© 2013 American Orthopsychiatric Association DOI: 10.1111/ajop.12049

American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 2013, Vol. 83, No. 4, 588–599

Characteristics, Needs, and Help Seeking of Partner Violence Victims Mandated to Community Services by Courts and Child Protective Services Rebecca J. Macy, Cynthia F. Rizo, and Dania M. Ermentrout University of North Carolina Chapel Hill

The rapid growth of a subpopulation of women victimized by intimate partner violence (IPV) garnered the attention of 2 human service agencies in 1 Southeastern United States city. These agencies noted a shift in their clientele from female IPV victims who voluntarily sought agency services to victims who were mandated to agency services by child protective services (CPS), the court system, or both. Court-referred victims had been arrested for perpetrating IPV against their male partners. CPS-referred victims were experiencing concerning levels of IPV in their families, whether or not the victim had ever perpetrated IPV. Moreover, this subpopulation of women tended to be primary caregivers of children. In response to the growth of this subpopulation, the agencies collaborated to design and implement a program targeting female IPV victims who were primary caregivers for their children and who had been mandated to the agencies’ services. The research team partnered with the agencies to conduct an investigation of this community-developed program and its participants. This article presents an exploratory, descriptive study that investigates (a) the characteristics of service-mandated, parenting IPV victims; (b) the needs of service-mandated, parenting IPV victims; and (c) the types of help-seeking behavior these women had engaged in before their service referral. Study findings indicate that, although the participants showed parenting strengths and active help-seeking efforts, this sample of women was characterized by severe IPV experiences and serious mental health needs.

D

expect to work with IPV victims who are mandated to attend their services. Contrary to such expectations, two agencies serving one Southeastern United States city noted that a growing number of their clients were victimized women with children who were mandated by either child protection services (CPS) or the county court system to attend their services. One agency was a community-based, domestic violence organization, and the other was a community-based, child abuse prevention organization. In light of this increasing population of victimized women with children, the agencies joined in a collaborative effort to design and implement a program specifically for parenting, female IPV victims who had been mandated to receive services. Unfortunately, the agencies had little empirical evidence to guide their collaboration. Scarce research exists regarding the characteristics, needs, and help-seeking behaviors of female, parenting IPV victims who are mandated to attend communitybased domestic violence services. Nevertheless, the agencies developed a program targeted to this subpopulation of IPV victims, which was delivered as a 13-session, group-based intervention that emphasized IPV knowledge, parenting, and safety. To address the knowledge gap around the needs of these women, our research team partnered with the two agencies to conduct an investigation of this innovative program. This research had a twofold focus: to investigate the characteristics and needs of the IPV victims enrolled in the program and to examine the

omestic violence services for female intimate partner violence (IPV) victims and their children are usually provided by community-based organizations. These organizations are typically nonprofit human service agencies that offer various safety-focused interventions to IPV victims and their children on a voluntary basis using an empowerment philosophy (Macy, Giattina, Sangster, Crosby, & Montijo, 2009; Riger et al., 2002). Domestic violence services are considered to be empowering when providers (a) involve IPV victims as active collaborative partners in service planning, (b) emphasize victims’ strengths and resources, and (c) provide information and teach skills to enhance victims’ self-efficacy (Busch & Valentine, 2000). Generally, domestic violence service providers expect to provide safety, shelter, and support to IPV victims who voluntarily seek their help; these providers rarely, if ever,

Funding for this research was provided by The Duke Endowment. We acknowledge the staff of InterAct and SAFEchild for their collaboration in and help with this research. We acknowledge Natalie B. Johns and Melissa Goodman for their help with this research. We also acknowledge Diane Wyant for her comments on an earlier version of this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Rebecca J. Macy, School of Social Work, Tate-Turner-Kuralt Building, 325 Pittsboro St. CB #3550, Chapel Hill, NC 27599. Electronic mail may be sent to [email protected]. 588

589

MANDATED IPV VICTIMS

help-seeking efforts these victims had engaged in before their CPS or court referrals.

Why Are IPV Victims Mandated to Attend Services? CPS Mandates Children’s exposure to IPV has been shown to be associated with damaging developmental outcomes, including negative academic, behavioral, and social consequences (Evans, Davies, & DiLillo, 2008). Moreover, considerable overlap exists between child maltreatment and IPV (Edleson, 1999). Therefore, children living in families with IPV are at an increased risk of various forms of maltreatment, particularly neglect and physical abuse (Hamby, Finkelhor, Turner, & Ormrod, 2010; Zolotor, Theodore, Coyne-Beasley, & Runyan, 2007). For these reasons, policy makers concerned with child welfare have been increasingly involved with addressing IPV as a way to ensure children’s health, safety, and well-being (e.g., Schechter & Edleson, 1999). Likewise, child maltreatment researchers have increasingly called for CPS workers to address IPV as part of their work with families reported for child maltreatment (e.g., Hamby et al., 2010; Hazen, Connelly, Kelleher, Landsverk, & Barth, 2004). Such calls are warranted because national research shows that many CPS-involved families experience IPV (Casanueva, Martin, & Runyan, 2009; Kohl, Edleson, English, & Barth, 2005). In addition, many state governments have implemented formal policies that jointly address child welfare and IPV. Currently, 22 states and Puerto Rico have statutes that make committing IPV in the presence of a child a crime in addition to any IPV-related charges (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2009). With the number of such laws steadily increasing, CPS workers will no doubt be including IPV victims among their clients with increasing frequency. Child protective services workers typically provide home-visiting services to families and offer education, information, and support. To address particularly serious problems such as IPV, CPS workers usually refer their client-families to specialized community-based agencies. Consequently, community-based domestic violence agencies are likely to see a growing number of female IPV victims with children who have been directed to agency services by the family’s CPS worker.

Court Mandates During the 1980s, pro-arrest policies and statutes for IPV perpetration were put into effect on a national scale; since that time, arrests of women for IPV have risen an average of 25% to 35% across the United States (Rajan & McCloskey, 2007). Currently, women comprise between 8% and 20% of all IPV arrests (Rajan & McCloskey, 2007). Although some women are undoubtedly primary perpetrators of IPV (Rajan & McCloskey, 2007; Simmons, Lehmann, & Collier-Tenison, 2008), research has shown that most women arrested for IPV perpetration also reported IPV victimization (Henning, Renauer, & Holdford, 2006; Simmons et al., 2008). Most frequently, women arrested for IPV have reported that their

perpetration was motivated by their attempt to flee, defense of a child, feelings of fear and powerlessness, retaliation for prior abuse, and self-protection (Stuart, Moore, Hellmuth, Ramsey, & Kahler, 2006; Swan & Snow, 2006). Some IPV victims have become involved with the justice system even though they had not used offensive violence against their partners. In these cases, the women’s arrest might stem from stringent dualarrest policies, the victim’s decision to avoid retaliation from a male perpetrator by accepting culpability, or the authorities’ fears of appearing biased (Busch & Rosenberg, 2004; Miller, 2001). Justice-involved IPV victims are often mandated to services in lieu of incarceration (Miller, 2001; Simmons, Lehmann, & Dia, 2010).

The MOVE Program In response to growing numbers of IPV victims with children mandated by CPS or the court system to attend services provided by two community-based agencies in one community, the two agencies—InterAct and SAFEchild—developed the Mothers Overcoming Violence through Education and Empowerment (MOVE) program. Given the scarcity of interventions for this subpopulation of IPV victims, service providers at these agencies developed MOVE based on their experiences working with families struggling with IPV and drawing from parenting curricula developed for IPV-affected families (e.g., Turner, Gilbert, Hendricks, & Demaree, 2006). Guided by these knowledge sources, the agencies developed and implemented a 13-session IPV safety and parenting program that was delivered to adult women participants in weekly sessions and in conjunction with therapeutic support group services for participants’ children. The agencies determined that the program content should focus on IPV knowledge, parenting, and safety, because all of the women mandated to their services were not only IPV victims but also mothers or primary caregivers of minor children. The program used a group modality in which participants met together one evening each week. Two service providers co-led the group meetings. All program activities were guided by the empowerment philosophy used in the delivery of typical domestic violence services (Busch & Valentine, 2000). A detailed description of MOVE has been published elsewhere (Macy, Erementrout, & Rizo, 2012).

MOVE Program Eligibility In addition to the CPS or court referral, program eligibility criteria required that the women self-identify as the biological mother, adoptive mother, foster mother, stepmother, or other primary caregiver to related or nonrelated children. Women could screen positively for IPV perpetration with the caveat that participants must also be victims and not primary abusers. This distinction was determined during the program intake through a comprehensive biopsychosocial assessment. The assessment was conducted by a master’s-level social worker, who had considerable experience in the area of family violence. In addition, and as described earlier, some IPV victims may become involved with the CPS or court systems even without ever perpetrating IPV. Accordingly, MOVE program participants had to have had a CPS or court referral or mandate to

590

MACY, RIZO, AND ERMENTROUT

attend MOVE. They were not required to report perpetrating IPV to be eligible for the program.

Research Aims Our research team collaborated with the two communitybased agencies to investigate the MOVE program and its participants. This research was guided by the recommendations of intervention scientists who have called for increased collaboration between investigators and providers to develop programs that are feasible for community-based agencies to implement and sustain (Pachankis & Goldfried, 2007). This current research is part of our team’s ongoing collaboration with the two agencies on a multiyear study with the objective of completing the first three steps in the development of an evidencebased practice (i.e., treatment development, feasibility testing, and pilot testing; Fraser & Galinsky, 2010). This study focused on investigating the characteristics and needs of the IPV victims who attended the program. The two IPV-related trends identified earlier—the increasing attention given to the issue of IPV by CPS workers and the considerable number of IPV victims arrested for IPV perpetration—are both national in scope. Therefore, many communitybased service organizations are likely encountering increased numbers of female IPV victims who are primary caregivers of children and who are mandated to their services. With few exceptions (e.g., Stuart et al., 2006), only limited information is available about the characteristics and needs of female IPV victims who seek help at community-based agencies because of a CPS or court mandate. This knowledge gap is worrisome, because service providers have limited evidence to guide their development of programs for this unique group of IPV victims and their children (Henning & Feder, 2004). We conducted this study to investigate (a) the characteristics of service-mandated IPV victims, (b) the needs of service-mandated IPV victims, and (c) the types of help-seeking behaviors these women had engaged in before their CPS or court referral to services. This research was designed to provide insight into the demographics, IPV experiences (i.e., victimization and perpetration), mental health status (i.e., depression, posttraumatic stress, and substance-use problems), parenting beliefs and practices, and helpseeking behaviors of female, service-mandated IPV victims. Given the dearth of existing research regarding service-mandated, parenting, female IPV victims, our study was exploratory and descriptive.

Method Participants This research was conducted in collaboration with InterAct and SAFEchild, the two community agencies that developed and implemented the MOVE program. Following referral by the court or CPS, all IPV victims who entered the MOVE program between January 2009 and July 2011 were invited to participate in the research. During this time, MOVE was delivered to 10 cohorts of women as a group intervention. Of the 89 women enrolled in MOVE during this period, 73 (82%) agreed to participate in the research.

Procedures Before participant recruitment began, all study methods were reviewed by the following groups to ensure that the research would be acceptable, feasible, and beneficial: (a) the staff at InterAct and SAFEchild that developed and implemented MOVE; (b) the study’s community advisory board, which was composed of service providers and professionals working in the areas of child protection and domestic violence; and (c) a group of MOVE program graduates who had completed the program. Feedback regarding study design and procedures was obtained from these groups and used to finalize the study methods. Subsequently, all study methods were reviewed and approved by the Office of Human Research Ethics at our team’s university. Given the unique safety issues and vulnerabilities of our study participants, the research team also obtained a National Institutes of Health Certification of Confidentiality. At the time of intake to the MOVE program, a program facilitator gave potential study participants an informational brochure about the research study and provided a study overview. After receiving this overview, women who were interested in participating in the research met individually with a member of the research team in a private office supplied by the agency where the program was conducted. This team member provided interested participants with an in-depth study description. Each woman was informed that study participation would include the completion of questionnaires at three time points: (a) program entry, (b) program completion, and (c) a 3-month follow-up after program completion. After providing informed consent, participants completed a packet of self-report inventories that included demographic questions and measures regarding their IPV experiences, mental health, substance abuse, parenting, and help-seeking efforts. Depending on participants’ literacy, the questionnaires were either self-administered or read aloud by a research team member. To reduce the burden of study participation, transportation and child care were offered to participants who met with a research team member to complete the questionnaire. To acknowledge their time, participants received a gift card to a discount department store as a thank you for completing the inventories. Given this study’s aims, we present findings from the baseline inventories only.

Measures and Analysis IPV victimization and perpetration. One measure used to assess the participants’ experiences of victimization was the Women’s Experiences of Battering Scale (WEB; Smith, Earp, & DeVellis, 1995). The WEB scale quantifies women’s experiences of psychological vulnerability (i.e., perceptions of disempowerment, danger, and loss of control) in their intimate relationships (Coker, Smith, McKeown, & King, 2000). The WEB consists of 10 items that are rated on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (agree strongly) to 6 (disagree strongly). Individual responses are summed to create an overall score that can range from 10 to 60 points, with higher scores indicating greater levels of battering. A cutoff of 20 points has been used in the literature as a positive screening for battering (Coker

MANDATED IPV VICTIMS

et al., 2000, 2002; Punukollu, 2003). In this study, the Cronbach’s a coefficient for the 10-item scale score was .97. Each participant’s 12-month history of partner violence victimization and perpetration was assessed using the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996). The CTS2 items were rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 0 (this never happened), 1 (once), 2 (twice), 3 (3–5 times), 4 (6–10 times), 5 (11–20 times), to 6 (20 plus times). Victimization (37 items) and perpetration (37 items) were each assessed using the eight subscales of the CTS2: (a) minor psychological aggression (4 items), (b) severe psychological aggression (4 items), (c) minor physical assault (5 items), (d) severe physical assault (7 items), (e) minor sexual coercion (1 item), (f) severe sexual coercion (4 items), (g) minor injury (2 items), and (h) severe injury (4 items). Data for annual frequency and prevalence for each of the subscales were calculated following CTS2 guidelines (Straus et al., 1996). Frequency scores were calculated for each of the subscales by recoding the response items to their appropriate midpoints (e.g., the response item 3–5 times was recoded from 3 to 4) and summing the items for each subscale. The reliability coefficients for these victimization and perpetration subscales ranged from Cronbach’s a of .51 to a of .89 and a of .02 to a of .84, respectively. Prevalence scores were also calculated for each subscale (1 = one or more of the acts in the respective subscale occurred in the past year; 0 = none of the items in the respective subscale occurred in the past year). Depressive symptoms. To assess participants’ depressive symptoms experienced during the past week, this study used the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977). The 20 items were rated on a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 (rarely or none of the time) to 3 (most or all of the time); items were scored following standard protocols (a = .92). CES-D scores can range from 0 to 60 points, with higher scores indicating greater severity of depressive symptoms. Scores greater than or equal to 16 denote depressive symptoms, and scores greater than or equal to 27 denote severe depressive symptoms (Radloff, 1977). Posttraumatic stress symptoms. Participants’ 12month histories of posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms (PTSD) were assessed using the PTSD Checklist–Civilian version (PCL-C; Weathers, Litz, Herman, Huska, & Keane, 1993). The PCL-C consists of 17 items that correspond to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association, 2000) symptoms of PTSD. The items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). A total score (range 17–85) was obtained by summing the scores of the 17 items. Higher scores indicate the presence of more PTSD symptoms. A score of 44 points or greater has been used as a diagnostic threshold among a predominantly female sample and showed a sensitivity of 94% and a specificity of 86% (Blanchard, Jones-Alexander, Buckley, & Forneris, 1996). However, scores ranging from 25 to 38 have been used to screen and diagnose civilian primary-care patients (Sherman, Carlson, Wilson, Okeson, & McCubbin, 2005; Walker, Newman, Dobie, Ciechanowski, &

591

Katon, 2002). The reliability coefficient for the PCL-C in this study was .92. Alcohol problems. Alcohol problems experienced over the previous 12 months were assessed with the Brief Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (BMAST; Pokorny, Miller, & Kaplan, 1972). The BMAST is composed of 10 yes/no items, and the items were scored following standard protocols (Pokorny et al., 1972; a = .71). Scores can range from 0 to 29 points, with higher scores indicating a greater level of alcohol problems. A score between 3 and 5 points indicates an early problem drinker, whereas a score of 6 points or greater indicates a probable diagnosis of alcoholism (Pokorny et al., 1972). Drug problems. Drug problems experienced over the previous 12 months were assessed with the 10-item version of the Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST; Skinner, 1982). The score for this measure was created by summing items that were endorsed affirmatively (yes = 1; no = 0) such as “Do you abuse more than one drug at a time?” and “Have you engaged in illegal activities in order to obtain drugs?”), although calculating the total score required reverse coding of one item (i.e., “Are you always able to stop using drugs when you want to?”). Scores have a potential range from 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating a greater severity of drug problems. DAST scores can be interpreted in the following manner: 0 (no problems), 1– 2 points (low level of problems), 3–5 points (moderate level of problems), 6–8 points (substantial level of problems), and 9–10 points (severe level of problems; Skinner, 1982). A score of 3 points or greater reflects problematic drug use akin to a diagnosis of drug abuse according to the DSM-IV-TR (Skinner, 1982). In this study, the Cronbach’s a coefficient for the 10item scale score was .60. Parenting. Parenting was measured using two instruments. The first instrument was the Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory (AAPI; Bavolek, 1984). The AAPI is a 32-item assessment of parenting and child-rearing practices, which has four subscales: (a) Parent-Child Role Reversal (i.e., role reversal), (b) Lack Of Empathy Towards Children’s Needs (i.e., empathy), (c) Inappropriate Parental Expectations of Child (i.e., inappropriate expectations), and (d) Parental Value of Physical Punishment (i.e., corporal punishment). The role reversal subscale (eight items; scores range from 8 to 40 points; a = .87) measures parental desire to use children to satisfy the parent’s or parents’ needs (e.g., “Young children should be expected to comfort their mother when she’s feeling blue”). The empathy subscale (eight items; scores range from 8 to 40 points; a = .85) measures the ability of parents to identify and empathize with the needs of their children (e.g., “Parents who are sensitive to their children’s feelings and moods often spoil their children”). The inappropriate expectation subscale (six items; scores range from 6 to 30 points; a = .69) measures whether parents are realistic in their expectations of their children’s development (e.g., “Children should be expected to verbally express themselves before the age of 1 year”). The corporal punishment subscale (10 items; scores range from 10 to 50 points; a = .84) measures parental attitudes around the use of corporal punishment in promoting the development of strong

592

MACY, RIZO, AND ERMENTROUT

character and moral value in children (e.g., “Children learn good behavior through the use of physical punishment”). All of the items in the AAPI are rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). The second parenting assessment tool used in this research was the Healthy Families Parenting Inventory (HFPI; LeCroy, Krysik, & Milligan, 2005). HFPI is a 63-item assessment of nine major dimensions of healthy parenting designed for use with parents of newborns and young children. The nine healthy parenting subscales include social support, problem solving, depression, personal care, mobilizing resources, role satisfaction, parent/child behavior, home environment, and parenting efficacy. The social support and personal care subscales each consist of five items; the scores for these subscales can range from 5 to 25 points (a = .90 and a = .80, respectively). The subscales for problem solving, mobilizing resources, role satisfaction, and parenting efficacy contain six items each and possible scores range from 6 to 30 points (problem solving a = .88, mobilizing resources a = .84, role satisfaction a = .86, and parenting efficacy a = .89). The depression subscale consists of nine items with a possible score ranging from 9 to 45 points (a = .89). Both the parent/child behavior and home environment subscales consist of 10 items, with possible scores ranging from 10 to 50 points (parent/child behavior a = .80 and home environment a = .85). Responses to the HFPI items use a 5point Likert scale ranging from 1 (rarely or never) to 5 (always or most of the time). Help seeking. Participants’ help-seeking behaviors were assessed using adapted versions of two help-seeking subscales taken from the Safety-Planning Strategies instrument (SPS; Goodkind, Sullivan, & Bybee, 2004). The adapted scale assessed nine help-seeking strategies using dichotomous yes/no items (yes = 1; no = 0). The items asked about help-seeking efforts such as, “To prevent violence in your family, have you ever sought help from a religious organization?” and “To prevent violence in your family, have you ever sought help from a health care provider.” For each affirmative response, participants were asked to indicate the consequences using a 3-point scale ranging from 1 (violence became worse) to 2 (violence stayed the same) to 3 (violence decreased).

Analysis Data were entered into SPSS version 17.0 for analysis. Given the study aims, we ran univariate statistics (i.e., means, standard deviations, and percentages) to describe the characteristics and needs of IPV victims mandated to attend community-based services by CPS or the court system.

Results Participant Characteristics The MOVE participant characteristics are presented in Table 1. Most participants received a primary referral to the MOVE program from the courts (76.7%), although nearly a quarter of the sample (23.3%) received a primary referral from CPS. A third (30.1%), those who were initially court-referred,

Table 1. Participant Demographics (N = 73) Variable Participant age (in years) Information on participants’ children Total number of children Number of children living with participant Child age (in years) Variable Referral source Primary court referral Primary child protective services (CPS) referral Secondary court referral Secondary CPS referral Race/ethnicity African American/Black White Multiracial Other Education Grades 6–8 Grades 9–11 High school diploma or GED Some college/technical school coursework Completed college/technical school coursework Some graduate coursework Completed graduate degree Employment Full-time Part-time Unemployed or full-time homemaker Sources of income Personal employment Others’ employment Government assistance Multiple sources No income Relationship status Married In relationship—living together In relationship—not living together Separated Single

M (SD)

Range

30.96 (7.76)

20–51

2.52 (1.63) 1.62 (1.10) 7.74 (6.37)

0–9 0–5 0–30

Percentage (n) 76.7% 23.3% 2.7% 30.1%

(56) (17) (2) (22)

52.05% 32.88% 9.59% 5.48%

(38) (24) (7) (4)

4.11% 8.22% 19.18% 38.35% 16.44% 4.11% 9.59%

(3) (6) (14) (28) (12) (3) (7)

41.10% (30) 17.80% (13) 41.10% (30) 43.66% 16.90% 11.27% 23.94% 4.23%

(31) (12) (8) (17) (3)

11.11% 15.28% 5.55% 29.17% 38.89%

(8) (11) (4) (21) (28)

received a secondary referral to services from CPS. Participants’ ages ranged from 20 to 51 years with a mean age of 31 years. The majority of participants identified their race or ethnicity as African American or Black, followed by White, multiracial, and “other.” Women who reported their race or ethnicity as “other” identified themselves as Asian, American Indian/Alaska Native, or Latina. This sample of women reported a relatively high level of education, with nearly 70% having completed some postsecondary school coursework or having obtained college diplomas at the undergraduate or graduate levels. Over half (58.9%) of the 73 study participants stated that they were employed either full-time or part-time, whereas about 41% were either unemployed or full-time homemakers. Of the participants who were unemployed or full-time homemakers, 13% were attending school, and another 20% reported having a disability that affected their ability to work or attend school.

593

MANDATED IPV VICTIMS

Approximately 44% of participants received income through their own employment, whereas 17% reported that they received income from other sources such as someone living in the household, the father(s) of their child or children, or family and friends. A few participants (11.3%) indicated they received income through government assistance programs (e.g., unemployment, Social Security, Supplemental Security Insurance, or Work First), and nearly one fourth of the participants (23.9%) indicated their income came from multiple sources (e.g., personal employment and the employment of others; government assistance and the employment of others). An additional 4% of participants reported receiving no income. At the time of the data collection, more than two thirds of the participants described themselves as single or separated. Among those who reported an intimate relationship, about 74% (n = 17) of the women remained with the partner who had brought them to the attention of CPS or the court system (i.e., same intimate partner as when referred to MOVE program). With the exception of two participants, the women were all mothers; however, the two nonmothers were primary caregivers for children of their male partners. Participants reported demographic information on a total of 168 children. The mean number of children living either in or out of the participants’ homes was 2.52 (SD = 1.63) with a range of zero to nine children. The mean number of children living with the participant was 1.62 (SD = 1.10) with a range of zero to five children. Of the participants who were mothers, 14.1% (n = 10) did not have any of their children living with them when they began the MOVE program. The mean age of the children was 7.74 years (SD = 6.73, range = 0–30 years of age). The gender distribution of the children was nearly even (boys, 50.6%; girls, 49.4%).

severe enough to warrant a clinical diagnosis. Using less restrictive criteria (i.e., PCL-C score of 25 or greater), the majority of participants (84.9%, n = 62) were likely to have been experiencing PTSD symptoms severe enough to warrant a clinical diagnosis. Response rates for the alcohol and drug problems scales were relatively lower than for other study measures. The alcohol problems scale was completed by only 84% of the sample (n = 61), and approximately 60% (n = 44) of participants completed the drug problems scale. Among participants who completed the alcohol scale, 19.7% (n = 12) reported characteristics of an early problem drinker (i.e., BMAST score between 3 and 5), and 9.8% (n = 6) reported alcohol problems associated with a probable diagnosis of alcoholism (i.e., BMAST score of 6 or greater). Although no participants reported substantial or severe drug problems, 31.8% (n = 14) reported a low level of drug problems (i.e., DAST score of 1 or 2), and 4.5% (n = 2) reported a moderate level of drug problems (i.e., DAST score between 3 and 5).

IPV Experiences IPV victimization. As Table 3 presents, participants reported a high level of IPV victimization and psychological vulnerability based on the WEB scale (M = 35.54, SD = 17.82). About 71% of participants had WEB scores of 20 or greater, which indicated relatively high levels of battering (i.e., WEB score of 20 is positive screen for battering). Based on the CTS, in the 12 months before their program involvement, the majority of participants experienced at least one incident of minor

Table 3. Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) Victimization of Female, Parenting, IPV Victims Mandated to Services

Mental Health and Substance Abuse Table 2 presents findings on participants’ depressive and PTSD symptoms as well as problems related to alcohol and drug use. The study women reported high levels of depressive symptoms (M = 19.37, SD = 12.14). Approximately 60% of participants (n = 43) reported symptom characteristic of depression (i.e., CES-D score equal to or greater than 16). Notably, 41.9% (n = 18) of these women scored greater than 26 on the CES-D, which reflected severe levels of depressive symptoms. Participants also reported high levels of PTSD symptoms (M = 41.44, SD = 14.72). Using conservative diagnostic criteria (i.e., PCL-C score of 44 or greater), 38.4% (n = 28) of participants were likely to have been experiencing PTSD symptoms

Table 2. Mental Health and Substance Abuse of Female, Parenting, Intimate Partner Violence Victims Mandated to Services Variable

N

M

SD

Depressive symptomsa Posttraumatic stress symptomsb Alcohol usec Drug used

71 73 61 44

19.37 41.44 2.11 0.52

12.14 14.72 3.83 1.00

Frequency sum score Variable

N

M

SD

N

% (n)

Psychological aggression—minora Psychological aggression—severea Physical assault—minorb

72

42.77

23.33

72

72

22.23

23.93

72

71

25.35

28.46

72

Physical assault—severec

72

18.40

30.24

72

Sexual coercion—minord

72

1.99

5.57

72

Sexual coercion—severea

71

6.59

16.64

71

Minor injurye

72

8.34

12.54

72

Severe injurya

72

3.36

9.53

72

Experiences of battering (WEB)g

72

35.54

17.82



No = 4.2% (3) Yes = 95.8% (69) No = 12.5% (9) Yes =87.5% (63) No = 9.7% (7) Yes =90.3% (65) No = 22.2% (16) Yes = 77.8% (56) No = 81.9% (59) Yes = 18.1% (13) No = 67.6% (48) Yes = 32.4% (23) No = 34.7% (25) Yes = 65.3% (47) No = 63.9% (46) Yes = 36.1% (26) —

a a

b

c

d

Range 0–60. Range 17–85. Range 0–29. Range 0–10.

Prevalence score

Range 0–80. bRange 0–100. cRange 0–140. dRange 0–20. eRange 0–40. Range 0–60. gRange 10–60.

f

594

MACY, RIZO, AND ERMENTROUT

psychological abuse (n = 69, 95.8%), severe psychological abuse (n = 63, 87.5%), minor physical abuse (n = 65, 90.3%), or severe physical abuse (n = 56, 77.8%). About two thirds of participants (n = 47, 65.3%) reported at least one abusive incident in the previous 12 months that resulted in minor injury. Fewer women reported past year incidents of either sexual abuse (minor: n = 13, 18.1%; severe: n = 23, 32.4%) or severe injury (n = 26, 36.1%). Frequency calculations of the CTS victimization subscales showed that, on average, women experienced psychological abuse (minor: M = 42.77, SD = 23.33; severe: M = 22.23, SD = 23.93) and physical abuse (minor: M = 25.35, SD = 28.46; severe: M = 18.40, SD = 30.24) with greater frequency than sexual abuse (minor: M = 1.99, SD = 5.57; severe: M = 6.59, SD = 16.64). For the 12 months before enrolling in MOVE, the women reported experiencing an average of eight abusive incidents that resulted in minor injuries (M = 8.34, SD = 12.54) and three abusive acts that resulted in severe injuries (M = 3.36, SD = 9.53). IPV perpetration. The findings in Table 4 show that the majority of participants reported perpetrating at least one incident of minor psychological abuse (n = 69, 95.8%) and minor physical abuse (n = 58, 80.6%) in the 12 months before enrolling in MOVE. About half of the sample perpetrated at least one incident of severe psychological abuse (n = 47, 66.2%), severe physical abuse (n = 38, 53.5%), or an incident of abuse that resulted in minor injury to their male partners (n = 32, 44.4%) during the past year. Few women reported perpetrating sexual abuse (minor: n = 4, 5.6%; severe: n = 5, 6.9%) or incidents of abuse that resulted in their male partner becoming severely injured (n = 5, 6.9%). Frequency calculations of the CTS perpetration subscales showed that, on average, incidents

of minor psychological abuse (M = 29.04, SD = 20.94) occurred much more frequently than did incidents of severe psychological abuse (M = 8.51, SD = 12.40), physical abuse (minor: M = 9.75, SD = 14.96; severe: M = 4.01, SD = 11.61), or sexual abuse (minor: M = 0.64, SD = 3.34; severe: M = 0.42, SD = 2.43). For the 12 months before enrolling in MOVE, the women reported perpetrating an average of about 2.5 abusive incidents that resulted in minor injuries to their partners (M = 2.69, SD = 6.43) and less than one abusive act that resulted in severe injuries to their partners (M = 0.19, SD = 1.02).

Parenting Attitudes and Practices Tables 5 and 6 present findings on the participants’ parenting and child rearing. Based on the AAPI and HFPI measures, the study women reported positive parenting practices. Few participants had scores associated with either some or high risk on the AAPI’s four subscales: inappropriate expectations (12.7%), empathy (12.5%), corporal punishment (11.1%), and role reversal (9.7%). Similar findings emerged using the HFPI. Few participants had scores indicative of an area of concern on the HFPI subscales: social support (24.7%), problem solving (25%), depression (8.3%), personal care (17.8%), mobilizing resources (23.9%), role satisfaction (15.3%), parent/child behavior (1.4%), home environment (4.2%), and parenting efficacy (4.2%).

Table 5. Parenting and Child-Rearing Attitudes of Female, Parenting, Intimate Partner Violence Victims Mandated to Services Variable

Table 4. Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) Perpetration of Female, Parenting, IPV Victims Mandated to Services Frequency sum score

Prevalence score

Variable

N

M

SD

N

% (n)

Psychological aggression—minora Psychological aggression—severea Physical assault—minorb

72

29.04

20.94

72

71

8.51

12.40

71

72

9.75

14.96

72

Physical assault—severec

71

4.01

11.61

71

Sexual coercion—minord

72

0.64

3.34

72

No = 4.2% (3) Yes = 95.8% (69) No = 33.8% (24) Yes = 66.2% (47) No = 19.4% (14) Yes = 80.6% (58) No = 46.5% (33) Yes =53.5% (38) No = 94.4% (68) Yes = 5.6% (4) No = 93.1% (67) Yes = 6.9% (5) No = 55.6% (40) Yes = 44.4% (32) No = 93.1% (67) Yes =6.9% (5)

Sexual coercion—severe

a

72

0.42

2.43

72

Minor injurye

72

2.69

6.43

72

Severe injurya

72

0.19

1.02

72

a

Range 0–80. bRange 0–100. cRange 0–140. dRange 0–20. eRange 0–40. Range 0–60.

f

N

M

SD

% (n) by Risk

Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory (AAPI) subscales Inappropriate 71 26.45 3.20 High/some risk = 12.7% (9) expectationsa Average = 14.1% (10) Positive/extremely positive = 73.2% (52) Empathyb 72 33.65 5.54 High/some risk = 12.5% (9) Average =16.7% (12) Positive/extremely positive = 70.8% (51) Corporal 72 40.76 6.69 High/some risk = 11.1 (8) punishmentc Average = 18.1% (13) Positive/extremely positive = 70.8% (51) Role reversald 72 32.74 6.21 High/some risk = 9.7% (7) Average = 9.7% (7) Positive/extremely positive = 80.5% (58) Score range: 6–30; scores < 20 = high risk; 20–22 = some risk; 23– 24 = average parenting; 25–28 = positive parenting; 29–30 = extremely positive parenting. bScore range: 8–40; scores < 22 = high risk; 22– 27 = some risk; 28–30 = average parenting; 31–36 = positive parenting; c 37–40 = extremely positive parenting. Score range: 10–50; scores < 26 = high risk; 26–31 = some risk; 32–37 = average parenting; 38–43 = positive parenting; 44–50 = extremely positive parenting. d Score range: 8–40: scores < 20 = high risk; 20–24 = some risk; 25– 28 = average parenting; 29–34 = positive parenting; 35–40 = extremely positive parenting. a

595

MANDATED IPV VICTIMS

Table 6. Parenting Practices of Female, Parenting, Intimate Partner Violence Victims Mandated to Services Variable

N

M

SD

% (n) by Area of concern

Healthy Families Parenting Inventory (HFPI) subscales Social supporta 73 18.26 5.32 Area of concern 72 20.47 4.99 Area of concern Problem solvingb Depressionc 72 34.26 7.41 Area of concern Personal cared 73 18.41 4.23 Area of concern Mobilizing 71 21.03 6.01 Area of concern resourcese Role satisfactionf 72 23.35 5.36 Area of concern Parent/child 70 43.47 5.11 Area of concern behaviorg Home 72 42.08 6.22 Area of concern environmenth Parenting efficacyi 71 24.66 4.38 Area of concern

= = = = =

24.7% (18) 25.0% (18) 8.3% (6) 17.8% (13) 23.9% (17)

= 15.3% (11) = 1.4% (1) = 4.2% (3) = 4.2% (3)

a Range 5–25; score ≤14 = area of concern. bRange 6–30; score ≤17 = area of concern. cRange 9–45; score ≤23 = area of concern. d Range 5–25; score ≤14 = area of concern. eRange 6–30; score ≤17 = area of concern. fRange 6–30; score ≤17 = area of concern. g Range 10–50; score ≤29 = area of concern. hRange 10–50; score ≤29 = area of concern. iRange 6–30; score ≤17 = area of concern.

Table 7. Help-Seeking Experiences of Female, Parenting, Intimate Partner Violence Victims Mandated to Services Help seeking N

% (n)

Any (at least one type of help seeking)

73

Law enforcement

73

Counselor or therapist

73

Protection order

73

Attorney

73

Saved money for an emergency

73

Contacted domestic violence program

73

Religious organization

73

Health care provider

73

Stayed at a domestic violence shelter

73

Yes = 87.7% (64) No = 12.3% (9) Yes = 64.4% (47) No = 35.6% (26) Yes = 50.7% (37) No = 49.3% (36) Yes = 43.8% (32) No = 56.2% (41) Yes = 35.6% (26) No = 64.4% (47) Yes = 34.2% (25) No = 65.8% (48) Yes = 34.2% (25) No = 65.8% (48) Yes = 31.5% (23) No = 68.5% (50) Yes = 21.9% (16) No = 78.1% (57) Yes = 2.7% (2) No = 97.3% (71)

Help-Seeking Behaviors Findings on the participants’ help seeking are presented in Table 7. Prior to their involvement in MOVE, 87.7% of participants had sought help from at least one source to prevent or stop the violence in their families. The following list represents the sources of help that the participants had sought out; sources are listed from most frequently engaged to least commonly engaged: law enforcement (64.4%), counseling or ther-

apy (50.7%), protection order (43.8%), attorney (35.6%), saved money for an emergency (34.2%), domestic violence program (i.e., hotline or victim advocate; 34.2%), religious organization (31.5%), health care provider (21.9%), and domestic violence shelter (2.7%).

Discussion This exploratory study’s descriptive findings provide insights into the demographic characteristics and the needs of 73 service-mandated, parenting, female IPV victims. These findings also provide information about the types of help-seeking behaviors in which these women engaged before their CPS or court referral to services. Developing a better understanding of the needs of this subpopulation is important, because changes in public policies have directed these women to community-based domestic violence agencies for services. Many community-based domestic violence service organizations are encountering women mandated to their services not only because of the increased attention of CPS workers to IPV issues but also because of the increased numbers of women IPV victims arrested for IPV perpetration. However, efforts to help this growing subpopulation are hampered by the dearth of research on this unique group of IPV victims. The current study makes a meaningful contribution toward informing the development of services for these IPV victims and the children in their care.

Characteristics This sample of female IPV victims was diverse in terms of race or ethnicity, relationship status, socioeconomic status, and number of children in their care. We also discovered trends that help to characterize this group of women. Most participants were employed in either full- or part-time positions, and most reported attaining a high level of education. More than half of the sample described their race or ethnicity as African American or Black, and about a third of the sample indicated their race or ethnicity as White. The preponderance of African American women in our sample is consistent with findings from recent national research showing high levels of IPV victimization among African Americans (Black et al., 2011). In addition, the study’s findings could be interpreted as suggesting that communities of color are subject to disproportionate levels of surveillance by CPS and the justice system. It is worth noting that two thirds of the participants were not in an intimate relationship at the time of their entry into MOVE. Nonetheless, over 20% of participants remained with partners with whom their relationship had led to the service mandate. On average, participants had between two and three children, but with only one or two of those children living with the participants. A few of the offspring were young adults and might have been living independently at the time of the study. However, prior research on the MOVE program has suggested that some participants had had their children removed from their care before entering the program. These children had been placed in foster care or were in the custody of their fathers (Macy et al., 2012). Almost half of the sample was court-mandated to services, about 20% of the sample was CPS-mandated to services, and

596

MACY, RIZO, AND ERMENTROUT

about a third of the sample was involved with both the court and CPS systems. Prior research has typically investigated female IPV victims in relation to either CPS or the court system. To the best of our knowledge, this study is among one of the first to show that some parenting, female IPV victims may be involved in the court system, CPS, and community-based services. Although only a subgroup of the sample was involved with all three systems, we recommend future research on the connections among court, CPS, and community-based services.

Mental Health and Substance Abuse This sample of IPV victims was characterized by high levels of depressive symptoms. Findings from baseline assessments indicated that 60% of the participants had severe levels of depressive symptoms consistent with a diagnosable disorder. Similarly, the women in the study sample reported high levels of PTSD symptoms. Conservatively, nearly 40% of the participants reported severity of PTSD symptoms consistent with diagnostic criteria. A less conservative screening cut score suggests that nearly 85% of the participants had a diagnosable PTSD disorder. Similar to prior research with women arrested for IPV perpetration (Stuart, Moore, Ramsey, & Kahler, 2003), only a subgroup of participants in this research sample reported substance-use behaviors that were considered concerning. Among the participants who completed the substance abuse questionnaires, 20%–30% of the sample endorsed behaviors indicating low level problems with alcohol or drug use. These results show a group of women with a variety of unmet mental health needs that are gravely concerning as well as a subgroup of women at risk for substance-use disorders. Such findings are not unexpected given the extensive evidence regarding the negative mental health consequences of IPV victimization for women and the relationship between IPV victimization and substance abuse (Campbell, 2002). Nevertheless, the results underscore recommendations from earlier research, which suggests that a primary aim of services for IPV victims caring for children should be to help women with their psychological functioning (Levendosky & Graham-Bermann, 2000). Symptoms of mental illness and substance misuse behaviors might impede women’s capacities to parent, take steps to ensure their children’s and their own safety, and fulfill the service mandates placed on them by CPS or court authorities. Thus, we recommend that interventions for these IPV victims focus on their mental health and substance abuse risk.

Intimate Partner Violence When considering the IPV findings, it may be helpful for readers to keep in mind that the aim of this study was to investigate the needs of service-mandated, parenting, female IPV victims. Participants were not required to report IPV perpetration as a condition of MOVE program entry. CPS-referred victims were likely referred because their families were experiencing concerning levels of IPV, whether or not the victim had ever perpetrated IPV. Likewise, some IPV victims may have become involved with the justice system even though they had not used offensive violence against their partners. In these cases, the women’s arrest might stem from stringent dual-arrest policies,

the victim’s decision to avoid retaliation from a male perpetrator by accepting culpability, or the authorities’ fears of appearing biased (Busch & Rosenberg, 2004; Miller, 2001). In fact, the findings show that not all participants reported perpetrating physical or sexual violence against their partners in the year before the study, for example. Nearly universally, however, the participants reported experiencing at least one victimizing incident of minor psychological abuse and one incident of minor physical abuse perpetrated by their male partners in the year before entering MOVE. More than two thirds of participants reported experiencing at least one incident of severe psychological abuse, severe physical abuse, and minor injury perpetrated by their male partners in the past year. On average, participants reported eight minor injuries in the year before their MOVE enrollment. Although less prevalent, more than one third of the participants reported at least one incident of severe sexual abuse or severe injury perpetrated by their male partners in the past year. Also nearly universally, this sample of women reported perpetrating at least one incident of minor psychological abuse against their male partners in the year before entering MOVE. A considerable number (80%) of participants also reported perpetrating at least one incident of minor physical abuse against their male partners. Half of the sample reported committing acts against their male partners that resulted in severe physical abuse and severe psychological abuse to their partners. However, few women in this sample reported perpetrating sexual abuse or physical abuse that resulted in an injury against their male partners. An examination of the CTS average item responses shows that although the participants self-reported perpetrating abuse against their male partners, the women also reported considerably more frequent or more severe victimization than perpetration. For example, participants reported perpetrating an average of 8.5 acts of severe psychological abuse against their partners in the past year, whereas these women reported experiencing an average of 22 acts of severe psychological victimization perpetrated by their partners. Likewise, participants reported perpetrating an average of four acts of severe physical abuse against their partners in the past year, whereas these women reported experiencing 18 acts of severe physical abuse perpetrated by their partners. Consistent with these average differences and as assessed by the WEB scale, participants reported that over the past year, they had felt high levels of terror, powerlessness, and entrapment with respect to their male partners. According to the WEB cut-point score, more than two thirds of the sample could be considered as having been battered. Taken together, the findings portray women who have perpetrated IPV in the past year but in a context of serious and potentially dangerous IPV victimization. Given the cross-sectional nature of these findings, we cannot know how these various acts of IPV perpetration and victimization were sequenced or related. However, these results are consistent with the research on court-involved IPV victims. Among a sample of women arrested and convicted for IPV, Henning et al. (2006) determined that few of the women could be considered the primary aggressors in their relationships. We echo prior recommendations that programs for service-mandated, female IPV

MANDATED IPV VICTIMS

victims should address IPV perpetration in relation to women’s victimization and self-defense as well as help women with emotion regulation and safety (Hamberger & Potente, 1994; Stuart et al., 2006). We also note that these IPV findings suggest considerable heterogeneity in the IPV perpetration and victimization experiences among service-mandated, parenting, female IPV victims. Some of the women in this sample appear to have both experienced and perpetrated grave forms of IPV, whereas others may have experienced considerable and serious IPV victimization while only perpetrating minor psychological IPV. However, the CPS and court systems appear to treat these women, as well as women who are primary IPV perpetrators, in similar ways, often referring all such women to batterers’ treatment intervention programs or parenting programs. Such a universal approach may not be likely to be helpful to a group of women with such diverse experiences of IPV victimization or perpetration. Rather, our findings argue for tailored intervention approaches for these women and their children. Given that all of the women in this sample were parenting children, our findings regarding high levels of prior-year IPV are worrisome for the well-being of the participants’ children. Research has shown that children who are exposed to IPV have needs similar to children who have suffered physical maltreatment (Chiodo, Leschied, Whitehead, & Hurley, 2008). In addition to help with coping skills and safety planning, the children under the care of the women in this sample are likely to need trauma and mental health services (Macy et al., 2012).

Parenting To assess participants’ parenting and child-rearing attitudes and practices, our research team used the AAPI to assess child maltreatment risk and the HFPI to assess positive parenting attitudes, knowledge, and practices. According to the data gathered with these instruments, few women in the sample scored within ranges of concern or risk in terms of their selfreported parenting. The subscales for social support, problem solving, mobilizing resources, personal care, and role satisfaction were of most concern, with over 15% of the sample scoring at levels that indicated some extent of risk in these areas. However, the parenting self-reports of most of the women in this sample not only did not indicate a risk for child maltreatment, but reflected positive parenting attitudes, knowledge, and practices. These study findings are consistent with prior research concerned with female IPV victims who are mothers, including studies of IPV victims involved in CPS. Researchers have shown that female IPV victims often compensate for the violence in their families by offering their children increased protection and support (Letourneau, Fedick, & Willms, 2007). Moreover, IPV victims are not necessarily likely to maltreat their children (Lapierre, 2008). Instead, research has suggested that female IPV victims are likely to engage in creative, nurturing, and positive parenting strategies to meet their children’s needs. Nonetheless, service-mandated IPV victims who are caring for children are likely to benefit from interventions with a parenting focus. Prior research has suggested that programs that

597

address the challenges of parenting in the context of IPV are especially helpful to service-mandated IPV victims (Levendosky & Graham-Bermann, 2000). In particular, programs should help women parent within and after leaving an IPV relationship. Service-mandated IPV victims may need help with developing knowledge, plans, and skills to manage contacts with their children’s fathers after their intimate partnerships have ended. Although the majority of the participants were separated from their male partners, it is reasonable to anticipate that many of the women will share custody and continue to coparent with their children’s fathers. These women may need help with the challenge of maintaining safety while coparenting with a former partner and IPV perpetrator.

Help-Seeking Behaviors This sample was characterized by active efforts to seek help for IPV before CPS or court referrals. These findings are consistent with those of prior research showing that IPV victims seek help to end the violence in their families, particularly when IPV is chronic and severe (Macy, Nurius, Kernic, & Holt, 2005). Given the participants’ help-seeking behaviors, the findings suggest that service providers and systems have missed important opportunities to help these women before the violence in their lives became so grave as to bring these families to the attention of CPS or court authorities.

Limitations and Conclusion We present descriptive findings from a small, communitybased sample of women as well as data collected using selfreport measures. Thus, we encourage readers to be mindful of this study’s limitations when considering the results. Although most of the study’s measures performed well with this group of women, a number of participants chose not to complete the questions related to alcohol and drug abuse. Given the vulnerable circumstances of these women, their decisions not to complete such potentially sensitive questions were not unexpected. However, understanding substance use and abuse among these IPV victims is important. Thus, we encourage research toward the development of substance-use measures that are acceptable and feasible for use with this population. We employed widely used and accepted measures of IPV in this study. However, these and other measures of IPV have been critiqued for self-report bias and recall bias. Moreover, the phenomenon of IPV is complex, dynamic, and multifaceted. Accordingly, it is unclear whether any existing IPV measure does an adequate job of capturing the experience. Thus, we urge future research on IPV that attends to both perpetration and victimization measurement in dynamic and multifaceted ways. In addition, we were also, unfortunately, not able to assess the sequencing and timing of the participants’ experiences of victimization and perpetration in this study. Accordingly, we also urge future research to investigate the sequencing and timing of the participants’ experiences of victimization and perpetration to determine how such events may (or may not) be related. Although it was beyond the scope of this study, we do not have any information from the participants’ male partners.

598

MACY, RIZO, AND ERMENTROUT

Accordingly, we encourage future research on service-mandated families struggling with IPV to include both partners. Although such an investigation would be challenging to implement, this type of research might be especially important for understanding the service needs of couples that choose to remain in their relationships as well as couples who are coparenting. Despite such limitations, this study provides important insights into the characteristics, needs, and help-seeking efforts of service-mandated, parenting, female IPV victims. Although national studies of CPS-involved IPV victims have been conducted, such research has not typically collected diverse and nuanced information, such as various forms and levels of IPV perpetration and victimization. This study’s findings suggest important areas for future investigation in national studies of CPS- and court-involved IPV victims. Until such studies are delivered, the current investigation provides helpful information to the many community-based service organizations that are encountering a new type of client, that is, women who are raising children and who are not only IPV victims but who are mandated to service by CPS or the court system. In summary, the women in this sample are characterized by severe IPV and serious mental health needs, although they also show strengths in their parenting and active help-seeking efforts. In presenting these findings, we aim to provide a more complete picture of service-mandated, parenting, IPV victims than has been available in the research to date. We also aim to increase awareness among CPS, court, and domestic violence service personnel about the unique needs of these women as well as these women’s strengths and resources. Keywords: women; children; mothers; victims of interpersonal violence; safety-focused interventions; domestic violence services; help-seeking efforts; parenting; child protective services; court-mandated services

References American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., Text rev.). Washington, DC: Author. Bavolek, S. (1984). Handbook for the AAPI (Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory). Park City, UT: Family Development Resources. Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walters, M. L., Merrick, M. T., … Stevens, M. R.. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved from http:// www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf Blanchard, E. B., Jones-Alexander, J., Buckley, T. C., & Forneris, C. A. (1996). Psychometric properties of the PTSD Checklist (PCL). Behaviour Research and Therapy, 34, 669–673. doi: 10.1016/0005-7967 (96)00033-2 Busch, A. L., & Rosenberg, M. S. (2004). Comparing women and men arrested for domestic violence: A preliminary report. Journal of Family Violence, 19, 49–57. doi: 10.1023/B:JOFV.0000011582.05558.2e Busch, N. B., & Valentine, D. (2000). Empowerment practice: A focus on battered women. Affilia, 15, 82–95. doi: 10.1177/08861090022 093840 Campbell, J. (2002). Health consequences of intimate partner violence. Lancet, 359, 1331–1336. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08336-8 Casanueva, C., Martin, S. L., & Runyan, D. K. (2009). Repeated reports for child maltreatment among intimate partner violence vic-

tims: Findings from the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33, 84–93. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu. 2007.04.017 Chiodo, D., Leschied, A. W., Whitehead, P. C., & Hurley, D. (2008). Child welfare practice and policy related to the impact of children experiencing physical victimization and domestic violence. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 564–574. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth. 2007.11.008 Coker, A. L., Smith, P., McKeown, R. E., & King, M. J. (2000). Frequency and correlates of intimate partner violence by type: Physical, sexual, and psychological battering. American Journal of Public Health, 90, 553–559. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.90.4.553 Coker, A. L., Smith, P. H., Thompson, M. P., McKeown, R. E., Bethea, L., & Davis, K. E. (2002). Social support protects against the negative effects of partner violence on mental health. Journal of Women’s Health & Gender-Based Medicine, 11, 465–476. doi: 10. 1089/15246090260137644 Edleson, J. (1999). The overlap between child maltreatment and woman battering. Violence Against Women, 5, 134–154. doi: 10.1177/ 107780129952003 Evans, S. E., Davies, C., & DiLillo, D. (2008). Exposure to domestic violence: A meta-analysis of child and adolescent outcomes. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 131–140. doi: 10.1016/j.avb. 2008.02.005 Fraser, M. W., & Galinsky, M. J. (2010). Steps in intervention research: Designing and developing social programs. Research on Social Work Practice, 20, 459–466. doi: 10.1177/1049731509358424 Goodkind, J. R., Sullivan, C. M., & Bybee, D. I. (2004). A contextual analysis of battered women’s safety planning. Violence Against Women, 10, 514–533. doi: 10.1177/1077801204264368 Hamberger, L. K., & Potente, T. (1994). Counseling heterosexual women arrested for domestic violence: Implications for theory and practice. Violence and Victims, 9(2), 125–137. Retrieved from http:// www.springerpub.com/product/08866708 Hamby, S., Finkelhor, D., Turner, H., & Ormrod, R. (2010). The overlap of witnessing partner violence with child maltreatment and other victimizations in a nationally representative survey of youth. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34, 734–741. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2010.03.001 Hazen, A. L., Connelly, D. D., Kelleher, K., Landsverk, J., & Barth, R. (2004). Intimate partner violence among female caregivers of children reported for child maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28, 301–319. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2003.09.016 Henning, K., & Feder, L. (2004). A comparison of men and women arrested for domestic violence: Who presents the greater threat? Journal of Family Violence, 19, 69–80. doi: 10.1023/B:JOFV.0000019838. 01126.7c Henning, K., Renauer, B., & Holdford, R. (2006). Victim or offender? Heterogeneity among women arrested for intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 21, 351–368. doi: 10.1007/ s10896-006-9032-4 Kohl, P. L., Edleson, J. L., English, D. J., & Barth, R. P. (2005). Domestic violence and pathways into child welfare services: Findings from the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being. Children and Youth Services Review, 27, 1167–1182. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2005.04.003 Lapierre, S. (2008). Mothering in the context of domestic violence: The pervasiveness of a deficit model of mothering. Child & Family Social Work, 13, 454–463. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2206.2008.00563 LeCroy, C. W., Krysik, J., & Milligan, K. (2005). Healthy family parenting inventory (Unpublished manuscript). Arizona State University, Tucson, AZ. Letourneau, N., Fedick, C., & Willms, J. (2007). Mothering and domestic violence: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 649–659. doi: 10.1007/s10896-007-9099-6

MANDATED IPV VICTIMS Levendosky, A. A., & Graham-Bermann, S. A. (2000). Behavioral observations of parenting in battered women. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 80–94. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.14.1.80 Macy, R. J., Ermentrout, D. M., & Rizo, C. F. (2012). An innovative program for justice-involved partner violence victims: “No man is worth me getting locked up.” Journal of Family Violence, 27, 453– 464. doi:10.1007/s10896-012-9436-2 Macy, R. J., Giattina, M., Sangster, T. H., Crosby, C., & Montijo, N. J. (2009). Domestic violence and sexual assault services: Inside the black box. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14, 359–373. doi: 10. 1016/j.avb.2009.06.002 Macy, R. J., Nurius, P. S., Kernic, M., & Holt, V. (2005). Battered women’s profiles associated with service help-seeking efforts: Illuminating opportunities for intervention. Social Work Research, 29(3), 137–150. doi: 10.1093/swr/29.3.137 Miller, S. L. (2001). The paradox of women arrested for domestic violence: Criminal justice professionals and service providers respond. Violence Against Women, 7, 1339–1376. doi: 10.1177/ 10778010122183900 Pachankis, J. E., & Goldfried, M. R. (2007). On the next generation of process research. Clinical Psychology Review, 27, 760–768. doi: 10. 1016/j.cpr.2007.01.009 Pokorny, A. D., Miller, B. A., & Kaplan, H. B. (1972). The brief MAST: A shortened version of the Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test. American Journal of Psychiatry, 129, 342–345. Punukollu, M. (2003). Domestic violence: Screening made practical. Journal of Family Practice, 52, 537–543. Retrieved from http://www. jfponline.org/pdf%2F5207%2F5207JFP_AppliedEvidence.pdf Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401. doi: 10.1177/014662167700100306 Rajan, M., & McCloskey, K. A. (2007). Victims of intimate partner violence: Arrest rates across recent studies. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 15, 27–52. doi: 10.1080/10926770802097186 Riger, S., Bennett, L., Wasco, S. M., Schewe, P. A., Frohmann, L., Camacho, J. M., & Campbell, R. (2002). Evaluating services for survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Schechter, S., & Edleson, J. L. (1999). Effective intervention in domestic violence and child maltreatment cases: Guidelines for policy and practice. Reno, NV: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. Retrieved from http://www.vaw.umn.edu/documents/executvi/ executvi.html Sherman, J. J., Carlson, C. R., Wilson, J. F., Okeson, J. P., & McCubbin, J. A. (2005). Post-traumatic stress disorder among patients with orofacial pain. Journal of Orofacial Pain, 19, 309–317. Simmons, C. A., Lehmann, P., & Collier-Tenison, S. (2008). From victim to offender: The effects of male initiated violence on women

599

arrested for using intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 463–472. doi: 10.1007/s10896-008-9173-8 Simmons, C. A., Lehmann, P., & Dia, D. A. (2010). Parenting and women arrested for intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 1429–1448. doi: 10.1177/0886260509346064 Skinner, H. A. (1982). The drug abuse screening test. Addictive Behaviors, 7, 363–371. doi: 10.1016/0306-4603(82)90005-3 Smith, P. E., Earp, J. A., & DeVellis, R. (1995). Measuring battering: Development of the Women’s Experiences With Battering (WEB) Scale. Women’s Health, 1, 273–288. Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283–316. doi: 10.1177/019251396017003001 Stuart, G. L., Moore, T. M., Hellmuth, J. C., Ramsey, S. E., & Kahler, C. W. (2006). Reasons for intimate partner violence perpetration among arrested women. Violence Against Women, 12, 609–621. doi: 10.1177/1077801206290173 Stuart, G. L., Moore, T. M., Ramsey, S. E., & Kahler, C. W. (2003). Relationship aggression and substance use among women courtreferred to domestic violence intervention programs. Addictive Behaviors, 28, 1603–1610. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2003.08.038 Swan, S. C., & Snow, D. L. (2006). The development of a theory of women’s use of violence in intimate relationships. Violence Against Women, 12, 1026–1045. doi: 10.1177/1077801206293330 Turner, S., Gilbert, A., Hendricks, A., & Demaree, J. (Eds.). (2006). Growing beyond conflict: The path to building safer families–Parent group curriculum. San Diego, CA: Chadwick Center for Children & Families, Children’s Hospital and Health Center. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2009). Child witness to domestic violence: Summary of state laws. Retrieved from http:// www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/witnessdvall. pdf Walker, E. A., Newman, E., Dobie, D. J., Ciechanowski, P., & Katon, W. (2002). Validation of the PTSD Checklist in an HMO sample of women. General Hospital Psychiatry, 24, 375–380. doi: 10.1016/ S0163-8343(02)00203-7 Weathers, F., Litz, B., Herman, D., Huska, J., & Keane, T. (1993, October). The PTSD Checklist (PCL): Reliability, validity, and diagnostic utility. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, San Antonio, TX. Retrieved from http://www.pdhealth.mil/library/downloads/pcl_sychometrics. doc Zolotor, A. J., Theodore, A. D., Coyne-Beasley, T., & Runyan, D. K. (2007). Intimate partner violence and child maltreatment: Overlapping risk. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 7, 305–321. doi: 10. 1093/brief-treatment/mhm021 

Characteristics, needs, and help seeking of partner violence victims mandated to community services by courts and child protective services.

The rapid growth of a subpopulation of women victimized by intimate partner violence (IPV) garnered the attention of 2 human service agencies in 1 Sou...
134KB Sizes 0 Downloads 0 Views