(WITHDRAWN) Partner Abuse Intervention Programs and Alcohol/Other Drugs: Navigating Paradigm Differences within and between Fields

Background. Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) and concerns with Alcohol/Other Drugs (AOD) frequently occur together and evidence is growing that not addressing one interferes with addressing the other. The AOD field is now defined within behavioral health frameworks (chronic and relapsing), including self-help models, with struggles to develop gender-appropriate approaches for women. The IPV field began through feminist activism re-defining violence against women as a crime and not primarily a private family matter. Researchers and practitioners disagree about the role of gender within IPV and how to provide evidence of effectiveness for Partner Abuse Intervention Programs (PAIP). Programs endeavoring to address both IPV and AOD report great difficulties in collaborations between the two fields, navigating conflicting funding requirements and regulations, with different approaches often defined in opposition to others. This paper explores how PAIP-providing organizations address practice-related paradigm differences between IPV and AOD fields.

Methods. A purposive sample of 113 organizations providing both PAIP and AOD were recruited using many methods [49% were multi-service, 36% IPV, and 15% primarily AOD]. They were surveyed about their organizations and approaches, 10 IPV interventions and 21 AOD interventions, community participation, mission statements (coded in 18 domains), and other organizational elements. Categorical Principle Component Analysis (CatPCA) identified four statistically significant dimensions: two for IPV interventions (labelled IPV Pragmatic Approach and IPV Empowerment Approach), one for AOD interventions (AOD Evidence Based Approach), and one from mission statements (Survivor Focused Mission). Gender-based framings occur in two of the dimensions (IPV empowerment and Survivor Focused Mission) but these two dimensions are independent of one another (r=.06). We then used multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to explore CatPCA dimension variations across three organizational types (IPV, AOD, Multi-Service) controlling for four levels of organizational size (small to large). We also developed 17 extensive organizational case studies, selected based on the organization’s innovative approaches.

Results. The largest category of organizational size (40%) served fewer than 200 clients a year. Organizational types differed in survivor-focused mission scores (IPV>AOD, p<.02) with multi-service organizations being more variable. No differences by organizational type are observed for evidence-based AOD interventions, IPV empowerment approach, or IPV Pragmatic Approach, with multiple combinations found in graphing how different interventions were combined. Case studies also find a range of gender-based analyses combined with many types of interventions; some happen sequentially, some in parallel, and some totally blended.

Conclusion. This practice-based evidence approach studied organizations identified as addressing both IPV and AOD, likely not representative of all organizations providing AOD and PAIP services. The case studies examined characteristics of particular PAIP interventions, but the unit of analysis in the survey is the organization itself. These organizations are employing a range of feminist analyses as well as many cognitive behavioral interventions, thus bridging the many dichotomies within and across fields, shaped by their origins, and resources available in their communities. PAIP’s indicate a mix of approaches whether they are housed in domestic violence agencies, substance abuse treatment settings or in older, more generalist-oriented community agencies serving many different populations.