Determining Whether State Policy Is in Line With Substance- and Alcohol-Related Best Practices for Domestic Violence Intervention Programs

Abstract

Enhancing the effectiveness of Domestic Violence Intervention Programs (DVIPs) is necessary and may require up-to-date state-specific or national guidance. Currently, many U.S. states provide recommendations and requirements for DVIP length, content, and treatment curriculum through one or more of three types of documents: state laws, standards, and/or guidelines. However, these documents are updated irregularly and vary substantially in length, content, enforceability, and authorship expertise (i.e., legislators versus domestic violence [DV] experts and/or DV coalition members). Meanwhile, one robust yet controversial finding is that DV perpetrators with co-occurring substance use conditions have increased difficulty engaging with, sustaining attendance at, and benefiting from standard DVIP treatment (Jewell & Wormith, 2010). Yet, the degree to which state-specific DVIP documents address how perpetrator substance use is to be assessed and treated within DVIPs is understudied. To fill this gap, guiding state documents were obtained as available (n= 47 states; 94%); these were coded with excellent interrater reliability (agreement = 91%). Consistent with research advances, state documents generally encouraged DVIPs to assess perpetrator substance use at intake (n= 41). However, fewer documents directed DVIP facilitators to address the link between substance use and DV within their curriculum (n= 25). Some state documents even prohibited substance use-related messages to be incorporated into the DVIP curriculum (n= 19). Unfortunately, even fewer states’ documents recommended follow-up of the perpetrator’s substance use during DVIP participation or after a substance abuse-related referral (n= 14). Efforts to align DVIP-guiding documents with knowledge related to increasing DVIP treatment effectiveness are necessary as is determining adherence to guiding documents.