Promoting Safe Families Programs
Best Practices for Dealing with
intimate Partner Violence
Nonprofit Development Institute
2500 W. 4th Street
Wilmington, DE 19805
(302) 656-1100
IPV is physical, emotional, or verbal abuse; forced isolation; threats; or intimidation occurring between current or former spouses, dating heterosexual couples, and those in gay or lesbian relationships (National Youth Prevention Resource Center).
Terms and Definitions
Intimate partners are—
· Current spouses (legal or common law)
· Current non-marital partners
o Dating partners (including partners on first date)
o Boyfriends or girlfriends
o Same-sex partners
· Divorced, former, or separated spouses (legal or common law)
· Former non-marital partners
o Former boyfriends or girlfriends
o Former same-sex partners
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is the threatened or actual use of physical force against an intimate partner that either results in or has the potential to result in death, injury, or harm. Intimate partner violence includes physical and sexual violence, both of which are often accompanied by psychological or emotional abuse. It may also include psychological or emotional abuse that occurs without physical or sexual violence when such violence has previously been threatened or committed during the relationship. Some common terms used to describe intimate partner violence include domestic abuse, spouse abuse, domestic violence, courtship violence, battering, marital rape, and date rape. Domestic violence and intimate partner violence are terms used interchangeably throughout this guide.
Sexual violence is committed by an intimate or non-intimate perpetrator such as a spouse, family member, person in position of power or trust, friend, acquaintance, or stranger. Although there is some overlap between intimate partner violence and sexual violence, sexual violence is committed by a wider range of perpetrators. Sexual violence includes completed or attempted sex acts against the victim’s will or involving a victim who is unable to consent; abusive sexual contact; and non-contact sexual abuse, including sexual harassment. Women are the primary victims of sexual violence.
Child maltreatment is any recent act or failure to act resulting in imminent risk of death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, or exploitation of a child by a parent or caretaker who is responsible for the child’s welfare. Much of the child maltreatment field divides child maltreatment into four categories: physical abuse, child neglect, sexual abuse, and emotional abuse (e.g., psychological or verbal abuse; mental injury). In the United States, child protective services identify more than 825,000 children annually as victims of maltreatment. Childhood exposure to maltreatment, parental violence, and other adverse experiences is associated with risky behaviors, such as smoking, overeating, suicidal behavior, and perpetrating youth and intimate partner violence, and with negative health outcomes such as heart disease and cancer. See our Program Design Guide for Child Abuse Prevention Programs in the Child Abuse section of the RPC.
These three types of violence are interrelated. They share common risk and protective factors and often co-occur within the same households.
Elder abuse is an emerging problem that may usefully be studied alongside intimate partner violence, sexual violence, and child maltreatment. Although data are poor, the best national estimate is that nearly 450,000 people ages 60 and older experienced abuse and/or neglect in domestic settings in 1996. Of these cases of abuse, only 16% (nearly 71,000) were reported to and substantiated by Adult Protective Service (APS) agencies; the remaining 379,000 were either not reported to APS or not substantiated.
Stalking. Stalking generally refers to harassing or threatening behavior that an individual engages in repeatedly, such as following a person, appearing at a person's home or place of business, making harassing phone calls, leaving written messages or objects, or vandalizing a person's property. These actions may or may not be accompanied by a credible threat of serious harm, and they may or may not be precursors to an assault or murder.
Legal definitions of stalking vary widely from state to state. Though most States define stalking as the willful, malicious, and repeated following and harassing of another person, some States include in their definition such activities as lying-in-wait, surveillance, nonconsensual communication, telephone harassment, and vandalism. While most States require that the alleged stalker engage in a course of conduct showing that the crime was not an isolated event, some States specify how many acts (usually two or more) must occur before the conduct can be considered stalking. State stalking laws also vary in their threat and fear requirements. Most stalking laws require that the perpetrator, to qualify as a stalker, make a credible threat of violence against the victim; others include in their requirements threats against the victim's immediate family; and still others require only that the alleged stalker's course of conduct constitute an implied threat (OJP, 2000).
Generally stalkers are classified in one of three broad categories based on their relationship with the victim:
· Intimate or former intimate stalking: The stalker and victim may be married or divorced, current or former cohabitants, serious or casual sexual partners, or former sexual partners. A history of domestic violence may exist.
· Acquaintance stalking: The stalker and victim may know each other casually, either through formal or informal contact. For example, they may be coworkers or neighbors, or they may have dated once or twice but were not sexual partners.
· Stranger stalking: The stalker and victim do not know each other at all. Cases involving celebrities and other public figures generally fall into this category.
Incidences of IPV
Incidences of IPV Among Women
In the United States, physical and sexual violence committed against women by their husbands, ex-husbands, boyfriends, or ex-boyfriends is an enormous public health problem: each year, between 2 and 4 million women are victimized. Battering is a major cause of injury to women: each year, between two and four million women are victimized by their intimate partners (Bachman R., 1994).
Although most women in the United States fear attack by strangers, 1996 FBI data indicate that 51% of all murdered women were killed by someone they knew and that 30% were killed by their husbands, ex-husbands, or boyfriends (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1997). This violence affects not just the abused women but also their families and communities. Indeed, it affects our whole society.
Approximately 15% to 25% of women experience an attempted or completed rape at some time in their lives. More than half of the women reporting rape are sexually assaulted before age 18. Nearly 25% of women have been raped and/or physically assaulted by an intimate partner and more than 40% of the women who experience partner rapes and physical assault sustain a physical injury. Women experience more chronic and injurious assaults from intimate partner violence than men (CDC, 2002).
The prevalence of this type of abuse is markedly higher among certain groups. While IPV affects all age groups, sexes and races it is a well-documented fact that it is primarily perpetrated against females. During 1998 women were the victims of intimate partner violence about five times more often than males. There were 767 female victims of intimate partner violence per 100,000 women that year, compared to 146 male victims (Rennison & Welchans, 2000). Another study reported that women are the victims of IPV at a rate of nearly five times that of men, and in 1998 the NCVS found that women comprised nearly 85 percent of all intimate partner victimizations in the United States (National Youth Prevention Resource Center). Women aged 16-34 experienced the highest rates of intimate violence. Those victimized most frequently were women between the ages of 20 and 24 (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 1999).
Nearly one-third of African-American women experience IPV in their lifetimes compared with one-fourth of white women (Tjaden and Thoennes, 2000b). Black women were victimized by intimate partners at a rate 35 percent higher than that of white females, and more than two times the rate of women of other races (National Youth Prevention Resource Center). Among high school students, black females reported the highest rates of IPV, followed by Hispanics (CDC, 2003).
|
Age at When Stalking First Occurs for Women
Image removed
|
Point In Relationship in Which Stalking Occurs
Image removed
|
Notably, 81% of the women who were stalked by a current or former husband or cohabiting partner were also physically assaulted by the same partner, and 31 percent of the women who were stalked by a current or former husband or cohabiting partner were also sexually assaulted by the same partner (OJP, 1998). Thus, stalking may be an early indicator of impending violence.
|
Prevalence of Domestic Violence |
|
· Estimates range from 960,000 incidents of violence against a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend per year1 to three million women who are physically abused by their husband or boyfriend per year (Commonwealth Fund, 1999) · Around the world, at least one in every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused during her lifetime (Heise, Ellsberg, & Gottemoeller, 1999) · Nearly one-third of American women (31 percent) report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives, according to a 1998 Commonwealth Fund survey (Commonwealth Fund, 1999). · Nearly 25 percent of American women report being raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or date at some time in their lifetime, according to the National Violence Against Women Survey, conducted from November 1995 to May 1996 (CDC, 2000) · Thirty percent of Americans say they know a woman who has been physically abused by her husband or boyfriend in the past year (Lieberman Research, 1996) · In the year 2001, more than half a million American women (588,490 women) were victims of nonfatal violence committed by an intimate partner (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2003) · Intimate partner violence is primarily a crime against women. In 2001, women accounted for 85 percent of the victims of intimate partner violence (588,490 total) and men accounted for approximately 15 percent of the victims (103,220 total) (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2003) · While women are less likely than men to be victims of violent crimes overall, women are five to eight times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate partner (U.S. Dept. of Justices, 1998) · In 2001, intimate partner violence made up 20 percent of violent crime against women. The same year, intimate partners committed three percent of all violent crime against men (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2003) · As many as 324,000 women each year experience intimate partner violence during their pregnancy (Gazmararian, Petersen et al., 2000) · Women of all races are about equally vulnerable to violence by an intimate (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1995) · Male violence against women does much more damage than female violence against men; women are much more likely to be injured than men (Murray, 1990) · Women are seven to 14 times more likely than men to report suffering severe physical assaults from an intimate partner (Nat.l Institute of Justice & CDC, 1998)
Domestic Homicides · On average, more than three women w murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in this country every day. In 2000, 1,247 women were killed by an intimate partner. The same year, 440 men were killed by an intimate partner (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2003) · Women are much more likely than men to be killed by an intimate partner. In 2000, intimate partner homicides accounted for 33.5 percent of the murders of women and less than four percent of the murders of men (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2003) |
Source: Family Violence Prevention Fund (2004)
Incidences Among Youth
In that context, runaway and homeless youth are at a heightened risk for victimization by intimate partners. A homeless or runaway youth may rely on an intimate partner for shelter, food and other basic necessities and is therefore more vulnerable to exploitation and victimization. The emotional, physical and mental health of homeless and runaway youth also contributes to their vulnerability to IPV. These young people often are afflicted with severe anxiety and depression, poor health and nutrition, and low self-esteem (Robertson, 1989). Low self-esteem is a widely recognized risk factor for both emotional and physical abuse. The homeless youth population is estimated to be approximately 300,000 young people each year (Institute for Health Policy Studies, 1995) and an estimated 500,000 run away or are forced out of their homes each year according to the Administration for Children and Families. The Research Triangle Institute states that an estimated 2.8 million youth living in U.S. households reported a runaway experience during the prior year (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1995).
|
Prevalence of Different Forms of Violence in the Lives of Children and Youth |
||||
|
Type of Violence |
Year |
Ages |
Percent |
Frequency |
|
Watches 2+ hours of TV (each weekday) |
2001 |
8th Grade |
73.1 |
Nearly 3 out of 4 |
|
Physical fighting (past year) |
2001 |
Grades 9-12 |
33.2 |
1 out of 3 |
|
Parents who report spanking with hard object (past year) |
1995 |
Children ages 2- 17 |
21 |
1 out of 5 |
|
Weapons carrying (past month) |
2001 |
Grades 9-12 |
17.4 |
1 out of 6 |
|
Domestic violence exposure (past year)1,2 |
1979, 1985 |
Under age 18 |
5-16 |
1 out of 20 - 1 out of 6 |
|
Teen suicide attempts (past year) |
2001 |
Grades 9-12 |
8.8 |
1 out of 11 |
|
Bullying (past six months) |
2001 |
Ages 12-18 |
7.9 |
1 out of 13 |
|
Fear of attack at school3 (past six months) |
2001 |
Ages 12-18 |
6.4 |
1 out of 16 |
|
Violent crime victimization (past year) |
2001 |
Ages 16-19 |
5.6 |
1 out of 18 |
|
Violent crime victimization (past year) |
2001 |
Ages 12-15 |
5.5 |
1 out of 18 |
|
Child maltreatment4 (past year) |
2001 |
Under age 18 |
1.2 |
1 out of 83 |
|
Sexual abuse (past year) |
2001 |
Under age 18 |
0.12 |
1 out of 833 |
|
Teen homicide (annual) |
2000 |
Ages 15-19 |
0.0096 |
1 out of 10,417 |
|
Teen suicide (annual) |
2000 |
Ages 15-19 |
0.0082 |
1 out of 12,195 |
|
Infant homicide5 (annual) |
2001 |
Under one year |
0.0077 |
1 out of 12,987 |
|
1 The lower bound estimate of domestic violence is from 1979, with percent of total population calculated using population estimates for July of 1980 from the U.S. Census Bureau. The upper bound estimate is from 1985, with percent of total population calculated using population estimates for July of 1985 from the U.S. Census Bureau. 2 Because the lower bound (1979) estimate for domestic violence is based on a sample of 3-17 year olds living in two-parent families, it is likely that the actual prevalence of domestic violence is greater than the estimate presented here. 3 Includes fear of attack at school or on the way to and from school 4 Includes physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, and emotional maltreatment 5 2001 data for infant homicide are preliminary |
||||
Source: Brown, Brett V. & Bzostek, Sharon (2003)
Additionally, the NCVS reports that between 1993 and 1998, higher rates of intimate partner victimization occurred among those living in urban areas. According to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, unaccompanied youth account for 3% of the urban homeless population (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 1998). Due to the transient nature of this population, the demographics of runaway and homeless youth are difficult to measure. Although the majority of this population is believed to be male, there are unarguably a substantial number of runaway or homeless young females due to the large scale of this population. Most projections tend to show that these youths generally reflect the demographics of their local areas. However, some studies do reflect over-representation of some minorities in some areas (Robertson and Toro, 1999).
Dating violence and sexual assault are particularly prevalent forms of IPV among adolescents and young adults. It is hard to establish concrete rates of IPV as much of it goes unreported—between 1993 and 1998, the Bureau of Justice estimates that only about half of all victims reported cases to law enforcement authorities (National Youth Prevention Resource Center). However, the reported and estimated level of IPV among youths is alarming. Past estimates of dating violence among middle school and high school students range from 28% to 96% (Jonson-Reid & Bivens, 1999). 8.9% of high school students nationwide reported dating violence (YRBS, 2003). The average frequency of nonsexual dating violence (excluding sexual assault and rape) is approximately 22 percent among male and female high school students and 32 percent among college students (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 1999).
The root cause of the problem is the abuser’s need for power. However, there are environmental and contributing circumstances that are common to IPV occurrences. There is also a symbiotic relationship between some of the risk factors leading to and the consequences of IPV. For instance, studies show that substance abuse is both a pre-cursor and an outcome of IPV.
Circumstances Raising the Risks of IPV:
While there are many dynamics contributing to occurrences of IPV, the underlying cause for this type of violence is the abuser’s need for power.
Consequences of IPV:
The result of IPV, as with any type of violence, is injury and death. Approximately 20% of emergency department visits for trauma and 25% of homicides of women involve IPV (Rand and Strom, 1997). Among women who are physically assaulted or raped by an intimate partner, one in three is injured (Tjaden and Thoennes 2000a). 30% of women murdered have been killed by an intimate partner (Rennison and Welchans, 2000)
Elevated levels of stress and depression are common in victims of IPV (National Research Council 1996). As many as 80% of the women who attempt suicide report IPV as influencing their decision (Kaslow et al., 2002).
Women who are victims of IPV are highly likely to become alcohol or drug abusers. A 2001 studied showed that drug use was found to be a response to both childhood abuse and adult victimization (Hirsch, 2001). The relative risk for alcohol use or dependence following sexual assault is four times than preceding (Burnam et al., 1988)
Certain abused women experience extreme sequelae. Particularly affected are those who sustain physical injuries due to abuse, who are sexually assaulted, who are frequently physically assaulted, or who receive death threats. The sequelae include an overwhelming sense of danger, chronic anxiety and hypervigilance, difficulty sleeping, nightmares, intrusive memories or flashbacks, loss of memory for parts of traumatic episodes, abuse of alcohol and other drugs, depression, suicide ideation or attempts, and abuse of their own children.
Children who witness or experience violence may see violence as a viable solution for resolving conflicts and exerting power; thus the abused become the abusers and the cycle of abuse continues (Edleson, 1999).
This goals section has been removed. In the full document it describes the kind of language you should put in your proposal for your program goals/objectives. Some goals are mandated by the federal government; other goals are typical for programs that get funded in this area and that work.
The program strategies section has been removed. In the full document it describes the kinds of intimate partner/family violence prevention strategies that research says will work and that federal agencies funding abstinence like to see. You can use these strategies to help you design your own program.
Note: A logic model will help you demonstrate exactly how all the elements of your program fit together. Some RFPs require it, others don’t, but it is almost always a good idea to include one. Many of our program design guides include one or two sample logic models to prime your thinking. You will see other logic models in the funded proposals we give you.
|
GOALS |
RESOURCES |
ACTIVITIES |
1st Year OUTCOMES |
|
Promoting Safe Families |
q Domestic Violence State Coalitions q Amenities: resident setting for 20 youth (either through host homes or shelters) |
q Accommodate informational needs q Collaborative efforts Development of training materials q Development of curriculum in learning environment q Data collection q Development of protocols q Strategies of prevention/intervention q Education for homeless youth q Education for runaway youth |
q X% of participants have awareness of supports other than family q X% of participants have awareness that community values youth q X% of participants seek social and emotional justice q X% of youth identify at least two adults as role models q X% of participants have increased opportunities for mental health treatment q X% of participants have increased their visits for health treatment |
|
Promoting Safe Families |
q Non-profit domestic violence advocacy organizations q Non-profit community based organizations q Faith-based organizations q Local public q Organizations q Amenities: residential setting for 20 youth (either through host homes or shelters |
q Street-based education q Street based outreach q Access to emergency shelter q Survival aid q Individual assessment q Treatment and counseling q Prevention and education activities q Information and referrals q Crisis intervention q Follow-up support q Youth development strategies q |
q X% of participants have resistance skills q X% of participants are engaged in community service q X% of participants exercise leadership q X% of participants have heightened problem-solving skills q X% of participants demonstrate integrity in their choices at least once a week q X% of participants demonstrate Honesty in their choices at least once a week q X% of participants demonstrate Personal responsibility in their choices at least once a week q X% of participants experience positive peer Influence q X% of participants have a positive Identity q X% of participants have a positive view of their future |
|
Table 1: Sample Logic Model for a Safe Families Program Note: A full logic model might have a 5th column for longer-term outcomes (the impact that the shorter-term outcomes is making on their lives), and/or a column for evaluation measures. |
|||
The program evaluation section has been removed. In the full document it describes the kinds of program evaluations you can do. In addition, in the Rapid Proposal Center, we give you a complete primer on designing a good program evaluation and we point you to additional resources for each program area to help you decide on your evaluation design for that funding program.
Section removed.
Section removed.
What to Do Next: Three Options
Are you thinking about developing and getting funding for a intimate partner/family violence prevention program? As you can see, this program design guide is pretty comprehensive, and will give you all the essentials of designing a program. If you don’t cover these essentials in your proposal, it will not be funded, guaranteed (you’ll notice that intimate partner/family violence prevention RFPs ask you to discuss these elements, and they are looking for very specific things to reassure them that you know what you are doing—and with our Guide, you will!).
After you cover these essentials, you can then utilize your own creativity and the goals of your nonprofit or faith-based organization to go beyond the essentials to include additional elements.
You now have three options.
Option One: Subscribe to the Rapid Proposal Center
Subscribe to the Rapid Proposal Center and get access to this guide and every other guide and resource we have. This is by far the most cost-effective option you have. We cover many different program areas and your quarterly subscription gives you access to all of them and the additional areas we are adding every month.
To subscribe to the Rapid Proposal Center on a quarterly basis and gain access to dozens of proposal resources, click here. Remember, it’s risk free with our 100% money back guarantee.
Option Two: Proposal Template Package
You can purchase this guide, along with an intimate partner/family violence prevention proposal that was funded by the federal government, as well as an outline of an intimate partner/family violence prevention program offered by a federal agency. These three tools—the three main tools we offer in the Rapid Proposal Center for each grant area—will greatly speed your ability to write your proposal the next time a federal agency announces the availability of funds.
To purchase the Promoting Safe Families/Intimate Partner Violence Prevention Proposal Template Package, click here. Just $49.00
Option Three: Get This Guide Only For Free
You can request this guide for free. Each nonprofit or faith-based organization can request one of our program design guides for free. It’s our way of letting you explore what we are offering you and how valuable it will be for your fundraising efforts.
To “spend” your free trial option on the Promoting Safe Families/Intimate Partner Violence Prevention Program Design Guide, simply register with us for free and, in addition to the Guide, you'll also receive our free email newsletter called “Fundraising Strategies”. We'll email you the Guide within 2 business days.
© 2004 Nonprofit Development Institute, Inc.. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to utilize the information and text in this document solely for the fundraising and program development of the individual or organization which purchased access to this website. Licensed consultants are granted permission to utilize this material with their clients. See our Legal Notices and Licensing Information page for details.