By: Amanda Palini
Generally, when people think of domestic violence programs, they imagine the necessary support systems for addressing domestic violence after it has already occurred such as shelters, advocates, court ordered therapy/rehabilitative programs, and court personnel. While these resources are crucial to addressing the needs of victims, they alone cannot solve the problem of domestic violence. Prevention programming is a critical investment in creating a future free of violence. However, the majority of people are not familiar with the concept of primary prevention. The term “primary prevention” of domestic violence “means preventing first instances of victimization and perpetration of psychological and physical violence between intimate opposite-sex and same-sex partners in dating or marital relationships.”[1] In order to prevent such “first instances” of violence, it is critical to intervene early in a person’s lifespan. In fact,“[i]n contrast to secondary and tertiary prevention efforts that target individuals across the life span, primary prevention often targets children, as its aim is to prevent (rather than reduce the negative impact of) maladaptive developmental trajectories.”[2] This focus on youth development is a core concept in primary prevention programming, whereas pure “intervention” programs largely focus on serving the needs of adult victims.
While initially it may be difficult to understand or justify the investment in youth intervention, it is far easier to correct, redirect and prevent abusive behavior in children than it is in adults. While the results may not be immediate, violence prevention efforts for youth are promising and imperative to ultimately reduce intimate partner violence.[3] Development and behavior is a result of interactions at various levels of social organization—from within the individual, to interactions with family and friends in their near environment.[4] Research indicates that family is the most effective system for fostering and sustaining the development of the child.[5] Although a program may begin with benefits to a child at any age, initiating appropriate intervention at earlier stages can be expected to yield more gains.[6] Disturbingly, intimate partner violence can begin among students as early as 12 years old, but this age can fluctuate based on the prevention rates in their neighborhood.[7]
Once intimate partner violence begins, it often escalates and is difficult, or impossible, to correct. In fact, recognition of the difficulty in successfully treating batterers has prompted recognition of the need for programs to address intimate partner violence before it ever starts, or when it is in its early stages.[8] Studies found that the higher the number of prior domestic violence arrests and/or convictions, the higher the number and likelihood of rearrests and reconvictions.[9] The earlier a community intervenes in a person’s life span, the easier the behavior is to fix because intimate partner violence is easier to prevent than treat later in life.[10]
There are also practical and safety reasons that investing in youth prevention programming makes sense. Firstly, children are more accessible than adults because they are in a school setting. The school setting provides a safe, supervised environment where children can learn and explore these concepts. Once children leave the monitored environment of school and living at home, intervention programs have very little effect.[11] It is difficult, if not impossible, to have a broad educational impact on adults who generally are not found in one consistent location, such as a school. Additionally, when intimate partner violence occurs among children, there tend to be fewer long-term safety concerns for the parties involved, such as cohabitation or children in common. Adult victims face more complex barriers when leaving abusive relationships due to the entanglements that can exist between adults but are less typical in adolescent relationships. This lack of barriers, as well as the increased surveillance of a school setting, allows for a safer environment for both the person who commits harm and the victim.
Adversaries argue that it may be ineffective to teach students about intimate partner violence before they begin relationships. However, when prevention efforts begin early, there is less competition for attention in school health curricula.[12] As students age and progress in their health education, there becomes more competing issues like unprotected sex, drugs, and alcohol—which may take away from the attention placed on domestic violence.[13] Furthermore, by teaching students healthy relationship guidelines from a younger age, they are less likely to be in an abusive relationship in the future; because their attitudes towards interpersonal relationships are more likely to be positive than those who did not receive any preventative programing. Taking that into consideration, programs that combined intimate partner violence into health curriculums by addressing healthy relationships, sexual health, abuse, and power dynamics led to reduction of abusive behaviors both at the end of the intervention and at follow up.[14]
Unsurprisingly, it is difficult to measure the impact of primary prevention programs because of the inherent difficulty in proving a negative. While research cannot conclusively prove that prevention programming successfully prevented a precise future-event-of-violence before it occurred, there are impacts that can be measured and observed, including the promotion of healthy relationships. Violence prevention programs in educational settings can, and do, change social attitudes about what behavior is acceptable in relationships. However, it is less clear if there is a link between raised awareness and any long-term impact on violence reduced.
Nevertheless, evidence suggests that supportive anti-violence work in schools may play a role in setting out guidelines for healthy relationships.[15] Research indicates that children want and value lessons on relationships and abuse.[16] Students indicated that they increase their awareness of information on domestic violence after going through prevention programs. [17] In fact, children participating in school based primary prevention programs were more knowledgeable and held more desirable attitudes concerning interpersonal violence when compared to those not receiving content.[18] Primary prevention programs teach students what is acceptable in relationships, by setting out guidelines for healthy relationships, and thus play a critical role in preventing future violence.
Underlying primary prevention models is an effort to fundamentally change culture. Indeed, primary prevention models are “long-term strategies aimed at preventing violence by changing the attitudes, values and structures that sustain inequality and violence” and increase public awareness.[19] Increasing public awareness of the causes and consequences of violence is a critically important component of any prevention model. Without a fundamental shift in culture, a permanent end to domestic and sexual violence is unlikely. Therefore, primary prevention is a critical part of preventing and reducing domestic and intimate partner violence.
[1] Susan L. Staggs and Paul A. Schewe, Primary Prevention of Domestic Violence, Violence against Women and Child., Vol. 2 (2011) https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2010-13683-012.pdf.
[3] K. Daniel O’Leary and Amy M. Smith Slep, Prevention of Partner Violence by Focusing on Behaviors of Both Young Males and Females, Soc. for Prevention Rsch. (2011) https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11121-011-0237-2.pdf.
[4] Jeffery L. Edleson, Primary Prevention and Adult Domestic Violence, Minn. Ctr. Against Violence and Abuse School Soc. Work (Feb. 2000) https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/5803649/primaryprevention-with-cover-page-v2.pdf?Expires=1669932106&Signature=BY~i63NZHvksI6iau~2fKI-S3~AspcbarXteVCTscu7XuMPBdpQZUph6ARUaFbo3iLAqSkqY8RYwN6SlGvGcym4~JwjV8ohDXIgDmy9asfV8MqapKBMcKqeqpDzhznIdh1T1yGxQcca0qxYeVfWd~2wHvkgE9TAwyfwI9fk2TzcuTcjwSrVTyjeWa1LnV~c5RW3BvFqnDLHqhX-pz-oVVzJpMD9kexqAhyGtuAz5EYMJKkvGoUIsB3VOrpOXyfo0iQx~H0vz6nYcwGgyKwohthsfFG4lKus~XZ0RsGneKH2HXP3C7L~2oxVKdwYt9PfP24Ug7oc3dBIvlEk6isVCzA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA.
[5] Supra. 12.
[6] Id.
[7] Supra. 17 at page 330.
[8] Id. at 334.
[9] Jill A Gordon and Laura J. Moriarty, The Effects of Domestic Violence Batterer Treatment on Domestic Violence: The Chesterfield County Experience, Sage J. Vol. 30, Issue 1, 127 (2003) https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epdf/10.1177/0093854802239166.
[10] Supra.17 at 334.
[11] Supra. 17 at 334.
[12] Id.
[13] Id. page 336
[14] Id.
[15] Urie Bronfenbrenner, A Report on Longitudinal Evaluations of Preschool Programs, Off. of Child Dev., Vol 2. (1974) https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED093501.pdf.
[16] M Hester and N Westmarland, Tackling Domestic Violence: Effective Interventions and Approaches, Development and Statistics Directorate, 18 (2005) https://dro.dur.ac.uk/2556/1/2556.pdf.
[17] Id.
[18] Jeffery L. Edleson, Primary Prevention and Adult Domestic Violence, Minn. Ctr. Against Violence and Abuse School Soc. Work (Feb. 2000) https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/5803649/primaryprevention-with-cover-page-v2.pdf?Expires=1669932106&Signature=BY~i63NZHvksI6iau~2fKI-S3~AspcbarXteVCTscu7XuMPBdpQZUph6ARUaFbo3iLAqSkqY8RYwN6SlGvGcym4~JwjV8ohDXIgDmy9asfV8MqapKBMcKqeqpDzhznIdh1T1yGxQcca0qxYeVfWd~2wHvkgE9TAwyfwI9fk2TzcuTcjwSrVTyjeWa1LnV~c5RW3BvFqnDLHqhX-pz-oVVzJpMD9kexqAhyGtuAz5EYMJKkvGoUIsB3VOrpOXyfo0iQx~H0vz6nYcwGgyKwohthsfFG4lKus~XZ0RsGneKH2HXP3C7L~2oxVKdwYt9PfP24Ug7oc3dBIvlEk6isVCzA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA.
[19] M. Hester and N. Westmarland, Tackling Domestic Violence: Effective Interventions and Approaches, Development and Statistics Directorate, 15 (2005) https://dro.dur.ac.uk/2556/1/2556.pdf.