Building Men’s Engagement in Intimate Partner Violence Groups

Abstract

Group programs, which are generally preferred in treatment with violent partners, often have a high dropout rate. Engagement, however, can be an influential factor in program completion (Rondeau, Brochu, Lemire, & Brodeur, 1999) and in maintaining those aspects learned by the end of the program (Contrino, Dermen, Nochajski, Wieczorek, & Navratil, 2007). This article looks at the meaning given by men to the concept of engaging in an intimate partner violence (IPV) group. In our effort to understand engagement, this study tries to identify characteristics, which are more representative of the complexity of engaging in IPV groups. Interviews and two focus groups were conducted with men who participated in group programs in two agencies in Canada. Our qualitative analysis emphasized that engagement is not a spontaneous attitude but rather something that is constructed over time by striving to work on oneself. Limitations are discussed and implications for practice and research are explored.

Pathways to Engagement: An Exploratory Qualitative Analysis of Factors That Facilitate Men’s Engagement in IPV Intervention Programs

“…As the pool of research on IPV intervention programs has long indicated limited or mixed support for the effectiveness of IPV interventions at reducing abusive behaviors, substantial effort has been put forth to examine factors that inhibit the production of strong and positive intervention effects. Although participant engagement has been hypothesized to be influential in producing positive program effects (McMurran & Ward, 2010; Orford et al, 2009; Roy et al, 2014; Scott & King, 2007), limited research has focused on the factors associated with increased and decreased responsiveness to the treatment process (Babcock et al, 2004; Gondolf, 2004). The purpose of this exploratory study was to identify the key factors that facilitate men’s responsiveness to IPV intervention in a sample of 180 participants who completed an IPV intervention program.…”

“…Intimate partner violence (IPV) intervention programs (also referred to as Batterer Intervention Programs) are the primary treatment strategy used for men who perpetrate violence against their intimate partners (Babcock et al, 2016; Cannon et al, 2016). In Canada and the United States, group-based programs implemented by community organizations/agencies are the predominant intervention approach used in rehabilitation efforts for perpetrators of IPV (approximately, 97% are served in group treatment; Babcock et al, 2016; Cannon et al, 2016; Roy et al, 2014). In general, research suggests that group-based interventions offer several advantages over other intervention types such as individual treatment and couples-based programs, including decreasing feelings of isolation, promoting sharing and openness, and encouraging help-seeking behaviors (Sternbach, 2001; Yalom & Leszcz, 2005).…”

“…Several practitioners and researchers posit that participant engagement is a key mechanism of change in IPV intervention programs (McMurran & Ward, 2010; Scott & King, 2007). Consistently, there is a growing body of literature that focuses on examining factors that help and/or hinder men’s engagement (Roy et al, 2014; Soleymani et al, 2018).…”

IPV Perpetrator Groups: Client Engagement, and the Role of Facilitators

“…Recently, a promising line of methodologically-sound ethnographic/qualitative research studies has emerged, that reinforces and adds to the MI findings. This new research, based in grounded theory, have been conducted by various investigators, in which male BIP clients were interviewed, primarily with open-ended questions, to find out more about their group experiences (McGinn, et al, 2017;Morrison et al, 2018;Morrison et al, 2019;Scott & Wolfe, 2000;Roy et al, 2013Roy et al, , 2014Roy et al, , 2015Silvergleid & Mankowski, 2006). What makes these findings so valuable is that they address these processes and delineate the facilitator's role in helping clients become engaged and motivated to change.…”

“…The construct of engagement has been investigated in various psychotherapy and counseling groups (Corey et al, 2010; Morran et al, 2004), including those for IPV perpetrators (Chovanec, 2012; McGinn et al, 2017; Parra-Cardona et al, 2013; Roy et al, 2014; Taft et al, 2003). In one study (Rondeau et al, 1999), a primary reason given by IPV male perpetrators who dropped out of the group was that they did not feel engaged.…”