Linkage of Domestic Violence and Substance Abuse Services, Research in Brief, Executive Summary

Collins, James J.; Spencer, Donna

doi:10.1037/e521672006-001

Cited by 12 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Substance abuse has long been known to lower inhibitions to violence, impair judgment, and reduce the ability to interpret social cues. As a result, it is associated both with offender behavior and risk for victimization (Collins & Spencer, ). Most researchers do report that IPV offenders and victims have substance abuse and addiction problems at far higher rates than the general population, even controlling for other sociodemographic variables (see Johnson, ).…”

Section: Nature Of Abusementioning

confidence: 99%

What does Research Suggest are the Primary Risk and Protective Factors for Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) and What is the Role of Economic Factors?

Buzawa

2012

J Policy Anal Manage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Nature Of Abusementioning

confidence: 99%

What does Research Suggest are the Primary Risk and Protective Factors for Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) and What is the Role of Economic Factors?

Buzawa

2012

J Policy Anal Manage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The Department of Justice (Collins & Spencer, 2002) found that 36% of victims in domestic violence programs also had substance abuse problems. Studies have shown that women who abuse substances are significantly more likely to experience IPV, and that experiencing IPV is associated with increased drug and alcohol use (El-Bessel, Gilbert, Wu, Go, & Hill, 2005; Kilpatrick, Acierno, Resnick, Saunder, & Best 1997; Testa, Livingston, & Hoffman, 2007; Testa, Livingston, & Leonard 2003; Martino, Collins, & Ellickson, 2005), making substance abuse both a risk factor for and a consequence of IPV.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intimate partner violence outcomes in women with PTSD and substance use: A secondary analysis of NIDA Clinical Trials Network “Women and Trauma” Multi-site Study

Cohen

Field

Campbell

et al. 2013

Addictive Behaviors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies have shown strong associations between intimate partner violence (IPV) and both posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and substance use disorders (SUD). Despite these linkages, research on the dual diagnosis of PTSD-SUD and its relationship to IPV is in an early stage, and little is known about how PTSD-SUD treatment might influence IPV outcomes. The current study is a secondary analysis of a larger NIDA Clinical Trials Network study exploring the effectiveness of two behavioral interventions for women with comorbid PTSD-SUD. Participants (n =288) were randomly assigned to Seeking Safety (SS), a cognitive-behavioral treatment that focuses on trauma and substance abuse symptoms, or to Women’s Health Education, a psychoeducational group. Logistic regressions were used to examine how treatment condition, identified risk factors and their interactions were related to IPV. Results showed that participants who were abstinent at baseline were significantly less likely to experience IPV over the 12-month follow-up period, whereas participants living with someone with an alcohol problem were significantly more likely to experience IPV over follow-up. Findings also showed that at a trend level participants with recent interpersonal trauma at baseline and higher total of lifetime trauma exposures were more likely to report IPV during follow-up. Although there was no main effect for treatment condition, a significant interaction between treatment condition and baseline abstinence was found. Participants who were abstinent at baseline and in the SS condition were significantly less likely to report IPV over follow-up. These findings indicate that an integrated treatment for PTSD and SUD was associated with significantly better IPV outcomes for a subset of individuals. The possibility that women with PTSD-SUD may differentially benefit from SS has important clinical implications. Further research examining the intersection of PTSD, SUD and IPV, and the impact of treatment on a range of outcomes is needed.

show abstract

“…Services outside SUDPs’ focus are often prohibited by reimbursement policies [43]. That is, SUDPs are often not allowed to bill for IPV perpetration services and so do not provide them [12]. However, such policies, as well as lack of staff training, are both remediable barriers [44].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Organizational factors are important to assess in part because they are associated with treatment services and client outcomes [11,12]. Unfortunately, surveys of SUDPs and BIPs do not yield comprehensive, comparable information on organizational factors.…”

Section: Organizational and Client Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Addressing substance abuse and violence in substance use disorder treatment and batterer intervention programs

Timko

Valenstein

Lin

et al. 2012

Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundSubstance use disorders and perpetration of intimate partner violence (IPV) are interrelated, major public health problems.MethodsWe surveyed directors of a sample of substance use disorder treatment programs (SUDPs; N=241) and batterer intervention programs (BIPs; N=235) in California (70% response rate) to examine the extent to which SUDPs address IPV, and BIPs address substance abuse.ResultsGenerally, SUDPs were not addressing co-occurring IPV perpetration in a formal and comprehensive way. Few had a policy requiring assessment of potential clients, or monitoring of admitted clients, for violence perpetration; almost one-quarter did not admit potential clients who had perpetrated IPV, and only 20% had a component or track to address violence. About one-third suspended or terminated clients engaging in violence. The most common barriers to SUDPs providing IPV services were that violence prevention was not part of the program’s mission, staff lacked training in violence, and the lack of reimbursement mechanisms for such services. In contrast, BIPs tended to address substance abuse in a more formal and comprehensive way; e.g., one-half had a policy requiring potential clients to be assessed, two-thirds required monitoring of substance abuse among admitted clients, and almost one-half had a component or track to address substance abuse. SUDPs had clients with fewer resources (marriage, employment, income, housing), and more severe problems (both alcohol and drug use disorders, dual substance use and other mental health disorders, HIV + status). We found little evidence that services are centralized for individuals with both substance abuse and violence problems, even though most SUDP and BIP directors agreed that help for both problems should be obtained simultaneously in separate programs.ConclusionsSUDPs may have difficulty addressing violence because they have a clientele with relatively few resources and more complex psychological and medical needs. However, policy change can modify barriers to treatment integration and service linkage, such as reimbursement restrictions and lack of staff training.

show abstract

Linkage of Domestic Violence and Substance Abuse Services, Research in Brief, Executive Summary

Cited by 12 publications

References 0 publications

What does Research Suggest are the Primary Risk and Protective Factors for Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) and What is the Role of Economic Factors?

What does Research Suggest are the Primary Risk and Protective Factors for Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) and What is the Role of Economic Factors?

Intimate partner violence outcomes in women with PTSD and substance use: A secondary analysis of NIDA Clinical Trials Network “Women and Trauma” Multi-site Study

Addressing substance abuse and violence in substance use disorder treatment and batterer intervention programs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About