Abstract
Little is known about partnerships fatherhood programs establish to engage fathers in addressing domestic violence (DV). The study aimed to (a) describe partnership activities between fatherhood programs and organizations that address DV, (b) highlight strategies for productive partnerships, and (c) identify areas in need of improvement for addressing DV. This study discusses findings from qualitative interviews with 27 individuals from 17 fatherhood and DV organizations across the United States including the variety of partnership activities used to prevent and address DV (e.g., conducting trainings or facilitating referrals); strategies for creating productive partnerships; and partnership areas that need further attention.
Introduction
Domestic violence (DV) is defined as violence or aggression that occurs by current and former spouses or similarly situated individuals (e.g., cohabiting partners and individuals who share a child) (Fernandes-Alcantara, 2019). 1 According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are four types of DV behaviors: physical violence, sexual violence, stalking, and psychological aggression, which includes behaviors that monitor, control, or threaten an intimate partner (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control [NCIPC], 2017). In line with this definition, this article explores violence against an intimate partner broadly.
DV is a serious public health concern that affects millions of individuals. DV is highly prevalent, with approximately one in four women and one in 10 men reporting sexual violence, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner during their lifetime (Smith et al., 2018). In addition, over one in three women have experienced psychological aggression during their lifetime (Smith et al., 2018). Although both men and women can be survivors and users 2 of DV, men often perpetrate DV and women are more likely than men to suffer injury (Breiding et al., 2014) and death (Cooper & Smith, 2011) as a result of DV. Both women and men who experience DV are at greater risk for several serious physical and mental health outcomes, including physical injury, depressive symptoms, substance use, and developing a chronic disease or mental illness (Campbell et al., 2002; Coker et al., 2002). DV is a complex problem because most men who use violence have also witnessed DV when they were children (Ehrensaft et al., 2003) or were abused as children (Murrell et al., 2007). One study found that observing DV in childhood increases the risk of men using violence by 56%–63%, depending on the severity of the violence observed (Roberts et al., 2010). In a recent federal evaluation of fatherhood programs, many fathers reported that this type of childhood trauma carried into their adult romantic relationships, thus continuing the intergenerational cycle of violence (Dion et al., 2018).
DV not only affects those who are directly involved, but also children (Anderson & Van Ee, 2018). Children who witness or are exposed to DV have an increased risk of psychological, social, emotional, and behavioral problems including mood and anxiety disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, and school-related problems (Wathen & MacMillan, 2013). Furthermore, surviving DV has been linked to poorer overall quality of parenting, which in turn, can directly and indirectly shape children's well-being (Anderson & Van Ee, 2018).
According to the National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence, mothers who survive DV are most commonly victimized by the fathers of their children, accounting for 61%–71% of DV incidents among mothers (Hamby et al., 2011). Fathers who use violence may also struggle with maintaining relationships with their children; they may be more severe when disciplining their children, less receptive to their children's needs, and show less affection to their children (Labarre et al., 2016). Children who witness their fathers' violence against their mothers often do not respect their mother's authority (Labarre et al., 2016). Furthermore, the severity of DV a mother experiences and a child witnesses is positively associated with posttrauma stress disorder symptom severity in children, positively associated with poor emotion regulation in mothers, and negatively associated with maternal bonding (Boeckel et al., 2017). Given the negative consequences of DV for families, it is important to consider strategies that involve both mothers and fathers in efforts to prevent and address DV.
Given the broad consequences of DV for families and society at large, DV agencies tend to use a public health approach for violence prevention, which specifies that multiple factors at the interpersonal, community, and societal levels shape an individual's risk for or protection against DV (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2020). Although there are several frameworks that can describe approaches to DV prevention and intervention, one in which a public health approach is coupled with a theory of change model that promotes survivors' social and emotional well-being best describes the approach to services that many DV agencies use (Sullivan, 2018). This “social and emotional wellbeing promotion” framework emphasizes helping survivors thrive when violence does occur and looking beyond the individual to community-level factors that contribute to violence and well-being to prevent violence before it occurs. As a result, DV programs work with individual survivors and children, as well as communities, to hold users of violence accountable and promote broader DV prevention activities (Sullivan, 2018).
Although DV programs recognize addressing the systemic problem of DV requires engaging entire families, including those who use violence, using frameworks that focus on justice and survivor safety result in few DV services that primarily target individuals who are or have used violence. One strategy for working with those who perpetrate violence is through Battering Intervention Programs (BIPs) 3 that work directly and primarily with individuals who use violence and coercive control in their relationships, the majority of whom are male (Adams, 2003). BIPs can be provided within a DV agency—an organization that offers survivor services—but are often not affiliated with such an organization. The research on the efficacy of such programs is mixed, with some studies showing no effect and others demonstrating significant effect (Aldarondo, 2009). Studies showing positive results found a decrease in the odds of users of violence being rearrested for DV as well as fewer victim reports of reassaults (Ferraro, 2017). In contrast, there are also consistent findings of high recidivism among men arrested for DV, including those who attend BIPs (Ferraro, 2017). Further, there can be significant cost barriers that make it difficult for fathers to access BIPs and participation in a BIP often requires a court mandate. Nevertheless, BIPs remain one of the most common intervention approaches for people who use violence against their partner. The ambiguity of evidence and barriers to attending BIPs suggest that men and fathers who use violence need additional supports. Other men may also benefit from programs focused more on prevention and educating those at risk of using violence, even if no violence has occurred.
Lastly, research indicates that having a child motivates fathers who use DV to change (Meyer, 2018), further highlighting the advantage in focusing prevention and intervention DV efforts on fathers. Programs that are directed toward and have access to fathers can engage fathers in these efforts, including those who may be at risk for using violence or who have used violence in relationships.
The Role of Fatherhood Programs
In support of improving fathers' relationships with partners and children, many organizations work directly with fathers to provide wrap-around services that support their ability to be positively involved in their children's lives. A subset of these programs are funded by the federal government through the Responsible Fatherhood (RF) program, which was reauthorized by Congress in 2005. 4 The Office of Family Assistance (OFA) administers this program, overseeing $75 million in RF grants across the United States to help fathers be more involved in their families and be positive influences for their children (OFA, 2020). OFA currently funds 36 RF grantees (OFA, 2020), which focus on three goals as specified by the authorizing legislation: (a) promoting marriage or sustaining marriage and healthy relationships, (b) promoting responsible parenting, and (c) fostering economic stability (Social Security Act, 2019). Grantees tend to serve fathers who are noncustodial, did not complete high school, have a low income, face income instability, and experience challenging circumstances, such as a history of criminal justice involvement. Some of these factors might affect fathers' participation in program activities or services such as BIPs. Although programs serve a diverse range of fathers, many of the fathers served live in urban, economically under-resourced, and/or predominantly racial and ethnic minority communities, as do many of their current or past romantic partners. Fatherhood programs provide a range of services, such as group-based classes with structured curricula and workshops to further enhance knowledge learned in class. Workshops may include more targeted information on specific topics such as DV, communication and conflict resolution skills, job training, and financial planning.
Through the various services that federally funded RF programs provide, there is an opportunity to engage fathers in efforts to prevent and address DV. While fatherhood programs are uniquely positioned to access men, it is important to note that not all men (or fathers) in fatherhood programs use violence. Moreover, men and fathers who use violence may have survived violence themselves, highlighting the complexities of current and past experiences to take into account when addressing DV among fathers. Still, fatherhood programs may have the opportunity to provide DV-related services (e.g., screening for DV, education on DV, or referrals to organizations that address DV) for users and survivors, as well as preventive services for fathers without a history of DV. Fatherhood programs may also have the opportunity to provide services that address the underlying trauma that fathers may have experienced as children (Voith et al., 2019), for example, if they witnessed DV.
As part of the many services that RF programs provide, they are required by federal legislation to consult with organizations that address DV in developing program activities. Although fatherhood programs (whether federally funded or not) are not necessarily designed to provide targeted interventions for users or survivors of violence, and most are not equipped to do so without support from community partners, they have access to fathers that may benefit from prevention and intervention services. Therefore, establishing partnerships between fatherhood programs and organizations that provide DV-related services both for users and survivors of violence is critical to help prevent and address DV.
History of Partnerships Between Fatherhood Programs and DV Agencies
Due to differences in historical origins and funding streams, fatherhood programs and DV agencies that work with survivors of DV (of all genders but typically women) generally have had little contact throughout the years. In the 1970s and early 1980s, community-based programs were established that aimed to connect fathers to their children, help noncustodial fathers pay child support, and promote “father involvement” in settings such as Head Start (Ooms et al., 2006). Beginning in the 1980s, research on the crucial role that fathers play in children's lives grew, motivating the federal government to promote father's financial, social, and moral responsibilities to their children (Sandstrom et al., 2015). In the 1990s, the federal government took initial steps to support fatherhood programming, but it was not until the passage of the Deficit Resolution Act of 2005 that the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grants program was created and funded (Osborne et al., 2016). Congress subsequently reauthorized the program under the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (Child & Family Research Partnership, 2017). DV services that are focused primarily on survivors emerged from the feminist movement of the 1960s and 1970s, which recognized violence in intimate relationships as rooted in gender inequality and patriarchy (Tracy, 2007). By the 1980s and 1990s, the field grew to include hundreds of shelters and DV agencies (Ake & Arnold, 2017). Following extensive grassroots efforts, Congress passed the Family Violence Prevention Services Act (FVPSA) in 1984, which established a dedicated federal funding stream for states and tribes to provide shelters and supportive services to DV survivors and their dependents and the National Domestic Violence Hotline through the FVPSA office within the Department of Health and Human Services (Family Violence Prevention & Services Program, 2018). Additionally, the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 acknowledged DV and sexual assault as crimes and provided federal resources to encourage community-coordinated responses to violence against women including DV through the Office of Violence Against Women within the U.S. Department of Justice (OVW, 2019). DV agencies therefore are funded through a range of sources including federal, state, foundation, and other grassroots funding streams (Domestic Shelters, 2020).
In addition, while fatherhood programs and DV agencies both work to promote the safety and security of families, they have different approaches to achieve this common goal. Fatherhood programs work with fathers to provide comprehensive services in employment, parenting, and healthy relationships, while DV agencies work primarily with women to provide individual and group support, counseling, legal and medical advocacy, and more (Ooms et al., 2006). The fatherhood field tends to advocate for fathers' rights to be involved with their children and works with fathers to overcome challenges that may make family relationships difficult (Ooms et al., 2006). On the other hand, DV agencies, as part of their public health approach, advocate for the safety of survivors who are mostly women and their children. According to discussions at a 2003 meeting focusing on state and healthy marriage initiatives, some DV advocates may see men and fathers—often the users of violence—as threats to be held accountable and not given access to their families until violence is no longer a problem (Ooms et al., 2006). In addition, there are common misperceptions that have created tension between DV agencies and fatherhood programs, in partnership. For example, from discussions at the aforementioned 2003 meeting, some DV advocates believe that all users of violence are men, users of violence cannot change, and that fatherhood advocates hold patriarchal attitudes, excuse poorly behaved fathers, and are invested primarily in promoting fathers' rights (Ooms et al., 2006). As a result of these early misperceptions that the fields are fundamentally at odds, fatherhood programs and DV agencies have traditionally not worked together.
Movement and Current Efforts in Partnerships
Despite the tension between DV agencies and fatherhood programs, there has been considerable movement in recent years to identify avenues for collaboration, including through the FVPSA Program's federal efforts to collaborate with fatherhood programs to promote DV-informed programming (Family and Youth Services Bureau [FYSB], 2012). While fatherhood programs, including those funded by OFA, may have different priorities from organizations that address DV, their work is still closely linked to violence in relationships, which has resulted in a natural and growing focus on DV over time. Reflecting this, federal legislation requires that RF programs consult with DV experts to develop program activities (Social Security Act, 2019). The RF Funding Opportunity Announcements provide recommendations about what these consultations might achieve, such as ensuring that program participants are provided accurate information about DV as well as opportunities to disclose DV and that RF program staff are adequately trained to respond to DV disclosures (OFA, 2015). DV agencies have also expanded efforts to engage youth and adult men in violence prevention activities. BIPs have also increased their attention on fatherhood as a means to encourage men to change their behavior (Labarre et al., 2016). The various organizations that address DV (for both survivors and users) and fatherhood programs have identified overlapping goals, such as encouraging healthy intimate partner and parent–child relationships. These overlapping goals strongly suggest that they could benefit from working together.
In addition, there are several resources available to support fatherhood programs and organizations that address DV in establishing partnerships. A resource titled, “A Guide for Building Partnerships between Fatherhood and Anti-Domestic Violence Organizations,” lays out fundamental considerations and steps to take when forming partnerships (Fathers Incorporated, 2015). Additionally, the National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse (NRFC) provides a toolkit with detailed information and strategies on how to address DV in fatherhood programs (https://www.fatherhood.gov/). Furthermore, the NRFC has held and archived webinars that feature practitioners from RF programs and organizations that address DV to discuss challenges and successes in partnerships. Beyond the few available resources, the research literature that describes or evaluates partnerships between fatherhood programs and organizations that address DV has considerable gaps.
Present Study
Although there are guidelines (Fathers Incorporated, 2015) available on how to establish and strengthen relationships between fatherhood programs and partner organizations that address DV, there is limited published literature on fatherhood programs that include their partners' perspectives on these relationships and insights on the partnership activities. In the present study, we used qualitative methods to (a) describe current partnership activities between fatherhood programs and organizations that address DV, including staff perceptions of the strengths and challenges of these activities, (b) highlight strategies for promoting productive partnerships, and (c) identify areas of growth and improvement for addressing DV within fatherhood programming.
Methods
Child Trends, along with partners from Boston Medical Center and Futures Without Violence, conducted a study titled “Preventing and Addressing Intimate Violence when Engaging Dads (PAIVED),” initiated by the Administration for Children and Families (ACFs) Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE) and funded by ACF's OFA. 5 Child Trends is a nonprofit research organization focused on improving the lives of children and youth, and Futures Without Violence is a health and social justice nonprofit organization aimed to end violence against women and children. The PAIVED study sought to better understand how fatherhood programs (with a focus on federally funded RF programs) prevent and address DV among the fathers they serve. The present study is nested within the larger PAIVED study and focuses on themes related to the partnership efforts between RF programs and organizations that address DV. The study was approved by the Child Trends Institutional Review Board (IRB; FWA00005835) and received Office of Management and Budget approval (0970-0516).
Study Selection Criteria
The study team reviewed and synthesized information from several data sources, including information drawn from RF grantee documents and OFA input, to identify programs for in-depth screening. Selection criteria for screening included the degree to which RF programs: (a) served diverse priority populations (e.g., incarcerated fathers), (b) reported explicit plans for assessing DV, (c) reported varied responses to DV, and/or (d) reported challenges in addressing DV. Nineteen federally funded RF programs across the country met criteria for screening. Screening was conducted by telephone in October and November 2018. Screening interviews lasted between 30 and 60 min.
Selection criteria for inclusion in the study paralleled criteria by which programs were selected for screening, with the addition of availability to participate in the study during the data collection timeframe. This resulted in eight RF programs and nine of their partner organizations as the final analytic sample.
Data Collection
To ensure screener and interview questions were relevant and clear to program staff, the study team sought input from stakeholders in the development of the data collection materials, including fatherhood and DV researchers and practitioners, federal staff, and representatives from state DV coalitions. Data for the study were collected either on site at the location of the RF program or by telephone. At least one director and one facilitator per program and at least one community partner (often a DV agency) were asked to participate in interviews. Interviews lasted ∼90 min. Prior to being interviewed, all participants were consented using IRB approved consent procedures. Interviews were recorded and notes were taken.
Interview Guide
Semistructured interview guides for the RF program facilitator/director and partner organization staff were used to collect qualitative data. Given the unique role of RF programs in addressing DV and the need for strong partnerships with the DV field, the interview guides included questions on the following topics: staff role in the RF program or partner organization, RF program staff perception of the issues fathers face, a description of partnership activities to prevent and address DV (perpetration and victimization), assessment of partnership activities and perceptions of fathers' responses to those activities, a description and assessment of the partnership itself, and future considerations for addressing DV.
Data Analysis
The study team transcribed all interviews, reviewed transcripts for completeness, and deidentified transcripts before entering them into Dedoose qualitative software (Dedoose Version, 8.0.35, 2018). Five trained qualitative researchers (one PhD scientist, two master's level analysts, and two bachelor's level research assistants) participated in several project-specific training sessions for data analysis. The team of researchers coded interview transcripts and analyzed them for emerging themes through an iterative process of co-developing a codebook based on the protocol questions, coding transcripts independently, reconciling differences through discussion, and developing themes.
Results
Sample
A total of 27 staff (16 RF program staff and 11 staff from partner organizations that address DV) participated in the study. These staff were from 17 different organizations (eight RF programs and nine of their partner organizations) across the country. Of the nine partner organizations, six were DV agencies (which may also provide BIP services), one was a BIP (not associated with a DV agency), one was a governmental agency that referred to an RF program, and another was an independent DV consultant. Organizations that addressed DV provided survivor services, services for users of violence, or both. All RF programs in the study were in their third year of a five-year grant and prioritized services for low-income fathers. Seven of the eight RF programs focused on teen, unemployed, and/or criminal justice-involved fathers.
Many RF program and partner organization staff had backgrounds in social work, therapy, or counseling. Some RF program staff had extensive experience (up to 20 years) in the fatherhood field, while others were new to the field with about 6 months of experience. Partner organization staff had more years of experience in the DV field from a range of four to 18 years. Two participants—one from an RF program and another from a partner organization—were previous clients and utilized program services before joining as full-time staff. Another RF program staff member grew up in the same neighborhood as the RF program participants and noted having similar lived experiences, which helped foster a strong connection between the staff member and participating fathers. We did not collect information about program staff's age, gender, race/ethnicity, or other background characteristics. However, these shared experiences may be more important to consider than the demographic composition of the staff. Overall, participants shared their strong passion for working with underserved populations.
Themes
The results are divided into three sections, which parallel the objectives of this article. The first section describes current partnership activities reported by RF program and partner staff, including their perceptions of the strengths and challenges of these activities. The second section describes reported strategies for promoting a productive partnership. The final section describes areas for growth and improvement in partnerships to address DV.
Current Partnership Activities: Description and Perceived Strengths/Challenges
RF program and partner staff reported a variety of partnership activities, some of which were perceived to be more successful than others. This section includes themes highlighting program and partner staff perceptions of these activities.
Formal Trainings on DV for RF Program Staff Were Perceived to be Successful in Increasing Staff Knowledge and Understanding of DV and Staff Ability to Recognize DV with the Fathers They Served. RF program staff members noted that the DV training provided by partner organizations opened their eyes, changing their perception of DV as only physical and enhancing their “knowledge and ability to recognize [DV].” Trainings that were interactive, used stories, and sought to elicit empathy from program staff were particularly effective in the eyes of program staff. An RF program staff participant recounted the following activity:
a game called In Your Shoes … you had to traverse through five of our scenarios and then you had to go to court, go back here, go to the shelter, and it was like you had to walk in their [survivor's] shoes and it really lets you know how much they're up against, sometimes.
RF program staff also noted that learning about DV in depth caused them to reflect on their own relationships. One staff member noted “it made me reflect back on some things” and another staff member said, “Me and my boyfriend, we're in the red zone. We probably need to go and talk.” One partner staff noted, however, an instance in which RF program staff became defensive because they recognized DV-related behaviors in themselves. Although all other RF staff responded to the training (from both the RF program staff and partner staff viewpoints) positively, these quotations illustrate that DV content may affect RF program staff beyond their work with fathers.
Although formal training was typically unidirectional, with partner staff providing them for RF programs, partner organizations still valued informal presentations by RF staff. One partner organization staff member described the value of having RF staff informally present information to their organization (a BIP program),
We regularly have [RF program] staff come in every 10 weeks to educate our program participants about what [RF program] is about, what they are looking to do in the community, what incentives they are offering, what the programming is like, what your takeaway would be. And that helps to better make referrals.
Staff Perceived Fathers' Responses to Partner DV Workshops as Positive, Despite Initial Resistance to DV-Related Content. RF program staff reported that fathers were initially reluctant to attend DV-related classes (targeted toward perpetration), in part due to their resistance to and/or denial of identifying as a user of violence and in part due to the normalization of their experiences with violence (possibly due to their own exposure to DV as a child). An RF program staff member recounted a participating father saying, “My parents beat me, and look, I'm fine.” Another RF program staff member remarked that, “The biggest challenge is getting them to realize that what they may have seen as normal is not normal. Just because it's been generational, it's just what they know.”
While RF programs deliver DV-related content as part of their RF programming, partners provide additional information that RF programs find both complimentary and more in-depth than RF services related to DV. RF staff and partner staff reported that, despite initial resistance, fathers responded positively to the DV workshops conducted by partners. A partner staff member remarked on the engagement of fathers in these sessions: “We do wonderfully and I say that because they're interactive, we get folks talking, they're engaged, they ask questions, there's pushback, there's feedback.” The same partner staff member also noted that even fathers who are disengaged at first eventually participate in group activities.
Most of the partner workshops displayed videos that depicted DV through the eyes of children to help fathers understand the impact of DV on children. One RF program staff said, “It's almost like when they come, there is this huge lightbulb” referring to fathers' recognition that witnessing DV may increase negative outcomes for their children.
As a result of gaining a deeper understanding of what DV was, RF program staff reported that fathers became acutely aware of their own childhood trauma, including experiences of witnessing abuse as children. Additionally, a partner organization staff member recalled a father saying (during a workshop session), “That's why I want to be different from my dad. I want to be present for my children. And I don't want to do some of the things that my father did to my mother.”
DV Referrals Were Low and Often not Followed Through. RF program staff reported that identifying DV was challenging; this contributed to low and/or ineffective referrals by RF program staff to partner organizations. RF program staff pointed to additional factors that contributed to low and/or ineffective referrals: the stigma fathers felt in being referred to BIPs and in being identified as a victim or survivor.
One RF program staff member highlighted the “negative” and stigmatizing implication of attending BIPs and noted, “If there is an anger management class, of course we would refer to that if … because they are more likely to go to that than something called ‘batterers program.’ I don't like the name of that either. I mean, that's like—that's got such a negative connotation.” It is important to note that anger management is not considered an appropriate intervention to address DV. Anger management is for individuals who use problematic anger outside of their relationships, while BIPs are specifically meant for individuals who use DV (Briggs et al., 2020). 6 RF program staff also reported that some fathers were in denial that their actions were violent. A partner staff said, “A lot of the times if you tell a father they're going to BIP, they say ‘I’m not going to that because I didn't beat my wife up.’ But if you say, ‘I’m going to send you to a fatherhood program,’ then there's a different level of them being receptive.” The fathers' denial coupled with the stigma of user services created resistance in following through on user-related referrals.
Similarly, RF and partner staff noted that fathers struggled to disclose experiences as survivors. RF program and partner staff noted that “a lot more dads … are experiencing intimate partner violence as a victim than … is recorded.” One partner organization staff member noted that “stigma doesn't allow them to open up and report [victimization].” RF program and partner staff reported that the fear of stigma is rooted in traditional masculinity norms about what a man should be able to handle. RF program staff reported fathers shied away from disclosing victimization in group discussions to avoid ridicule by other participating fathers. An RF program staff member noted that a likely response to a father disclosing would be, “Be a man. You should be able to take it.”
Even when instances of DV were identified (perpetration or victimization), RF program staff felt that taking action was ultimately up to the father. An RF program staff member said: “It always becomes a challenge for people whether they want to accept it or not. … We hope you will address it, that's about all we can do, we can't make you do anything.” RF program staff also noted that confidentiality laws often prohibit RF program staff from following up with their DV partners about specific fathers without informed consent. Given these laws, RF program staff reported that staff knowledge on fathers' referral follow-through may be limited.
Screenings Were not Effective at Identifying DV. Several RF program and partner staff reported collaborating in the development of screening assessments for DV, which would ideally result in referrals to partner organizations. RF program staff reported that screening for victimization or perpetration was typically conducted during the intake process. RF program staff reported, however, that screenings were often not effective at identifying cases of DV (neither perpetration nor current/past victimization) because fathers often struggled with identifying as a survivor or user, particularly upon entry into the program. RF program staff reported that rapport and trust between the RF program staff and the father had not yet been established at the time of the intake process. One RF program staff member remarked, “So we meet you and say, ‘Hey, what's your name? Do you beat your wife?’ … They don't even know [us]. … It seems like you wouldn't be getting the real story because you don't really know them when you're asking them these questions.” RF program staff remarked that while disclosure of DV (perpetration or victimization) was not easy throughout, it was more likely to occur after the staff built rapport and trust with the father (further into the program) and/or through a case management setting where case managers and fathers meet regularly to discuss fathers' needs. This was reported as especially true for disclosure of past or current victimization. One RF program staff member remarked,
Even though we do an assessment on everyone that enters the program, we may not pick up on it during the initial assessment. But with our facilitators and case managers, in building a relationship with many of our participating fathers, we’re able to pick up on a lot more.
Strategies for Promoting a Productive Partnership
RF program and partner staff identified three strategies for creating collaborative and productive partnerships. These strategies include mutual understanding of the role fathers in RF programs play in preventing/addressing DV, respect, and willingness to listen to each other, and availability and responsiveness of partner organizations in collaborating with RF programs.
United Focus on Fathers as a Strategy to Help Prevent and Address DV. RF program and partner staff felt fathers played an essential role in addressing DV, particularly because of fathers' experiences with and exposure to DV. An RF program staff member noted the prevalence of violence within the community and said, “You cannot be a fatherhood program without some kind of protocol put in place to address the violence that comes with intimate relationships that has a man involved with a significant other, that has children, that has suffered for so long with the abuse that happens throughout our community … it will show up.” A partner organization staff member reiterated the critical focus on fathers when they said, “We cannot, we will never meet our mission if we don't engage men, period. The vast majority of the men in the intervention program [BIP], 85% of them are fathers, engaging them as fathers is a really effective way to engage them as partners.” Another RF program staff noted support of DV programming for fathers:
They need this information out there and we need to be having these conversations with them. You may not always get through to everybody, and you may have, unfortunately, the people that sit and … make fun of somebody … but you have the people who sit and pay attention that you may have changed something in their life.
Both RF program and partner staff noted that fatherhood programs were well positioned to educate fathers on DV and their warning signs (prevention) as well as connect fathers to resources for survivors and users. Although partner organizations provided training to RF staff, partner staff did not identify educating fathers as their specific role. Nonetheless, RF program staff found their involvement in workshops and education sessions for fathers useful, provided partner staff were “father friendly” and nonshaming. A partner staff member said,
We automatically assume that when dads are reaching out, it's because they've done something wrong instead of they're trying to do something right. We have, because of [RF program], been able to educate ourselves on the other challenges that dads face and how they may need to go about services to overcome those challenges. I think being more aware of that now is helping us to better be able to provide services not only to our participants but in our referrals back and forth with [RF program].
Mutual Respect and Appreciation for Each Other Facilitated the Partnership. Both RF program and partner organization staff acknowledged the long-seated tension between the fatherhood field and the DV field. Partner staff were swift to acknowledge that longtime DV staff often maintained a “reluctance” to work with men or acknowledge men as victims, preferring to focus on protecting women. One partner organization staff member illustrated this point by saying, “It takes them a little longer, they grew up fighting so much for women that it's hard to turn around and recognize men can be victims too, and men have to be a part of the solution. It's not us against them, you know.” Adding to the dynamic are the sometimes perceived race and gender composition differences in the field: “The feminist movement is traditionally led by white women and fatherhood programs are led by black men.”
Given this tension, the active understanding, mutual respect, and appreciation of each other's work and perspectives were identified as critical components to a productive partnership. An example of active understanding was illustrated by a partner staff member who noted,
I had challenged [RF program staff] around DV and his views and said, “Every day 3 women are killed by their partner” and he appropriately leaned across—and this is someone I consider a friend— … and respectfully challenged me and said, “Last week, 3 people were killed right here on this block, and that's who we're trying to save.” And that was a very sobering moment for me … I think the fatherhood people have just as much right to say, “People are dying.”
RF program and partner organization staff highlighted the advantage of having leadership and staff that understand both fatherhood and DV perspectives, given that they are “unlikely partners.” A partner organization staff member said, “If the people on the DV side are only interested in DV and gender-based violence and men's violence against women more specifically, you're not going to be good at this. If you're coming to the fatherhood field like ‘fathers' rights' lens and ‘fatherhood at any cost’ then you're not going to be good at this. We both have to be hiring folks and cultivating folks to meet in the middle … it's hard.”
Both RF program and partner staff were conscious of this tension as they formed partnerships. RF programs often conducted “father friendly” checks before choosing a partner, in which they assessed partner organizations’ approach to delivering DV content to men (i.e., ensuring a nonshaming approach). Similarly, partner organizations were conscious not to portray themselves as “anti-men” or “anti-fathers” to maintain and form partnerships and to “generate allies who are men who aren't violent, and maybe help them find the language to speak up when someone is.”
RF Programs and Partner Organizations Valued the Availability and Responsiveness of Each Organization. RF program and partner staff noted that the accessibility and responsiveness of each organization contributed to a productive partnership. For example, one RF program staff member noted:
The partnership is going great. Like I said, we have a great working relationship with their staff, with their facilitators. We can pretty much pick up the phone or give them a call for whatever our needs are, and they'll be glad to assist us. … We're always willing to assist each other.
In addition to availability and responsiveness, RF staff noted partner organizations' team-based and collaborative approach to partnership activities, such as screenings, referrals, tools to assess for DV, and curricula. One partner organization staff member recounted this troubleshooting process,
Initially, we had difficulties with the referral process, but we've worked out those kinks. We had to sit down and work through the referral process and give mutual feedback … finding ways to communicate that information better … now workers go online to complete a form or call someone directly about a … referral.
A partner organization staff also described a team-based approach for their organization's event:
We just had a day with music and food … graduates of the abuse intervention program, graduates of the fatherhood program … we had men sharing their experience of what it was like to now be nonviolent and how that has changed their lives. And in the end we had 150 men sign a pledge to non-violence to be role models in their community. Creating those kinds of things where our staff volunteer and their staff volunteers here, creating as much of that face-to-face time with the staff is essential. The fact that I can call the fatherhood program … and we can do that on a first-name basis and I know who is on the other end of the phone and it's been really important cultivating that partnership and creating access in ways other than just the formal services.
Areas of Growth in Addressing DV
RF program and partner staff highlighted two areas for future growth for partnerships in addressing DV: developing collaborations across community partners to address the additional challenges fathers face, and creating low-cost and accessible user services for fathers.
Staff Highlighted RF Programs Need to Develop Strong Collaborations Across Community Partners to Address DV and the Multiple Challenges Fathers Face. RF program and partner staff highlighted the need for integrated services for fathers. They noted that fathers typically dealt with many problems—including housing, lack of education, employment, substance abuse, child support, and difficulty achieving a healthy relationship with their co-parent—and advocated for strong collaborations across community partners to “holistically address violence and fatherhood.” RF program staff reported that the competing immediate needs of low-income fathers may take precedence over paying for services for users of DV, for example. An RF program staff member noted, “If I'm worried about eating, the last thing I'm thinking about is going to a healthy relationship workshop [BIP] that might cost me $1,000.”
RF program staff therefore recommended addressing DV in conjunction with other commonly co-occurring problems. For example, in one interview, an RF staff member identified substance abuse as the biggest problem affecting fathers' employment opportunities and relationships with their co-parents. Another RF program staff member mentioned that some fathers had difficulty leaving situations in which they were being victimized because they did not have identification documents (i.e., social security card or birth certificate) and therefore were unable to secure stable housing.
RF program staff highlighted how growing community partnerships could expand the number of services fathers could be referred to and help address some of the co-occurring challenges in fathers' lives associated with experiencing DV (either as a user or survivor). One RF program staff member explained, “The way we case manage and provide support allows for the men to trust us and be open about what they have going on. So, we try to help them feel ok with their struggle. … That's why they're here, no matter what the issue is.” By addressing other competing problems that fathers may be facing, RF programs address DV in a more holistic way.
Greater Need for Low-Cost and Accessible Services for Users. RF program and partner staff expressed frustration at the cost of services that were available to fathers, and identified the cost of BIPs, for example, as a major barrier for fathers seeking those types of services. One RF program staff explained how, “If they [the fathers] need anger management, we were … sending them out, but if it cost money, then they wouldn't go.” Staff also believed that fathers were less likely to follow through with a referral made to BIPs or anger management programs (separate from BIP) in part due to cost (Briggs et al., 2020). One partner organization staff member said, “I've been saying for years, because I've been working in family violence: We [relevant government offices] need to pay for BIP. I've been screaming that for years, because I saw the deficit we were having with these cases.” Another fatherhood program explained how, to provide free BIP services to fathers who needed them, they hired a former partner organization employee to work within the RF program to deliver a modified BIP program.
RF program staff also expressed frustration at their perception of the lack of services available for men who use violence. One RF program staff said, “I always said if I ever get the opportunity, I would create a free hotline, a free group [for those that use violence]. They got the AA groups all around, 24/7, but we can't get one for somebody who is going to smash somebody's face in … they can't get no help.” Another commented that there is generally no funding or support for intervention work with abusive fathers; fathers who simply want more support do not have the resources available to them.
Discussion
Fatherhood programs can play a critical role in helping to prevent and address DV. As a result, there has been movement toward establishing partnerships between fatherhood programs and organizations that address DV to actively engage fathers in these efforts. While there are guidelines available for establishing and strengthening relationships between fatherhood programs and partner organizations that address DV, there is a shortage of published literature on fatherhood and DV partners' perspectives on these relationships, their first-hand experiences working together, and their insights on how successful the partnership activities are. This study is unique in its ability to highlight findings from interviews conducted both with RF program staff and their partner organizations on existing partnership efforts.
RF program and partner staff identified several partnership activities: trainings for RF program staff, DV workshops for fathers, referrals, and screenings. Cross trainings of staff are a recommended practice to promote strong partnerships, not only between the fatherhood and DV fields, but also between the child maltreatment and DV field (Schechter & Edleson, 1999). Our findings indicate that trainings for RF staff were well received. Although formal trainings of partner staff by RF programs were not implemented, RF program staff typically attended staff meetings at partner organizations to assess if the partner organization was “father friendly,” and partner organizations would often introduce the RF program at these staff meetings. A partner organization staff member also noted the value of having RF staff present to BIP agency staff on RF services. These findings suggest that establishing formal trainings by RF programs for partner organizations might be beneficial. As recommended in partnership practice, cultivating a more bidirectional approach to staff training between RF programs and DV organizations may aid in not only strengthening the partnership between both organizations, but also in promoting cross-agency referrals. Aligned with guidance for developing partnerships, cross-referrals are also consistently identified as a mechanism to increase the strength of partnerships (Fathers Incorporated, 2015); however, referrals in our sample were low and staff felt that fathers were hesitant to follow through on referrals that were made, for a number of reasons. While RF programs had a process in place for making referrals, staff reported this process was often hindered by the reluctance of fathers to identify as users and survivors at initial screening and by the stigma fathers felt in being identified as a user or survivor. The NRFC Toolkit highlights that disclosure is more likely to occur when it is in an informal setting and later in the program and provides a suggestion of how practitioners can elicit disclosures in an informal way. Our study also found that disclosures were more likely to happen further along in the program, in an informal way after rapport had been established. However, disclosures remained challenging throughout the program. Staff noted that traditional masculinity norms also served as a barrier to fathers' identification as survivors. Fatherhood programs sometimes work within frameworks of masculinity, focusing on fathers' roles as “strong” men to promote positive behavior change among men. An area of exploration would be determining if working within this framework might aid or hinder men, as it relates to identifying as survivors and preventing and addressing DV more generally. Additional strategies about how to elicit disclosure of DV and address stigma and normalization of violence, particularly within a system of traditional masculinity norms, would benefit RF programs and partner organizations, given that disclosure of perpetration or victimization remained challenging throughout the program. Another option, which does not rely on disclosure, is to offer universal DV services and education to all men, regardless of their disclosure status.
RF program and partner staff identified three strategies to promote a productive partnership: mutual understanding of the role fathers can play in preventing/addressing DV, respect, and willingness to listen to each other, and availability and responsiveness of partner organizations in collaborating with RF programs. Through these strategies, both RF programs and their partners worked through common tensions between the fields. Published guidance suggests a more formal process of developing productive partnerships, involving a process to select partners, finding areas of agreement, agreeing to shared principles, and developing standing meetings with the partner organization (Fathers Incorporated, 2015). Although our sample did not specify a formal process for developing their partnerships (outside of regular standing meetings with partners), they were able to successfully develop and maintain partnerships through an informal process. Elements of this informal process might be useful to incorporate into future practice guidelines for developing and maintaining partnerships. Regarding collaborative activities, our study indicated that cross-collaboration on tools and trainings by partner staff for RF program staff were well-received.
In line with a public health approach to addressing DV, discussion around partnerships included ways to help both prevent and address DV. Although RF staff spoke of the salience of DV partners' role when addressing DV that had already occurred (e.g., through referrals), RF program staff also spoke about the role partners had in providing preventative activities, such as educational workshops, to RF program participants, as well as trainings for RF program staff.
Our findings also highlighted areas of growth for future partnership efforts. For example, DV may be best addressed with integrated services that focus on the multiple challenges fathers face. The research literature also indicates that risk factors such as experiencing or witnessing abuse as a child, mental health issues, substance misuse, and low income are associated with DV perpetration (Capaldi et al., 2012; Van de Weijer et al., 2014). These risk factors also point to the importance of using trauma-informed approaches to DV education so as not to retraumatize fathers who have histories of experiencing or witnessing DV as a child. Moreover, RF program staff themselves may have experienced or witnessed DV as a child, further suggesting trauma-informed approaches to staff training and general education are warranted. It is important to note that coordinating and integrating services requires coordinating data systems where relevant information about fathers can be accessed by various organizations (Schechter & Edleson, 1999). Currently, staff report limitations in being able to monitor and oversee referrals regarding fathers. However, RF programs could work with DV programs to talk with clients about obtaining informed consent for follow up to help monitor and oversee referrals. In addition, in situations where referrals were made, RF program and partner staff identified the cost, stigma, and accessibility of user services as barriers to fathers attending those services. Given the income and employment instability of many of the fathers in fatherhood programs, addressing the cost of BIPs is imperative to facilitating fathers' attendance in these programs. A potential promising practice to address cost and accessibility issues of BIP user services is to deliver user services (BIP) within RF programs. Delivering BIP services in-house might limit the ambiguity of the approach that partner organizations may take when delivering information outside of a fatherhood and parenting context, particularly if other participants are not fathers. Literature indicates there is a need and movement toward “integrated” programming that addresses DV in the context of fatherhood (Labarre et al., 2016). While the growing availability of this type of integrated programming represents positive change, few programs have had comprehensive evaluations. Evaluating these programs will be crucial to understanding how, why, and for whom (e.g., stepfather, boyfriend, biological father, teen father) integrated programming works best. Collaborations and partnerships between fatherhood programs and organizations that address DV are complex due to factors such as potential mistrust between workers in these two areas or a lack of understanding of shared goals. However, intentionally creating space to bring awareness to and address these complicated dynamics will help facilitate strong partnerships (Ooms et al., 2006).
This study used a systematic approach to document current practices used to prevent, identify, and address DV in RF programs, often with organizations that partner with RF programs. The study employed a rigorous methodology to ensure quality data were being collected. The team used sampling criteria to select diverse RF programs (i.e., programs serving different populations, different geographical locations, or using different curricula) for screening and subsequent study inclusion. Stakeholders included staff from fatherhood programs (federally and nonfederally funded), DV organizations, and the government. All interview data went through a rigorous, iterative process of data coding and independent theme development with four qualitatively trained study staff.
A limitation of this study was lack of focus on cultural considerations and structural racism in protocols. Recognition of these issues and the incorporation of their intersection with DV into study protocols may play an important role in understanding how to provide meaningful support for fathers and should be applied to future research. In addition to mindfully including explicit protocol prompts on these issues, researchers can cognitively test protocols with study participants to understand how people may respond to questions, further allowing researchers to adapt protocols that incorporate the community/environment considerations (Andrews et al., 2019). Additionally, although the focus of this study was on RF program and partner staff perspectives on the partnership, it is evident that fathers' perspective on partnership efforts is lacking and would be useful in future research.
A further limitation of this study is that the RF programs included in this study may not be fully representative of the fatherhood field more broadly. For example, there may be limited availability of partners in some communities. In addition, RF programs may have a variety of partnerships to address issues related to DV; some programs partner with child welfare organizations, police departments, and other legal services while others partner with religiously affiliated groups, or with DV shelters. The themes in this study may not be representative of the variety of partnerships RF programs engage in to prevent and address DV. Additionally, the sample may be biased to programs with more flexibility that could participate in our data collection, which was restricted to a 2-month window during the holiday season when programs were often closed and fathers were typically not attending. Therefore, these findings may not be representative of all RF programs nor reflective of all RF–DV partnerships. Despite these limitations, all of the study sites had diverse partnerships and varied approaches to programming. It is important to note that all programs selected for screening were federal RF programs and findings should not be extrapolated to nonfederally funded fatherhood programs.
Substantial progress has been made in partnership efforts between fatherhood programs and organizations that address DV, particularly in their approach and attitudes toward working together to support fathers. Exploring new and innovative methods to successfully refer fathers to organizations that address DV, while developing a more integrated response to fathers' various needs are partnership areas that need further exploration. On a larger, more systemic level, developing approaches that consider masculinity norms as well as the cost and accessibility of services for those who perpetrate DV is important.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, the Administration for Children and Families, or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This report summarizes findings from the Preventing and Addressing Intimate Violence when Engaging Dads (PAIVED) research study funded by the Office of Family Assistance (OFA) and overseen by the Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE).
