We compile citations and summaries of about 400 new articles every week.
Email Signup | RSS Feed

HELP: Tutorials | FAQ
CONTACT US: Contact info

Search Results

Journal Article


Pallatino CL, Morrison PK, Miller E, Burke J, Cluss PA, Fleming R, Hawker L, George D, Bicehouse T, Chang JC. J. Fam. Violence 2019; 34(7): 631-643.


(Copyright © 2019, Holtzbrinck Springer Nature Publishing Group)






To describe how stakeholders involved in intimate partner violence prevention and treatment at different levels of the Social Ecological Model view accountability in relationship to the key actors at various levels in the intervention process and their role in addressing future incidence of IPV. We conducted 36 in-depth qualitative interviews with BIP facilitators, IPV advocates, socio-judicial officials, and local and state policy makers. Participants were recruited via snowball sampling and interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded in ATLAS.ti. Interviews broadly explored the challenges and best practices in facilitating BIPs, as well as perceptions on the etiology of IPV. The current analysis focuses on participant views related to accountability, and the role that various groups and institutions have in addressing IPV perpetration. Interview participants emphasized a multi-systems level approach to addressing IPV, one that required the responsibility of both programs and judicial systems in establishing IPV as a serious crime, and stressed the need to ensure accountability across all relevant stakeholders engaged in the broader scope of IPV intervention. In order to have a sustainable impact on IPV perpetration, stakeholders across the Social Ecological Model will need to utilize crucial intervention periods using a standardized response to improve outcomes for IPV survivors, perpetrators, families and communities.

Language: en


Accountability; Batterer intervention programs; Social ecological model


All SafetyLit records are available for automatic download to Zotero & Mendeley