A Narrative Framework Policy Analysis of Military Policy Processes Related to Domestic Violence

Background: Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) employs rigorous scientific methods to study policy processes. The present study utilizes NPF to compare narrative strategies (i.e., Devil and Angel Shift) used by members of the same group. Using Devil Shift, policy advocates ascribe maleficence to their opponents, while with Angel Shift, policy actors ascribe goodness to their own position. Recent changes to the United States Code 10 defining domestic violence as a punishable offense against the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, require careful consideration. NPF provides an important lens for understanding the force of narrative to shape military policy. Objective: The research question was, “What are the intracoalitional differences in the characterization of the Military’s response to military-connected domestic abuse (MCDA)?” Methods: Directed content analysis of transcripts from the 2018 Senate and 2019 House hearings related to the DoD’s approach to MCDA identified how coalition members characterized the three military response systems: Family Advocacy Program (FAP), military criminal justice, and chain of command. Included testimonies must have been (1) given before the relevant Sub-Committee and be publicly available for download, (2) featured either spousal abuse or intimate partner abuse, (3) identified whether the speaker was a MCDA survivor or other ally, (4) mentioned the Military’s response to domestic abuse. Testimonies that related only to child abuse and neglect were excluded. Speakers were categorized as MCDA survivors (n=4), civilian advocates (n=5), or DoD representatives (n=3). MCDA survivors and advocates were aggregated into a coalition. The DoD representatives were considered a separate coalition given the oppositional language used by most MCDA survivors (100% n=4) and advocates (60%, n=3) toward DoD systems. Although the DoD was represented by a different individual in each hearing, their statements were identical; therefore, an analysis of the DoD’s intercoalitional difference was impossible. Results: The DoD statement applied Angel Shift to all three responses systems. One advocate used no narrative strategy. All MCDA survivors and advocates who applied a narrative strategy used Devil Shift to characterize both the criminal justice response (n=1 advocate; n=4 MCDA survivors) and the command’s response (n=2 advocates; n=4 MCDA survivors). The most intercoalitional variation was observed in characterizations of FAP. While three MCDA survivors and one advocate applied Devil Shift. Two advocates praised FAP, which appears to be a cross-coalitional Angel Shift. Conclusions and Implications: Angel and Devil Shifts were employed by policy actors in both coalitions. The DoD endorsed its response systems, while those who experienced them presented differing views. In 2021 Congress addressed the harm caused by commands and criminal justice systems working at cross purposes by excluding commanders from domestic violence investigations and court martial decisions. Given the disparities of MCSA survivors’ negative experiences with FAP compared to non-survivor’s esteem of the program, the next step must be a deep look into FAP. Although chartered to help MCDA survivors, FAP is not evaluated on survivor care efficacy. MCSA survivors must be centered and their voices welcomed in conversations about military policies just as civilian survivors are centered in federal, state, and local policies.