Abstract
Domestic Violence Intervention Programs have become a key component in addressing domestic violence (DV) crimes. Recent research suggests that combining standard intervention programs with other approaches can improve overall effectiveness. The aim of this study was to examine the experiences of individuals court-mandated to treatment who completed either a standard intervention program or a restorative justice (RJ)-based hybrid intervention program combining a standard treatment program with RJ elements and Circles of Peace. Multiple interviews were conducted with participants (N = 14) who completed one of the two programs. Qualitative data analysis was performed. Four major themes emerged: Communication and understanding, Changes in the nature of the violence, Changes in self-perception, and Program content and atmosphere experiences. The findings suggest that the hybrid intervention program may have a positive influence on the way participants perceive treatment effectiveness. Participants’ experiences may serve as a framework for improving approaches to DV treatment.
Keywords
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is common, costly, and associated with increased morbidity and mortality (Miller & McCaw, 2019). Currently, in the United States, the majority of individuals convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence (DV) crime (defined broadly in the legal context to include family violence, and in some states, roommates), including IPV (the focus of this study), are mandated to one of the 2,500 Domestic Violence Intervention Programs (DVIPs). These programs, traditionally known as Batterer Intervention Programs (BIPs), are offered across the country either as an alternative to incarceration or as a component of probation (Boal & Mankowski, 2014). The goal of standard intervention programs is to transform IPV aggressor behaviors with a view to reducing future IPV perpetration (Cheng et al., 2021). However, the effectiveness of these traditional programs over the years has been questionable, with recurring inconclusive results (Cheng et al., 2021; Eckhardt et al., 2013; Feder & Wilson, 2005), hence the emergence of alternative responses to IPV, including restorative justice (RJ) as a DVIP (Cissner, 2019).
The RJ process is a dialogue-based practice that seeks to address the social harms caused by crime. RJ aims to “restore” those affected by crime (Braithwaite, 2006). RJ approaches include a broad range of practices designed to meet the needs of the person harmed (victim/survivor in non-RJ literature), the responsible person (perpetrator/offender in non-RJ literature), and communities in the wake of a crime (Ptacek & Frederick, 2008). In these processes, repairing harm is the central goal, by offering opportunities to humanize, learn, and put the emotions of the individuals involved (both the responsible person and the person harmed) at the center of conflict-solving, and to also address the ways in which the crime has affected them (Suzuki & Yuan, 2021). Emphasizing collaborative dialogue, the empowerment of the person harmed, and the responsible person’s accountability, RJ seeks to decrease the role of the state and increase the involvement of families and communities in response to a crime (Ptacek, 2009).
The current study focused on an RJ peacemaking circles model, Circles of Peace, to address DV crimes (Mills et al., 2013). Peacemaking circles is a process that brings together the responsible person, the person harmed, support people, a trained facilitator (circle keeper), and members of the community to repair harm and promote healing (Pranis, 2005). We present the findings of a qualitative analysis comparing the experiences drawn from those mandated to treatment for a misdemeanor DV crime (in cases of IPV) who completed either a standard DVIP program (standard intervention) or a hybrid program consisting of a standard DVIP component with RJ elements and Circles of Peace (hybrid intervention). The lack of comparative data in this area (Cheng et al., 2021) and the dearth of qualitative reports of responsible persons’ experiences of the intervention program (McGinn et al., 2020) make the analysis of these reflections essential for understanding the implementation of RJ practices in IPV cases.
Using Intervention Programs for IPV
DVIPs have become a key component in the adjudication process for perpetrators, and a mandated program for the majority of men arrested for an IPV-related offense in the United States (Morrison et al., 2018). Standard DVIPs generally use a psycho-educational approach that aims to hold those mandated to treatment accountable for their crimes, drawing on the Duluth model (Aaron & Beaulaurier, 2017). The Duluth model is a gender-based intervention program developed specifically for heterosexual men who have perpetrated IPV (Bohall et al., 2016). This model provides guidance in shifting attitudes concerning the unequal distribution of power and control between genders, particularly in relation to IPV, thereby aiming to educate men in recognizing maladaptive behaviors and discovering nonviolent alternatives (Herman et al., 2014). Women who are convicted of DV crimes in cases of IPV often also attend DVIPs, as do individuals convicted of DV crimes in cases of family violence (Mills et al., 2013), and a gender-neutral approach to DVIP has become common (Solinas-Saunders, & Stacer, 2022). Yet, the long-standing debate in the field as to whether programs should be implemented equally for all those mandated to treatment for a DV crime or should address gender differences remains ongoing (Solinas-Saunders, & Stacer, 2022).
Systematic studies of standard DVIPs have provided mixed results regarding the ability of these programs to reduce perpetration (Eckhardt et al., 2013; Wilson et al., 2021). While meta-analysis and systematic reviews on DVIPs’ effectiveness have shown positive effects on reducing IPV recidivism (Babcock et al., 2004; Cheng et al., 2021; Eckhardt et al., 2013; Feder & Wilson, 2005; Santirso et al., 2020), others have produced less encouraging results with no improvement in or worsening DV/IPV recidivism (Arias et al., 2013). However, implementing hybrid approaches that combine standard DVIP with other components as part of the intervention program show promising results (Karakurt et al., 2019; Mills et al., 2019). For example, it was suggested that incorporating substance abuse or trauma components into DVIPs yielded better results as compared to programs that did not have these components (Karakurt et al., 2019), and adding an adjunct motivational interviewing component prior to treatment improved intervention dose and reduced program dropouts (Santirso et al., 2020). Thus, an individually tailored intervention approach, suited for the profile and needs of the responsible person, combining multiple therapeutic modalities may enhance the treatments effectiveness (Butters et al., 2021).
Few major claims regarding standard DVIP content and implementation are found in the literature. These issues focus mainly on the “one-size-fits-all” approach currently used in the intervention; the one-dimensional, power and control paradigm that often characterizes standard DVIPs (Curwood et al., 2011), and facilitator retention, training, and monitoring issues that often limit its success (Morrison et al., 2019). These claims, along with inconclusive efficacy results of standard DVIPs, have led practitioners to seek new and innovative ways to approach and treat IPV within intervention programs (Ptacek & Frederick, 2008; Zehr, 2014). One of them is RJ (Mills et al., 2019).
Examination of RJ-Based Programs for IPV
RJ interventions in various fields have been implemented and evaluated since the 1990s with positive results overall (Renzetti, 2017). However, there is a paucity of literature examining RJ-based programs for DV or IPV (Gang et al., 2019; Westmarland et al., 2018). One possible reason for this lack of literature may be the controversy surrounding the use of RJ approaches in the context of DV/IPV (Stubbs, 2007). The debate derives from concerns about causing physical or psychological harm to the person harmed (Augusta-Scott et al., 2017), decriminalization of violence against intimate partners, failure to communicate antiviolence norms to the public, and focusing on rehabilitation of perpetrators without addressing the needs of survivors (Goel, 2000; Lewis et al., 2001; Stubbs, 2002). In addition, some scholars claim that not all types of DV can be addressed successfully through RJ, and specifically, it is claimed that situational violence is more suited for RJ than other forms of violence such as intimate terrorism (Pemberton et al., 2009). RJ advocates reject these claims and suggest that the role of RJ interventions in IPV cases is to empower persons harmed and hold responsible persons liable for their violence (Grauwiler & Mills, 2004). They also claim that RJ programs ensure participants’ safety in various ways, and in the event of a safety concern, an RJ process can take place effectively without the participation of both parties (Augusta-Scott et al., 2017). Thus, while the controversy remains, some restorative programs to address IPV are long established in the United States (Pennell et al., 2021). This enables the emergence of cumulative evidence regarding the effectiveness of RJ-based interventions, despite the lack of abundant literature. The positive effect of RJ interventions dates back to early RJ and IPV research during the late 1990s that showed a reduction of violence among those responsible for DV offenses (Coker, 1999). Pennell and Burford (1998), in their seminal work, developed and implemented a family group conference model in Canada and reported lower levels of abuse. In the following two decades, other studies reported positive outcomes after implementing RJ interventions with DV/IPV cases (Gaarder, 2015; Kingi et al., 2008). The most rigorous studies in this area to date attempted to explore the effectiveness of the Circles of Peace model (Mills et al., 2013, 2019). The randomized controlled trials compared DV cases randomly assigned to either a standard DVIP or Circles of Peace, revealing that Circles of Peace could be a safe alternative to responsible person-only treatment and for the persons harmed who choose to participate (Mills et al., 2013), and that participants in the treatment that combined a standard DVIP and Circles of Peace showed significant reductions in new arrests and crime severity scores (Mills et al., 2019).
Overall, although still limited, the evidence base for using RJ approaches to address DV and IPV is growing. The present study seeks to explore the subjective experiences of those mandated to treatment for a DV crime, in cases of IPV, and who completed one of two forms of treatment approaches (a standard intervention program-only [known as BIP-only] or a hybrid intervention program [known as BIP-plus-Circles of Peace]).
Using Subjective Accounts to Explore IPV Interventions
Qualitative studies of IPV may deepen the understanding of some of the more nuanced aspects of this form of violence (McGinn et al., 2020). In this context, Sheehan et al. (2012) suggest that qualitative methodologies may be better suited to understanding the complex change process of those mandated to treatment for IPV-related offenses and Weisburd et al. (2017) advocate for the use of more qualitative interview data that may help understand critical issues that are less accessible using quantitative inquiry. Despite these recommendations, only a handful of studies have explored DVIP participants’ perspectives on the intervention, producing mixed results (Holtrop et al., 2017; Shamai & Buchbinder, 2010). Subjective, in-depth accounts of participants’ experience in the intervention and its outcomes can help reveal the details of what they find helpful or unhelpful in each intervention program. Thereby, providing insight into what they perceive as important in a DVIP, and subsequently may help improve interventions and reduce IPV recidivism. Thus, the aim of the present study was to explore the differences between the phenomenological experiences of individuals participating in two types of treatment programs for DV crimes.
Method
Research Design Overview
This study was designed to provide an in-depth examination of a standard DVIP and an alternative treatment approach using RJ for those convicted of a misdemeanor DV crime, in cases of IPV, who were sentenced to treatment. This qualitative study was conducted by comparing two interventions: a standard DVIP (standard intervention) and a hybrid approach comprising a standard DVIP component with RJ elements and Circles of Peace (hybrid intervention). Cases were randomly assigned to treatment as part of a larger study. In both treatment approaches, the eight themes of the Duluth model were covered during the group sessions (Pence & Paymar, 1993). The two approaches were the same for both men and women sentenced to treatment.
The standard treatment involved a 16-week responsible person-only group-based approach, which is largely didactic. The curriculum is psycho-educational and aims to hold responsible persons accountable for their crimes, drawing on the Duluth model of DV treatment (Babcock et al., 2016; Price & Rosenbaum, 2009). The comparison RJ-based hybrid treatment, provided 12 weeks of responsible persons-only group sessions (with RJ principles infused throughout the responsible person-focused group treatment), encouraging responsible persons to focus on behavioral and attitudinal change. Following the 12 initial group sessions, responsible persons participated in 4 weeks of individual Circles of Peace sessions with a willing person harmed or a victim advocate (if the person harmed did not want to participate), family members and/or other support people, and a trained community volunteer. Circles of Peace, drawing on RJ principles, is facilitated by a circle keeper. It involves an “intense interaction,” and relies on a social compact to provide the expectations for change, agreed on by all Circles of Peace participants (Sherman et al., 2015; Shy & Mills, 2010).
Although data were collected in various forms during the study, the findings presented here represent the analysis of responsible person interviews-only. Please see Appendix A for more background for the Circles of Peace RJ intervention program and the current study.
Interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA; Smith et al., 2009) was chosen as the qualitative methodology best suited for this study. This methodology is committed to the exploration of personal experience. Its objective is to understand the lived experiences of individuals and to explore the ways in which they make sense of their personal and social worlds. This approach is used to study a wide variety of issues including DV and IPV and is suitable for the current study as it calls for the use of particularly small samples (between three and 15 participants), allowing an in-depth inquiry into each individual experience (Reid et al., 2005; Smith et al., 2009).
Study Participants
Thirty-five participants agreed to take part in qualitative interviews. However, more than half of them did not complete treatment and, therefore, were not eligible to participate in this postintervention study. Thus, only 14 participants, who agreed to participate in the study and completed treatment, made up the final sample size. Nine of the 14 final participants were male and five were female, all were mandated to treatment by the court for DV crimes in cases involving IPV. Most of the participants were White, and the average age was 37 years. Over 75% of the participants were still in a relationship with the person harmed at the time of the assessment for treatment. At the time of the violent incident, most participants were cohabiting with their partner, the majority were married, and all the cases involved physical violence.
Participant Recruitment
All judges seeing DV cases from two courts in the same county agreed to refer eligible IPV cases to the treatment provider we were partnered with for this study. Cases qualified for the study if they violated the relevant criminal code(s) and the incident occurred between intimate partners. The treatment provider provided both treatment options under study. At sentencing, the presiding judge handed eligible responsible persons a referral sheet with information about the relevant treatment provider. Responsible persons would then contact the treatment provider to schedule an assessment. Next, for this qualitative study, responsible persons were asked by a member of the research team if they would consent to be interviewed. The interviews were conducted at four time-points (at the start of the program, at program completion, at 6 months after starting the program, and at 12 months after starting the program). Since the aim of the present study was to explore the participants’ experience of the intervention program, only postintervention interviews were analyzed.
Out of the 14 participants, nine received the standard intervention (four females and five males) and five received the hybrid intervention (one female and four males). Overall, 28 interviews were conducted with the participants, since most of them were interviewed between one and three times after completing the intervention process (18 interviews were conducted with standard intervention participants and 10 interviews were conducted with hybrid intervention participants). Multiple interviews enabled an in-depth understanding of the participants’ experiences. The sample size, including the final number of interviews with each participant, was determined by the richness and depth of the data gathered from the informants, according to Morse’s (2000) principle of theoretical saturation which suggests that recurring content indicates that enough data have been gathered. Cases were excluded if the responsible person had limited English proficiency; was in an active psychotic state or in need of acute detoxification or hospitalization; or was currently engaged in DV treatment or had participated in DV treatment with another treatment provider in the last 30 days. Gender and criminal history or delinquent background was not used as exclusion criteria.
Data Collection
As a “participant-oriented” research approach, IPA researchers strive to develop bonds with their participants through interpersonal and interactive relationships; thus, qualitative research interview is often described as “a conversation with a purpose” (Burgess, 1984). Smith et al. (2009) stated that the “Interviewing [process] allows the researcher and participant to engage in a dialogue whereby initial questions are modified in the light of participants’ responses, and the investigator is able to inquire after any other interesting areas which arise” (p. 57). In line with these guidelines, data collection was performed via in-depth, semi-structured phenomenological interviews using an interview guide (Pietkiewicz & Smith, 2014). The interview guide addressed three categories: the participant’s relationship with other people in his or her world and the way it has been transformed following his or her participation in the intervention program (e.g., How do you understand the issues in your relationship with your partner during past months?); the participant’s understanding of the violence in his or her relationships (e.g., In the past 6 months, how have you tried to address the violence in your relationship?); and a retrospective view of the intervention and its influence over the participant’s life (e.g., At this time, how do you feel about your participation in the domestic violence treatment program?).
Interviews were conducted by two local social work graduate research assistants (one master’s and one doctoral student) either in person or by telephone. Most of the interviews lasted between 1 and 2 hours, but the exact duration depended on the participant’s individual needs and capabilities. The interviewer paid special attention to the emotions expressed by participants during the interview—particularly any reactions indicating discomfort were addressed and discussed and/or were noted in the interviewer reaction sheet completed following the interview. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The study protocol and procedures were approved by New York University’s Institutional Review Board, the University Committee on Activities Involving Human Subjects, and the University of Utah’s Institutional Review Board, and a Privacy Certificate was obtained from the National Institute of Justice. Please see additional information regarding the interview process in Appendix B.
Data Analysis and Trustworthiness
Data analysis was performed according to the IPA method, as suggested by Smith et al. (2009). First, to become as familiar as possible with the text, the researchers read the transcripts several times. Initial coding was performed inductively by coding significant statements made by the participants, for example, identifying a wide range of the participants’ feelings toward the way the violence in the relationship has progressed. This was followed by grouping the statements into subthemes and identifying quotes that captured the essential aspects of the participants’ experiences and perceptions. Next, we identified, clustered, and conceptualized emerging connections. At this stage, we used deductive analysis to provide a broader understanding of the findings and to facilitate identification of superordinate themes reflecting different participants’ narratives (Smith et al., 2009). For example, we used our knowledge regarding the commitment of RJ interventions to increase the responsible person’s accountability heuristically to explore what it means for each participant. During the textual analysis, we discussed and identified similarities and differences in participants’ accounts, for example, participants were all mandated to treatment for a DV crime in cases of IPV but some of them perceived themselves as victims of circumstances, whereas others acknowledged their own part in the violence. We then organized the data based on four agreed-upon superordinate themes identified in the participants’ narratives (Smith et al., 2009).
The researchers bracketed their experiences to reduce their preconceptions from influencing the analysis. Please see the steps taken to ensure trustworthiness and enhance reflexivity in Appendix C.
Findings
A comparison of the narratives of two groups of individuals who underwent either a standard intervention or a RJ-based hybrid intervention revealed the following themes: (a) Communicating and understanding: “I feel like my (partner) doesn’t take the time to listen to what I have to say”; (b) Changes in the nature of the violence: “Find other ways around it”; (c) Changes in self-perception: “I have a bigger mindset of the goals I want in life”; and (d) Program content and atmosphere experiences: “Getting to know the person on a one-on-one basis instead of just throwing them in a class.”
Theme 1. Communicating and Understanding: “I Feel Like My (Partner) Doesn’t Take the Time to Listen to What I Have to Say”
The first theme refers to the way participants in each group (standard intervention and hybrid intervention) narrated their perceptions of the relationship and their communication patterns post-participation in the intervention program.
Standard Intervention: Withdrawal and Miscommunication
Some participants narrate an ongoing reality of miscommunication, as illustrated by the following quote: I don’t know how she was raised or anything. From what I’ve seen of her parents, she was raised a lot different than I was . . . her beliefs are different. It’s got to be her way and if it’s not her way then it’s a big problem . . . she’s controlling. She tells me she doesn’t want me to see my family. She wants me to get off work, come home, and just stay there . . . I got way stressed out and then I started losing my temper and so that’s why . . . when she starts getting attitudes, I just leave, and I realized it made it worse because she thinks I’m ignoring her, but really, I was doing it to try to get away and give her time. It seems like that the other stuff is lost so much in between that she stays pissed off and she never calms down. (Male, standard intervention)
This participant describes a relationship rife with conflicts rooted in basic beliefs of what coupledom should be like. He portrays his partner as controlling and discloses feelings of isolation and anger that cause him to lose control. The concept of walking away from the situation when anger arises is consistent with the BIP curriculum (Morrison et al., 2021). In this case, however, such behavior causes a tangle of miscommunication when the participant’s hope of deescalating the situation meets his partner’s disappointment, as she views his attempt to walk away as an avoidance tactic. Consequently, they appear to live with a constant sense of tension and a feeling that “other stuff is lost so much in between,” which may reflect the continued lack of understanding. Another example of miscommunication and isolation is illustrated by another standard intervention program participant: Sometimes I feel like my wife [partner] doesn’t really take the time to listen to what I have to say . . . I try to see her point of view and see her feelings. I don’t think she sees where I’m coming from. I think it’d be a good thing for both parties to participate in classes. Not stay in the same class, maybe—let’s say your wife’s a drug addict or an alcoholic. They have classes for the spouses that they go to deal with that. And I think it’d be the same for, same with the domestic thing, you know? (Male, standard intervention)
This quote may be conveying a double meaning of the notion of loneliness: loneliness on the micro level—of this individual whose partner does not recognize his wish to be heard, and loneliness on the macro level—of a man who has undergone an intervention program and has ultimately changed his behavior, but has done so without his partner, who does not understand the changes. The participant expresses his wish for an external authority, such as the intervention program, to negotiate their different perspectives.
Hybrid Intervention: A Deeper Understanding of the Communication Dynamics
A seemingly different approach to the relationship, postintervention, is presented by some of the participants who completed the RJ-based hybrid intervention program, as in the following quote: Well, it’s taught me a different way to think. There’s a way of reacting with people, you know, I learned that negatively from my ex and I learned it positively from my neighbors. And it’s one thing to think things and it’s another thing to participate in other people’s things. I think that’s what the, what the whole thing taught me, is you can take that decision road to the right, or you can take that decision road to the left . . . there’s no real blame, I think. If it’s kind of one of those no-fault situations, like you know, the see-saw. One thing happens and that triggers another thing, and that thing triggers another thing, and it just keeps evolving or devolving. And until you just don’t talk to each other anymore. I remember her saying to me “I understand my culpability in this matter,” and I appreciated that in a way, you know . . . (Male, hybrid intervention)
This participant describes a shift in the way he now analyzes and thinks about relationships. This includes not only his relationship with his ex-wife, but also with his neighbors and the way he treats people in general. His mention of making decisions that led him to certain “roads” in life may imply his capacity to feel responsible for shaping his relationships. The participant’s agentic view of steering the relationship, as well as his insight into its dynamics, which are expressed in the see-saw metaphor, brought him to appreciate his ex-wife’s understanding of the relationship. Thus, they now seem able to reflect on and understand it. Another participant adds, Just the way that we communicate and listen. I’d say we’ve both improved on that . . . and then take a look at yourself the way that you talk to people or the way that we’ve interacted with each other and things in the past that we may not have been thinking of. So got a different perspective on everything. It’s been good though, I mean we opened up a lot on the communication, I feel closer to her. That’s good, just being thoughtful . . . we’ve been able to overcome some things that have been problems in the past or have been harder. I think through the communication we’ve been able to understand each other a little better, I guess. I’d say that there’s probably a lot of it would stem from financial things, you know paying bills and stuff, the one thing that was probably the source or cause of some of our problems. (Male, hybrid intervention)
The participant uses numerous verbs, such as listen, communicate, and interact, to stress the new line of communication between him and his partner. He mentions working together with his partner to understand and resolve issues that stood at the core of their conflictual relationship, such as finances. His use of the first-person plural to describe their situation may express the couple’s new mutual understanding and is a sign of unity and togetherness.
Theme 2. Changes in the Nature of the Violence: “Find Other Ways Around It”
The second theme that emerged from the analysis pinpoints different perspectives on the violence in the relationship and the way it has or has not changed since the intervention.
Standard Intervention: A Shift in the Violent Dynamics
The following quote discloses the participant’s attempt to avoid arguments: If she’s having a bad day, she’ll sometimes take it out on everybody else, so rather than argue with her, I’ll talk to her mom and tell her mom what’s going on and see if maybe her mom can calm her down . . . Instead of just a head-on argument and fight all the time. Find other ways around it so that it just eases the tension . . . Interviewer (I): And do you feel like those arguments have changed at all over time, like the way you argue? Participant (P): No, they’re usually just really low key and once the yelling starts and it’s better to just go our separate ways and cool off for a few minutes and then come back and talk about it than to just keep progressing and trying to push our ways onto one another . . . (Male, standard intervention)
The participant seeks ways to circumvent arguments and offers other solutions that appear to channel the aggression elsewhere. In some cases, he relies on a third person, his partner’s mother, reaching out to her and to help alleviate the tension. When asked directly about changes in arguments over time, the participant’s impression remains static—that the situation has not changed, except he is able to pull himself away from the situation. Similarly, another standard intervention participant describes her endeavor to deescalate her violent interactions:
Just like arguing sometimes but I usually go to the room or something and ignore and just not talk to him.
And how does he usually respond to that?
He doesn’t care, he just . . . he’s good at being really calm so he doesn’t really, he stays quiet usually and just whatever, he doesn’t come bother me or anything.
And then do you guys ever revisit the situation later, or do you just kind of let it blow over, or . . .
Sometimes we talk about it later, but it’s always kind of like the same thing where there’s just not even any use sometimes because then we argue about it because it’s going to happen again and that’s the thing. (Female, standard intervention)
This participant describes a cycle in which controversial issues are either argued about or not discussed at all, as part of a mutual adoption of disregarding behavior. In both examples, the participants seem to navigate their relationships in nonviolent ways, based on taking time out and deescalating charged domestic situations. Together with this, it seems that the participants feel alone and estranged from their partner. It is thus possible to say that while avoiding violence is an exceptional achievement, other underlying issues within the relationship are not addressed.
Hybrid Intervention: Decreased Conflict
Participants who completed the RJ-based hybrid intervention also described some changes in the extent and nature of the violence experienced in the relationships following participation in the hybrid intervention, as illustrated in the following quote:
It’s been a lot better since, since I went to [place of the intervention]. There’s been a lot more communication, less fight—less arguments.
. . . What’s different?
Letting things go . . . Not dragging them on . . . learning how to not drag the problem on . . . Letting go and talk about it later on. (Male, hybrid intervention)
This participant reports less frequent fighting and arguing since attending the program. These relationship patterns seem to be substituted now by a different set of skills, including letting go of problems and sensing the right time to talk about them.
Nobody hangs up on anybody. We just talk it through . . . I look at it as two ships, side-by-side on the sea and we need to communicate and exchange, but the sea is always rolling . . . . But it’s not something that we accuse each other of, instigating . . . We’re able to set it down on the situation instead of a blame game and that’s very nice [laughs] that’s really nice . . . . I hold my own counsel I don’t speak out . . . I don’t blurt out . . . I don’t get sensitive to some kind of comment. . . . when you’re talking, you’ll say something and you don’t really know how the other person took it and so you know when that happens to me, I just ignore it because I know she didn’t mean it . . . Same thing with her. It just bounces off now and we move on, so I think both of us kind of want this to just be in the past and kind of let it go. . . . it’s not starting over that’s impossible . . . it is moving on from here . . . (Male, hybrid intervention)
This participant offers a detailed description of how he and his ex-wife transformed a relationship based on accusations, instigations, and blame to a relationship founded on communication, exchange, and talking things through. The metaphor of two ships side by side on a rolling sea expresses the participant’s insight concerning the unbreakable bond between him and his ex-wife, and the essentiality of continuing their dialogue in an atmosphere of constant compromise and cooperation. Thus, is seems that both participants describe less violence and new ways of understanding each other, while constantly working through conflicts.
Theme 3. Changes in Self-Perception: “I Have a Bigger Mindset of the Goals I Want in Life”
The third theme addresses the way participants view themselves, both during and after the intervention.
Standard Intervention: Questions and Confusion Regarding the Victim/Offender Label
Some participants felt uneasy by the assigned “victim” and “offender” labels, as illustrated in the following quote: At first, I felt uncomfortable . . . but I over time, I felt a lot more comfortable especially seeing, I guess, the same people every class. It helped me open up about things that I’ve never talked about. . . it was . . . refreshing to see that I wasn’t the only one who went through stuff like that. . . . it made me feel a little bit better to see like other women . . . . These other women that were there were . . . educated, beautiful women . . . like women that you would look up to. It was just like, wow, I can’t believe they went through the same thing I went through . . . . . . I feel like we were all there the complete opposite of why we were there . . . The police . . . they need to do a better job, honestly. Because it seems like they send the wrong people to get classes and to get some type of treatment. Just seeing how they are and like listening to them . . . I just felt like it was weird that we were all there . . . I mean the whole arresting thing that’s their issue, I think even if one person is the aggressor, the other person is still affected in some way so I feel like both parties should be sent to get treatment because even if that person is the one who’s getting, you know, the “victim” quote un-quote, like that person still needs treatment . . . (Female, standard intervention)
This participant began the program feeling isolated and uncomfortable with her new label of “DV offender.” She questions the need to divide couples into “victims” and “offenders,” stating that both parties require treatment. She emphasizes the importance of how the arrest itself is handled by the police, insinuating that they might not be interested in learning the real story of the relationship, and that the arrest might not reflect the true state of who is the “offender” and who is the “victim” in the relationship. Questions about her identity as “victim” or offender” were reinforced during her standard intervention program participation when the participants seemed not to fit her perception of “violent offenders” and how they might look and behave. Another participant adds, Is it worth it? Is it worth going through that again? He even told me, that he’s like, “I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to you know, tried choking you or anything like that,” you know, it totally wasn’t worth it because he actually put me in a spot, put us in a debt type of thing, you know, to where I could’ve been using the extra thirty dollars a week for something else, you know. Or what is it, the hundred fifty dollars for the intake, that totally could’ve been well spent somewhere else . . . (Female, standard intervention)
This participant claims that she was arrested after responding violently to her partner’s attempt to choke her. She describes herself as a victim of circumstances. After fighting for her life, she ended up accused of a violent offense, and was mandated to treatment, for which she had to pay. This complex story sheds light on the need for in-depth exploration of violence in the relationship as it is often not a “black or white” situation. That is, this participant acted violently but she was also the person harmed, and the program she was mandated to, was designed for responsible persons and does not seem to provide a space for this kind of complexity.
Hybrid Intervention: A Sense of Empowerment and Growth
Some of the participants who attended the hybrid intervention program seemed to have experienced an inner emotional change that was perceived as empowering: I’ve accomplished understanding that everyone is their own person and everyone’s going to do what they want to do whether you like it or not or, you can’t hold anybody back from anything . . . To think—have a bigger mindset of like, of the goals I want in life. To think a little different, not to, like, settle for . . . just the basic type stuff . . . (Male, hybrid intervention)
This participant discloses what appears like a new appreciation of his inability to control others, which is accompanied by the desire to set himself bigger life goals. This may be perceived as an empowering internal experience that could open some new life paths for him, both in his marriage and, possibly, in other life domains.
So I’m feeling a lot better . . ., because I thought it was all me, I thought it was me that couldn’t communicate with the world, you know. And I realized, hey, you know what, it’s not all my fault [laughs] so, I kind of I guess in the stage right now where I’m actually kind of, like, forgiving myself. (Male, hybrid intervention)
This participant confesses to feeling genuinely relieved when he realizes that he is not the only one to blame for the deteriorating relationship. It seems that, for years, he has lived with the assumption that his communication skills are impaired. Some of these feelings of guilt and shame have changed following his participation in the program and the accompanying mutual inquiry into the relationship, leading to his report on self-forgiveness.
Theme 4. Program Content and Atmosphere: “Getting to Know the Person on a One-on-One Basis Instead of Just Throwing Them in a Class”
This theme offers a glimpse into the participants’ reported experiences of the intervention program itself, reflecting some major differences between standard intervention and hybrid intervention program participants.
Standard Intervention: A Call for a Less Labeling and Gendered Approach
Some of the standard intervention program participants felt as though their personal story had been dismissed to render them compatible with the rest of the group of those mandated to treatment for a DV crime: Having people actually look at the case of the person who’s dealing with—sit that person aside, like, “here, tell me about your—your case and tell me what are your feelings? How did you feel about this?” And just like getting to know the person on a one-on-one basis instead of just throwing them in a class. I know we’re here court-ordered and nobody’s expecting special treatment or anything but just to get to know the people so you can kind of gauge the issues that you’re going to deal with and it’s like people are people. You can’t really give everybody the one cure-all because the way that you cure one person is not going to affect another person. So it’s like, for lack of a better word, a little more intimacy, less, less names and numbers. (Male, standard intervention)
This participant describes being “thrown” into class, regardless of his thoughts or feelings, without anyone trying to get to know him first. The statement “I know we’re here court-ordered . . . but just to get to know the people . . . people are people” may imply that he feels somewhat dehumanized by the way he was treated, a feeling that he may have harbored already through the shame and guilt of being labeled as a “DV offender.” The words “people are people” may be viewed as a plea for a more compassionate regimen.
Well, there was a lot of people complaining because it was, like, always guys, like, domestic violence against girls, and they were wondering why it wasn’t the other way around. So, I think they should’ve, did like videos of both, because guys aren’t the only ones that do domestic violence. (Male, standard intervention)
This participant comments on the one-sided nature of the intervention sessions and the content of the videos presented following the traditional paradigm of males as responsible for the violent offense. The participant suggests that both sides can be violent, and thus, examples of violent behavior by both males and females should be presented as part of the program content.
Hybrid Intervention: An Individualized Tailored Intervention for Couples
Several hybrid intervention program participants commented on the intervention’s ability to resonate with their personal stories: That really helped a lot. It really helped my self-esteem. Being in the classes and then being in with [the circle keeper] and [her] already knowing my background so that she was able to not let [my husband] just throw me under the bus . . . made me feel good coming out of class. And then we didn’t fight coming out of class, but I had the self-confidence to come out of class, so if he wanted to say something to me . . . I had the strength and the courage to say, “well look it’s like this .. . .” Because she already knows us . . . so well that she would be able to very well accommodate our particular situation . . . in this particular situation, I can’t throw [my husband] under the bus. [My husband] can’t throw me under the bus. We can’t candy-coat it, the sharing of the situation. So, there’s no time off . . . (Female, hybrid intervention)
This participant draws attention to two opposing qualities of the program. First, intimate acquaintance with the Circles of Peace facilitator created a safe atmosphere in which harsh words can be said without fear of being “thrown under the bus.” This safe atmosphere is a source of self-confidence, strength, and courage, which this participant does not take for granted. Second, she describes a difficult emotional process in which conflicts are dealt with head on (“We can’t candy-coat it, the sharing of the situation. So, there’s no time off . . .”).
Another participant adds, . . . talking about their individual situations, about something that’s more relatable to them and the situations where it’s based out of reality instead of things that aren’t . . . germane to anyone who’s there . . . videos where a guy getting jealous and thought he was being super mean to his woman, and like that doesn’t resonate with me at all . . . . individual circles because then they can work through . . . it’s more real for them . . . it was a group of people who . . . didn’t want to be there . . . . and they were forced to be there . . . they’ll do what you tell them to, but it’s not sincere. Where in [the circle keepers]’s one-on-one she can get through that really fast . . . where in group people can hide through other people’s interactions. And so sometimes they would only have to say a couple of words in the whole hour they’re there, whereas in [the individual circle] she’s going to force the conversation and that’s way more beneficial for people to get through the process of whatever they need to get out of this to not be back there . . . (Male, hybrid intervention)
This participant is painfully realistic when he describes a group of people who are apparently not interested in responsible persons-only group sessions. For these people, a group intervention may be a way to hide behind the stories of others. This may be less possible in the individualized sessions in which the facilitator is “going to force the conversation” so that the people involved will “get through the process whatever they need to get out of this to not be back there.”
In sum, the themes presented here seem to reflect some differences in the way participants who had gone through different types of intervention programs experienced the process and its outcomes. It is evident from the participants’ narratives that the hybrid approach, which brought the participants and their partners together in treatment, resulted in feelings of increased communication, and possibly, a decline in violence. Moreover, while the participation in the standard intervention program was perceived as somewhat labeling and gendered, and the content as too general, the hybrid intervention was perceived as more empowering and well suited to the individual needs of each participant.
Discussion
The findings of this study highlight the participants’ reflections on two interventions (a standard intervention and an RJ-based hybrid intervention). For each theme revealed, participants in each intervention approach highlighted some unique experiences.
The first theme—communicating and understanding—revealed differences in how participants understood their relationships and communicated within them. Participants in the RJ-based hybrid intervention felt that they were communicating better than before and were trying harder to understand each other. Participants in the standard intervention experienced a sense of isolation and miscommunication in the relationship. Previous findings of some intervention programs reported increased communication following participation in an RJ intervention for IPV (Cissner et al., 2019), while some studies on the standard intervention approach showed either no change in communication or less communication (Kienas, 2017; Scott & Lishak, 2012). To the best of our knowledge, however, none of these studies used a randomized controlled design to compare individuals taking part in an RJ-based hybrid intervention and individuals taking part in a standard intervention. Therefore, these findings are unique in that they place the narratives of participants from each group side by side to create a perceived image of similarities and differences between the two groups.
The second theme—perceived changes in the nature of the violence—discussed exactly that: standard intervention program participants reported feeling a shift in the violent dynamics to less severe forms of violent behaviors. The hybrid intervention program participants reported a feeling of decrease in conflict. This finding is consistent with studies on RJ interventions for DV that reported a reduction in violence following these interventions (Mills et al., 2013, 2019). The RJ-based hybrid intervention approach appears to have enabled both parties to undergo a dialogical inquiry process regarding the relationship, to gain some insights and make conscious decisions (Zehr, 2014) about their culpability for the violence and the future to which they aspire, thus reducing violence. The “linked lives” concept, which is part of the life course approach, recognizes that an individual’s life is embedded within the lives of their family members (Elder, 1994), and may shed some light on the second theme’s findings. Researchers using the concept of linked lives frequently identify how an event or an issue occupying the life of one family member has an immediate outcome for another family member. This approach may be of use in understanding the connections between dyads (Gilligan et al., 2018) as the couple’s reciprocal associations make up the fabric of the relationship. Thus, when only one person goes through an IPV intervention, the relationship may change and the violence may shift and take different forms (Band-Winterstein & Eisikovits, 2014) as the dyad’s linked lives reflect the change in one person’s life.
The third theme (changes in self-perception) addressed insight gained and change that occurred in the lives of hybrid intervention program participants and confusion in standard intervention program participants. The RJ perspective involves the responsible person in a quest to pursue different ways of repairing the harm that was caused by the offense to the person harmed, to the community, and to self, and focuses on an empathic, dignifying discourse in order to do so (Braithwaite, 2002). This process often invokes emotional reflection and even insight and change (Gaarder, 2015). Insight and change following participation in an RJ intervention are apparent in other studies, like in this study. For example, Kennedy et al. (2019) concluded that 50% of the participants in an RJ intervention acknowledged an empathic understanding and change associated with participation. Similarly, Zosky (2018) found that most participants in an RJ intervention for individuals accused of IPV (85%) stated that attendance at the session increased their awareness of the impact of IPV on the persons harmed and child witnesses. RJ-based hybrid intervention program participants showed examples of insight and understanding when taking responsibility for their relationships as well as gaining awareness of the relationship dynamics, expressed, for example, in the see-saw metaphor that led to better communication.
Standard intervention program participants also struggled with questions of identity: What does it mean to be an “offender”? Is IPV treatment gendered? However, they appeared to construct their answers to these questions either alone or with a group of peers, while their partner was left out of the inner conflict and its ramifications.
Both the third and fourth themes—changes in self-perception and program content and atmosphere—referred to the participants’ assigned role as “offenders” during the intervention. The participants’ struggle with their assigned role as offenders may also reflect the way mandatory arrests, prosecution, and treatment has resulted in a broader criminalization of IPV survivors (Gezinski, 2022; Messing et al., 2015), often leading to greater harm to the victim (Goodmark, 2021). A “restorative” agenda generally refrains from labeling individuals as “victims” or “offenders,” preferring not to define the situation in those terms (Gavrielides, 2017). This is due to the belief that the dialogue between the two parties will cultivate a unique set of terms tailored to their specific situation. Nonetheless, the standard DVIP model often determines a “batterer” status for group participants, regardless of the individuals’ personal narratives about the relationship and how they became violent. The participants’ narratives reflect deep dissatisfaction with this approach, a feeling that led some of them to disengage from the standard intervention altogether. The transition from a defining, judgmental approach to a more inclusive, less-labeling approach in the context of treatment for DV crimes, mirrors a much more extensive change in social discourse, pertaining to the ways in which individuals are willing to be referred to by others (Gavrielides, 2017), and the way treatment providers should focus their content to meet the needs of diverse populations. That is to say, the participants reject the common framing of DV as something that is only the fault of one side. This is consistent with the direction of research in the IPV field that emphasizes couples’ shared responsibility for violence in their relationships and the idea of mutual violence or gender symmetry in DV (Straus, 2009).
Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research
This study has some limitations that must be considered. First, the study was conducted among those who completed the programs and were willing to speak about their experiences. This sample may not be representative of other DV perpetrators who did not complete treatment or did not want to take part in the study. In future studies, triangulation could be used by participatory observation or interviews with additional participants, such as partners (individual harmed by IPV), children, or the responsible person’s parents. Moreover, the inclusion of more participants from each group in future samples would enable greater generalization of the findings.
This study focused on comparing a standard intervention treatment approach to a hybrid treatment approach consisting of a standard component with RJ elements and Circles of Peace. However, it did not allow for a comparison between the standard intervention-only and an RJ-only approach (e.g., Circles of Peace-only), thereby not assessing the power of an RJ-only intervention to affect the participants’ lives. Finally, studying the differential experiences of male and female DVIP participants and their encounter with an intervention program is also of great importance. As far as we know, this study is the only qualitative study, to date, that includes both male and female DVIP participants—which we consider a strength of the study. However, we did not focus on this distinction and the way gender issues may influence the participants’ approach toward DVIP, especially in cases of IPV. Future research may pinpoint this issue.
Conclusion and Practical Implications
The findings of this study exemplify the power of qualitative data to move beyond anecdotes, to create a shared narrative among participants in treatment for DV crimes in cases of IPV. These findings can inform practice and policy regarding relationship stories and the desire for these stories to be heard. The different themes discussed in this article may lead to better understanding of the participants’ subjective experiences, serving as a framework to help practitioners improve the approaches and curriculum offered in court-mandated DV treatment programs in cases of IPV. The participants’ narratives highlight issues related to terminology and the labels used for those involved in a DV incident, and how they can impact the individuals’ experiences of the intervention program. These terms and labels also have implications for practice more broadly, especially in the context of individuals and families involved with the criminal legal system.
The understandings derived from the participants’ narratives may add to the cumulative body of literature regarding the application of RJ approaches to DV/IPV cases. Considering the current findings, and especially those suggesting a decline in violence, the RJ-based hybrid treatment approach which includes a Circles of Peace component deserves further investigation.
Footnotes
Appendices
Authors’ Note:
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to those who participated in this study allowing us to gain greater insight into domestic violence intervention programs. This study would not have been possible without several invaluable key partnerships including with the judiciary, a community-based agency, and universities. More specifically, we would like to thank the two justice courts (and all the judges) as well as the local treatment provider (and all the clinicians) that partnered with us for this study. We are grateful to all the members of the research team who worked on this project from New York University (Anne Bauer, Jessamin Cipollina, Michaela Cotner, Danielle Emery, Milica Gajic, Charlotte Gundry, Alaina Long, Nancy Murakami, Kelly Murphy, Nela Noll, Yangjin Park, Rei Shimizu, Sejung Yang, and Yi Yi Yeap), the University of Utah (Rob Butters, Shea Chandler, April O’Neill, Kimberly Padilla, Kort Prince, Lani Taholo, and Erin Becker Worwood), and also the University of Cambridge (Barak Ariel). This project was supported by Award No. 2011-WG-BX-0002, awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication/program/exhibition are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice.
