common-law spouse 13
Ex-spouse 6
Same sex relationship 1
Spouse 39

By location

Location Numbers
Field/woods 1
Govenment/public building 1
Grocery/Supermarkets 1
Hotel/Motel 7
Parking lot/garage 1
Residence/home 122
Road/highway/alley/street 6
School/college 2
Other/unknown 3

Type of weapon

Weapon Number
Firearm 2
Hands/fists/feet 118
Knife 7
Other weapon 8
Unknown 9

By victim sex and race

Gender Numbers
Female 141
Male 3
Asian 4
Black 16
White 121
Unknown/Unreported 3

Aggravated assault:Offenses (735)Victims (755)

By Location

Location Numbers
Bar/night club 10
Convenience store 1
Field/woods 1
Hotel/motel 23
Jail/prison/penitentiary 1
Parking lot/garage 32
Residence/home 617
Restaurant/cafeteria 1
Road/highway/alley/street 62
School/collage 1
Service/gas station 1
Other/unknown 5

Relationship of victim to offender*

Relationship Numbers
Boyfriend/girlfriend 384
Common-law spouse 64
Ex-spouse 29
Same sex relationship 3
Spouse 277
*The number of victim to offender relationships will not always equal the number of offenses, victims, or incidents by location and type of weapon, as there can be multiple victims and/or offenders involved in one incident.

By type of weapon

Weapon Numbers
Blunt object 67
Drugs 2
Explosivies 1
Fire/incendiary device 2
Firearm 107
Hands/fists/feet 233
Knife 262
Motor vehicle 36
None 1
Other weapon 37
Unknown weapon 7

Victim by sex and race

Female 558
Male 198
Unknown/unreported 2
Asian 6
Black 156
Indian 5
White 573
Unknown/unreported 15

Simple assault:Offenses (5,572)Victims (5,899)

By location

Location of the Assault Numbers
Air/bus/train terminal 2
Bank/savings and loan 1
Bar/night club 57
Church/synagogue 1
Commercial/office bldg. 6
Construction site 4
Convenience store 12
Department store 6
Drug store/doctor office 4
Field/woods 7
Government/public bldg. 7
Grocery/supermarket 9
Hotel/Motel 153
Jail/prison 3
Lake/waterway 2
Liquor store 1
Parking lot/garage 216
Residence/home 4,876
Restaurant/cafeteria 20
Road/highway/alley/street 375
School/college 28
Service/gas station 12
Specialty store 6
Other/unknown 91

Relationship of victim to offender*

Boyfriend/girlfriend 2,813
Common-law spouse 542
Ex-spouse 207
Same sex relationship 60
Spouse 2,278
*The number of victim to offender relationships will not always equal the number of offenses, victims, or incidents by location and type of weapon, as there can be multiple victims and/or offenders involved in one incident.

By victim sex and race

Female 4,615
Male 1,236
Asian 73
Black 830
Indian 32
White 4,843
Unknown/unreported 121

Kidnapping: Offenses (106) Victims (106)

By location

Location of Kidnapping Number
Hotel/motel 1
Parking lot garages 5
Residence/home 89
Road/highway/alley/street 9
Other/unknown 2

Relationship of victim to offender

Boyfriend/girlfriend 63
Common-law spouse 5
Ex-spouse 1
Same sex relationship 0
Spouse 37

By type of weapon

Type of Weapon Number
Hands/fists/feet 99
Firearm 1
Knife 2
None 0
Other weapon 1
Unknown 1

By victim sex and race

Female 101
Male 4
Unknown/unreported 1
Asian 1
Black 5
White 98
Unknown/unreported 2

Intimidation: Offenses (317), Victims (319)

By location

Location of offense Numbers
Bar/night club 7
Commercial/office bldg. 1
Convenience store 1
Drug store/doctor office 5
Government/public bldg. 2
Hotel/motel 2
Liquor store 1
Parking lot/garage 6
Residence/home 257
Road/highway/alley/street 23
Restaurant 6
School/college 1
Specialty store 2
Other/unknown 3

Relationship of victim to offender

Boyfriend/girlfriend 153
Common-law spouse 16
Ex-spouse 55
Same sex relationship 0
Spouse 95

By victim sex and race

Female 287
Male 30
Unknown/unreported 2
Asian 2
Black 30
Indian 2
White 279
Unknown/unreported 6

Local issues and statistics

The Adams County Sheriff's Office collects data on county crime. While the county reports incidents of domestic violence to the state, offenses such as assault, homicide, kidnapping and rape are not delineated between stranger, acquaintance, or intimate partner perpetrator. Notably, Adams County experienced a 17% increase in crime rates over the last year, according to Denver's CBS news affiliate, 7 News ( 2002), making Adams County the area in Colorado with the greatest swell of criminal activity. What link the overall crime rate has to partner abuse is speculative.

Return to top of the page


Healthy people 2010

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is the lead agency for the 15th focus area of the Healthy People 2010 goals for the nation: Injury and violence control. Since domestic violence is the most common cause of non-fatal injury to American women ( Kyriacou et al., 1999), Health People 2010 set their objective number 15-34 as: Reduce the rate of physical assault by current or former intimate partners.

The target is 3.3 physical assaults per 1,000 persons aged 12 and older with a baseline of 4.4 (for the same group). As stated earlier, approximately one third of female murder victims died at the hands of an intimate partner. As evidenced by the chart below, 34% of all injury-related deaths are intentional and thus, preventable.

Injury Related Death in the United States 1997

injury related death in the us
         1997

Return to top of the page


Theories and models

Ecological theory

Ecological Theory was formulated by Bronfenbrenner in 1977. Based on multiple, interconnected elements of individuals, communities, institutions, and cultures, a victim's behavior is shaped not only by her upbringing, but by current contextual factors such as the batterer, reactions she receives from those around her, and the resources available to her ( Riger et al., 2002). This reciprocal interplay includes microsystems such as the family, mesosystems such as the neighborhood or workplace, exosystems such as the broader social influence of the media, and macrosystems which are ideologies and/or law ( Tajima, 2002). This means that changes on one strata result in changes to the others. For example, mandatory reporting of partner abuse creates change in institutions, creating change in neighborhoods, families, and individuals.

Social cognitive theory

Authored by Bandura in 1986, Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) postulates triadic reciprocity between behavior, cognition and other personal factors, and environmental events. Crucial to this theory is the person?s ability to symbolize behavior, anticipate outcomes, learn from observation, and possess confidence to overcome barriers to performing the behavior ( Glanz, Lewis, & Rimer, 1997). With these abilities an individual can achieve self-determination. Planning intervention techniques with SCT could include helping groups and individuals to visualize speaking out against partner abuse by use of public service announcements. This would build on the ideas of symbolizing behavior, anticipating outcomes, and learning from observation.

Locus of Control

In 1966, Rotter developed the concept of Locus of Control. According to this theory, individuals acquire either an internal or external locus of control. An internal orientation is characterized by the belief that one has control over present and future life events by initiating change, using coping mechanisms, and demonstrating vigilance. Those with an external locus of control are more likely to consider their lives and circumstances as consequences of fate, chance, or influence by others; they are less likely to take action and direct the course of their lives ( Glanz et al., 1997). A battered woman is most likely to be experiencing an external locus of control as her partner has employed techniques of power, control, oppression, and domination in a progressive manner over a period of time. Transitioning from external to internal locus of control is imperative in order for the victim to terminate the abusive relationship.

Cognitive dissonance theory

Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable psychological state in which the individual experiences two incompatible beliefs. The individual is then motivated to reduce this discomfort through action. This theory was developed by Festinger in 1970 and contains explanatory power for why domestic violence problems are ignored in health care settings, and even why some victims remain in abusive relationships. Warshaw's ( 1986) position is that because of the lack of domestic violence training in medical schools and hospitals, health care workers approach partner abuse from the framework of their own gender socialization, thereby having a personal investment in dismissing abuse as endemic and not worth addressing. Zaitman ( 1999) states that cognitive dissonance motivates many battered women to avoid domestic violence information and other intervention stimuli in order to evade the resulting conflict from remaining in the relationship. This theory may help to explain why many victims wait until the partner abuse has escalated to very dangerous levels before they take steps to get help.

Return to top of the page


National strategies and existing programs

National public and private organizations have tremendous power to influence and guide state and local programs. Because of the internet, universal access has been achieved and all U. S. citizens within range of a personal or public computer can reap the benefits. The following is a partial directory of national organizations and programs scattered across the country. For each organization or program, strategies for prevention of intimate violence are listed.

National Advisory Council on Violence Against Women and the Violence Against Women Office

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services - National Women's Health Information Center

CDC's Family and Intimate Violence Prevention Team ( Saltzman & Johnson, 1996)

Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project ( Feldman, 1994)

University Health System Safe Family Project ( Swenson-Britt, Thornton, Hoppe, & Brackley, 2001)

Rural Domestic Violence Campaign ( Gadomski, Tripp, Wolff, Lewis, & Jenkins, 2001)

Return to top of the page


State strategies: Abusive Men Exploring New Directions (AMEND)

AMEND is a non-profit, United Way agency providing voluntary and court-ordered treatment for male perpetrators. The agency has been in operation since 1977 and serves the five most populated counties in Colorado. Information on strategies has been provided by Executive Director, Linda Loflin Pettit, the AMEND website, and through a series of seven, 4-hour domestic violence training workshops led by AMEND therapist, Randal Smith, MA from November 1, 2000 to November 11, 2000. The following is an abbreviated compilation of AMEND's individual, group, and community strategies as an example of domestic violence prevention in Colorado.

Individual strategies

Group strategies

Community strategies

Return to top of the page


Local strategies - Alternatives to Family Violence

Alternatives to Family Violence offer counseling services to Adams county women, children, teens, and men (while there is no men's program, men may participate in group and couples counseling on a limited basis). Crisis and shelter services are made available to any woman who presents a need. Information on the strategies used by this agency was provided by Executive Director, Carol Hollomon. A partial list is provided as an illustration of individual, group, and community strategies on a local level.

Individual strategies

Group strategies

Community strategies

Return to top of the page


Conclusion

Strategies to prevent intimate partner abuse are equally vital at all levels. However, as one follows the path from national to state to local levels, the funds needed to perform those tasks become increasingly sparse and the uniformity of treatment ideology ever more fragmented. The programs providing direct services to victims and perpetrators often operate on a shoestring budget, facing an uncertain future. Local efforts in particular may find hope of better security as national efforts exercise greater influence over America's larger institutions. Until then, victims must rely on highly committed professionals, willing to work for little money, struggling to do the most they can to meet large and complex social needs with small and simple resources.

Domestic violence is a crisis of human rights, child protection, law enforcement, and community endangerment. A public health approach seeks to effect prevention with persistence, creativity, and vision. It will be necessary to continue research efforts in order to track trends in intimate partner abuse. It is also necessary to evaluate existing programs in order to maximize effectiveness of intervention strategies. Unfortunately, funding limitations make program evaluation a rare event on state and local levels. Therefore, national organizations need to take a greater interest in supporting the programs that have direct contact with clients by offering grants and other funds specifically for program development, planning, and evaluation. Considering the price of violence to the nation, strengthening domestic violence prevention programs would prove a wise investment.

Return to top of the page


References

Buka, S. L., Stichick, T. L., Birdthistle, I., Earls, F. J. (2001). Youth exposure to violence: prevalence, risks, and consequences. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,71 (3), 298-310.

Caralis, P. V., Musialowski, R. (1997). Women's experiences with domestic violence and their attitudes and expectations regarding medical care of abuse victims. Southern Medical Journal,90 (11), 1075-1080.

The Denver Channel: Crime Rates Up In Metro Area. Retrieved April 1, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/den/news/stories/news-129865320020312-060346.html

Domestic Violence Report. Retrieved April 2, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://cbi.state.co.us/dr/cic99/domestic_violence.htm

Feldman, M. K. (1994). Duluth takes on domestic violence. Minnesota Medicine77 (10), 10-14.

Gadomski, A. M., Tripp, M., Wolff, D. A., Lewis, C., Jenkins, P. (2001). Impact of A rural domestic violence prevention campaign. The Journal of Rural Health,17 (3), 266-278.

Glanz, K., Lewis, F. M., Rimer, B. K. (1997). Health behavior and health education.San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Healthy People 2010: Injury and Violence Prevention. Retrieved February 27, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.health.gov/healthypeople/document/HTML/Volume2/15Injury.htm

Houry, D., Sachs, C. J., Feldhaus, K. M., Linden, J. (2002). Violence-inflicted injuries: reporting laws in the fifty states. Annals of Emergency Medicine,39 (1), 56-60.

Kyriacou, D. N., Anglin, D., Taliaferro, E., Stone, S., Tubb, T., Linden, J. A., Muelleman, R., Barton, E., Kraus, J. F. (1999). Risk factors for injury to women from domestic violence. The New England Journal of Medicine,341 (25), 1892-1899.

Loring, M. T., Smith, R. W. (1994). Health care barriers and interventions for battered women. Public Health Reports,109 (3), 328-338.

National Coalition Against Domestic Violence: The Problem. Retrieved April 1, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ncadv.org/learn/TheProblem_100.html

National Domestic Violence Hotline: What is Domestic Violence? Retrieved April 2, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ndvh.org/get-educated/what-is-domestic-violence/

Office of Domestic Violence and Sex Offender Management. Retrieved April 2, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://dcj.state.co.us/odvsom/

Riger, S., Raja, S., Camacho, J. (2002). The radiating impact of intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,17 (2), 184-205.

Saltzman, L. E., Johnson, D. (1996). CDC's family and intimate violence prevention team: basing programs on science. Journal of the American Medical Women's Association,51 (3), 83-86.

Swenson-Britt, E., Thornton, J. E., Hoppe, S. K., Brackley, M. H. (2001). A continuous improvement process for health providers of victims of domestic violence. The Joint Commission Journal on Quality Improvement,27 (10), 540-554.

Tajima, E. A. (2002). Risk factors for violence against children: comparing homes with and without wife abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,17 (2), 122-149.

Warshaw, C. (1996). Domestic violence: changing theory, changing practice. Journal of the American Medical Women's Association,51 (3), 87-91.

The following projects are a part of the Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse (MINCAVA):

MINCAVA Electronic Clearinghouse | The Link Research Project | Violence Against Women Online Resources
VAWnet (Applied Research Forum) | Minnesota Rural Project for Women and Child Safety

MINCAVA is directed by Jeffrey L. Edleson, PhD.

File Last Modified: 13. Copyright © 1995 - 2005 Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse