NoVA Research-Improvements in Child Protection

As part of our commitment to ending violence and abuse, the Non-Violence Alliance is committed to research that will advance the field of batterer intervention. Working independently and with research partners like Dr. Emily Rothman, Matrix Public Health Consultants, and EncompassGroup, we are currently involved in research on batterers as fathers, improvements in the child protection, effectiveness of batterer intervention programs in correctional settings, and program outcomes and screening for batterers in medical settings.

• Theoretical Framework for Thinking About Batterers and Child Protection
• Six Month Interim Report Children and Batterer Accountability Initiative
• Children and Batterer Initiative Uses New Tools to Measure Child Protection Practice & Worker Attitudes Towards Batterers
• Preliminary Results from New Child Protection Domestic Violence Investigation Protocol

Children and Batterer Initiative Uses New Tools to Measure Child Protection Practice & Worker Attitudes Towards Batterers

Batterers can harm children through their abuse of the children’s mother and the physical, sexual and emotional abuse of the children themselves. In Connecticut and around the country, child protection agencies’ capacity to identify domestic violence has improved over the last few years as the impact of domestic violence on children has become clearer. Unfortunately, social work practice and community resources have failed to adequately address the role batterers play in families experiencing domestic violence.

To address this gap, the Children and Batterer Accountability Initiative was implemented in Connecticut to develop replicable strategies for effectively intervening with batterers in child protection cases. Funded by the Connecticut’s Department of Children and Families, this initiative was developed and is being implemented by the author.

One of the immediate challenges for the initiative was the lack of Connecticut child protection data on current staff attitudes and practices in regards to domestic violence perpetrators. The Department of Children and Families, like most child protection agencies around the country, was not collecting data that was specific enough to measure how domestic violence perpetrators were impacting families and how the Department’s social workers were responding to the threat batterers represented to children and the non-offending parent. Additionally, there was no data about how social workers viewed batterers in relationship to their mission of protecting children.

To close this knowledge gap, two tools were developed to gather information about case practice and staff attitudes regarding batterers. The Case Review Form was used by social workers and their supervisors to evaluate 170 cases. The form started with broad questions about whether domestic violence had been identified in the case and at what point identification had occurred. The workers were asked to report on whether the police had made the referral to child protection. Once the workers identified that domestic violence was present, they were asked to respond to series of questions about the batterer. These included questions like: Was it alleged or confirmed that the domestic violence perpetrator also physically harmed the children? What efforts were used to make contact with the domestic violence perpetrator? Was the domestic violence perpetrator involved with the criminal justice system during the period that DCF was involved with the family? The case review also included questions about the known nature and severity of the batterer’s control and abuse, the use of the courts as an intervention and his involvement with batterer intervention programming. The form closes with questions about reassault and new allegations of abuse and neglect of the children, and the level of the batterer’s contact with the family during the case.

The second instrument created for the study was a Worker and Supervisor Domestic Violence Survey. This was an attempt to measure the attitudes and beliefs of the workers and supervisors who deal directly with families experiencing domestic violence. Using a five point Likert scale, the survey began with questions about the staff’s perceptions of child protections role in addressing minor and serious domestic violence that does not lead to physical harm of the children. It asked the workers to comment on whether they thought their primary focus in domestic violence cases should be on the victim or the batterer. For example, the staff was asked to respond to the statement, “When the domestic violence perpetrator is the partner of the primary caretaker unrelated to any children in the house, the Department should make a serious and consistent effort to intervene with him.” The staff was then asked to identify their skill level and sense of competency related to victims, children and batterers by responding on scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” to statements like “I feel skilled and competent about my interviewing skills for domestic violence perpetrators.” The survey also attempted to measure skills and knowledge related to case documentation, resources and the development of service agreements. Within this domain, workers were asked to agree or disagree with the following statement related to role fear played in their practice with domestic violence perpetrator: “My fear of retaliation against me (and my workers, if you are a supervisor) dissuades me from focusing on the domestic violence perpetrator.” The survey concluded with measures related to their overall sense of the Departments response to domestic violence, collaboration with community partners and referral resources.

For more information about ordering the Case Review Form and Worker and Supervisor Survey used in this project, click here.

These two instruments worked together powerfully to create the first of its kind picture of the intersection of child protection and batterers. The following presents some of the highlights of the data gathered by the Case Review Form and the Worker and Supervisor Domestic Violence Survey.

From the Case Review Form

• 47 or 27.6% of the cases identified domestic violence as a factor.
• The police triggered the identification of the domestic violence in 43% of the cases.
• 89% of the perpetrators were interviewed by a social worker.
• The perpetrator was alleged or confirmed to physically harm the child(ren) in 30% of the cases.
• Of the men identified as domestic violence perpetrators, 68% were the biological father of at least one of the children in the house. 23% were the father of no children in the house.
• Based on the information gathered from all sources the social worker and their supervisor identified the following factors related to the severity and frequency of the domestic violence:
• 87% of the cases involved no physical injury or bruises/minor cuts to the adult victim
• Just over 1/3 (34%) of the physical violence occurred weekly. 36% of the physical violence occurred 1-2 times a year or less. In 6% of the cases the violence was occurring on a daily basis.
• In 51% of the cases, the worker assessed the victim as “somewhat” or “very” isolated.
• Substance abuse was identified as a problem for 75% of the perpetrators.
• Mental health problems were identified for only 21% of the perpetrators.
• When the perpetrator was involved with the criminal justice system approximately 52.9% of the time they were mandated by criminal court to comply with the child protection service agreements/conditions.
• When services were offered to the perpetrator, 42.6% accepted and 36.2% declined
• Of the referrals made for domestic violence treatment, 48% of the batterers successfully completed or were still in treatment. 52% did not successfully complete this service.
• There were almost no new incidents of physical child abuse since the cases were opened (95.7%).
• A majority of the domestic violence perpetrators had extensive contact with the children in the family (72.4%).
• It was judged that 57.4% of the domestic violence perpetrators were exerting either “some,” “a lot,” or “complete” influence over the outcome of the case for the families.

These two instruments worked together powerfully to create the first of its kind picture of the intersection of child protection and batterers.

From the Worker and Supervisor Domestic Violence Survey

• 26% agreed or strongly agreed that domestic violence cases should be transferred to on-going services when minor domestic violence occurs while 65% who think a case with serious domestic violence should be transferred to on-going services. (This applied to cases where children had not suffered any physical harm.)
• 54.8% disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement “Where adults are concerned, the primary focus of the Department should be more about changing the victim of domestic violence than the perpetrator.”
• 80.7% agreed or strongly agreed that intervening with the perpetrator can reduce the risk to the children.
• 90.3% disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement “Related to the safety of the children, if a domestic violence perpetrator is removed from the house, there is no reason to continue working with that person.”
• 87.1% agreed or strongly agreed that the Department should make “a serious, consistent effort to intervene with” a biological parent who is domestic violence perpetrator.
• 45% felt skilled and competent at interviewing batterers while 61% felt similarly about interviewing adult domestic violence victims.
• 22.6% of the respondents said that fear of retaliation against themselves or their workers “dissuades” them from focusing on the domestic violence perpetrator.
• 42% felt that the Department policies and practices support intervening with domestic violence perpetrator.
• The respondents perceived their strongest collaborations around domestic violence perpetrators to be with Family Relations (58.1%), as compared with the local police (41.9%), community providers (41.9%), adult probation (35.5%), and domestic violence victim services (35.5%).

Discussion

The data has provided an empirical foundation for the Initiative and the on-going efforts to improve the response of child protection to batterers. For example, the data provides support for the idea that juvenile court can have jurisdiction over a significant number of batterers involved in child protection cases. A strong majority (68%) of the identified men who were abusive of their partner were the biological father of at least one of the children in the home. This information has been useful in counteracting the misconception that juvenile court is not an option in most domestic violence cases because the batterer is boyfriend unrelated to the children. While cases where the unrelated boyfriend represents unique challenges for system that has been traditionally oriented to working with biological parents, this data demonstrates that these cases are not the majority. Armed with this data, it is easier to make intelligent choices about policy and practice regarding batterers.

The data also makes the case for the importance of child protection being aggressive in its efforts to intervene with batterers by documenting the powerful and continuing role batterers play in families involved with child protection services. In almost three-quarters of the cases, the batterer had extensive contact with the primary caretaker and the children. In more than half the cases (57.4%), the workers believed that the batterer was exerting significant or complete influence over the outcome of the case.

These tools provide a method for child protection agencies to begin to gather data on how batterers impact their cases and their response of their agency to risk batterers represent to children. In Connecticut, it will continue to be used to measure progress in the Children and Batterer Accountability as it moves forward. For more information about ordering both the Case Review Form and the Worker and Supervisor Domestic Violence Survey, click here.