Intimate partner violence (IPV) as it stands today still exists in many violent cases involving intimate relationships. Intervention programs seek to address this issue, however, fails to meet their intended outcomes to reduce prevalence rates of IPV. The research study evaluated the use of a prevention program and measures its effectiveness among high school students. This study sought to explain IPV prevention programs, making it explanatory and necessitates a quantitative research design. This study used secondary data analysis to assess effectiveness of this particular prevention program. Data was collected from 130 high school students within the Inland Empire who completed pre-surveys and post-surveys. Through data analysis, the study found the prevention program was effective by increasing the high school students’ knowledge about local resources for those experiencing IPV, specifically where to go for help. Another key finding revealed a majority of the participants were able to correctly define types of relationships and communication styles. However, the prevention program does not necessarily assess for participants’ knowledge on how to address conflict in a healthy manner, as measured by questions asked within the pre-surveys and post-surveys. This is not to say this particular prevention program was not effective in some areas. Still, there is room for improvement as far as future research; collaboration with seasoned researchers, school administrators, and social workers; and policy recommendations on this topic of school-based IPV prevention programs.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is an extremely prevalent and concerning social issue, with limited current intervention and prevention strategies. Batterer intervention programs (BIPs) have demonstrated some small effects of programs in reducing offender recidivism, however there is a growing understanding that not all offenders respond similarly to batterer intervention and the problem of IPV persists. Restorative justice programs including impact panels may be an important addition to BIPs, but research is extremely limited on impact panel effectiveness and whether panels are appropriate for IPV or pose additional safety risks to survivors. The current study consists of a naturalistic mixed-methods evaluation of the use of IPV impact panels in the context of batterer intervention. Data collection methods include an ethnographic inquiry of the program setting and participant experiences, archival data analysis of offender responses to the panel (N = 287), and focus groups (k = 4) with survivors, offenders, and BIP providers to investigate the panel's impact on survivors and offenders and generate potential indicators of panel outcomes for survivors and offenders. Findings suggest that panel impacts on survivors include reaching new understandings, healing, and empowerment; panel impacts on offenders include connection with survivor speakers, reaching new understandings, and healing. Implications, limitations, and future aims of this program of research are discussed.

Empirical research in the areas of substance abuse (Beattie & Longabaugh, 1997; Beattie & Longabaugh, 1999; Falkin & Strauss, 2002; Gordon & Zrull, 1991; Humphreys & Noke, 1997; Mohr et al., 2001; Zywiak, Longabaugh & Wirtz, 2002) and general antisocial behavior (Browning, 2002; Capaldi, Dishion, Stoolmiller & Yoerger, 2001; Dishion, Patterson & Griesler, 1994) and a theoretical model of sexual assault perpetration (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 1993; DeKeseredy, 1990a; DeKeseredy, 1988; Schwartz & DeKeseredy, 1997) highlight the role of peer groups' attitudes and behaviors in shaping those of their members. Intimate partner violence (IPV) among men's parents (Arriaga & Foshee, 2004; Doumas, Margolin & John, 1994; Silverman & Wiliamson, 1997) and peer groups (Abbey, McAuslan, Zawacki, Brown & Messman-Moore, 2010; Clinton, & Buck, 2001; Capaldi et al., 2001; Raghavan, Rajah, Gentile, Collado, & Kavanagh, 2009; Reed, Silverman, Raj, Rothman, Decker, Gottlieb, Molnar, & Miller, 2008; Silverman & Williamson, 1997) is also related to their own perpetration of IPV, specifically. However, existing research is yet to examine the extent to which men participating in batterer intervention programs (BIPs), a common form of treatment for perpetrators of IPV, receive messages about the perpetration of IPV from within their social networks, or whether or how BIP participants contribute to dialogues about abuse within their social networks. The purposes of the current study were to (1) describe the members of BIP participants' social networks and the ways in which they communicate about IPV with BIP participants, and (2) to describe how BIP participants address IPV with the members of their social networks, and the social network members with whom they do so. Focus groups with BIP facilitators and participants were conducted to develop inventories of abuse-relevant behaviors. One hundred and two BIP participants were surveyed to describe the members of their social networks, how the members of their social networks address the perpetration of IPV, and how BIP participants communicate about IPV to the members of their social networks. A series of multilevel models were tested to examine the characteristics of BIP participants' social networks and patterns of communication about abuse therein. An additional focus group provided interpretations of the quantitative findings. Findings reveal that the current sample of BIP participants has social networks that are smaller than those of the general population, and which consist of their current and former partners, friends and roommates, bosses and coworkers, family of origin, children, in-laws, and others. Participants' network members engage in behaviors that convey both pro-abuse and anti-abuse attitudes to BIP participants, participants engage in indirect anti-abuse behaviors with their social network members, and participants are less satisfied with network members who engage in more pro-abuse behaviors. Primary implications of the current study include (1) the understanding of BIP participants as bystanders who actively intervene in abuse-relevant social norms in their social networks; (2) a detailed picture of how and from whom BIP participants receive support for the perpetration of IPV; and (3) the creation of two new behavioral inventories that may be used to explore patterns and effects of abuse relevant communication in greater depth.

In response to a dearth of empirical literature concerning the mechanisms underlying female same-sex intimate partner violence (FSSIPV) perpetration, the purpose of this research is to inform intimate partner violence intervention and prevention strategies specific to sexual minority women. The research responds in particular, this research aims to inform a working intersectional model predicting FSSIPV perpetration, and to evaluate the face validity and construct coverage of existing survey measures related to gender, minority stress, and violence. Fourteen lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer women recruited from the greater Portland, Oregon area participated in a series of in-depth, semi-structured, open-ended one-on-one and focus group interviews. Participant recruitment involved a combination of purposive and convenience sampling methods aided by the involvement of multiple community partners working in violence and education related fields. Interview and focus group questions addressed participants' experiences with gender role stress and minority stress. Grounded theory analysis of participants' narrative responses informed the coverage and relevance of constructs in a working intersectional model predicting women's use of violence in their same-gender intimate relationships. In particular, findings indicate that sexual minority women's experiences of gender role stress and minority stress, particularly in combination, were especially influential on their identities. Sexual minority women's experiences with minority stressors were not confined to minority stressors specific to their gender identities and sexual orientations, but intersected with minority stressors related to race and class as well. These findings support an intersectional and contextually-minded approach to IPV intervention and prevention strategies.