Hybrid Services for Intimate Partner Violence and Alcohol and Other Drug Use in a Major Metropolitan Area

Background & Purpose: Research on services for intimate partner violence (IPV) and alcohol and other drug use (AOD) has largely focused on identifying promising practices and characteristics of organizations working on both issues. Studies comparing hybrid and non-hybrid organizations are outdated or limited to AOD organizations. Thus we know little about rates of hybridity amongst IPV organizations or whether factors predictive of hybridity amongst AOD organizations apply to the IPV field. This paper identifies the incidence of hybrid IPV-AOD services in a Midwestern metropolitan area with a historically high level of support for this work and, by systematically identifying differences between hybrid and non-hybrid IPV and AOD organizations, contributes to the literature on factors facilitating IPV-AOD hybridity.

 

Methods: Relevant organizations in a 9-county metropolitan area were identified by combining listings from four directories (two focused on AOD and two on IPV). Information on organizational structure (founding date, total revenue, number of staff, ownership status) and practices (formal focus (NTEE, NAICS and SIC codes), mission, services) were coded from directories, two additional databases, and organizational websites. Organizations were assigned a primary field (IPV or AOD) based on the list through which they were identified and/or their founding emphasis. The dataset includes 383 organizations, 17.5% (67) primarily focused on IPV and 82.5% (316) primarily focused on AOD. A subset of organizations from both fields were defined as hybrids if they were listed by both IPV and AOD sources, mentioned both issues in their mission statements or referenced services for both on their websites. Univariate and bivariate statistics were used to identify structural characteristics and practices associated with hybridity in both fields.

 

Results: Only 14.6% (56) of organizations met criteria for hybridity. A primary focus on IPV (25.4%, 17) versus AOD (12.3%, 39) significantly predicted hybridity. AOD hybrids were significantly more likely to only provide IPV services to perpetrators (53.3%, 16) than IPV hybrids (20.0%, 6) or IPV organizations (26.7%, 8). AOD hybrids are significantly less likely to be members of IPV-focused coalitions or listed as compliant with state protocols for partner abuse intervention (30.8%, 12) than IPV hybrids (100%, 17) or IPV organizations (88.0%, 44). Both types of hybrids (72.2%, 26 AOD hybrids; 41.2%, 7 IPV hybrids) are significantly more likely to provide anger management services than non-hybrids (19.0%, 33 AOD; 6.5%, 3 IPV). Findings also reveal field-specific associations between organizational structure, practices, and hybridity.

 

Conclusions & Implications: IPV and AOD hybrids differ from non-hybrids and each other in terms of organizational characteristics, populations served, and services. The overall pattern of results—and, in particular, low participation in IPV-focused coalitions and/or compliance with state partner abuse intervention protocols by AOD hybrids—suggest need for greater outreach to hybrids by mainstream IPV organizations. Despite resources devoted to fostering hybridity in this region, the incidence is lower than in previous studies. This may result from methodological issues related to defining hybridity or reliance on publicly available data, but nonetheless underscores the challenge of locating hybrid programs for researchers and, more importantly, potential participants.