Process Evaluation of the Batterer Intervention and Prevention Program of the Center Against Sexual and Family Violence in El Paso, Texas

• Main Author: O'Connor, Kathleen Anne
• Language: EN
• Published: The University of Texas at El Paso 2018
• Subjects: Public health
• Online Access: http://pqdtopen.proquest.com/#viewpdf?dispub=10842742

<p> <i>Background:</i> Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a significant public health issue. One in five women and one in seven men will experience severe physical violence from an intimate partner in their lifetime in the US; and one in three women globally (Breiding, Basile, Smith, Black, &amp; Mahendra, 2015; World Health Organization, 2017). Notwithstanding such stark statistics, there is a gap in research on batterers and on batterer intervention and prevention programs (BIPP). <i>Purpose:</i> Program processes related to follow-up of clients were evaluated at the Center Against Sexual and Family Violence Batterer Intervention and Prevention Program (CASFV BIPP) through a mixed-methods process evaluation. The research incorporated community-based participatory research methods in that the project was co-developed with the community partner (CASFV) and addressed program interests and needs. <i> Methods:</i> The process evaluation consisted of examining inputs, activities and outputs related to evaluation questions. Data collection methods include survey research among 110 BIPP program clients, development of a program description and logic model, data gathered through qualitative interviews with program staff, and presentation of data on recidivism rates collected by the program. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic content analysis. Quantitative data analysis focused on descriptive statistics using the SPSS Data Analysis Package. <i>Results:</i> Nearly 60% of clients were between the ages of 25 and 38; 79% were male; 79.1% were Hispanic; and 94.5% felt the program had benefited them. A majority of clients (78.2%) agreed to be contacted by cellphone two years after completing the program as a follow-up measure. The research with clients and staff indicated that follow-up by cellphone two years after completion was the best protocol for following up with clients because the time frame allowed for completion of other obligations such as parole that may affect recidivism rates. In addition, client satisfaction with the program was the strongest predictor for receptivity to follow-up (<i>p</i> = .004). <i>Conclusions:</i> Current follow up protocols were examined to recommend a standardized protocol, and it was recommended that follow-up be conducted by cellphone two years after program completion. Based on data obtained from client and staff, it was further recommended that additional means of contact such as email and social media be explored in the near term.</p><p>