Developing content to promote desistance in men who have committed intimate partner violence in same-sex relationships
| Date | 01 August 2019 |
| Author | Charlotte A Gibbs,Paul H Weatherstone,Jane L Ireland,Jason Morris,Sinead Bloomfield,Omolara T Jonah |
| Published date | 01 August 2019 |
| DOI | 10.1177/2066220319871454 |
| Subject Matter | Original Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/2066220319871454
European Journal of Probation
2019, Vol. 11(2) 96 –113
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/2066220319871454
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejp
Developing content to
promote desistance in
men who have committed
intimate partner violence in
same-sex relationships
Jason Morris
Charlotte A Gibbs
Omolara T Jonah
Sinead Bloomfield
Paul H Weatherstone
HM Prison & Probation Service, UK
Jane L Ireland
University of Central Lancashire, UK
Abstract
This article provides an overview of service development processes used to design a
therapeutic approach that promotes desistance amongst men who have committed acts
of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) against their male partner or ex-partner. The article
aims to explore how inclusive therapeutic service provision can be developed using
the best available evidence, stakeholder consultation, co-production and technology. It
does so by presenting a two-part study that draws upon a review of inclusive IPV theory
alongside responses to a consultation designed to canvas stakeholder opinions (n = 14)
of a proposed IPV service. It also provides a case study (n = 1) of the co-production
of digital media with someone from the target group for that service. Implications
for future service design for marginalised groups in the Criminal Justice System and
provisions for people who have committed IPV are discussed.
This article represents the views of the authors’ and not those of Her Majesty’s
Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS).
Corresponding author:
Jason Morris, HM Prison Service, Southern House, Croydon CR10XN, UK.
Email: jason.morris@justice.gov.uk
871454EJP0010.1177/2066220319871454European Journal of ProbationMorris et al.
2019
Original Article
Morris et al. 97
Keywords
Digital media, IPV, same-sex relationships, violence intervention
Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) is a public health concern of global significance (WHO,
2005). The Crime Survey for England and Wales (ONS, 2018) shows that in the year end-
ing March 2018 an estimated 2 million (1.3 million women, 695,000 men) adults aged 16
to 59 years experienced domestic abuse. It is important to note that prevalence rates are
dependent on how IPV is defined and as such figures like these need to be interpreted with
care when considering their implications for public policy and identified therapeutic
approaches for those with convictions for IPV. Notwithstanding, debate in this area has led
some to suggest that the prevailing feminist orthodoxy in the field of IPV has fallen some-
what short of accounting for violence in LGBT relationships (e.g. Potoczniak et al., 2003)
and tends to overlook the potential range of victims of IPV (e.g. Birch and Veljanova,
2018). This arguably has had a limiting effect on the development and integration of inclu-
sive desistance-orientated IPV approaches for those who identify as LGBT.
Burke et al. (2002) found the prevalence of IPV amongst LGBT couples was approxi-
mately 25% to 50%. In a later UK study of 1911 lesbians and 1391 gay men, 22% and 29%
respectively self-reported physical, sexual or mental abuse or violence from any regular
sexual partner (Henderson, 2003). Similarly, more recently, Finneran and Stephenson
(2013)’s systematic review found that (whilst data on perpetration rates were scant) rates of
self-reported experiences of IPV victimisation were equivalent (or higher) amongst men
who had sex with men in comparison to rates documented among women. Thus, violence
in same-sex relationships is worthy of both academic and policy attention.
Research exploring risk factors underpinning the perpetration of IPV amongst those
who identify as LGBT is limited. A variety of reasons have been put forward to explain
this, including: the marginalisation of LGBT issues, denial of a problem within LGBT
communities (fuelled by a fear of triggering homophobic responses) and a lack of attention
from statutory and criminal justice agencies (Toro-Alfonso and Rodriguez-Madera, 2004).
Similar to studies involving heterosexual IPV (e.g. Gilchrist, et al., 2003), LGBT IPV
has been associated with the use of coercion; experience of jealousy; and, use of dishon-
est, isolating, humiliating behaviour towards victims (Merrill, 1998); conflict resolution
and attachment (Stanley et al., 2006); and, stress, anger, alcohol use and alcohol-related
problems (Lewis et al., 2016). This equivalence in the forms of IPV within heterosexual
and same-sex relationships is also supported by Frankland and Brown (2014), who iden-
tified that patterns of IPV in LGBT relationships were consistent with those originally
identified in heterosexual couples. A central factor underpinning these patterns was the
use of coercive and controlling behaviours.
Merrill (1998) emphasised that key determinants of IPV were independent of sexual
orientation, namely: growing up learning how to be violent (influenced by instruction,
modelling and reward); having opportunity to be violent (which can be created via power
and isolation); and, choosing to be violent (a decision that is influenced by substance
abuse and a range of psychological variables, such as communication/social skills,
impulse control and attitudes towards relationships and violence).
To continue reading
Request your trial