by Lynn Langton, Madison Fann, Duren Banks, Michael G. Planty, Dulani Woods, Michael J. D. Vermeer, Brian A. Jackson: For Complete Post, Click Here…
Identifying High-Priority Needs Within the Criminal Justice System for Programs Focused on Intimate Partner Violence Prevention.
Key Findings
- Programs are typically designed around or required to follow a prescribed approach.
- Systems are not always based on an evidence-informed, theoretical model of change that incorporates an assessment of the risk factors and needs to address interpersonal violence.
- There is not enough emphasis on the community when it comes to preventing recurrence or escalation of IPV.
- IPAS programs suffer from a lack of funding for both program implementation and rigorous research.
- Most programs do not conduct any aftercare or follow-up with participants after program completion.
- State regulations around IPAS programs are often very prescriptive, which prevents states from altering or shifting their approaches.
- There is considerable variation in the logistics of how IPAS programs are run and limited research on how logistical factors affect participation.
- Programs are limited by a lack of information from survivors about ongoing interactions with the participant.
- There is a lack of understanding of and consistency in the process of referring perpetrators to IPAS programs and potential biases associated with this process.
- Because of the many conceptual and logistical variations in IPAS programs, research findings may not be generalizable.
