Stakeholder Group Differences on Knowledge,Attitudes,and Perspectives of Coordinated Community Response Teams for Domestic Violence

Abstract

The goal of the mixed methods parallel design observational study was to examine belief, attitude, and knowledge differences among stakeholder groups in a coordinated community response team (CCRT). A second purpose was to assess the perceived strengths, weaknesses, and barriers to success of a CCRT for domestic violence (DV). Participants were members of a CCRT from victim advocacy, law enforcement, and court-affiliated agencies. Results demonstrate differences among stakeholder groups on myth acceptance, knowledge of DV, diversity beliefs, cultural competence, and trauma knowledge. The results provide guidance on how to improve CCRTs for DV, focusing on cross-training, cultural competence, and clarification of roles and procedures.

Research has shown that between 20% and 33% of women report experiencing domestic violence (DV) during their lifetime. While 7.4% of men have reported experiencing DV, women are almost 4 times more likely than men to experience DV and 2 times more likely to be physically injured (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). DV commonly leads to bruises, scrapes, cuts, and abrasions, and the physical impact of DV can lead to permanent scarring, broken bones, internal bleeding, and death. DV often results in mental health problems, including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety, substance abuse and addiction, eating disorders, dissociative disorders, suicidality, self-harm, and sexual problems. DV has a significant economic impact on the survivor and on the community. Community costs can include lost productivity, lost earnings, medical and mental health treatment, legal, and criminal justice costs, welfare and other public services, housing costs, and victim compensation costs. Victims of interpersonal violence lose a total of eight million days of paid work each year and 5.6 million days of household chores (Black et al., 2011).

To combat DV more effectively, DV organizations and law enforcement agencies began to develop more formalized collaborations, now commonly referred to as a coordinated community response team (CCRT). CCRTs have become common vehicles for the implementation of a coordinated community response to interpersonal violence (Clark et al., 1997; Hetzel-Riggin, 2020). Numerous stakeholders from a variety of community sectors come together to increase victim safety and batterer accountability by improving relationships and linkages between the agencies responding to interpersonal violence, educating community members about interpersonal violence, and implementing new policies and programs. CCRTs regularly contain members from DV agencies, law enforcement, social service agencies, health and mental health agencies, prosecution, sexual assault agencies, courts, and legal services agencies. These multistakeholder efforts allow for cross-discipline input in creating local approaches to addressing DV, provide opportunities for improved communication among stakeholders, cross-training, referral facilitation, and an avenue to address weaknesses or gaps in service provision (Allen, 2005; Greeson & Campbell, 2013; Office of Violence Against Women, 2016). Years of research and evaluation have demonstrated that CCRTs for intimate partner violence are effective (Gondolf, 2007; Post et al., 2010). They also provide opportunities for improved communication among stakeholders, cross-training, referral facilitation, and an avenue to address weaknesses or gaps in service provision (Office of Violence Against Women, 2016). Research has shown that CCRTs are more effective when they are interdisciplinary and integrated throughout the community (Beldin et al., 2015; DePrince et al., 2012; Family Justice Center Alliance, 2013).

There currently exists no standardized protocols for implementing a CCRT (Klevens et al., 2008). These programs involve applying a socioecological approach to helping survivors of DV. The most widely used guidelines for CCRTs were developed by the city of St. Paul, MN, in partnership with Praxis International (2023). The Blueprint for Safety is a prototype for a coordinated community response that links providers together in a coherent way. This comprehensive guide to developing CCRTs has provided an outline for the implementation of successful coordination and analysis of CCRTs for many years. While the Blueprint for Safety provides a detailed roadmap of who to involve and invite for a successful CCRT, it is lacking in fidelity measures and additional forms of assessment. Shorey et al. (2014) conducted a review of the literature on response components of coordinated community responses for victims of DV. Shorey et al. identified that each specific component of a coordinated community response led to improved outcomes for survivors. However, they concluded that there are significant gaps in our knowledge about specific coordinated community response components. Koss et al. (2017) describe a comprehensive re-envisioning of CCRTs. One area of need is the development of consistent knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs across stakeholder groups. Another area in need of improvement for CCRTs is the development of cultural awareness and competency of all stakeholder groups. While specific advocacy and counseling interventions improve survivor outcomes, there is a paucity of research to date examining the multiple components of a coordinated community response and the interactions among these agencies.

Shepard (1999) discussed how to evaluate the effectiveness of a coordinated community response to DV the best. System-wide evaluations are necessary to overcome the pitfalls of examining just one or two components may not address the interactive nature of interventions from different sectors. She suggested that a variety of sources, including interviews with victims, criminal justice statistics, observations of interactions among stakeholders, assessment of practitioners, and standardized assessment of the coordinated community response teams are important.

Comprehensive assessment of the stakeholders of a larger coordinated response team provides a wealth of data at the community level, and what is lacking is a deeper understanding of the collaborations and barriers identified by the stakeholders on the response teams (Allen & Hagen, 2003). Previous research has examined small components of CCRTs, but our understanding of the true experience of the members of a coordinated community response is still in its infancy. If we are going to continue to rely on a coordinated community response, it behooves us to understand better how these CCRTs are perceived by their members (Hetzel-Riggin, 2020).

The goal of the present study was to examine the differences among stakeholder groups on beliefs, attitudes, and knowledge of interpersonal violence, trauma, and diversity. Specifically, we were examining differences among counselors/advocates, law enforcement, and prosecution/parole on violence myth acceptance, trauma knowledge, interpersonal violence knowledge, diversity beliefs, and cultural competence. Based on previous research, we hypothesized that counselors and advocates would report more rejection of violence myths, better trauma knowledge, interpersonal violence knowledge, cultural competency, and diversity beliefs than law enforcement and prosecutor/parole stakeholders.

A second purpose of this study is to assess the perceived strengths, weaknesses, and barriers to the success of a CCRT for DV in a mid-sized community, with the goal of identifying ways for improved communication and coordination of the CCRT for DV.

Method

Participants

Data for this report was collected from members of a county CCRT and their staff using a mixed method, convergent-parallel design. Members of the CCRT included representatives from DV agencies, sexual assault and crime victim agencies, counseling agencies, multiple law enforcement agencies, prosecutors and court-affiliated personnel, probation staff, parole staff, multicultural agencies, medical agencies, and other re-entry staff. All respondents were in the same county in the northeast United States. The CCRT had been functioning for almost a year during the data collection period.

Measures

Quantitative data. All the participants completed a short quantitative, cross-sectional survey (approximately 15 min) that included questions on the following topics:

DV Myth acceptance. Participants answered eight questions about their acceptance of DV myths using a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The questions were adapted from the Domestic Violence Myth Acceptance Scale (Peters, 2008) and a mean score for all eight questions was calculated (M = 3.82, SD = 0.74). Cronbach's alpha for the sample was .67.

Rape Myth acceptance. Participants answered 12 questions about their acceptance of rape and sexual assault myths using a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The questions were adapted from Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (Payne et al., 1999) and a mean score for all 12 questions was calculated (M = 4.39, SD = 0.54). Cronbach's alpha for the sample was .75.

Beliefs about “typical” reactions to interpersonal violence. We asked participants six questions assessing their beliefs about what “typical” reactions are for survivors of domestic and sexual violence. These questions asked about beliefs about how survivors disclose, the differences in experiences between abuse by a stranger as compared to a loved one, the memory of abuse, and mental health outcomes. The questions were answered using a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and were adapted from the Domestic Abuse Knowledge, Attitudes, and Training Confidence Questionnaire (Torres-Vitolas et al., 2010) and from resources on the National Violence Against Women Survey (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). We calculated a mean score for the six questions (M = 3.51, SD = 0.48), and Cronbach's alpha was very low (.41).

Knowledge of DV and how to respond. Four questions asked participants about their general knowledge of DV and how they would respond to a survivor seeking services. Participants answered the questions using a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Questions were adapted from the Domestic Abuse Knowledge, Attitudes, and Training Confidence Questionnaire (Torres-Vitolas et al., 2010). A mean score was calculated for the four questions (M = 4.16, SD = 0.52); Cronbach's alpha for the sample was .79.

Diversity beliefs. Eight questions, adapted from the Scale of Ethnocultural Empathy (Wang et al., 2003) and the Symbolic Racism Scale (Henry & Sears, 2002), were used to assess beliefs about diversity and racial bias. Questions were answered using a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree); we calculated a mean score for the eight questions (M = 3.11, SD = 0.87). The Cronbach's alpha for this sample was low (.46).

Cultural competency. Cultural competency was measured using six questions answered on a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The questions were adapted from the California Brief Multicultural Competence Scale (Gamst et al., 2004) and the Everyday Multicultural Competencies Scale (Mallinckrodt et al., 2014). Mean scores were calculated from the six questions (M = 3.84, SD = 0.56) and the Cronbach's alpha for the sample was .78.

Knowledge of trauma and trauma-informed care. Six questions were asked about participants’ knowledge of trauma and the provision of trauma-informed care. The questions were answered using a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The questions were created based on the information presented in the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration (SAMHSA, 2014) guidance for developing a trauma-informed approach. The mean of the six items was calculated (M = 3.68, SD = 0.69) and the Cronbach's alpha for the sample was .86.

Collaboration. Two items assessing collaboration and referral were asked of the participants and were answered using a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The questions were “I feel I am knowledgeable about the services available through other agencies that may be useful to those I serve” and “I feel comfortable making referrals to those agencies or organizations.” The mean of the two items for the entire sample was 4.15 (SD = 0.64) and the Cronbach's alpha was .84.

Coordinated community response team functioning. The 22 active members of the CCRT completed a 25-question measure on the overall functioning of the CCRT. The questions were adapted from the DV coordinating council survey from the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence (Allen & Hagen, 2003). Participants answered the questions using a 6-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The mean score for these items was 4.71 (SD = 0.51) and Cronbach's alpha was .90.

Qualitative interview with department heads. Parallel to the quantitative data collection procedures, department heads, and other members of the CCRT completed a half-hour interview with the author using a key informant paradigm to answer questions about the goals of the CCRT, strengths, and weaknesses of partner agencies, barriers and concerns, and the functioning of the CCRT. Appendix A has a list of the interview questions.

Procedure

We used a mixed method, convergent-parallel design using cross-sectional quantitative data collection procedures and qualitative key informant interviews. These occurred in parallel and were of equal importance. Findings were integrated during the interpretation stage. Using email snowball sampling procedures, an English-language electronic survey hosted by SurveyMonkey was distributed to members of the CCRT and their staff via email distribution and QR codes available on business cards. The online survey was disseminated by word of mouth, email, flyers, and postcards to the leadership of the different stakeholder groups. Reminders were sent to department heads twice, asking them and their staff to complete the survey. For the survey portion of the study, participants visited a link to the online survey; participants could complete the survey on computers or mobile devices. Participants read the information in the consent form and continued with the study if they agreed to participate. Participants provided information about their age, gender, ethnicity, profession, and years in the profession. Participants were asked about their knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about sexual assault, DV, cultural and racial awareness, trauma-informed practice, and collaboration with colleagues from other disciplines. If they were department heads or members of the CCRT (n = 22), they were asked to complete the questions about the communication and collaboration efforts of CCRT and barriers to communication. Once they completed the survey, they were provided contact information for the author and thanked for their participation.

For the key informant interviews, the author contacted all the department heads and CCRT members of the local CCRT. The author worked with the participants (n = 22, which was inclusive of all department heads that served on the CCRT under review) to arrange a one-on-one interview with the person at a private place of their choosing. Prior to the interview, the author reviewed the informed consent with the participant and continued if the participant verbally stated that they were willing to participate in the interview. The interviewer asked the participants the interview questions in order, writing down participant responses and answers to any clarifying or follow-up questions asked by the participants. Throughout the interview, the author provided summary responses for the participant responses, clarifying the accuracy of the content recorded. The author typed up individual participant responses and send them to each participant to review for accuracy prior to interpretation.

All data were collected in a manner consistent with the ethical principles of the American Psychological Association. All participation was voluntary and the Institutional Review Board of the authors’ university approved of the study.

Data Analysis

The quantitative data was cleaned; no outliers were identified, and the minimal missing data (< 1% of the sample) was addressed with mean replacement procedures (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). Participants were categorized into three groups based on their professions and a MANOVA was conducted to assess differences in the measures based on professional group measurement. Significant differences were followed up with Tukey's LSD tests. The qualitative data was examined using thematic coding procedures (Joffe & Yardley, 2004; Kiger & Varpio, 2020). Research questions were open-ended and general rather than formed by a hypothesis. Open coding procedures were used by the author. Domain lists were developed inductively by reviewing the transcripts followed by constructing core ideas (Hill, 2012). Coding similar responses into themes allowed the researcher to discover relationships among the data. The interview responses were typed and coded using QSR International's NVivo 11 (2015) software and coded by the author. The author also followed up with the key informants using member check validation to confirm that the analyses captured their voices.

Results

Eighty-one respondents from the local CCRT for DV completed the online survey. Of those participants, 22 department heads were interviewed by the author. The mean age of the entire sample was 44.9 years (SD = 9.4). The mean years of the participants in their respective professions were 15.9 years (SD = 10.58). The participants included slightly more men (56.8%) than women (43.2%), and no respondents self-identified as transgender or nonbinary. The participants were overwhelmingly White (97.5%), which is higher than the county's percentage of white residents (83.9%). The respondents were separated into three groups for analyses: counselors/advocates (32.1%), law enforcement (40.7%), and parole/probation/prosecutor's office (27.2%).

Quantitative Data

We ran a MANOVA with professional group (counselor/advocate, law enforcement, parole/probation/prosecutor's office) as the independent variable and DV myth acceptance, rape myth acceptance, beliefs about victim responses, knowledge of interpersonal violence, diversity beliefs, cultural competency, trauma-informed care knowledge, and collaboration as dependent variables. The MANOVA was significant, Wilks's lambda = 0.399, F(16, 142) = 5.182, p < .011. We examined the tests of between subjects’ effects for each outcome variable.

There was a significant difference among respondents in knowledge about interpersonal violence, F(2, 80) = 4.00, p = .022. Counselors reported more knowledge about interpersonal violence than probation/probation/parole/prosecutors, Tukey's mean difference = 0.41, p = .006. The was also significant variation among the respondents in DV myth rejection, F(2, 80) = 8.75, p < .001. Counselors also reported more DV myth rejection than law enforcement, Tukey's mean difference = 0.72, p < .001, and then parole/probation/prosecution, Tukey's mean difference = 0.58, p = .004. Similarly, there were significant differences among respondents in cultural competency, F(2, 80) = 15.22, p < .001. Counselors again reported more cultural competency than law enforcement, Tukey's mean difference = 0.69, p < .001, and parole/probation/prosecution, Tukey's mean difference = 0.51, p < .001.

There were significant differences among respondents in the understanding of victim reactions, F(2, 80) = 6.47, p = .003, diversity beliefs, F(2, 80) = 14.75, p < .001, sexual violence myths, F(2, 80) = 18.24, p < .001, and trauma knowledge, F(2, 80) = 12.66, p < .001. Counselors scored better than law enforcement in understanding victim reactions, Tukey's mean difference = .42, p < .001. For diversity beliefs, counselors scored better than law enforcement, Tukey's mean difference = 1.07, p < .001, and for parole/probation, Tukey's mean difference = 0.48, p = .031. Parole/probation also scored better than law enforcement on diversity beliefs, Tukey's mean difference = 0.59, p = .006. A similar pattern emerged for sexual violence myths rejection. Counselors scored better than law enforcement Tukey's mean difference = 0.72, p < .001, and parole/probation, Tukey's mean difference = 0.43, p = .002; parole/probation also scored better than law enforcement on sexual violence myth rejection, Tukey's mean difference = 0.29, p = .022. For trauma knowledge, counselors scored better than both law enforcement, Tukey's mean difference = 0.79, p < .001, and parole/probation, Tukey's mean difference = 0.58, p = .002. There were no differences among the three groups on collaboration outcomes, F(2, 80) = 1.86, p = .16.

We also ran an ANOVA on the CCRT functioning variable for the 22 members of the CCRT who completed that measure. There were no differences between the groups on CCRT perceptions, F(2, 22) = 0.14, p = .87.

Qualitative Data

Purpose and goals of CCRT. During the interviews with CCRT members and department heads, respondents were asked to describe the purpose of the CCRT. Most respondents agreed that the goal of the CCRT was to reduce gendered and interpersonal violence in the county by developing a coordinated response among victim advocacy, law enforcement, prosecution, and other important stakeholders. Other themes that emerged included reducing barriers and increasing communication among stakeholders, to further quality programs to protect the public, to help victims, to identify and increase services for underserved groups, to educate the public about interpersonal violence, and to serve as the backbone for coordination. Respondents stated that the CCRT could serve to develop trusting relationships among stakeholders, to develop clear policies and procedures for referral and coordination of services among the different constituent groups, and to reduce compartmentalization of activities among the different stakeholders.

Interview respondents identified several goals for the CCRT. Respondents hoped for increased training in interpersonal violence, lethality assessment, cultural groups and customs, and trauma-informed practice as part of this effort. Many stakeholders thought that cross-training was also an important goal to increase the understanding among representatives of the CCRT. General educational resources were also identified as an important goal. Respondents also thought that the acquisition of needed equipment (such as phones and cameras) and material resources (referral sources, translated materials) was an important goal. Increased availability of culturally appropriate services, increased visibility of the services, community wide educational and awareness events, and to better serve marginalized communities were stated goals. Overarching goals articulated by most respondents was the development of a coordinated community response: a cohesive, county-wide system to effectively capitalize on the strengths of all stakeholders in a coordinated effort to reduce interpersonal violence with solid lines of communication and sustainable funding.

Needs and Challenges. Respondents stated that funding and training were two of the stakeholders’ greatest needs. Additional staff was a common need, especially regarding counseling and advocacy. Respondents described a need for training in trauma-informed practice, de-escalation, cultural groups living in the region, and lethality assessment. Increased availability of translated materials and interpretation services is a need of many stakeholders, although many respondents stated that this need is starting to be met. Increased availability of shelter space, advocacy services, and services provided by other constituent groups not currently on the CCRT (homeless shelters, mission, mental health, drug and alcohol counseling) were also articulated as needs. Another need articulated by respondents was a clear understanding of the wealth of services available to their clients in the region, who to contact for what services, and which services are best for which clients.

In terms of challenges, the lack of a coordinated response to usher a victim safely through the legal process without causing re-traumatization was a challenge for stakeholders from all constituent groups. All respondents stated a desire to help victims remain safe, but often found that trying to balance the victim's physical safety with their emotional safety was a challenge, one that often led to inconsistent and frustrating interactions with stakeholders from all parts of the CCRT. Many stakeholders mentioned the frustration of staff, as well as a sense of wasted resources, when they are repeatedly interacting with the same family or couple without any apparent forward movement to reduce the incidence of DV in that couple. While most stakeholders clearly articulated that they understood the cycle of violence and understood this was not uncommon in domestically violent situations, this knowledge did not lessen the frustration of many of the respondents. Some respondents, especially those respondents who were in law enforcement, stated that dangerousness to their staff when responding to domestically violent homes was a challenge. Other challenges articulated by respondents included money, time, lack of cultural understanding of the refugee and immigrant population customs and expectations, negative influences of social media, and the stigma regarding who are and who are not victims of interpersonal violence. Some respondents identified that victim fear and self-blame are often challenges. Tracking cases across stakeholder groups and occasional blocks in communication were also identified as challenges. Lastly, many respondents stated that the mismatch between the victim services/advocacy/health services goals and objectives and the goals of the criminal justice system can often lead to re-traumatization and reduced trust, communication, and coordination among stakeholders.

Diversity and cultural competency. Generally, respondents demonstrated above average levels of acceptance of diversity. Respondents were aware of societal differences in how people of different ethnic backgrounds are treated and the associated fear and anger that often are the result of these differences. Respondents were also supportive of statements that noncitizens deserve the same access to social services and protection as citizens and that the similarities between refugees and citizens outweigh the differences. However, the responses to questions that assess the presence of subtle, implicit biases were endorsed more often than rejected, suggesting that respondents did hold some preconceptions about refugees and other racial minorities that may unintentionally influence their decision making and behavior.

Regarding cultural competency, most respondents reported that they have had training in cultural awareness related to their job, they are aware of the impact of culture on themselves and the people they serve, and they were aware of how culture may interact with interpersonal violence and other previous traumatic events to influence behavior. One area in which respondents were a little less confident was understanding their own cultural background and how it may influence their own decision making and behavior. Since most of the respondents identified as White, this is not a surprising result. However, it does provide a suggestion as to a potential additional training avenue.

While some respondents were a little unsure of the exact definition of cultural competency, most respondents defined cultural competency as an awareness of the needs and beliefs of people from other cultures or belief systems to interact with them effectively and positively. Many respondents included the importance of respecting differences among people as well as understanding the potential disagreements between cultures that can lead to friction and violence. About half of the respondents specifically stated that cultural competence includes an understanding of how people from other cultures view domestic and sexual violence. However, only a few respondents articulated the second part of cultural competence, which is an understanding of one's own cultural identity and how that may influence beliefs and interactions with those from other cultural backgrounds.

For those that had a lot of contact with different cultural groups, many respondents described consistent training of staff in diversity and cultural competency matters. Many used available local resources to provide culturally sensitive services, interpretation, and translation; they also have tried to intentionally increase the diversity of their staff. However, a minority of respondents stated that due to the relatively homogenous groups they serve they have not had much training or experience working with culturally diverse groups.

Language barriers were by far the biggest challenge for most respondents. Many respondents stated that a lack of knowledge of specific group histories regarding customs, cultural beliefs, violence in country of origin, and community structure was a limitation. Many stakeholders stated that they often struggled to understand what people from diverse cultures really need, such as specific foods, presence of family, or requirements for female officers or medical personnel. Law enforcement and other criminal justice stakeholders consistently stated that many cultural groups hesitate or refuse to seek their assistance because of fears regarding deportation, a lack of understanding of the American criminal justice system, and negative experiences with criminal justice systems in their country of origin. While most stakeholders reported training in diversity, many would like additional training on specific cultural groups in the region.

Trauma-informed practice. Respondents were asked to describe their knowledge and training with trauma-informed practice. About a third of respondents were unsure what trauma-informed practice is and had never had any training. Another third of the respondents were generally aware of what trauma-informed practice was but had not had formal training in trauma-informed practice. However, these respondents had undergone trauma-related training in other contexts, such as how to work with veterans, those with traumatic brain injury, victims of child abuse, and those with mental health issues. The last third of respondents were clear about the definition of trauma-informed practice and had undergone extensive training through national agencies on how to engage in trauma-informed practice in their work.

Respondents were also asked how and to what extent their agency identifies trauma as a key factor in what affects the population they serve. Answers to this question varied among respondents from not at all to the main reason for the agency's existence. The answers to this question clearly show the range of perspectives in how stakeholders approach their clients. However, most respondents did report that they saw trauma being at least part of what affects their clients; many respondents were likely to see maladaptive and criminal behaviors as negative responses to a traumatic history. In other words, a large majority of respondents were likely to ask their clients, “What happened to you” rather than “What is wrong with you” to get at the root cause of maladaptive or unhealthy behavior.

Many respondents were also able to articulate specific policies, procedures, laws, and materials the use to create a sense of safety for interpersonal violence survivors. Examples of policies and procedures to address physical safety include good lighting, locks, cameras, safe environments in shelters and other agency settings, the development of physical safety plans, increased lethality assessment and use of protection from abuse orders, and the physical separation of domestically violent couples during law enforcement calls. Examples of policies and procedures to address a sense of emotional safety include high levels of training of all staff; clear rules and policies related to confidentiality, referral procedures, and future legal proceedings; using calm language to develop trust; use of interpretation services as needed; and empowerment of the victim through clear lines of communication and involvement in decision making to the extent possible. Many (although not all) respondents reported that they do seek to minimize the possibility of re-traumatization. Stakeholders stated that they try to minimize re-traumatization through referral to advocacy and counseling, providing clear communication always, and by being sensitive about triggering cues. Specific training in how to minimize re-traumatization, efforts to reduce the need for victim involvement in court proceedings, and attempts to empower the victim through legal, medical, and housing advocacy and referrals were reported.

Coordination and collaboration. Overall, the respondents highly endorsed their ability to refer and collaborate with other agencies during their jobs. Respondents also stated that they felt knowledgeable about the services of other agencies. All the respondents stated that they coordinate with other services providers when working with survivors and that they work closely with a wide range of service providers, including many not currently on represented on the CCRT.

Some barriers that were disclosed by respondents included lack of awareness of all the services available, lack of services (especially for homeless victims, transgender victims, offender treatment, shelter space), and interpretation. Another barrier that was repeatedly identified by various stakeholders is victim behaviors. Examples of victim behavior barriers include not signing releases of information, not engaging in counseling or drug and alcohol counseling, returning to abusers, and dropped protection from abuse orders. While all respondents were clear that the victim was not to blame for the violence they experienced, victim behaviors were a challenge to coordination of care and services across stakeholders. Another barrier to collaboration and coordination included perceived territoriality and competitiveness by some stakeholders. Most respondents genuinely believed that all stakeholders want to work together but that lack of time often gets in the way of the level of coordination and follow-up that most stakeholders would like to see. Lastly, some staff at different agencies may be intimidated about coordinating with new stakeholders with whom they may be unfamiliar.

Respondents believed that the CCRT members have a shared vision, mission, and definitions. Members were more likely than not to state that disagreements led to useful discussion and attempts to solve problems. However, there was substantial variability in responses, suggesting that not all respondents believed that discussion and disagreements have led to productive outcomes. While many respondents indicated that the CCRT did a good job including diverse viewpoints, the respondents were not sure that addressing conflict has led to important changes.

Respondents were in high agreement that the committee is organized, the membership is diverse, and that the leaders were successful in providing direction. Respondents also believed that the CCRT had increased collaboration and communication, the exchange of resources and information, and increased access to community resources. To a slightly lesser degree, respondents endorsed statements that suggested that the CCRT had led to improvements in all sectors of the violence response team (victim agency, law enforcement, prosecution, and judicial response). Most respondents believe that the CCRT efforts have led to positive changes in the community in the response to DV and sexual assault, lethality assessment, and services for refugees and immigrants; they also stated that they are glad to be part of the CCRT and that the work the CCRT is doing is important for the community.

Most of the respondents stated that the CCRT has done a great job bringing stakeholders from different constituent groups to the table to address the issues surrounding interpersonal violence in the community. The CCRT has opened lines of communication that were minimal or missing in the past, and that everyone on the CCRT seems dedicated to making improvements, such as good organization and structure, increased and effective training and technical assistance, and the acquisition of needed equipment and supplies to improve interventions. Respondents also stated that the coordination of the CCRT is starting to open doors for funding and prevention that were much more difficult to access in the past. Trust is also starting to develop among the members of the group, which is breaking down perceived barriers related to access and communication for clients.

Respondents suggested that the CCRT could help participating agencies by clearly defining their roles and providing information about what they could specifically be doing to contribute to increased community awareness of interpersonal violence. Improved coordination, communication, and collaboration were suggested. Specific examples of increased collaboration included providing additional follow-up information to clients about other services available in the community as well as the development of a clearinghouse or master list of service providers and their resources and services for stakeholders and clients. Cross-training across disciplines, additional training on underserved populations, increased training on DV to law enforcement, prosecution, and the judiciary were suggested. When asked what the CCRT's greatest challenge is, the most common answers were funding, time, and sustainability of relationships. A few respondents also commented that overcoming historical territoriality will be a challenge, but that the CCRT has already begun to break down these walls. Other challenges included bringing additional stakeholders to the table increasing victim empowerment and participation in the process, and being able to implement everything the CCRT has planned.

Discussion

The member of a CCRT to interpersonal violence participated in a survey to examine the differences among stakeholder groups on beliefs, attitudes, and knowledge of interpersonal violence, trauma, and diversity. We also tried to assess the perceived strengths and barriers of a CCRT for DV in a mid-sized community, with the goal of identifying ways for improved communication and coordination of the CCRT for DV. Over 80 respondents completed the survey, and 22 of those respondents who were members of the CCRT, or department heads of stakeholder groups completed a follow-up interview.

The results of the quantitative data analyses support our hypothesis that there are differences among stakeholder groups on beliefs related to interpersonal violence myth acceptance, diversity and cultural competency, trauma-informed care, and knowledge of interpersonal violence reactions. The results suggest that counselors and advocates are more rejecting of interpersonal violence myths, are more trauma-informed, and are more culturally competent than law enforcement and prosecutor/parole stakeholders. Prosecutor/parole stakeholders are more aware of the impact of diversity and understand the typical reactions of interpersonal violence compared to law enforcement, but still not to the same degree as counselor/advocates. These results are consistent with previous research (Koss et al., 2017; McMullan et al., 2010; Stalans & Finn, 2006) demonstrating inherent differences in beliefs and attitudes held by members of different stakeholder groups in a CCRT.

As articulated by Allen and Hagen (2003), the results provide a deeper understanding of the complexity of relationships and functioning of the stakeholders in the CCRT. Our results demonstrate that law enforcement and court system employees have less knowledge and experience in issues in cultural competency, diversity beliefs, and understanding of the effect of trauma on behavior; these findings may explain some of the racial disparities and inequities, as well as retraumatizing systems, found within the criminal justice system (Gaber & Wright, 2016; Jee-Lyn García & Sharif, 2015). The results also suggest that further dissemination of training on trauma informed practices and cultural competency, such as the SAMHSA's Trauma Training of Criminal Justice Professionals (Policy Research Associates, 2020). The results also suggest that further development of specific processes and policies to increase collaboration on specific cases of DV are warranted to improve outcomes for those served (Hetzel-Riggin, 2020).

These results should be discussed within the context that considers the inherent inequities present among the different members of a CCRT. There are significant power differences between counselors/advocates and law enforcement and prosecutors. Members of the criminal justice system generally earn significantly more money than members of nonprofit community organizations (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2022). In addition, the voice of an advocate from a DV shelter will not bear the same weight as a member of the criminal justice system in determining the outcomes of a CCRT nor specific decisions whether to press charges as a prosecutor. Pairing these power differentials with the current results that members of law enforcement and prosecutors are less trauma-informed and culturally competent while being less rejecting of myths around DV and sexual assault, than counselors and advocates seems to set up a system where there is a problematic gap between knowledge and power.

The themes identified in the interviews help us understand the gaps in knowledge and attitudes among members of CCRTs (Johnson & Stylianou, 2020). While these results may seem intuitive, they are essential to understand that there are inherent differences in how different stakeholder groups in a coordinated community response to DV understand and react to an incident of DV (Shorey et al., 2014). It is likely that these differences are due to training, education, and on-the-job experiences (Sudderth, 2006). The results also point to differences in the language and framework these different stakeholder groups may use when discussing a DV event. To improve CCRT effectiveness, it may prove useful to develop cross-training and common language across disciplines on trauma knowledge, interpersonal violence myths, and violence reactions (Hetzel-Riggin, 2020). It may also be beneficial to develop a shared language and definition of DV and its causes across stakeholder groups that all can agree on. Another takeaway from the results is that it might be useful to modify the educational requirements for these professions to include evidence-based knowledge on DV that is trauma-informed and culturally competent.

Limitations

The study is not without limitations. The sample size was adequate for the proposed quantitative and qualitative analyses, but it may not be representative of other stakeholders not included in the analyses (e.g., medical professionals, child welfare workers). The sample was also predominantly White, and therefore may not represent the beliefs and experiences of a more ethnically diverse CCRT from historically Black or Latino areas of the United States. Two of the scales, beliefs about “typical” victim reactions and diversity beliefs, had poor reliability metrics, suggesting that the questions may not represent a unified construct. For the quantitative data, the sample used was a nonprobabilistic convenience sample with snowball sampling; therefore, the results may not be as strong as if they were if a random sample was used. For the qualitative data, the results are based on the key informant interviews; additional representation of key informants from other agencies may have changed the results. Relatedly, because of the use of snowball sampling, a true response rate is unknown. While the community in question is of moderate size, and the number of responses seems to be consistent with the size of the population eligible to participate in the study, no a priori sample size calculations were conducted, which is a further limitation of the study.

Conclusion

Limitations notwithstanding, the results of the present study provide a unique look at how stakeholders in a CCRT for DV view their collaborative processes as well as the similarities and differences in their beliefs about factors that may impact how they respond to incidents of DV. In addition to methodological concerns regarding data collection and tracking that often plague research and evaluation of community collaborations towards a common goal (Hetzel-Riggin, 2020), the results provide a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of CCRTs for DV that should be considered when examining the impact of DV on victims, offenders, and the community at large.