Multiple Perspectives on How Intimate Partner Violence Surrogate Impact Panels Affect Abusive Partners

Abstract

Restorative justice programs, including surrogate impact panels, are increasingly used to address intimate partner violence (IPV) but research has not assessed adequately how panels may affect participating abusive partners. This article reports the perceived impacts of surrogate impact panels on justice-involved individuals (JIIs) who attended a panel as part of their batterer intervention programs (BIPs) using surveys of JIIs (N = 289) and focus groups or interviews with panelist speakers, JIIs, and BIP providers. Findings suggest that JIIs can connect with speakers, reach new understandings of IPV, and express emotional impact/intent to change. The findings can inform decisions to use panels as part of IPV interventions.

Keywords

intimate partner violence restorative justice victim impact panel batterer intervention mixed methods

Introduction

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is one of the most prevalent and persistent violent crimes in the United States. IPV refers to a pattern of abusive behaviors that can include physical violence, sexual violence, stalking, and psychological aggression perpetrated by a current or former partner. In the United States, over one in three women and one in three men experience IPV in their lifetime (Smith et al., 2018). Consequences can include long-lasting psychological and emotional harm (Dutton & Goodman, 2005), social isolation (Riger et al., 2002), and death (Petrosky et al., 2017).

Given its enduring prevalence, more innovative intervention strategies are needed to effectively reduce and prevent its occurrence. The most widely implemented responses to IPV in the United States are through the criminal justice system, including mandating individuals responsible for perpetrating IPV (referred to here as justice-involved individuals [JIIs]) to attend batterer intervention programs (BIPs). While the criminalization of IPV has led to positive outcomes (e.g., altered social norms regarding IPV; Salazar et al., 2003), some of those who are harmed in abusive relationships (referred to here as “survivors”) report dissatisfaction with the criminal justice system and reluctance to use it in the future (Hotaling & Buzawa, 2003). Individuals marginalized in American society in multiple ways, such as black women by race- and gender-related oppression, are also particularly under-served by the criminal justice system and are less likely to seek help through police, health systems, or shelters (Hampton et al., 2008). Although an in-depth discussion of the intersectional influences of gender, race, and other aspects of identity on survivors’ experiences of IPV (e.g., Cardenas, 2020; De Coster & Heimer, 2021) is outside the scope of this article, it is important to note that survivors of color can experience great conflict when deciding whether or not to seek help through the criminal justice system (Decker et al., 2020; Waller et al., 2021) and face more barriers than White survivors when attempting to access resources through the criminal justice system (Deutsch et al., 2017; O’Neal & Beckman, 2017).

BIPs attempt to challenge social learning that reinforces men’s use of violence by demonstrating nonviolent models for their behavior (Sonkin & Durphy, 1997), but JIIs’ resistance creates barriers to program impact (e.g., Daniels & Murphy, 1997), including not only skills deficits but a lack of motivation to change their abusive behavior (Edleson & Tolman, 1992; Gondolf, 2002). Although a number of meta-analytic evaluations of BIPs have demonstrated small-to-moderate effects in reducing JII recidivism (Babcock et al., 2004; Cheng et al., 2019; Gannon et al., 2019), many JIIs continue to perpetrate harm after completing a program. For example, BIP providers named a complex system of denial, minimization, and blame in JIIs as a persistent barrier to their engagement in BIPs (Morrison et al., 2018) and some JIIs are particularly resistant to developing empathy and taking their own partners’ perspectives (Schrock & Padavic, 2007). While there is evidence that individuals who complete BIPs recidivate at lower rates than those who drop out of these programs (Daly et al., 2001; Jones et al., 2004), a recent review of BIPs highlighted multiple simultaneous challenges for implementing these types of interventions, including the need to improve BIPs, program attrition, and inadequate program funding (Aaron & Beaulaurier, 2017). The current criminal justice system response to IPV continues not to adequately ensure survivor safety and JII accountability. It is therefore necessary to consider what additional approaches and programs could augment this response.

Surrogate impact panels (or victim impact panels) are a specific type of restorative justice practice that may be a valuable addition to BIPs, possibly by reducing some JIIs’ resistance to change. In surrogate impact panels, individuals who have been harmed by a crime speak to an audience of others who have perpetrated similar crimes about the impact of the offense (Van Ness & Strong, 1997). Typically, the speakers and the audience members do not have direct personal relationships, which may both increase the safety of the speakers and reduce audience members’ defensiveness when hearing about how others have been impacted by similar crimes.

The current study examines the use of IPV surrogate impact panels, in which IPV survivors speak about the impact of abuse to a group of JIIs enrolled in BIPs. The survivor speakers participated in the panel on a completely voluntary basis. JIIs were required to attend one panel after completing at least 26 weeks of a BIP, and paid $25 to attend. A facilitator coordinated the panel and a probation officer (PO) was present at each panel. Panels were held from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. one weeknight per month in alternating local counties and in large meeting rooms, such as county building auditoriums. The panels were public meetings open to guest observers. For additional ethnographic description and analysis of the panel processes, see Sackett Kerrigan and Mankowski (2020).

Background

Restorative Justice and IPV

Restorative justice programs represent an innovative but relatively uncommon strategy for improving our response to IPV in the United States (Cissner et al., 2019). Restorative justice broadly refers to a holistic response to crime that involves not only those who are responsible for a crime, but also those who are harmed by the crime and other community members (Zehr, 1990). Two primary models of restorative justice, the Purist (McCold, 2000) and Maximalist (Bazemore, 2000) models, further distinguish restorative justice processes from one another. The Purist model defines restorative justice as a process in which those directly involved in a crime engage in dialogue with the goal of establishing a mutual agreement of what is needed to repair the harm. On the other hand, the Maximalist model does not require specific components, but rather defines restorative justice as any process that attunes to three core principles: (a) a focus on repairing harm and working to heal stakeholders that have been injured by crime, (b) stakeholder opportunity for active involvement in the justice process as early and as fully as possible, and (c) re-envisioning the roles and responsibilities of the community and government to promote justice. The Maximalist model also considers the possibility of some degree of coercion or non-voluntary participation in a restorative justice process, if the overarching intent and principles of the process are still in line with those described above. In IPV cases, a Purist approach to restorative justice might not be safe or capable of responding to the harms and needs of individuals involved. Rather, the more flexible Maximalist approach could be appropriate and able to respond to survivors’ needs in this context. Restorative justice approaches are being incorporated into community responses to IPV, but further description and empirical evidence of specific program implementations are needed regarding their possible value in addressing victims’, family members’, and communities’ needs for safety, healing, and accountability (Cissner et al., 2019; Stubbs, 2007). For example, Strang et al. (2013) systematically reviewed a restorative justice conference practice and found it to be more effective across several indicators than typical criminal justice system responses for violent interpersonal crimes. Such benefit may stem from the opportunity for the person who caused harm to develop empathy when listening to the person who was harmed describe the impact of the crime (see also Rossner, 2013).

Although IPV cases have historically been excluded from many restorative justice programs (e.g., Sherman et al., 1998), an increasing number of programs address family violence or IPV (Cissner et al., 2019). Some programs show promising positive effects, such as reduced child maltreatment and increased social support in a family group conferencing approach to family violence cases (Pennell & Burford, 2002). Due at least partly to their rarity, many studies evaluating the use of restorative justice for IPV have small sample sizes or are single case studies of individual experiences. For example, a case study of a post-conviction restorative justice dialogue found that a survivor felt empowered by having control over what was going to be discussed during the dialogue, strengthened by inverted power balance produced by the dialogue, and validated by hearing the JII say that the abuse was not something that she deserved or caused (Miller & Iovanni, 2013). More recently, a rigorous, experimental evaluation of a restorative justice program that was integrated into BIPs demonstrated fewer arrests and lower crime severity among those randomly assigned to the restorative justice condition, compared to those in a typical BIP (Mills et al., 2019).

Restorative justice could be a potentially promising practice for addressing IPV in unique ways that rectify some failings of the criminal justice system (Cissner et al., 2019; Curtis-Fawley & Daly, 2005). Some survivor advocates believe restorative justice could uniquely benefit IPV survivors by offering what the criminal justice system does not: the opportunity to speak more about their experience, be empowered by having more influence over the decision-making process, and the opportunity to confront the person who harmed them. Prioritizing survivors’ voices in a restorative justice process could be one step toward addressing the power imbalance between abusive partners and survivors.

On the other hand, restorative justice programs could de-legitimize the perceived harms of IPV and undermine how seriously both JIIs and the public view IPV crimes. For example, interactions between survivors and JIIs could compromise survivors’ safety, shift too much attention to JIIs’ situations in a coddling or excusing manner, and disempower survivors in this environment (Stubbs, 2007). Therefore, descriptive information about specific kinds of restorative justice program practices and their impacts on participants, both survivors and JIIs, is needed to address questions about their value and effectiveness.

Surrogate Impact Panels

Within the literature on IPV restorative justice programs, only a few studies have specifically focused on the use of surrogate impact panels in the context of IPV. IPV surrogate impact panels are distinct from other restorative justice approaches to IPV in that they involve individuals who do not have a direct relationship with one another. Rather, panel participants are “surrogates” for that direct relationship, as the speakers have experienced abuse in previous relationships and the audience members have perpetrated IPV in their past relationships.

The few evaluations of IPV surrogate impact panels suggest participants may benefit from these programs, although the specific program practices of these panels have varied widely. Anecdotal evidence from an interview with one program director found that one panel increased survivor healing and JII understanding of the impact of abuse on survivors (Burkemper & Balsam, 2007). An experimental evaluation of both survivor and JII participants found that most panel participants endorsed impact panels as worthwhile, although the panel did not appear to affect JII recidivism (Fulkerson, 2001). The most detailed outcome evaluation of an IPV surrogate impact panel published to date provides further evidence that panels can have positive impacts on JIIs (Zosky, 2018). A majority of JIIs endorsed that the panel increased their awareness of the impact of IPV on direct survivors and children and viewed their panel attendance as beneficial. In addition, the panel evoked expressions of emotional responses and remorse in JIIs, empathy for the panel speakers as IPV survivors, and commitment to learn and be accountable.

However, the specific processes that occurred during the panels evaluated in each of these studies were either not described or differed in important ways from the processes used in the IPV surrogate impact panels evaluated in the current study (Sackett Kerrigan & Mankowski, 2020). For example, one evaluation did not describe the process in enough detail to know at what point in the abusive partners’ change process the intervention took place (Fulkerson, 2001). The most recent evaluation studied an impact panel held in a courthouse room (Zosky, 2018). The survivor speakers and JII audience members had no direct interaction; instead, trained facilitators led JII small group discussions of the content shared by the speakers (Zosky, 2018). The differences between previously studied panels and the IPV surrogate impact panel in the current study, such as the opportunity for unique interactions between survivors and JIIs during Question-and-Answer sessions in the locally implemented panels (Sackett Kerrigan & Mankowski, 2020), raise questions regarding the transferability of previous findings.

Study Context

Given these significant gaps, the authors determined it would be premature to conduct an outcome evaluation of IPV impact panels for IPV. We were especially wary of the possibility of specification error that could be interpreted by readers as evidence that this program does not “work,” rather than as evaluation failure in not measuring the appropriate outcomes. This study is situated within a program of research intended to further understand how an IPV surrogate impact panel functions in the Pacific Northwest and its impacts on both participating survivors and JIIs. The program of research includes a qualitative study of the perceived impacts of panels on survivors who speak on the panel (Sackett, 2017; Sackett Kerrigan & Mankowski, 2020), but this study focuses only on the perceived impacts of the panel on JII participants. This focus is not intended to imply that IPV impact panels should be evaluated only in terms of their potential benefit to JII audience members, as the IPV intervention and restorative justice principles underlying the panels fundamentally define them as a survivor-driven and survivor-centered process. The current study aims to uncover how multiple stakeholder groups perceive the impact of IPV surrogate panels on JIIs and their potential to address factors related to their IPV perpetration.

Method

The study utilized a multi-method, multi-source research design, including a survey of the participating JIIs at the conclusion of 11 monthly panels, focus groups with IPV survivors, a dyadic interview with two BIP group providers, individual telephone interviews with four BIP group providers, and an interview with one JII panel participant.

Participants

Participants included female survivors of IPV (n = 7), male JIIs in BIPs (n = 290), and BIP providers (n = 6). All survivors who serve as panel speakers (N = 12) were contacted by the panel facilitator to ask for their consent to share their contact information (phone numbers or emails, at their discretion) with researchers. Of those who consented to be contacted, 70% (n = 10) ultimately participated in survivor focus groups (k = 2).

The sampling frame for JII focus groups included all panel attendees between August 2016 and January 2017. Of the three panels that were held in this period, approximately 40–50 attendees were invited to participate. Recruitment activities included announcements and flyers shared at the end of each panel to schedule participants in person, but these efforts failed for most of the panels. Only two panel attendees shared their contact information to consent to participate in a focus group, and although both were scheduled for a dyadic interview, one attended and an individual interview was conducted (n = 1).

BIP group facilitators were recruited by making announcements to all BIP providers in attendance (n = 11) at local professional meetings between July and October 2016. Scheduling availability for focus groups proved to be a large barrier to participation, so only one dyadic interview was scheduled with providers (n = 2) and other providers participated through informal phone interviews (n = 4).

Demographic information was collected from participants who completed formal interviews. This information is presented in Table 1 for survivors (focus groups: k = 2, n = 7) and described here for providers (dyadic interview, n = 2) and a JII (interview, n = 1). Demographic information was not collected from the male JIIs (n = 289) who attended one of 11 IPV impact panels or the providers (n = 4) who participated through interviews instead of focus groups, to protect their identity and encourage accurate, complete, and honest responding.

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics of Survivor Focus Group Participants.

Characteristics	Sample (n = 7)
Mean age (SD)	48.43 (14.83)
Ethnicity (%)
African American	0
Caucasian	85.7
Hispanic/Latino	14.3
Other	0
Marital status (%)
Single	28.6
Living together	42.9
Married	28.6
Separated	0
Divorced	0
Mean relationship (years) (SD)	4.27 (2.91)
Education (% highest completed)
Some high school	0
GED or high school diploma	28.6
Some college/trade school	28.6
College degree	28.6
Some graduate school	14.3
Graduate degree	0
Currently employed (%)	57.1
Length of time participating on panels (%)
1 year	28.6
2–3 years	42.9
3–5 years	0
5–10 years	0
10–15 years	28.6
Number of panels participated as a speaker (%)
1–3	28.6
4–5	28.6
10	14.3
40 +	28.6
Panel referral source (%)
DVSD	28.6
Advocate/advocacy organization	0
Counselor/counseling organization	28.6
Other	42.9

Note. Other panel referral sources were being “asked to speak,” “asked to join by participant,” and referred by the local County website.

The JII who participated in the interview was 30–40 years old and identified as male and White/Caucasian. He had been married for approximately 9 years and had children. His formal education included college/trade school, and he was currently employed. He indicated several prior arrests and had been enrolled in a BIP for less than 1 year. Ranges of specific demographic information have been provided to protect the identity of the interviewee. The interview took place 2 weeks after he attended the impact panel.

One participant in the focus group with BIP providers identified as female and the other as male. Their mean age was 53.5 (SD = 0.71) and both identified as White/Caucasian. One participant’s highest education level completed was their GED/high school diploma, while the other’s was a graduate degree. Both were currently employed as BIP providers and currently referred JIIs from their groups to the panel at the time of the focus group. Both had been referring JIIs from their programs to the panel since it began.

Procedure

Impact Survey

Survey data was collected from JII panel attendees by panel facilitators over a period of 2 years (2009–2011). The survey was developed by program staff who facilitated the panel. The survey consists of seven items asking about the impact of the panel and one item asking about their behavioral intention to participate in an additional restorative justice process that participants rated using a 5-point Likert-type scale from “No” (1) to “Extremely” (5). The survey has demonstrated a high level of internal consistency (α = 0.88; Sackett, 2017). In addition, two qualitative open-ended questions were asked: “Please describe how these presentations might influence your choices about how you behave toward others in relationships (partner, children, etc.)” and “How might these presentations be improved to further help audience members understand the effects of abuse, be accountable for their abuse, and choose to stop using abuse and control in relationships?”

The survey was designed as an anonymous post-panel assessment of program outcomes for individual participants. Immediately after panels concluded, surveys were administered and were collected by panel facilitators in return for a receipt for attending the panel. JIIs had the option of not answering or leaving questions blank, and 20% of JIIs left both open-ended questions blank. In addition, some items were not answered by more than 10% of the sample. JIIs were informed by panel staff that their responses would not be shared with their POs or BIP providers to encourage them to respond honestly and help panel facilitators improve the process for future panels.

Focus Groups and Interviews

Focus groups and interviews were conducted to gather stakeholder responses about their panel experiences and the perceived impact of the panel on JIIs. Participant observation and consultation with stakeholders identified the following groups as likely to hold varying important pieces of information about the panel process: panel speakers (survivors), panel attendees (JIIs), and BIP providers (those who refer JIIs to the panel). The focus group script included six questions in a funnel format (Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990), narrowing from “What is the panel like for JIIs?” to “What unique contribution (benefit or harm) do panels give JIIs?”

Formal interviews (focus groups, dyadic interviews, and the individual interview) were conducted with participants over a 90-min period and in familiar settings for participants when possible (Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990). All formal interview participants were given $25 gift cards and $5 cash transportation reimbursement at the beginning of the interview and were provided light refreshments as compensation for their participation.

Data Analysis

Quantitative Analysis

Quantitative survey responses (n = 289) were analyzed regarding JIIs’ self-reported perceptions of how the panel impacted them. Descriptive statistics were calculated for JIIs’ responses to the survey items to examine which items were ranked higher than others on average, which items were responded to in greater variation than others, and which items were strongly correlated with one another.

Qualitative Analysis

An inductive content analysis (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008) was conducted to determine what themes were evident in the qualitative data regarding the perceived impacts of the panel on JIIs. This analysis was conducted on JIIs’ responses to open-ended questions on the survey (n = 289) and the responses from survivors (n = 7), a JII (n = 1), and BIP providers (n = 6) in individual interviews and focus groups. The first author developed the codebook and coded the data based on her extensive experience in the panel setting (Sackett, 2017). Feedback on the codebook and codes was obtained from members of the authors’ research team to increase the perspectives and multiple interpretations of the codes and associated text.

JII perceived impacts were identified by coding qualitative data sources using NVivo software. To better understand how panel impacts were meaningfully linked by participants across sources, a conditional analysis of the interdependent co-occurrence of themes endorsed by each data source group (IPV survivor speakers, n = 7; BIP providers, n = 6; and JII panel participants, n = 230) was conducted for the perceived panel impacts. Two matrix queries searched for “near” content (within 50 words) in selected nodes for these categories of codes. Themes were compared for consistencies or convergence across groups and nested within the perspectives of each group (Hughes & DuMont, 2002). Inconsistencies across themes were also examined to consider the interplay of individual- and group-level coding for a more comprehensive analysis (Morgan, 1988).

Results

Several perceived positive impacts of the panel on JIIs were identified across the data sources, including JIIs’ connection with speakers, reaching new understandings of IPV, and emotional impact and intent to change. One perceived negative panel impact on JIIs was a rejection of the panel itself. Below we present data from across the sources to demonstrate these four perceived impacts, including coded qualitative narratives to describe each of the impacts, frequency counts of their prevalence in the data (i.e., the number of coded text units), and the participant perspective (survivor, JII, and/or BIP provider) that endorsed each code in Table 2. Descriptive statistics, including means and correlations of quantitative survey items, are also presented in Tables 3 and 4 and discussed in relation to the perceived panel impact of JIIs reaching new understandings of IPV.

Table 2.

Perceived Key Panel Impacts on JIIs.

Theme	Code	Sources^a	Freq.^b
Connection with speakers	JII relates to speaker	All (S/J/P)	58
	JII lowers defenses	All (S/J/P)	21
	JII does not relate to speaker	J/P	9
	JII recognizes speaker comfort with panel process	J	4
	JIIs feel sense of relationship or connection with speakers	J/P	2
Reaching new understandings	JII reaches new or deeper understanding about the impact of abuse or how they can change	All (S/J/P)	121
	JII perceives the panel content as more serious or “real life”	J/P	37
	Panel impact extends and contributes to BIP’s impact	All (S/J/P)	34
	JII takes own victim’s perspective	J/P	33
	JII references speaker’s comments during the panel	S/J	19
	JII later recalls details about the panel	All (S/J/P)	12
Healing	JII expresses intention to use panel experience in the future	J	74
	JII appreciates the panel experience	J/P	38
	JII becomes emotional	All (S/J/P)	21
	JII feels uncomfortable during the panel	All (S/J/P)	20
	JII expresses willingness or desire to change after the panel	J	19
	JII feels humbled or sobered	All (S/J/P)	17
	JII feels more comfortable with the panel as it progresses	S/J	16
	JII reaches a new level of responsibility or accountability after attending the panel	J/P	6
	JII feels supported by the panel process	J	4
	JII feels hopeful about themselves or the future		3
Panel rejection	JII rejects the panel after attending	All (S/J/P)	6
Panel rejection	JII perceives panelists as overly rehearsed, not genuine, or insincere	J/P	2

Note. BIP = batterer intervention program; JII = justice-involved individual.

Abbreviations of sources that endorsed codes are S (survivor focus group transcripts), J (JII feedback form comments or interview transcript), and P (BIP providers dyadic interview transcript or unrecorded interview notes).

Freq. refers to the total number of text reference units to which the code was assigned.

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics of Survey Items.

Item	N	M	SD	Kurtosis		Skewness
Item	N	M	SD	Estimate	SE	Estimate	SE
1. The presentations helped me understand the long-term effects of my abuse of others.	286	4.17	0.95	−0.63	0.29	−0.72	0.14
2. I feel more understanding about what survivors of Domestic Violence experience.	283	4.16	0.93	−0.30	0.29	−0.76	0.15
3. I better understand how my verbal and emotional abuse has harmed my victim(s).	287	4.10	0.91	−0.96	0.29	−0.45	0.14
4. I feel more convinced that I should stop being violent and controlling in my relationships.	279	4.08	0.98	−0.79	0.29	−0.53	0.15
5. The presentations were helpful to me.	287	3.92	0.91	−1.04	0.29	−0.18	0.14
6. I better understand how my physical abuse has harmed my victim(s).	277	3.85	1.00	−0.49	0.29	−0.40	0.15
7. The presentation has changed how I think/feel about Domestic Violence.	284	3.81	1.12	−0.42	0.29	−0.60	0.15
8. I am interested in participating in a meeting/discussion with a survivor of domestic violence to talk about my offenses and the impact of my domestic violence and verbal abuse.	257	1.69	1.28	1.69	0.30	1.75	0.15

Note. Survey items rated on a 5-point scale of 1 (No), 2 (A little), 3 (Yes), 4 (Quite a bit), and 5 (Extremely).

Table 4.

Inter-Item Correlations of Survey Items.

Item	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. The presentations helped me understand the long-term effects of my abuse of others.	–
2. I feel more understanding about what survivors of Domestic Violence experience.	0.72**	–
3. I better understand how my verbal and emotional abuse has harmed my victim(s).	0.62**	0.55**	–
4. I feel more convinced that I should stop being violent and controlling in my relationships.	0.60**	0.61**	0.65**	–
5. The presentations were helpful to me.	0.54**	0.63**	0.62**	0.64**	–
6. I better understand how my physical abuse has harmed my victim(s).	0.54**	0.48**	0.66**	0.59**	0.57**	–
7. The presentation has changed how I think/feel about Domestic Violence.	0.55**	0.65**	0.55**	0.55*	0.60**	0.55**	–
8. I am interested in participating in a meeting/discussion with a survivor of domestic violence to talk about my offenses and the impact of my domestic violence and verbal abuse.	0.22**	0.23**	0.22**	0.22*	0.27**	0.22**	0.22**

Note. *p < 0.01; **p < 0.001.

Positive Panel Impacts

Connection with Speakers

In order for any of the subsequent categories of impact to be possible, JIIs must first connect in some way with the speakers. This process includes lowering their defenses that many bring into the setting and relating to speakers.

Some JIIs changed their conceptions of the panel during the panel process, as they saw that their expectations of antagonism and irrelevance were not met, that the process was not confrontational, and they did not feel judged by the speakers. These JIIs became more comfortable with the process as the panel unfolded and lowered their defenses, which may have decreased their resistance to the process. This could promote more open engagement with the speakers and the process. In a focus group, one survivor described this process as building over time as JIIs become more comfortable from one speaker to the next: “I can tell by the body language, that the guys out there, as they focus and kind of relax, their shoulders drop. Now they’re more relaxed for the next person who shares and they’re more relaxed to come up and ask questions and share afterwards.” Some JIIs indicated they felt safe and supported by the panel and perceived the environment as friendlier than they expected after the panel started, such as the JII who was interviewed and said they were pleasantly surprised by the nature of the panel: “This was more of … an open conversation, so … I actually appreciated that.”

Multiple sources further indicated that listening to panel speakers, rather than to their own partners or to other men in the BIP group, facilitated the process of JIIs lowering their defenses or decreasing their resistance. An informal interview with a JII who attended the panel months prior to this conversation explained that “to hear that from not the person I had abused was helpful.” Speakers sometimes notice what happens when JIIs relax after their defenses lowered, as one explained during a focus group:

Once they figure out we’re not there to make them responsible for our pain, and they can relax a little bit, they can allow themselves to be a little more sensitive and to talk about things that they’re embarrassed about talking about, their secrets.

Another speaker in the focus group alluded to the men’s decision to allow themselves to connect and lower their defenses in that moment. Referring to a moment of connection made during the panel, she explained, “I think when people reach that moment … they have a decision to make. Am I gonna shut back down? Or am I gonna go ahead and just let these feelings happen and think about things a little differently next time.”

BIP providers also indicated that JIIs lower their defenses during the panel, as evidenced in their BIP group discussions when JIIs return from a panel. One provider described this process as relieving for JIIs, saying, “They talk about the relief that these women did not do any of those things … which is also … quite disarming, actually, of them. … That’s a common thing I hear afterwards, is one of the surprises, is how non-angry these women are.” Recognizing speakers’ comfort with the panel process can also be disarming, as one JII expressed during an interview. Seeing that speakers are stable and comfortable participating on the panel and interacting with JIIs in that setting for the duration of the panel was extremely surprising to him. He said, “I felt like they were okay with us being there … I didn’t really feel like they were scared, or intimidated, or like they held any kind of resentment against us … which, I kind of--I guess I almost expected that.”

Many sources perceived JIIs as relating to the speakers during or after the panels. The JII who was interviewed explained that details from the speakers’ experiences helped him find connections between his experience and their stories, and said that more details would be helpful to hear to facilitate those connections and “the relatability” of their experiences. Other JIIs stated how they related to the speakers’ stories in their written comments on the survey, such as one who wrote, “I really related to [Speaker’s name]’s story tonight--I had done many things she said her husband did.”

For some JIIs, participating in the panel and listening to the speakers appeared to facilitate perspective-taking of their own partners as well. For example, one JII wrote that the panel “made me think back to the way I treated my family,” while another similarly specified, “It got me thinking about the way my partner … felt.” Other JIIs explicitly connected the speakers’ feelings to their own family’s feelings, such as one who wrote, “I was able to relate their feelings to my son’s and all my partners,” and another who explained, “[Speaker 1] and [Speaker 2] re-emphasized how important it is for me to practice … acceptance of my wife.” Similarly, another JII expressed an intention to change their behavior towards their family, writing, “Tonight’s meeting helped to drive back home to me how much I want to treat the people around me with love--wife, children.” This can create a sense of intimacy or relationship with speakers during the panel, as one BIP provider described, as the panel creates opportunities for more intimate connection or relationship with the speakers in a way that is very personal, more than is possible in other settings or interactions. This provider explained, “The question and answer part is very important” during the panel because the interactive nature of the panel at that point “makes it more intimate. … It’s not just you detached, listening, where you can hide out.” In other words, interacting with speakers during the question-and-answer session personalizes the process and makes it so that JIIs cannot “hide” their selves from the speakers in those moments.

Reaching New Understandings

The panel appears to lead some JIIs to reach new or deeper understandings of the material covered in the panel regarding the impact of abuse. These realizations can come from considering the experience of abuse in the speakers’ lives or in the lives of their own victims. Although new or deeper understandings of abuse are desired impacts on JIIs, some audience members might not make any new or further realizations or understandings as a result of attending the panel. One JII indicated that he had not reached any new insight, writing on his survey, “How I spe[a]k to people. I don’t see a way to make it bett[e]r.”

JIIs’ responses to open-ended items on the survey showed how they reach some of these new insights or understandings, particularly in realizing the long-term effects of abuse and the effects of abuse on their partners and children. Some JIIs indicated that the panel also clarified the impact of a way in which they themselves were abusive, such as one who wrote that they “better appreciate how severe my verbal abuse was.” JIIs expressed how they considered their victim’s point of view in various ways during the panel, such as how their victim was affected by their actions. One JII wrote that the panel “made me think back to the way I treated my family.” Another JII wrote that the panel “really makes me think about the effects on my children.” Many JIIs emphasized how the panel made them realize the long-lasting nature of the impacts of abuse, such as one who wrote, “the impact of the long term memory of [Speaker 1] … really impacted me on the fact that that never goes away,” and another who specified “I better understand how my actions have long term [e]ffects on my partner and even more on my children.”

Survey responses also showed that JIIs are wrestling with thoughts or questions during the panel and that they need time to cognitively process what they are experiencing during the panel. A JII expressed this need in his feedback, writing, “I need to think about this. I need time.” Another JII wrote notes on the back of his survey illustrating his thought process during the panel and consideration of whether a question would be appropriate to pose or not to the speakers. He wrote, “If I ask? Did the guy who committed suicide’s parents blame you [Speaker’s name] for the death is that wrong?”

Some JIIs also perceived the panel and the impacts of abuse described by speakers as more realistic, “real life,” or serious than in other settings for sharing this information, such as in BIP groups. Comments that indicated this perspective focused on the word “real” or the phrase “taking it seriously.” BIP providers described how the panel is different than a BIP group or other intervention programs and focused extensively on this topic in the dyadic interview. One BIP provider explained that contrary to a video of similar content, with the panel “you’re in the room with that voice. It’s not a piece of paper, it’s not on the screen, it’s a real person sharing this effect.” A second provider endorsed this perception as well, saying the experience for JIIs is “something different than hearing it just from their facilitator.” JIIs also endorsed this perception themselves, usually in written comments on the surveys. One JII wrote, “Hearing from the victim brings empathy to reality.” A second JII’s feedback response emphasized the realness of the speakers in the panel’s influence: “Listening to real life people in person could only have a very strong influence on anyone.” The impact was echoed in a third JII’s written feedback, “The topics they have brought up were very impactful and help make things very real.”

JIIs’ new understandings can be reinforced by seeing their own experience of the panel reflected in others’ experiences as well, such as similarities in how they and others in their BIP group experienced the panel. During the interview, one JII described the debriefing process in his BIP group as a reinforcing experience for him. Multiple men from his group had attended the panel with him, and he said that when they discussed it back in group, “the way that I felt was pretty much what I heard from everybody. Um, I know that a lot of the guys really--it resonated, when [Speaker’s name] said that, you know, like, her partner wanted help for them.”

In reflections on the BIP group debriefing, among many other processes, the panel’s impact on JIIs seems to combine with impacts that their BIP group and other experiences have on them. The impact from the panel is connected to other previous or ongoing work the JIIs engage in, such as the BIP group, counseling, 12-step self-help groups (e.g., Alcoholics Anonymous), or other experiences. A BIP provider described this mingling metaphorically, explaining that, “Seeds that are planted for them in the group are watered and nurtured by the panel, the panel plants some additional seeds and then in the group those get watered.” This provider explained that the panel is a vital enhancement to the group process. As a standalone experience it would be important, but together with the BIP group she said it is crucial, because either one alone is not enough to do the work from her point of view. This mingling was also be seen in JIIs’ survey responses, as one wrote: “This presentation reinforced what I have been learning.” Another explained, “It puts a face to all the knowledge we’ve gotten.” These comments imply that they have already been working on understanding the impact of abuse or other material covered by the panel and that rather than introducing this material for the first time, the panel facilitates further understanding.

The quantitative responses from JIIs on the survey provide further insight into the dimensions of new understanding about the impact of abuse that JIIs can reach from the panel. Descriptive statistics for the survey items are presented in Table 3. The highest ranked items, with the least amount of variation, were that the panel helped them understand the long-term effects of abuse on others (M = 4.17, SD = 0.95), understand what survivors of domestic violence experience (M = 4.16, SD = 0.93), and understand how their verbal and emotional abuse harmed their victims (M = 4.10, SD = 0.91). These ratings indicate that JIIs generally agreed substantially with these statements, as the scale anchor of 4 was “quite a bit.” Understanding how physical abuse harmed their victims was less strongly endorsed (M = 3.85), and the item had greater variation (SD = 1.00) than most of the other statements. An item referring more generally to the panel changing how JIIs think or feel about domestic violence had the lowest mean response and the highest variation (M = 3.81, SD = 1.12) of all items about how the panel influenced their thoughts and feelings about domestic violence. This is not surprising, as the generality of this item implies that the panel has unique or overarching reach regarding this impact, when in reality this process is taking place in the context of other intervention programs designed to influence JIIs’ thinking on this subject. All items were significantly correlated with one another, with seven of the eight items strongly correlated (p < 0.001) with coefficients ranging from r = 0.54 to r = 0.73 (see Table 4). The largest correlation in magnitude was between the top two mean-ranked items: “The presentations helped me understand the long-term effects of (my) abuse of others” and “I feel more understanding about what survivors of Domestic Violence experience.” Correlations between the first seven items, related to JIIs’ understandings and beliefs about domestic violence, were all large, ranging from r = 0.48 to r = 0.65, and statistically significant (p < 0.001). The lowest correlations were between these seven items and the eighth item, which assessed their interest in participating in an additional restorative justice meeting. These correlations were all statistically significant (p < 0.001 to p < 0.01) but were moderate in magnitude, ranging from r = 0.22 to r = 0.27. The scale reliability estimates of all eight items showed strong internal consistency of items (α = 0.88).

Emotional Impact and Intent to Change

Positive panel impacts on JIIs also include emotional processing and impacts that relate to intention to change or actual changes made following the panel. For example, one JII wrote on his survey that the panel “really gave me a vivid picture on how abuse really affects partner [and] children … [their] stories really hit me at home … heart felt.” JIIs who lower their resistance during panels may become emotional or uncomfortable, which could be a result of their listening and being troubled by what they hear and how it relates to their own behavior. Some JIIs indicated that although they felt uncomfortable during the panel, experiencing emotional or other discomfort while sitting in the audience or participating in the panel actually contributed to the panel impact of healing for them. For example, some JIIs wrote on their survey that, “It was good but hard to see the feelings on [Speaker’s name] and [Other speaker’s name]’s face” and “Discussing the effects on children is very helpful, painful, but very effective.” A BIP provider suggested that this discomfort is a beneficial impact of the panel on JIIs, who explained in the dyadic interview, “Part of what my challenge is, without traumatizing the men or punishing them … can they sit with a little dis-ease. And, honestly, I think potentially the survivor panel is one of the most real ways you can do that.”

Sitting with discomfort can lead JIIs to feel humbled or sobered, as they showed humility or solemnity or indicated that they felt bad, troubled, or sad about their behavior. One JII expressed humility in his survey, writing, “Thank you for allow[ing] me to be present.” Another described the panel’s impact on his survey as, “It really gave me the chills. Made me feel bad about what I have done.” In the interview, one JII connected the importance of feeling uncomfortable during the panels to sitting with this dis-ease, as he described the difficulty of realizing how long the speakers’ experiences of abuse have continued to affect them and how likely it is that his abuse toward his wife will affect his child much longer than he anticipated: “And so that’s, like, [pause, sighs] I mean, it makes me sad … for me at least, it’s just, you know, knowing that I did those things, um … I would say it’s--it’s hard to hear, but I need to hear it.”

Even as JIIs sit with their discomfort, some seem to feel supported by the panel process, due to the panel environment, the attitude from the speakers, or by having other men in the audience with them to go through the panel together. One JII wrote on his survey that “It is very helpful to be in an intimate setting to discuss matters so close to home.” In the interview, another JII explained that the overall attitude he got from the speakers made him feel supported during the panel, that it was “okay” and that the speakers almost seemed to appreciate the JIIs for being there. He also had other members of his BIP group attend the panel with him and he said that they all sat together during the panel and that was also supportive.

Some JIIs also felt hopeful about themselves or the future after attending the panel. On their surveys, JIIs wrote, “I liked the message of hope at the end” and “I foresee positive self-growth for myself.” A BIP provider explained how she thinks JIIs get this hope from the panel, as they see that somebody can be hurt without wanting to hurt someone else back (in this case, the JIIs in the audience), which gives them hope for their own potential to change. JIIs also recognized and appreciated moments when speakers showed compassion toward their abuser. In the interview, a JII said that one of the aspects of the panel that he most appreciated was one speaker’s story of “how she shared about the abuse that her husband did to her and, um, how that made her feel and her feelings of wanting help for her husband. Um, [long pause] just, for my experience, that was helpful to hear.”

Many JIIs also expressed a willingness or intention to change after attending the panel. On the survey, one JII wrote simply, “I need to change myself” And another shared that the panel “inspires me to use the tools I have learned.” JIIs also expressed plans or future intentions for how they will use this experience or how the panel will influence their behavior in the future. A JII wrote on his survey a general intention that the panel experience was “going to help me be not abusive.” Frequently, JIIs listed more specific plans in their survey responses, such as (a) “won’t mistreat my children, will be part of their lives more now,” (b) “I feel like I will try to empathize more in my relationships,” (c) “try to understand how others might feel,” and (d) “I will pay more attention to my choice of words and how they might impact others.”

Finally, some JIIs reached new levels of responsibility or accountability following their panel attendance. A BIP provider in an interview gave an example of how the panel led to an increase in her group member’s accountability, explaining that he admitted after the panel that he had done something to his partner that he had never before shared with her as a provider or in the group with the other men. She said he disclosed committing a very violent, damaging form of physical abuse to his partner at a time when she was in a very vulnerable position, which paralleled the experience of one of the speakers on the panel that he attended. She said that the panel was transformative for this man and that “this really was a turning point for him, he became more serious and it really changed him.” Another provider agreed that the panel can get JIIs to take things more seriously, as she saw changes like JIIs not tending to blame their victims as much after attending the panel.

Negative Panel Impact

Panel Rejection

Rarely, a JII explicitly and actively rejected the panel after it concluded. This usually occurred in written comments on the survey after the panel. Comments that indicated panel rejection included writing that the panel was “garbage” or “just a man bashing session.” Several BIP providers confirmed that some JIIs do not reach any new understandings and do not seem to relate to, connect with, or find things in common with any of the speakers, instead maintaining their panel resistance. One provider explained that not everyone gets to a point where they can relate to what the speakers are sharing, saying, “Some are like ‘That could never be me, I would never do that.’” Another provider shared his concern in the dyadic interview that certain types of content that speakers share may prevent JIIs from relating to their experiences. The provider explained:

Sometimes when they have panelists who are like, it’s all super severe, worst forms of domestic violence, um, or physical violence I should say, is--a lot of the men will then … they just shut them off, cause it’s like "I never did that. I’m not like that.” … And so it’s easy for them, if the stories get extreme, for them to distance themselves. “He sounds like a real asshole” and “No wonder she, you know, but mine wasn’t …”

In some cases, JIIs gave feedback that the panelists seemed very practiced, overly rehearsed, or not sincere, which may also contribute to panel rejection. For example, in response to the final open-ended question on the survey asking for ways to improve the panel, one JII’s suggestion was to have speakers who are “not quite as practiced in telling their respective stories.” A BIP provider similarly endorsed this perception when describing how some JIIs discussed their panel experience when they returned to the BIP group: “I’ve heard comments in the past about ‘She seemed new, she seemed very polished,’ and I do think that if it feels too smooth, it feels like you’re at a, you know, at a motivational speaker.”

Discussion

Findings from this multi-method study demonstrate a range of both positive and negative perceived impacts of IPV surrogate impact panels on JIIs from the perspectives of survivors, JIIs, and BIP providers. Perceived impacts on JIIs were grouped into themes of connection with speakers, reaching new understandings, emotional impact and intent to change, and panel rejection.

Contributions to the Literature on IPV Surrogate Impact Panels

Our findings on IPV surrogate impact panels are generally consistent with the anecdotal evidence reported from an interview with the program director of another impact panel for IPV (Burkemper & Balsam, 2007). Similar to the positive outcomes reported by that program director, JIIs’ increased understanding of the impact of IPV was a common theme found in the current study. In addition, this study extends the known positive impacts of the panel on JIIs with evidence that the panel process also leads to healing for JIIs (e.g., feeling humbled or sobered and expressing intention to use the panel experience to further their process of change). We also found more specific ways that impacts consistent with those found in Burkemper and Balsam’s (2007) study seem to occur for JIIs. For example, JIIs’ increased understanding of the impact of abuse is believed to include perceiving the panel content as more serious or “real” in comparison to other settings that deliver similar messages (e.g., BIP groups).

Comparisons can also be made between the current study and an experimental study of IPV impact panels (Fulkerson, 2001). In general, positive evaluations of the impact panels were found for some participants in both studies, and both also found that not all JIIs appreciated or seemed to benefit from the panel process. One JII said in a follow-up interview that the panel did not change his attitude and was not beneficial (Fulkerson, 2001), similar to the JII resistance to or lack of engagement with the panel process found for some JIIs in the current study.

Finally, our findings are also quite consistent with those of the most recent evaluation of impact panels for IPV (Zosky, 2018). Although the panel process itself differed in the current study compared to the one evaluated by Zosky, both studies found that these panels seem to increase JIIs’ awareness of the impact of IPV on survivors and children. The high number of references of appreciation for the panel found in JII survey responses in the current study was paralleled in Zosky’s finding that the majority of participants viewed their panel as beneficial as well. The theme of emotional impact and intent to change identified in the current study is also consistent with the grounded theory findings of Zosky’s study, particularly JIIs’ statements of emotion, commitment to learn and be accountable, and commitment to change. Similar to Fulkerson’s (2001) and Zosky’s findings that awareness and empathy for the victim were commonly named by JIIs as positive outcomes of panel participation, we also heard from multiple participants that JIIs’ connection with speakers appeared to facilitate perspective-taking of their own partners and children during or after the panel in the current study.

Differences between our study and previous findings could be due to a number of dynamic factors. For example, Fulkerson’s (2001) study and the current study used different time frames of data collection. The perceived impacts found in the current study focus more on perceived proximal effects during, immediately after, or soon after the impact panel process, whereas the outcomes described in Fulkerson’s study were more distal outcomes that the panel may have contributed to over time. Fulkerson compared JII recidivism rates between those who did and did not participate in the panel and found no differences, which is a more distal outcome than was possible to measure or considered a meaningful indicator of the panel’s impact on JIIs in the current study.

Potential differences in the panel process between these three studies could also explain the discrepancies in the studies’ findings. One key difference between Fulkerson’s (2001) study and the current study is that after volunteering and consenting to potentially participate in an impact panel, not only JIIs but also survivors were randomly assigned to engage or not engage in the panel process. It is not clear whether assignment to the impact panel condition for survivors meant that they themselves were then speaking on the panel or if they were listening to a panel (as JIIs likely were). In either case, the survivors’ experiences in that study were likely very different than the experiences of survivors in the current study, which likely affects how JIIs experienced the panel and the impacts of their attendance. Notable differences between the panel process examined in the current study and the panel studied by Zosky (2018) include differences in the timing of when JIIs participated in the panel (i.e., not all had completed at least 26 weeks of BIP attendance before the panel) and the lack of direct interaction and dialogue between the speakers and audience members.

Contributions to the Literature on Restorative Justice for IPV

The findings from these multiple sources and methods are related to existing theory and models of restorative justice processes in interpretable ways that further illuminate consistencies and inconsistencies between restorative justice theoretical models and real-world program practices. The current study’s findings are largely consistent with those of a case study of an IPV restorative justice dialogue between a survivor and JII from the same relationship (Miller & Iovanni, 2013). The case study found some promising potential benefits of restorative justice processes for IPV, such as having temporal distance from the crime(s), which allowed the participants to process their experiences, begin to heal, and to accept responsibility (on the part of the JII) before engaging in the dialogue process. Temporal distance was also believed to be beneficial in facilitating the IPV impact panel process of the current study. JIIs are required to complete at least 26 weeks of a BIP group before attending an IPV impact panel, in order for them to begin moving through their process of change and decreasing their resistance to the material covered in the panel. Providers and the JII who was interviewed indicated that it is helpful for JIIs to go to the panel after some time in the program so that they are less resistant to the panel process and more likely to be impacted by the panel. In the case study (Miller & Iovanni), the JII expressed remorse during the dialogue and a commitment to behavioral change and said he felt transformed by participating and grateful for the opportunity to try to help his victim heal from the abuse. Although the IPV impact panels do not involve individuals from the same previously abusive relationship, similar themes to the dialogue’s benefits were found in the current study. Similar to the JII’s remorse expressed during the post-conviction dialogue, JIIs in the current study expressed disapproval of abusive behavior, a desire to change, an intention to use this experience in the future, felt uncomfortable and humbled/sobered, and saw the panel content as more serious and “real.”

The current study’s findings are also consistent with a study of survivor advocates’ perceptions of the use of restorative justice as a response to gendered violence in Australia (Curtis-Fawley & Daly, 2005). Some advocates believed that restorative justice could potentially address the power imbalance between JIIs and survivors by prioritizing survivors’ voices and experiences while facilitating JIIs’ acknowledgment of their violence and their responsibility for it, potentially aiding in survivor healing. The IPV impact panel may also facilitate some JIIs’ acknowledgment of the impact of abuse and their responsibility for their abusive behavior by having them listen to surrogate survivors, with whom they can lower their defenses, make connections, reach deeper or new understandings, and promote healing and change. The unique qualities of the IPV surrogate impact panel, relative to other IPV restorative justice interventions that involve individuals from the same harm or crime, may be a key element in facilitating JIIs’ lowering their defenses or resistance. Interactions between JIIs and surrogate survivors may be less likely to surface raw emotions of fear and anger that could occur in interactions between individuals from the same relationship. Importantly, the ability to relate the speakers in the surrogate impact panel setting appears to translate to taking the perspective of their own partners or children for at least some JIIs, as evidenced primarily in their open-ended survey comments.

Limitations

The findings and implications described above must be judged within the limitations of our study design. First, the selection effects of panel and study participation constrained the range of data representing IPV survivor, JII, and BIP provider perspectives. Given that typical rates of BIP drop out range between 40% and 60% of JIIs court-mandated to attend these programs (Eckhardt et al., 2006), the screening requirement that JIIs complete at least 26 weeks of BIP groups before attending the panel means that only those who have not dropped out are referred to the panel. The JIIs who were willing to participate in a focus group and the single JII who was interviewed represent an even smaller group of JIIs who attended the IPV impact panel. JIIs who remained resistant to the panel throughout the process are the hardest group to make inferences about, as they may be less likely to volunteer to participate in follow-up interviews or stay after the panel concludes to engage the speakers or others in conversation. Provider accounts are the primary means of understanding this group, based on their understanding of the men when they return to their BIP groups and debrief with the providers. Although speakers had the highest response rate of the three participant types in this study, the perspectives of survivor participants may also differ from those who have either not heard about the opportunity to speak on a panel or have chosen not to do so.

The requirement that JIIs attend the impact panel by their PO might also limit the potential of the panel as a restorative justice practice, as restorative justice theories emphasize that all participants ideally enter the process voluntarily and with genuine willingness to engage (Cheon & Regehr, 2006). Although JIIs are required to attend the impact panels, there were no recorded instances of POs or BIP providers enforcing monetary or other consequences if JIIs failed to attend the panel by the time they completed the program. Therefore, meeting this requirement of panel attendance could be considered somewhat, though not completely, voluntary on the part of JIIs. While it is possible that the behavior of JIIs during panels could be partially related to the presence of a PO at each panel, the PO was not identified by JIIs in their survey comments or interview responses as a strong influence on their panel experience. In addition, no combative disruptions from audience members were ever observed at panels during the study period and none of the providers or facilitators who were interviewed recalled there ever being any dangerous outbreaks from JIIs in the history of running these panels.

The IPV surrogate impact panel also had limited capacity to serve diverse cultural groups of both survivors and JIIs, including language barriers and a lack of racial and ethnic diversity among panel speakers. The surrogate impact panels were all held in English and only used English-language feedback forms to assess JII responses to the panel, which may have prevented providers from referring some JIIs to the panels and limited the ability of JIIs to participate in the panel. The lack of racial and ethnic diversity among panel speakers also could have been influenced by language barriers, other access barriers, or a lack of relevance of the panel process to their experiences and needs. For example, Black survivors have reported conflicting needs and desires to protect their physical, social, and economic safety when considering whether to participate in processes linked to the criminal justice system (Decker et al., 2020) and therefore could be less likely to seek out the opportunity to participate in surrogate impact panels whose audience members are referred from BIPs. In addition, potential survivor speakers with primary languages other than English may have been dissuaded from speaking on the panel.

Finally, because the JII survey data was collected at a single time point (i.e., after panel participation only), the average ratings the panel may not reflect influences of the panel alone but also other pre-existing differences between JIIs not measured in the survey. Therefore, JIIs’ survey responses should be carefully weighed against data gathered through other methods and sources in this study. JIIs’ responses to the survey may also have been influenced by the requirement that they complete the survey to receive proof of their panel attendance, although they had the option of turning in a blank survey or not responding to any questions. The degree of missingness on the survey items (1%–11% for each quantitative item and 20% for both qualitative items) indicates that at least some JIIs did not feel compelled to participate, which could limit the possible bias from this methodological limitation. The anonymous nature of the survey and assurance that their responses would not be shared with their PO or BIP provider were also intended to limit the potential for bias in this data source.

Future Aims

Findings from this study can more confidently inform future research questions and methods to evaluate how participation in surrogate impact panels affects JIIs. Utilizing information gathered through this study’s multiple sources and methods could reduce potential sources of error in future research. Follow-up studies could assess the indicator outcomes specified here, antecedents that may moderate how JIIs participate in and are impacted by the IPV impact panel, and the specific mechanisms through which panel processes and impacts are inter-related for both survivor and JII participants. Finally, longitudinal follow-up studies could determine how panel processes and impacts relate to long-term, distal outcomes for JIIs, such as JII remorse and behavior change, and guide the development of comprehensive, coordinated responses to IPV that include restorative justice programs.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No. DGE-1057604.

ORCID iD

Kate Sackett Kerrigan

Author Biographies

Kate Sackett Kerrigan, PhD, is a community psychologist and applied researcher. She is broadly interested in violence prevention, participatory action research, and system transformation. She has used quantitative and qualitative methods to study a range of social interventions spanning juvenile and adult community supervision, restorative justice approaches to address intimate partner violence, and sexual assault prevention education programs. Her doctoral work was funded by a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship and has been published in Victims & Offenders.

Eric S. Mankowski, PhD, is a community and social psychologist, broadly interested in the relationship between individual, group, and community functioning, especially in areas of mental health. In particular, he focuses on understanding how masculinity is socially constructed and its connection to violence, substance abuse, and other health and social problems. His recent work has been published in Violence Against Women and Violence & Victims and funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health.

References

Aaron

S. M.

Beaulaurier

R. L.

(2017). The need for new emphasis on batterers intervention programs. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 18(4), 425-432. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838015622440

Babcock

J. C.

Green

C. E.

Robie

(2004). Does batterers’ treatment work? A meta-analytic review of domestic violence treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1023-1053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2002.07.001

Bazemore

(2000). Rock and roll, restorative justice, and the continuum of the real world: A response to “purism” in operationalizing restorative justice. Contemporary Justice Review, 3(4), 459-477.

Burkemper

Balsam

(2007). Examining the use of restorative justice practices in domestic violence cases. Saint Louis University Public Law Review, 27, 121-133. https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/plr/vol27/iss1/7

Cardenas

(2020). Advancing intersectionality approaches in intimate partner violence research: A social justice approach. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313204.2020.1855494

Cheng

S. Y.

Davis

Jonson-Reid

Yaeger

(2019). Compared to what? A meta-analysis of batterer intervention studies using nontreated controls or comparisons. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 22(3), 496–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838019865927

Cheon

Regehr

(2006). Restorative justice models in cases of intimate partner violence: Reviewing the evidence. Victims and Offenders, 1(4), 369-394. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564880600934138

Cissner

Sasson

Thomforde Hauser

Packer

Pennell

Smith

E. L.

Desmarais

Burford

(2019). A national portrait of restorative approaches to intimate partner violence: Pathways to safety, accountability, healing, & well-being. Center for Court Innovation. https://www.courtinnovation.org/publications-RJ-IPV

Curtis-Fawley

Daly

(2005). Gendered violence and restorative justice: The views of victim advocates. Violence Against Women, 11(5), 603-638. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801205274488

10.

Daly

J. E.

Power

T. G.

Gondolf

E. W.

(2001). Predictors of batterer program attendance. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16(10), 971-991. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626001016010001

11.

Daniels

J. W.

Murphy

C. M.

(1997). Stages and processes of change in batterers’ treatment. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 4, 123-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1077-7229(97)80015-6

12.

Decker

M. R.

Holliday

C. N.

Hameeduddin

Shah

Miller

Dantzler

Goodmark

(2020). Defining justice: Restorative and retributive justice goals among intimate partner violence survivors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520943728

13.

De Coster

Heimer

(2021). Unifying theory and research on intimate partner violence: A feminist perspective. Feminist Criminology, 16(3), 286-303. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085120987615

14.

Deutsch

L. S.

Resch

Barber

Zukerman

Stone

J. T.

Cerulli

(2017). Bruise documentation, race and barriers to seeking legal relief for intimate partner violence survivors: A retrospective qualitative study. Journal of Family Violence, 32, 767-773. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-017-9917-4

15.

Dutton

M. A.

Goodman

L. A.

(2005). Coercion in intimate partner violence: Toward a new conceptualization. Sex Roles, 52(11/12), 743-756. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-4196-6

16.

Eckhardt

C. I.

Murphy

Black

Suhr

(2006). Intervention programs for perpetrators of intimate partner violence: Considerations from a clinical research perspective. Public Health Reports, 121(4), 369-381. https://doi.org/10.1177/003335490612100405

17.

Edleson

J. L.

Tolman

R. M.

(1992). Intervention for men who batter: An ecological approach. Sage Publications.

18.

Elo

Kyngäs

(2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107-115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x

19.

Fulkerson

(2001). The use of victim impact panels in domestic violence cases: A restorative justice approach. Contemporary Justice Review, 4(34), 355-368.

20.

Gannon

T. A.

Olver

M. E.

Mallion

J. S.

James

(2019). Does specialized psychological treatment for offending reduce recidivism? A meta-analysis examining staff and program variables as predictors of treatment effectiveness. Clinical Psychology Review, 73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2019.101752

21.

Gondolf

E. W.

(2002). Batterer intervention systems: Issues, outcomes and recommendations. Sage Publications.

22.

Hampton

R. L.

LaTaillade

J. J.

Dacey

Marghi

J. R.

(2008). Evaluating domestic violence interventions for black women. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 16(3), 330-353. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926770801925759

23.

Hotaling

G. T.

Buzawa

E. S.

(2003). Victim satisfaction with criminal justice case processing in a model court setting. National Institute of Justice.

24.

Hughes

D. L.

DuMont

(2002). Using focus groups to facilitate culturally anchored research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 21(6), 775-806. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0565-5_11

25.

Jones

A. S.

D’Agostino

R. B.

Jr. Gondolf

E. W.

Heckert

(2004). Assessing the effect of batterer program completion on reassault using propensity scores. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(9), 1002-1020. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260504268005

26.

McCold

(2000). Toward a holistic vision of restorative juvenile justice: A reply to the maximalist model. Contemporary Justice Review, 3(4), 357-414.

27.

Miller

S. L.

Iovanni

(2013). Using restorative justice for gendered violence: Success with a postconviction model. Feminist Criminology, 8(4), 247-268. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085113490781

28.

Mills

L. G.

Barocas

Butters

R. P.

Ariel

(2019). A randomized controlled trial of restorative justice-informed treatment for domestic violence crimes. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(12), 1284-1294. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0724-1

29.

Morgan

D. L.

(1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. Sage Publications, Inc.

30.

Morrison

P. K.

Hawker

Cluss

P. A.

Miller

Fleming

Bicehouse

George

Burke

Wright

Chang

J. C.

(2018). The challenges of working with men who perpetrate partner violence: Perspectives and observations of experts who work with batterer intervention programs. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(7-8), NP3524–NP3546. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518778258

31.

O’Neal

E. N.

Beckman

L. O.

(2017). Intersections of race, ethnicity, and gender: Reframing knowledge surrounding barriers to social services among Latina intimate partner violence victims. Violence Against Women, 23(5), 643-665. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216646223

32.

Pennell

Burford

(2002). Feminist praxis: Making family group conferencing work. In H. Strang J. Braithwaite (Eds.), Restorative justice and family violence (pp. 108-127). Cambridge University Press.

33.

Petrosky

Blair

J. M.

Betz

C. J.

Fowler

K. A.

Jack

S. P.

Lyons

B. H.

(2017). Racial and ethnic differences in homicides of adult women and the role of intimate partner violence – United States, 2003-2014. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 66(28), 741-746. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/wr/mm6628a1.htm

34.

Riger

Raja

Camacho

(2002). The radiating impact of intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 184-205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260502017002005

35.

Rossner

(2013). Just emotions: Rituals of restorative justice. Oxford University Press.

36.

Sackett

K. L.

(2017). Intimate partner violence impact panels for batterer intervention: A mixed-methods evaluation of a restorative justice process [Master’s thesis]. Portland State University.

37.

Sackett Kerrigan

Mankowski

E. S.

(2020). How surrogate panels function in the context of intimate partner violence: A mixed-methods study. Victims & Offenders. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2020.1764427

38.

Salazar

L. F.

Baker

C. K.

Price

A. W.

Carlin

(2003). Moving beyond the individual: Examining the effects of domestic violence policies on social norms. American Journal of Community Psychology, 32(3–4), 253-264. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AJCP.0000004746.31861.e7

39.

Schrock

D. P.

Padavic

(2007). Negotiating hegemonic masculinity in a batterer intervention program. Gender & Society, 21(5), 625-649. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243207304975

40.

Sherman

Strang

Barnes

Braithwaite

Inkpen

(1998). Experiments in restorative policing: A progress report to the national police research unit on the Canberra reintegrative shaming experiment (RISE). Australian Federal Police, Australian National University. http://www.aic.gov.au/rjustice/rise/index.html

41.

Smith

S. G.

Zhang

Basile

K. C.

Merrick

M. T.

Wang

Kresnow

Chen

(2018). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2015 data brief – updated release. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/datasources/nisvs/2015NISVSdatabrief.html

42.

Sonkin

D. J.

Durphy

(1997). Learning to live without violence: A handbook for men. Volcano Press.

43.

Stewart

D. W.

Shamdasani

P. N.

(1990). Focus groups: Theory and practice. Sage Publications.

44.

Strang

Sherman

L. W.

Mayo-Wilson

Woods

Ariel

(2013). Restorative justice conference (RJC) using face-to-face meetings of offenders and victims: Effects on offender recidivism and victim satisfaction. A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 9(1), 1-59. https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2013.12

45.

Stubbs

(2007). Beyond apology? Domestic violence and critical questions for restorative justice. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 7(2), 169-187. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895807075570

46.

Van Ness

Strong

(1997). Restoring justice. Anderson Publishing Co.

47.

Waller

B. Y.

Harris

Quinn

C. R.

(2021). Caught in the crossroad: An intersectional examination of African American women intimate partner violence survivors’ help seeking. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838021991303

48.

Zehr

(1990). Changing lenses: A new focus for crime and justice. Herald Press.

49.

Zosky

(2018). “Walking in her shoes”: The impact of victim impact panels on perpetrators of domestic violence. Victims & Offenders, 13(6), 739-756. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2018.1468370