Delivering Therapeutic Parenting and Support Group Services to Legally-Involved IPV Survivors and Their Children in Community-Based Settings

Background and Purpose: Given the connections between intimate partner violence (IPV) and child maltreatment (English, Edleson, & Herrick, 2005), as well as the negative consequences of IPV exposure for children's well-being (Bragg, 2003), community agencies addressing these issues increasingly seek to implement services that help survivors parent after violence and mitigate the impact of IPV on children (Bragg, 2003). Research on parenting programs has not generally addressed families burdened with IPV (Daro & McCurdy, 2007), even though program participation is increasingly mandated for female IPV survivors due to the nationwide implementation of mandatory arrest laws for IPV perpetration. Violence research findings show this group of women, many of whom committed violence in defense of themselves or their children, should receive specialized trauma-informed services (Henning, Jones, & Holdford, 2003; Martin, 1997). In collaboration with two community agencies, we rigorously implemented a qualitative process evaluation of a 13-week therapeutic and educational program for legally-involved IPV survivors and their children. Methods: Four focus groups with program participants from the first year of data collection (n=18; racially, socio-economically, and educationally diverse; ages 20-47 years) and 3 focus groups with treatment providers (n=7) were conducted using standardized focus group guides. Participation rates were 75% (participants) and 100% (staff).

Focus group discussions were audiotaped, transcribed and checked for accuracy. Transcripts were analyzed independently by 2 team members using Atlas.ti and an iterative open-coding approach (Padgett, 1998). Coding scheme development was informed by focus groups guides and a comprehensive literature review; coders also searched for unexpected findings, divergent perspectives, and disconfirming opinions. Coders identified themes independently, compared findings, and then recoded transcripts until saturation was reached. To increase methodological rigor, coders left an audit trail consisting of a codebook and memos. Following data analysis, member checking was conducted to ensure that codes were representative of participants' and providers' experiences.

Results: In-depth information about the unique needs of families receiving services within the mandated framework was gleaned from participant and staff focus groups. Emergent themes associated with program engagement within a mandated framework included: (1) opportunity for expression, (2) support from like others, (3) targeted facilitation strategies such as unconditional positive regard, agenda flexibility and appropriate self-disclosure, (5) non-punitive program approach emphasizing program supports including meals, transportation, and childcare, and (6) home-like group setting. Challenges to program engagement included: (1) attendance, (2) management of group dynamics, (4) content relevance for varying custodial arrangements and relationship statuses, (5) minimization of IPV, and (6) participant resentment. Detailed information about these findings will be presented, including concrete examples and core aspects of the program.

Conclusions and Implications: These findings represent a preliminary yet significant step toward determining the best practices capable of interrupting the intergenerational cycle of family violence for legally-involved IPV survivors and their children. Although the qualitative findings are not generalizable, the results elucidate lessons learned, including specific strategies for delivering therapeutic services to this population in community-based settings. Findings stress the importance of the service provider's role in facilitating participants' transition from reluctant to fully-engaged service recipients.