Questioning Gender Assumptions of Domestic Violence Intervention Programs: A Qualitative Study

Abstract

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a public health problem with devastating consequences in the United States. Although studies suggest that sexual and gender minorities experience IPV as or more frequently than heterosexual, cisgender individuals, most court-mandated Domestic Violence Intervention Programs (DVIPs) continue to use approaches intended for application to male perpetrators with female partners. To achieve an updated and extended understanding of limitations of current DVIP programming, we conducted a qualitative study to explore how gender is currently considered and discussed in DVIP curricula and among key personnel who work with IPV perpetrators and survivors. We conducted 7 focus groups and spoke with 29 individuals including personnel from DVIPs, domestic violence service programs, and the North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCCADV). We used a thematic content analysis and drew on tenets of discourse analysis to analyze data. We grouped findings into three major themes: (1) male-centered, heteronormative domestic violence intervention programming, (2) lack of nuance in current programming owing to narrow assumptions regarding gender throughout curricula, and (3) gendered language use among key personnel, and (subtheme 3) self-corrections to patterns of gendered language use. Findings raise questions about whether gender constructs and presumptions in curricula and among key personnel inhibit the ability of DVIPs to adequately engage the diverse populations they serve by ignoring the intersectional factors that contribute to experiences of IPV. The tendency for DVIPs to point to gender, masculinity, and patriarchy as the causes of underlying violent behavior might inhibit the representativeness, persuasive capacity, and impact of these programs.