Advantages And Disadvantages of Remote Batterer Intervention Programs During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Analytics
13 views ◎2 downloads ⇓
Abstract
Many psychological services that have been historically conducted in-person have made the switch to remote platforms. Recently, the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated these changes, making virtual settings the norm for many services (Augenstein, 2020). Some services were forced to switch so quickly that there was little time to consider the utility and concerns associated with conducting such a service remotely. One such service is Domestic Violence Intervention Programs (DVIPs), which primarily provide treatment to individuals who have been convicted of a domestic violence related offense but can also serve clients who are lawyer-, partner-, or self-referred. DVIPs are unique in that they are typically court- mandated, group-based, and populated by clients who have an increased risk of violent behavior. Various stakeholders depend on these programs to be effective in reducing rates of domestic violence, including the members of the criminal justice system and DV victims. One of the most notable departures from standard operating procedure was that the COVID-19 pandemic forced DVIP facilitators to negotiate their own comfort level with providing in- person versus remote services. However, very little is known about how DVIP facilitators navigated these decisions and what their impressions were of the consequences of their choices; this qualitative study was designed to fill that gap. Additionally, considering prior mixed results on the effectiveness of DVIPs conducted in-person formats (Dunford, 2000; Eckhardt, 2004; Easton et al., 2007; Graña et al., 2017; Herman et al., 2014; Haggard et al., 2017; Puffett & Gavin, 2004), it was also important to examine facilitators’ perceptions of the advantages, disadvantages, and overall implications of using remote service delivery platforms for DVIPs. This study focused on the qualitative experiences of DVIP facilitators (n = 19). Facilitators were of interest due to their experience with both face-to-face and virtual/remote platforms, which would allow them to compare and contrast service delivery methods. Emerging qualitative themes were sorted into three main categories: (1) the impact of COVID-19 on service delivery, (2) comparing and contrasting remote vs. in-person treatment, (3) and the future of remote service provision. Main findings from the semi- structured interviews indicated that most DVIP facilitators were able to adapt to the changes necessitated by COVID-19, but they reported differing levels of control over treatment- related decision-making. Remote service delivery was generally perceived as more accessible and convenient for both facilitators and group participants while in-person service delivery was generally perceived as more engaging and interpersonally effective. Facilitators wanted access to research on the effectiveness of conducting DVIP groups remotely. They typically lacked guidance from relevant state entities on pandemic or disaster-approved methods of DVIP service delivery; consequently, pandemic service delivery decisions varied substantially among facilitators.