Master Thesis
Crisis and Security Management
The (ir)relevance of Intimate Partner
Violence Typologies for domestic
violence professionals
Author: Josefien de Vos (s1906410) Supervisor: Dr. G.M. van Buuren Second reader: Dr. M.C.A. Liem August 2017
Table of content
List of abbreviations 4
1. Introduction 5
2. Theoretical framework Intimate Partner Violence 9
2.1 Patterns of intimate partner violence 9
2.1.1 Coercive Couple Violence 10
2.1.2 Violent Resistance 11
2.1.4 Separation-instigated violence 13
2.1.5 Mutual Violent control 13
2.2 Gender (a)symmetry 14
2.4 Female perpetrator subtypes 16
2.5 Victim typologies 18
2.6 What works 19
2.7 Conclusion 21
3. Domestic violence in the Netherlands 22
3.1 Numbers 22
3.2 Forms & types of abuse 24
3.3 Consequences of IPV 27 3.4 Policy background 29 4. Methodological framework 31 4.1 Case selection 31 4.2 Data collection 33 4.2.3 Semi-structured interviews 35 4.3 Method of analysis 36 4.4 Implications of methodology 37 5. Results 39 5.1 introduction 39 5.2 Exploratory analysis 39 5.2.1 Safety first 40
5.2.2 Perceptions of professionals on Intimate Partner Violence Typologies 40
5.2.1 Associated risks of labelling 45
5.2.3 Conclusion exploratory analysis 47
5.3 Explanatory analysis 47
5.3.1 Sources of information 48
5.3.2 Conversations with victim and offender 50
5.3.3 Addressing patterns 52
5.4 Practical barriers 56
5.4.2 Difficulty of dealing with adults 56
5.4.3 Inability to act by professionals 58
6. Conclusion & Discussion 60
7. Bibliography 62 8. Appendix 68 Interview 1 68 Interview 2 79 Interview 3 89 Interview 4 95 Interview 5 102 Interview 6 107 Interview 7 112 Interview 8 117
List of abbreviations
CCV = Coercive Couple Violence DV = Domestic Violence
IPV = Intimate Partner Violence
IPVT = Intimate Partner Violence Typology MVC = Mutual Violent Control
SD = Samen DOEN
SCV = Situational Couple Violence VR = Violent Resistance
VT = Veilig Thuis
1. Introduction
The absence of violence is one of the factors that contribute to freedom from fear and danger, an important part of the concept of security. A part of the human security definition by the United Nations Human Development Report stands for ‘protection from sudden and hurtful disruption in the patterns of daily life – whether in homes, in jobs or in communities’ (UNDP, 1994:23). Domestic violence can be considered as such a disruption. While security studies are mainly focussed on security in the public space, it is an inconvenient truth that violence in the private sphere occurs on a large scale in societies around the globe. Despite the widely accepted perspective that someone's own household is to be considered a safe place. To illustrate:
“With the exception of the police and the military, the family is perhaps the most violent social group, and the home the most violent social setting, in our society. A person is more likely to be hit or killed in his or her home by another family member than anywhere else or by anyone else” (Gelles & Straus, 1988)1.
In this type of violence, the relationship between victim and perpetrator is more important than the location. Domestic violence can be defined as ‘Violence committed by someone from the victim’s domestic circle’ (Lünneman & Bruinsma, 2005:21). The family circle consists of former partners, family members, relatives and family friends (ibid). Violence committed by members of the domestic circle tends to be unnoticed by society, even though this kind of violence takes place on a daily basis and can have far reaching consequences. For instance, in the United States, a link has been found between domestic violence and mass shootings (Everytown for gun safety, 2017). Violence in the private sphere, especially physical abuse, has a longer building up process and lasts for a longer period of time than violent in the public sphere such as bar fights (Wentzel and Vissers, 2015:27). It is still a taboo as individuals involved hardly talk about it and will do everything to keep it a secret (Wentzel and Vissers, 2015:167). In the Netherlands, the estimation is that on a yearly basis 200.000 adults and 119.000 children are the victim of domestic violence (Aanwijzing huiselijk geweld en kindermishandeling, 2016).
Next to the scale of the issue and its hidden character, domestic violence is an important issue in society for several other reasons. Firstly, because of its systematic nature and a high risk of recurrence. The suspect of the violence is in the victim’s direct personal environment and has a relationship of dependency, once the violence has taken place the chance that it will happen again is extremely high (ibid). Secondly, domestic violence occurs in every socioeconomic class and culture in society. Thirdly, its effects are not limited to the people directly involved, it also affects future generations because of transgenerational transmission (Heisse, 1998; Mcknney et al., 2009; Fehringer & Hindin, 2009).
Reducing violence in the private sphere is a complex issue because it is not just an issue on its own. It often involves parenting and relationship problems, financial issues, unemployment, psychological issues, addiction or involvement in other crimes (Factsheet Movisie). In Dutch law, domestic violence is understood as physical, mental or sexual violence or the threat thereof by someone from the domestic circle (Wet Maatschappelijke Ondersteuning, 2016). Because the term domestic violence refers not only to the place where the violence happens but also to the relationship between perpetrator and victim, the new terminology for this sort of violence is Violence in Dependency Relationships. This term is an overarching concept for multiple forms of violence such as partner violence, child abuse and neglect, honour related violence, forced marriages and marital captivity, genital mutilation, abuse of parents by their children and abuse of adolescents by their parents or peers (Wartna & Alberda, 2013). The focus of this thesis will lie on Intimate Partner Violence (IPV), the most common form of domestic violence in the Netherlands (Lünnemann, 2016:165). This form of domestic violence is defined by the World Health Organisation as: “behaviour within an intimate relationship that causes physical, sexual or psychological harm, including acts of physical aggression, sexual coercion, psychological abuse and controlling behaviours” (2010:11). This term acknowledges that violence can be perpetrated by men and women without restriction to marital, heterosexual, or homosexual relationships (Anderson, 2005; Archer, 2000, Brown, 2004; Capaldi et al., 2007; Capaldi & Owen, 2001). This and other factors make IPV cases inherently complex, there will always be individuals, couples, and circumstances that do not fit in the major identified patterns. But by following fixed sets of procedures, developed on the available knowledge, suitable intervention(s) and a (temporary) solution can be found (Johnson, 2008).
One of the most important theories on this subject categorizes between different IPV dynamics. Insight into the dynamics of IPV is supposed to lead to easier and better decision-making processes by domestic violence professionals, appropriate sanctions, and more effective treatment programs tailored to the different characteristics of partner violence (Kelly & Johnson, 2008:478). On the other hand, differentiating among types of intimate partner violence has raised the concern that it will lead to the reification or misapplication of typologies and that abuse, as a result, will be missed with potentially lethal results (Ibid). Next to the IPV dynamics, there are also several perpetrator and victim subtypes to assist in the decision-making process of domestic violence professionals on suited follow-up actions. Those responsible for responding and managing domestic violence cases should profit the most from the potential benefits associated with Intimate Partner Violence Typologies (IPVT’s). These domestic violence professionals have a complicated job that calls for a mix of contradictory competencies. It is necessary to be flexible and receptive as well as decisive and accurate. In such crises, one needs to think fast and be constantly alert. At the same time, domestic violence professionals must be able to think precise and analytically about a particular case as well as reflect on it and other cases (Dijkstra, 2014:33). These professionals deal with facts, contexts, suspicion, emotions, statements from other agencies and personal issues of the ones involved, which calls for an open-minded cooperative attitude that balances gaining trust with being strict on certain points and posing critical questions (ibid). Something that is unclear is if and how the developed typologies on IPV are integrated into the practice of domestic violence professionals. Much research has been conducted on the categorization of different types of partner violence typologies, but only little research has been done on the applicability of these theories, especially in the Dutch context. Therefore, this thesis will research if and how domestic violence professionals, use typologies of partner violence. The Netherlands is an interesting case for this study. In the last decade, transformations have taken place in the social domain that reorganized the responsibility for the support on domestic violence issues within municipalities and local entities. Decentralisation and the installation of the Social Support Act (WMO) led to that social support is supposed to be organised close to home or with the help of social neighbourhood teams, professional support is supposed to be complementary (Jansen, 2016:41). The way social support is organized around this topic in the Netherlands can differ per municipality. This thesis will focus on domestic violence professionals in the municipality of Amsterdam in particular. Following the Verwey Jonker institute (2009: 5), the amount of reports on domestic violence is three times
higher in the four biggest cities (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht) in the Netherlands compared to the rest of the country. This focus on the practices of domestic violence professionals in Amsterdam and their ability to use IPVT’s in their decision-making process leads to the following research question:
To what extent are Intimate Partner Violence Typologies utilized in the decision-making process of domestic violence professionals in Amsterdam and how can this (in)competence be explained?
The goal of this research is to investigate to what extent domestic violence professionals in Amsterdam use IPV typologies to inform their decision-making process on IPV cases as well as how far the practical potential of these typologies reaches. This topic has been researched in an Australian study. The participating professionals expressed that domestic violence typologies did not assist them in their daily practise – more specifically, most of them expressed to use other information to decide how they should respond to individual domestic violence matters such as their intuition, clinical judgment, and experience (Boxall et al. 2015:6). The study concluded that at this moment domestic violence typologies are only suited for theoretical use, although it was emphasized that they do have the potential to be of use in the future. The outcomes of this Australian study cannot be generalized to Dutch context. Therefore, first an exploratory study will be conducted to answer the first part of the research question: ‘To what extent are Intimate Partner Violence Typologies used by local domestic violence professionals in Amsterdam?’. This part entails the perception of domestic violence professionals on IPVT’s. In following exploratory part, the focus lies on what domestic violence professionals use to address cases of IPV and how this relates to the relevance of the typologies. The aim of this thesis is to explore the relevance and practical utility of these typologies from the perspective of the professionals in their provision of social support and services towards couples dealing with this issue. Furthermore, the aim is to deepen practical knowledge by connecting the findings with academic insights and thereby, contributing to both the academic and professional field of IPV.
2. Theoretical framework Intimate Partner Violence
In this chapter, the most relevant theories concerning IPV will be discussed. Something that has to be taken into account is that most of these typologies have been based on US or Canadian data, the same accounts for research that explores their support and application. This makes the application and relevance for the Dutch practise difficult because the generalizability and the relevance of these typologies to other countries and context may be limited (Boxall et al., 2015; McPhedran & Baker, 2012; Wangmann, 2011). It is presumed that the knowledge on IPV typologies is used to understand and to act in a more informed and effective way on domestic violence related issues. By categorizing different types of IPV one is supposed to get a better understanding of the complexities and other aspects of this phenomenon. The question that will be addressed in this thesis is if this knowledge is used in the daily practise of domestic violence professionals, this will be examined empirically by conducting several interviews with these professionals. This theoretical framework will show on which grounds a certain categorization of IPV can be made. The chapter will start with explaining the typologies of IPV dynamics from Johnson (2009), followed by a literature review about the role of gender within partner violence, typologies of male and female perpetrators and categorization of IPV victims. In the last part of this chapter, several approaches concerning treatments and the role of IPV typologies in these programs will be discussed. If and how the typologies can contribute to a deeper understanding of the different types of IPV for practitioners who provide services to couples dealing with partner violence is worth investigating.
2.1 Patterns of intimate partner violence
The existence of different types of IPV patterns has been demonstrated by a large body of empirical research (Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2003; Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 2000; Johnson, 1995, 2006; Johnston & Campbell, 1993). Distinguishing between different forms of partner violence is a very important step in shaping more effective treatment programs that are tailored to the different characteristics of partner violence, for both victim and perpetrator (Kelly & Johnson 2008:478). Johnson’s book A Typology of Domestic Violence: Intimate Terrorism, Violent Resistance, and Situational Couple Violence (2006) is a starting point in the categorization of IPV on the basis of violent dynamics. It analyses societal, interpersonal and individual causes and describes how they can develop in an intimate partner relationship.
In total six typologies can be distinguished from Johnson’s work: Coercive Couple Violence (CCV), Violent Resistance (VR), Situational Couple Violence (SCV), Separation-Instigated Violence (SIV), Mutual Violent Control (MVC). When researching this topic, it is necessary to distinguish between these types of partner violence. There is a high probability that specific forms of partner violence dominate in particular groups of victims. Agency samples gathered from victims in emergency shelters, court-mandated treatment programs, police reports, and emergency rooms are more likely to report the type of physical and emotional violence called Coercive Controlling Violence (Kelly & Johnson, 2008:481). Large scale conducted surveys using community or national samples reflected on a totally different group of victims (ibid). Both agency samples and community samples cannot be used to make generalized assumptions about an entire population. For this research, this implies that different domestic violence professionals such as social service providers in shelters versus social neighbourhood teams, deal with different violent dynamics, groups of perpetrators and victims.
2.1.1 Coercive Couple Violence
This type of partner violence, also called intimate terrorism, describes a pattern of emotionally abusive intimidation, coercion, and control coupled with physical violence against partners (Kelly & Johnson, 2008: 478). In this subtype of partner violence, there is one perpetrator that uses violence to control his or her partner. In order to determine whether the violence is in fact part of a pattern of Coercive Control, it is necessary to look for several elements of coercive control in a relationship. The perpetrator controls the actions, relations and activities of the victim. This type does not necessarily manifest itself in high levels of violence, nonviolent control tactics may also be effective, especially if there has been a history of violence (Kelly & Johnson, 2008: 482). Usually, the violence is more frequent and severe than other types of IPV, but this is not always the case. This typology separates itself from others, moreover because of its highly negative impact on victims. Even though victims often report that the psychological impact of their experiences is worse than the physical effects. The next chapter on the background of domestic violence in the Netherlands will elaborate further on the possible effects of IPV. An intimate terrorist is a perpetrator who, for example, makes clear that he or she is willing and able to impose punishment if ‘necessary’. This can be with threats of violence, but also taking custody of the children can be used as a threat. Other elements described by Johnson are surveillance by the partner and wearing down
the partner’s resistance. This is done by making them feel worthless and eventually convincing the partner that the intimate terrorist has the right to control and punish. This type of partner violence stands in the tradition of the original feminist description of domestic violence (Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Pence & Paymar, 1993). However, it is stated by Emery (2011:527) that this typology ignores the role of power because there is no distinction between attempted and achieved power. He thereby refers to Waller (1937), who argued that power is based on the principle of least interest. The partner with the lowest perceived walk away cost has power in the relationship. In a situation of IPV the perpetrator holds the power within a relationship. Power is held because when he or she walks away from a conflict no harm will be done. The victim does not have this option, but has very high walk away costs like getting injured. Observing and reacting in the right way to controlling behavioural patterns in a relationship is difficult, and calls for expertise. Dutton & Goodman (2005) stress the importance of exploring and understanding contextual, interdependent and interactive nature of coercive control. One of the difficulties for the domestic violence professionals lies in the observing and estimation of power and coercion. Power in this typology is seen as one item that together with other abusive acts is considered as an indication of CCV. Power can also be seen as an overarching theme that might explain these acts used to exert control and to dominate the victim (Wangmann, 2011).
2.1.2 Violent Resistance
In this typology, violence takes place as an immediate reaction to an assault. It is intended to primarily protect oneself or others from injury. This violence is targeted at an intimate partner. An intimate terrorist can be violent and controlling over his or her partner. The big difference is that the resisters use violence in reaction to the attempt to exert general control. This typology poses the possibility that both women and men may, in attempts to stop the controlling pattern, stand up for themselves. They do this by reacting violently to their partners who have a pattern of coercive controlling (Johnson, 2008:5). Violent resistance and not self-defense is used as terminology because self-defence is a legal concept with a specific meaning which is subjected to changing legislation. The term Violent Resistance holds a variety of violent resistances, which has little in common with the legal meaning of self-defence (Kelley & Johnson, 2009: 484). Most cases of Violent Resistance do not lead to encounters with law enforcement. For many violent resistors, the resort to self-protective
violence may be almost automatic and starts as soon as the coercively controlling and violent partner begins to use physical violence. But in heterosexual relationships, most women realize that responding with violence is ineffective and may even make matters worse (Pagelow, 1981: 67).
2.1.3 Situational Couple Violence
This most common type of partner violence is used to identify the type of physical aggression that does not have its basis in the dynamic of power and control (Johnson & Leone, 2005). Johnson (1995) originally used the term Common Couple Violence, but this term has been abandoned because many readers reacted to it as minimizing the dangers of such violence. In this typology, the perpetrator is violent and his or her partner may also be, but the violence is not used to exert general control over the other as is the case with CCV. SCV is more likely to be rooted in the events of a particular situation, such as arguments. In this type of partner violence, it is common that one or both partners have poor ability to manage their conflicts and/or poor control of anger (Ellis & Stuckless, 1996; Johnson, 1995, 2006; Johnston & Cambell, 1993). SCV has in common with the first typology that it can be frequent and/or severe. This makes it very difficult to observe the distinction with Coercive Control: although infrequent and mild violence is likely to be seen as situational couple violence, it can be Coercive Control (Johnson, 2008: 24). Whereas the motivation for control is thought to be a very relevant risk factor for intimate terrorists, poor ability to manage conflicts and/or poor control of anger are the biggest risk factors for situational couple violence (Kelly & Johnson, 2008).
Differentiating among types of domestic violence can develop more appropriate screening instruments and processes that accurately describe the central dynamics of the partner violence, the context, and the consequences (Kelley and Johnson 2008: 476). The two most important typologies of partner violence are Coercive Control and Situational Couple Violence (Johnson, 2008). Even though these two typologies of domestic violence have different dynamics and intensities of violence, they are difficult to distinguish at first sight (Johnson, 2008: 24). Milder and infrequent forms of violence are easily mistaken for situational couple violence or a domestic twist and signs of intimate terrorism can be missed. These sorts of misjudgements can cause wrong treatment or punishment to the persons involved and miss its eventual goal of stopping the violence and can even have fatal
consequences. Insight into the dynamics of partner violence can lead to better decision making, appropriate sanctions, and more effective treatment programs tailored to the different characteristics of partner violence (Kelly & Johnson, 2008:478). On the other hand, differentiating among types of intimate partner violence has led to the concern that it will lead to the reification or misapplication of typologies and that abuse will not be notified (ibid).
2.1.4 Separation-instigated violence
The term Separation-instigated describes IPV that for the first time occurs in the relationship during separation or divorce. There is no prior history of violence in the intimate partner relationship or in other settings (Johnston & Cambell, 1993; Kelly, 1982; Wallerstein & Kelly 1980). Most of the time, this sort of violence represents an atypical and serious loss of psychological control and is typically limited to one or two episodes at the beginning of/or during the separation period (Kelley & Johnson, 2008: 487). It is important to differentiate this type of violence from continuing violence that can also occur in the context of a separation. It is often the case that SCV continues through the separation process and that CCV may continue or even escalate to homicidal levels when the perpetrator feels his control is threatened by separation (ibid).
2.1.5 Mutual Violent control
Another type of domestic violence is Mutual Violent Control, in these cases, both try to gain general control over their partner violently, there are two intimate terrorists at play. It is considered a rare type of violence and little is known about its features, frequencies and consequences. This dynamic is considered to be very rare and difficult to investigate (Kelly & Johnson, 2016: 477).
It has been criticized that these typologies fail to make a connection between the violent dynamics and relationship norms. Emery (2011:531) elaborated on Johnson’s typologies by going more into detail about the connection of the relationship norms within the dynamics of violence. The violence can either violate them, uphold them or seek to establish new norms. Emery (2011) conceptualizes the degree of order within the relationship (chaotic vs. ordered), the power balance within the relationship, and the perceived legitimacy of the use of violence as determining factors in the type of violence experienced. He also points to potential
development among the types of IPV, the change in the violence over time (Emery, 2011:527). He states that SCV may evolve to CCV and CCV in VR (ibid). The same can be said about the changes over time in psychopathology, this will be discussed in the part about perpetrator subtypes.
2.2 Gender (a)symmetry
When differentiating between patterns of IPV, several factors have to be taken into account such as: the frequency of the violence, the form of abuse, underlying motivations, involved personalities, psychopathic or antisocial disorders and symptoms (Boxall, 2015:2). One factor that has been widely researched are offender types based on gender. In the academic research on gender (a)symmetry in IPV, there has been criticism in respect to the ideological view of men as the main perpetrator of partner violence (Dutton, 2005). It is stressed that other factors such as: personalities, family and cultural background, the availability of social support in the environment and stressful life events are at least equally important (ibid). Something that makes these discussions difficult is that different measuring methods and sample (size) produce conflicting results. Anderson (2005: 854) expressed that the sex-symmetry debate reflects the failure to separate these distinct types of violence rather than the inadequate measurement of violence. In line with Johnson and Ferraro (2000), she stated: ‘family violence and feminist researchers are simply studying different populations that engage in other types of intimate violence’. Gender (a)symmetry is depending on the particular form of domestic violence one is looking at. In partner violence, most of the perpetrators of Coercive Control are men and in the case of SCV, it is more equally divided.
Studies using mixed samples have found all three major types of intimate partner violence (Coercive Control, Violent Resistance, Situational Couple Violence). When distinctions are made among the types one will find that CCV and VR are heavily gendered (Johnson, 2011:291). SCV is perpetrated equally by men and women (ibid). Sampling biases, explain the differences among various studies with regard to the issue of gender symmetry. Surveys dominated by SCV, show rough gender symmetry in perpetration. Agency studies, dominated by CCV and VR, show a pattern of (primarily) male violent coercive control and female resistance (ibid). Research institutes on DV in the Netherlands claim that in all the different forms of domestic violence and IPV, it is more likely for women to be victimized than for males (Movisie, 2016; Atria, 2016; Jonker-Verwey, 2016).
2.3 Male perpetrator subtypes
Many factors can play a role in IPV: personalities, family and cultural background, the availability of social support in the environment and stressful life events. In earlier Dutch research under IPV victims, an often mentioned underlying motive of the perpetrator is jealousy. However, the perpetrators’ character is most important (van Dijk, 2010). To provide in the needs of the victim, the violence has to be assessed at its value and the perpetrator type plays an important role in understanding the context and the possible consequences of the violence. The research on perpetrator typologies has been mainly focused on male
perpetrators in partner violence because this is the largest group of perpetrators. The subtypes described below differ from the violent dynamic typologies described by Johnson because they are solely based on the characteristics of the perpetrator.
Disorders that are common among perpetrators of partner abuse are posttraumatic stress disorder (Dutton, 1995), borderline (Costa & Babcock, 2008), addiction to alcohol and drugs (Van der Veen & Bogaerts, 2010) and antisocial personality characteristics (e.g. impulsivity, irritability and aggressiveness) (Costa & Babcock, 2008). The most important typologies on male partner violence offenders are created by Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart (1994). They proposed three subtypes for male perpetrators of domestic violence by distinguishing between three dimensions. The first subtype is about the severity and frequency of the violence. This can be psychological, physical and sexual violence. The second dimension concerns the generality of the violence, this is about if the violence is only directed to the intimate partner or also towards the children and people outside the domestic sphere. The final dimension is about psychopathologic and personality disorders. The first partner violence offender subtypes of Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart (1994) is called ‘family only’, this type scores low on all the three dimensions. The second, ‘generally violent-antisocial’ subtype is often involved with delinquent peers, substance abuse, and other criminal offenses. The third subtype, ‘borderline dysphoric’, scores the highest on measures of dependency and jealousy. In 2000, a fourth subtype was added by the same authors, called the ‘low-level antisocial’. This subtype falls in between the ‘family only’ type and general ‘violent-anti-social subtype’. In later research on this subject especially anti-social behavior and borderline personality traits seem stable characteristics on which different male perpetrator groups can be distinguished (Dixon & Browne, 2003; Johnson et al., 2006; Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 2003).
Thijsen and de Ruiter (2010) stated that relatively, offenders of partner violence commit other criminal acts more often. A Dutch study on relapse of relational abusers who had been in treatment concluded that within an average follow-up period of 23 months 6.6% of the abusers were re-convicted for a violent offense in the domestic sphere (van Horn et al., 1997:338). Studies on partner violence outside the Netherlands show a recidivism rate between 4% and 26% (Thijsen & de Ruiter, 2010:417). These big differences in percentages can be explained by how recidivism is defined, the (size of the) sample and the length of the follow-up period (van Horn et al., 1997:332). The study of Thijsen and de Ruijter (2010:427) revealed that probation officers base their recommendations only to a limited extent on the present risk profiles and factors. Only for the first subtype, ‘family only’ which is the least serious group of offenders described by Holtzworth-Munroe (1994), Thijsen and de Ruijter found their expected outcome of significant more dismissed cases. They concluded that it seemed like that the recommendations by probation officers are mainly formed by what is conventional or available in a certain region.
2.4 Female perpetrator subtypes
Even though the biggest group of perpetrators of partner violence are male and women are more likely to be severely injured, there has been a growing recognition and acknowledgement that women can also be violent towards their male partners (Ali et al., 2016:2). Various motivations have been identified for the use of IPV by women. There has been argued that men and women have the same motivations for the use of violence such as anger or the desire to exert power and control (Rosen et al., 2005; Seamans et al., 2007). However, researchers with a feminist perspective wrote that women use violence mainly as a mean of self-defense, in response to abuse, to protect the children or as retaliation (Dasgupta, 2002; Dobash & Dobash, 2004; Swan & Snow, 2006).
Miller & Meloy (2006) describe how men and women do differ in the ways in which they use violence. In a study on 95 convicted female offenders of domestic violence, they found three categories of abusive women. The researcher emphasizes that a one-size-fits-all approach is not useful in distinguishing and dealing with perpetrators and victims that have resorted to violence. The first is the ‘generalized violence’ behavior, which refers to women who are violent in- and outside of the family sphere but do not exert control over their intimate partners. For this reason, it differs from the CCV typology of Johnson. Compared to the male
general violent categorization of Holzworth-Munroe, the victims feared their abuser, or changed their behavior because of the intimidation of the abuser. This is not the case with male victims of this type of female abuse (Miller & Meloy, 2006: 98). In the second category called ‘frustration response behavior, women had a history of experiencing abuse by their current or former partner and responded with violence after unsuccessfully trying other measures to stop violence (Miller & Meloy, 2006). The use of violence did not change the abusive behavior of their partner or the power dynamics of their relationship. The women in the third category described by Miller and Meloy is ‘defensive behavior’, where violence is used to prevent their partner from becoming more violent. Protection of their children was often given as the reason for the use of violence. The defensive response behavior is close to the category of VR from Johnson (2008). The final group of perpetrator women aims to exert power and control in a mutually violent relationship that is similar to the CCV dynamic described by Johnson.
2.5 Victim typologies
In Table 2.1 the victim typologies by Verstrepen (2006) are summarized. These victims of IPV are categorized into two different groups: incidental victims and chronical victims. Especially this final typology illustrates that a big group of the victims of IPV have an increased risk of getting into a new violent relationship over and over again.
Table 2.1 Victim Typologies
Incidental victims Chronical victims
One-time victim of a violent partner
- No features or risk factors for future victimization
Trauma repetitive victims
- Experience abuse since childhood
- (Un)conscious preference for (potential) abusive partners - Evoke violent behavior form partner
Dependent victims
- Low self-esteem
- Strong partner who protects and takes care of them - More likely to find dominant partners
- Little resistance when intimidated, humiliated, abused Psychological aggressive victims
- Unleash negative feelings or physical abuse by
bullying, humiliating and use psychological suppression on their partner
- Verbal more equipped than partner Borderline types
- Chaotic behavior, search for intense, emotional confrontations with partners
- Promiscuous, rarely selective in their partner choice
- Aggressive and violent against partner even though their lesser physical strength
Addicted victims
- Behavior associated with addiction problems - Look for partner within their circle of addicts - High risk on meeting addictive abusive partner Verstrepen (2006) Typology of victims form IPV
2.6 What works
When considering CCV and abuse in authoritarian relationships from a feminist perspective it is important to challenge men’s assumption that they have the right to control their partner (Kelly & Johnson, 2008). These men need encouragement to place themselves and their partners an equal positions which can reduce the risk of further violence (ibid). Offenders who aren’t motivated to control their partners in the first place might benefit more from cognitive behavioral therapy, focusing on interpersonal skills that help them to prevent arguments from escalating into violence (ibid). Different types of treatments based on the behavior of the offender shows the importance of distinguishing between the different types of IPV. The aim of this thesis is to explore the relevance and practical utility of the typologies described above from the perspective of professionals providing services to partner violence victims and perpetrators. Interventions indicated for SCV can endanger victims of intimate terrorism (Johnson, 2008). An example of such dangerous situations is when a couple dealing with CCV goes into couples counseling while the perpetrator threats to hurt or kill her if she tells the truth during these sessions. Johnson therefore suggests, to always expect the worst and to treat cases of IPV like intimate terrorism until it is proven to be situational couple violence (2008: 75). He goes even further by stating that the best practice is to explain the different forms of domestic violence to the victim and emphasize that any type has the potential to escalate to lethal levels (2008: 74).
An important principal of the What Works approach by Andrews and Bonta (2003) describe that treatment recommendations should be based on the present criminogenic factors. This can be done by differentiating among different typologies of partner violence. Categorizing partner violence is helpful in the development of appropriate screening instruments and processes to describe the central dynamics of the partner violence, the context and the consequences. This can lead to better decision making, appropriate sanctions, and more effective treatment programs tailored to the different characteristics of partner violence (Kelley & Johnson, 2008:478). There is still is a lack of research that explores the effect of differentiating between offenders on treatment outcome to consider if IPV typologies can be linked to treatment and rehabilitation information.
Babcock, Green, and Robbie (2004) have done a meta-study on three perpetrator treatment programs in the United States designed from different perspective. The first treatment was the
psycho-education on the feministic base in line with the Duluth model, where power and control plays an important role in the treatment. The second was the cognitive behavior approach where attitudes and values concerning women and violence are the main topics. In the third form of therapy, denial and victim blaming are the main points of attention. The researchers observed that the effect of all the treatments is low. They concluded that none of these treatments are superior to another. However, the authors emphasize that even though the measured effects of the programs are small, the so-called batter intervention programs, based on a feminist perspective should not be abandoned (Babcock et al, 2004:1048). Their most relevant finding to this study, is that specific interventions work better for certain types of offenders. They state that battering intervention agencies are more likely to improve their services when their treatments are tailored to a specific clientele, in the absence of empirical evidence of a superior efficacy of a particular intervention (Babcock et al., 2004:1048). In Greece, the so-called ‘restorative justice approach’ on domestic violence is about victim-offender mediation. This approach takes the criminal profile of the victim-offenders as the starting point for the procedure to better tailored police intervention which result in better intervention in the scope of reducing re-victimizations (Petropoulos et al., 2016). This is a rather time-consuming tailored approach but very beneficial in regard to both victim and perpetrator. Findings of Helman et al. (2010) show a link between the level of aggression, confidence, and willingness to change. The study supports the idea that a growth of confidence of the perpetrator provides a larger willingness to change.
It is still unclear how this all can be facilitated in practice and if it is desirable to do so. The difficulty to distinguish in which form of IPV is present in a particular situation is an obstacle when infrequent and mild violence is likely to be seen as SCV and CCV is missed. Differentiating among types of intimate partner has some advantages, but it has also raised the concern that will lead to the reification or misapplication of typologies and that as a result, abuse will be missed. Questions can also be raised about the transferability of domestic violence typologies into different contexts and whether professionals have access to the information necessary to appropriately classify situations, offenders and victims, and when they do, if they have the skills to do so accurately and consistently (Boxal et al., 2015:8). While the latter issue could be addressed through additional education and training, earlier experiments have shown that even highly trained experts, clinical psychology PhD students, have experienced difficulty applying labels consistently (Langhinrichsen-Roling et al., 2000).
2.7 Conclusion
This theoretical framework on the IPVTs, reflects on several distinctions that can be made within IPV dynamics, perpetrators and victims. At this moment, the typology of Johnson is the most comprehensive classification to understand partner violence in its different contexts. The difficulty for practical use lies in the fact that milder and infrequent forms of violence are easily mistaken for SCV or a domestic twist and signs of CCV are missed. These sorts of misjudgments lead to wrong treatment or punishment to the persons involved and miss its eventual goal of stopping the violence. Their value is that insights into the dynamics of partner violence can lead to better decision making by professionals, appropriate sanctions, and more effective treatment programs tailored to the different characteristics of partner violence (Kelly & Johnson, 2008:478). On the other hand, differentiating among types of intimate partner violence has led to some concern that will lead to the reification or misapplication of typologies and that as a result, abuse will be missed (ibid). The earlier mentioned research by Boxall et all. (2015) in Australia showed that typologies of IPV are not used in practice and practitioners felt typologies were abstract, risky and ‘unwieldy’. This research concluded that the typologies are mostly theoretical with less practical relevance (ibid). IPVTs can offer understanding about the dynamics and possible course of IPV but need further development to suit in practice. The aim of this research is to explore the relevance and practical utility of these typologies from the perspective of practitioners providing services to partner violence victims and perpetrators in Amsterdam. In the following parts of this thesis, it will be investigated to what extent domestic violence professionals in Amsterdam are oriented towards making distinctions between different types of partner violence.
3. Domestic violence in the Netherlands
Governmental policy on domestic violence in the Netherlands is relatively new, it started in the late seventies when the so-called Blijf van Mijn Lijf centers were established to provide shelter for abused women and their children (Tierlof et al, 2014:1715). In the beginning of this century, the term women’s abuse has been replaced by a more gender-neutral term translated from English, Domestic Violence. The relevant ministries have their own program concerning violence in the domestic sphere. In 2013, the coordination of the topic was transferred from the Ministry of Safety and Justice to the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. The term domestic violence has been replaced recently by the concept violence in dependency relationships (GIA) (Lünnemann et al., 2014:17). With these changes, the emphasis is on violence that takes places within and outside the domestic sphere. The central government policy states a full system orientated approach, but how this should be shaped is up to decide at the local level (Lünnemann, Goderie & Tierolf 2010). In this chapter, background information on this subject will be given starting with an overview of the research on the scope of domestic violence in the Netherlands, followed by an overview of the forms and types of domestic violence abuse and their consequences. Thereafter the current policy background concerning this topic will be discussed and finally, the use of some existing instruments will be presented.
3.1 Numbers
For this research numbers concerning domestic violence are only used to provide an indication of the scope of domestic violence in the Netherlands. By showing these numbers it is important to acknowledge the fact that they only show a limited part of reality because in many cases shame, fear and guilt, as well as the dependent position of the victim in relation to the perpetrator, prevent the reporting of the violence (Aanwijzing huiselijk geweld en kindermishandeling, 2016). A 2010 report from van Dijk et al. on domestic violence explains that domestic violence is difficult to recognize because it is for both perpetrator and victim ‘beneficial’ to conceal the violence. It is possible that the perpetrator behaves completely different towards the outside world than towards the victim. This ‘disguise’ takes place in 80% of the cases, feelings of shame make it difficult for victims to talk about their experiences and to ask for help (van Dijk et al., 2010:16). Researchers do express that
outcomes cannot be generalized for the entire population. It is difficult and sometimes impossible to draw conclusions out of the existing numbers on domestic violence because the concept is defined and operationalized differently. Compared to other forms of violence, domestic violence is the most common form (Factsheet Movisie, 2013; Factsheet Atria, 2014). Within domestic violence cases, 60% concerns partner violence (Ibid).
Van der Veen and Bogaerts (2010:14) estimated that in the Netherlands on a yearly basis 200.000 adults are the victim of domestic violence. Whilst there are between 100.000 and 110.00 suspects. 87% of these suspects are male and 13% are female (van der Veen & Bogaerts 2010). Measured over a period of five years, 9% of the population has been the victim of domestic violence. Lünnemann, Goderie and Tierolf (2010) have criticized this WODC publication because it does not discuss the relationship between victim and perpetrator. It is unknown if these numbers are about partner abuse, elder abuse or other forms of domestic violence. The impact of the violence is also not discussed in a more gender specific way. This is related to the Dutch approach to conducting research and writing policy in a gender-neutral manner.
Table 3.1. Victims divided by gender in the Netherlands
Indicator Male Female
% victims of any form of domestic violence in the last 5 year. 8% 11%
% of the victims within domestic violence that suffered from IPV in the last 5 year. 59% 74%
% of the victims of domestic violence in which the case led towards criminal proceedings. 14% 85,5%
Source Movisie: National prevalence research on domestic violence 2010 in the Netherlands (various sub studies)
The table above shows that women are more often victimized by partner violence, than men are. In this table IPV has been characterized by the exercise of control and power by the offender. In the previous chapter, a distinction is made between situational couple violence and intimate terrorism (Johnson, 2009). In the research of van der Veen and Bogaerst (2010) 20% of the offenders have been identified as intimate terrorist. CCV? or intimate terrorism has a structural character and is the most severe form of partner violence (Van der Veen & Bogaerst, 2010).
When an incident of IPV is underestimated, or misjudged, the chance on getting the best possible treatment or punishment decreases while simultaneously the chance of recidivism increases. Even though there is a very extensive obligation (meldcode) to report in the Netherlands, severe partner violence can be overlooked. If CCV is considered as SCV or as a domestic twist, it can have serious consequences for the victim and increases the possibility at recurrence of the violence. It also leads to unpunished criminal offences and unfit treatment. IPV is one of the many forms of domestic violence and often related to these forms, especially child abuse. The main focus of this thesis is to research the practice of domestic violence professionals on IPV cases. To show the complexity of violence in the private sphere, an overview of the most important types of this kind of violence and its implications is drafted below.
3.2 Forms & types of abuse
Three dominant typologies of IPV can be identified. The first underlines that violence in dependency relationships has a systematic nature and high risk of recurrence because perpetrators and victims are in each other’s direct personal environment (Aanwijzing huiselijk geweld en kindermishandeling, 2016). Within this typology, the place of occurrence is of importance. A simplified distinction can be made between violence in the private, public and semi-public domain. Public and semi-public are often combined and disconnected from violence in the private sphere, such as domestic violence. In relation to domestic violence, not the location but the relationship that exists between perpetrator and victim is of importance (ibid). Between the victim and the perpetrator, there can be spoken of a dependency relationship and/or a lack of freedom between the two. In some cases, inequalities and stereotypical norms about gender and social groups also play a role (ibid). A second typology as used in in Dutch law puts emphasis on domestic violence understood as physical, mental or sexual violence or the threat thereof by someone coming from the domestic circle (Wet Maatschappelijke Ondersteuning, 2016). A third typology used brings forward that IPV is one of many forms of domestic violence, where violence by a current or former partner or spouse can cause physical, sexual or psychological harm (World Health Organization, 2010:11). In the theoretical framework above three typologies of IPV have been exemplified. Next to the categorization based on these typologies, one can also classify this phenomenon by differentiating on the form of abuse, the most common forms of domestic violence are outlined in table two.
Table 3.2 Forms of abuse
Psychological violence Physical violence Sexual violence Economic violence
1. Mocking, humiliating 2. Monitoring in and
outside the house, following*
3. Prohibit to go outside 4. Forbid to talk to other
people
5. Forbid to make social appointments 6. Destroying, damaging or removing personal belongings 7. Threating to breakup relationship
8. Other psychical violence
9. Attempt homicide 10. (negligent) homicide* 11. Threating to physical hurt or
kill
12. Pushing, grabbing, pulling 13. Hitting, kicking, biting,
stumping, throwing objects 14. Hit with objects*
15. Choking, strangling, burning* 16. Threating with knife or another
weapon*
17. Injuring with knife or another weapon*
18. Physical neglect, withholding care
19. Stalking
20. Other physical violence
21. Rape* 22. Forcing sex* 23. Forcing sexual actions * 24. Other sexual violence* 25. Financial exploitation 26. Stealing possessions or money 27. Blackmailing
Source: Movisie (2013); Van der Veen en Bogaerst (2010)
*These forms of domestic violence are, even after one incident or more, considered as evident domestic violence (Van der Veen & Bogaerst, 2010 :11). Evident domestic violence are repeated heavy incidents with a strong controlling, forcing character.
With regards to criminal proceedings distinguishing between different forms of abuse such as emotional and psychological violence is complicated. Stark (2009) has argued that in the law the focus expands from judging violence itself to coercive control as a ‘liberty crime’. Verbal and emotional abuse is part of the overarching concept of domestic violence. It is argued that verbal abuse is just or even more adverse in its effects than physical violence. Both are considered as socially unacceptable behavior and strongly related to the use of physical force. The considerable difference between these forms of violence is that physical abuse has more potential in changing power dynamics within a relationship (Emery, 2011:528). Following Emery, the distinction lies in the fact that verbal abuse does not has the game changing qualities and the potential for shifting power dynamics.
A brief overview of the most common types of violence in the private sphere can be found in Table 3.3 This categorization does not mean that it is always one or the other: some types can overlap and a combination of different forms can also occur. Estimating the risks of other forms of violence and social issues is important in the process of deciding on a possible punishment or treatment. In this study, it will be taken into account that different forms of domestic violence go hand in hand and can be present in the same family.
Table 3.3 Types of domestic violence
Intimate (ex)-Partner violence Behavior within an intimate relationship that causes physical, psychological or sexual harm to those in the relationship, including acts of physical aggression, sexual coercion, psychological abuse and controlling behaviors. (World Health Organization)
Child abuse & neglect
It is estimated that there are 119.000 child victims of domestic violence (Aanwijzing huiselijk geweld en kindermishandeling, 2016). It is a concept on its own within domestic violence but there is allot of coherence between partner violence and child abuse. Witnessing partner violence for example, is considered as a form of child abuse.
Elderly abuse
Recently more research has been conducted on elderly abuse. Elderly abuse is the abuse of elderly by a family member or care taker with who the elderly has a dependent relationship (Lünnemann, 2010:52)
Parent abuse Abuse of parent(s) by a child or adolescent (under 23) who lives at home. Most victims are single biological mothers.
Honor-related violence • Forced marriages, marital imprisonment, marital bigamy • Abandonment • Female genital mutilation
particular focus and attention is needed for families and couples for who honor is an important part of their culture,. There allot of different conflicts that hide beneath this term that have honor as a main motive for violence. Honor has a different meaning depending on culture, ethnicity, gender and society and it changes over time. It is mainly a cultural phenomenon that appears in patriarchal communities with strong hierarchal relationships. Honor related violence has a long-term and dynamic nature. (Bakker, 2005; Ferweda & van Leiden, 2005; Wegwijzer 2006; Janssen, 2006; Ermers, 2007; Brenninkmeijer et al., 2009; Lünnemann & Wijers, 2009). (Lünnemann, 2010: 51)
(Aanwijzing huiselijk geweld en kindermishandeling, 2016)
The overlapping factor within all these forms of domestic violence is the presence of a dependency relationship. This also the reason for the complexity of the issue. Table three describes solely violence within the family. However, outside of the household IPV can also
take place. The first type of a dependency relationship in which violence can take place is one in which a victim depends on teachers, trainers/coaches, nurses or other aid workers. The second type of a dependency relationship in which violence can take place is in prisons, asylum centers, hospitals or within institutions for youngsters, disabled or elderly (Jansen, 2016: 40-41). The third type of a dependency relationship in which violence can take place is human trafficking. The abuse in this type often also comes with financial exploitation (ibid). In this study especially the first type of violence in dependency relationships and specifically IPV is relevant, the other forms and types are explained here because more than often domestic violence professionals simultaneously have to deal with a combination of these different sorts of domestic violence.
3.3 Consequences of IPV
The consequences of domestic violence depend on the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim. A specific consequence is often related to a complicated mix of factors. It is important to provide an overview of consequences because extensive research has shown that becoming the victim of domestic violence or even witnessing domestic violence, can have a very deep impact. The consequences can be physical and emotional, but problems also occur with regards to education, labor and the financial situation of the victim. It can lead to addiction problems, suicide attempts, physical injuries, behavioral problems, problems with sexual intimacy, issues with confidence and placing confidence in others (Factsheet Movisie, 2013). The younger the victim is when he or she is confronted with domestic violence, the more likely they will be confronted with these types of problems (ibid). Damage to the personal health of a victim can lead to absence from work and to drop out of education. In many cases, the consequences are so serious that social, psychological and medical support is necessary (factsheet Movisie). The personal safety of victims can be at stake, which can even lead to looking for shelter and the police and other judicial authorities intervening (ibid). Victims often report that the psychological impact of their experience is worse than the physical impact. For example, victims of domestic violence have indicated that they have lost confidence in themselves and others after experiencing domestic violence (Van Dijk et al., 2010:15). They also encountered problems with intimacy and sexuality and found it difficult to build up relationships (ibid). Approximately 20% of the victims of physical or sexual violence got later in life addiction problems. Moreover, 20 % of the victims tried to commit suicide (Ibid).
The consequences of IPV are in most cases different for males than females. Women have a three-time higher chance on injuries from partner violence and a five-time higher chance on injuries that need medical assistance (Daru et al, 2016). More often, women have reported that their absence of work due to partner violence led to unemployment. Furthermore, when male and female victims suffered from comparable amounts of violence, research has shown that the psychosocial consequences are more severe for females (ibid). For example, in Canada PTSS is more often found with female victims of partner violence (Ansara & Hindin, 2011). In addition, one of the outcomes of the National Violence Against Women Survey in the United States shows that females expressed more often the fear of physical injuries from domestic violence and fear for their life (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). Psychosocial consequences for both male and female victims of partner violence manifest itself often in depression (Shorey et al., 2011).
When there are children involved in the relationship, there is a high chance that they will also suffer from the violence (Anne Bogat et al. 2005:55). Empirical research has proven that women who experience intimate partner violence have a higher chance of engaging in harsher parenting towards their children, compared to women who do not experience partner violence (Kanoy et al., 2003). Witnessing partner violence, emotional violence, swearing and/or screaming is considered a form of child abuse. Witnessing domestic violence can also have long term implications. In the social cognitive learning theory (Bandura, 1969), domestic violence is seen as learned behavior. The article ‘Like parent, Like Child: Intergenerational Transmission of Partner Violence in Cebu, the Philippines’ concluded that witnessing domestic violence as a child is a risk factor of getting involved in partner violence, as victim or as perpetrator (Fehringer & Hindin, 2009).
Partner violence can have fatal consequences. Between 2010 and 2014 in the Netherlands there was an average of 25 females and 5 male victims of fatal partner violence (CBS). Heterosexual men, committed intimate partner homicide more often when their partner left them (Römkens, 1992). When women murder their abusive partners, there could have been a dynamic of situational couple violence that escalated. However, more often it concerns women who feel trapped in a relationship with a coercively controlling and violent partner (Kelley & Johnson, 2009:485). ‘Self-defense’ is proven to be an important motive for women when committing intimate partner homicide (Felson et al., 2010).
3.4 Policy background
Dutch society is transiting from a welfare state into a participation society in which the responsibilities of municipalities increases. When help from outside is necessary, the support needs to be organized close to home, professional support is supposed to be additional to what cannot be arranged in the couples’ own network (Janssen, 2016:41). Studying the practical reality of social workers who deal with IPV in a particular municipality is of importance because the involvement of the local level is increasing in the integrated approach on domestic violence. The obligation of local authorities to offer support is enforced by three recent developments. First, the Temporary Restraining Order Domestic Violence has been implemented in 2009. This order has contributed to the integrated approach of domestic violence because it is linked to the obligation of offering adequate assistance to the one removed from its home and the one that stays behind (De Vaan et al., 2013; Schreienberg et. al., 2010). Secondly, the law of Obliged Reporting Code regarding domestic violence and child abuse came into force in 2013. This law has been an incentive for the creation of communal policies regarding domestic violence and child abuse. This law obligates several institutions operating in healthcare, educational, judicial and social support to work with this code. The purpose of it is to give professionals a starting point on what to do when signaling violence in the domestic sphere (Tierlof et al., 2014:16). The central government aims with this code to advocate for a full system orientated approach, but locale entities have the freedom to shape their approach according to their own needs (Lünnemann, Goderie & Tierolf 2010). Third, these developments fit into the trend of decentralizing social policies which have been taking place since the beginning of 2007. This trend leads to a transfer of the responsibility for dealing with adults and children who have encountered violence within the domestic sphere from the central to the local governments. The control function of the Dutch municipalities on this issue was formalized by the Social Support Act (WMO). The WMO obligates every municipality to develop policies that ensure the quality of their approach regarding violence in the domestic sphere. In the Netherlands, around eighty percent of the municipalities choose to work with a model in which social neighbourhood teams play a central role (Van Arum & Schoorl, 2015). In Amsterdam, more neighbourhood teams are being formed. A characteristic of this type of social support is that part of the support takes place at home. Simultaneously, this has raised the question till what extent professional support is needed and when voluntary support can take over (ibid).
Apart from the WMO, there are three other developments of importance to how the communal policy of domestic violence has developed. In 2007 a centralized system has been introduced, that steers all Domestic Violence Centers (Steunpunten Huiselijkgeweld, SHG). This marginalized the differences in tasks and methods within the different branches (Tierlof etal., 2014:16). All these SHGs have been merged into one advisory, support and reporting point for child abuse and domestic violence (Algemeen meldpunt Huiselijk geweld en Kindermishandeling, AMHK). The AMHK has been given several legal obligations, such as giving advice, reporting, doing research and creating coherence between the involved organizations (Tierlof etal., 2014:18). In 2015, all the organizations involved in the AMHK were integrated into Veilig Thuis (VT), which functions as an umbrella organization. These organizational changes and the diversity of the different organizations and institutions involved, shows the complexity that this subject comes with. For example, different governmental entities (e.g. healthcare, judicial organizations) have different objectives (e.g. giving care, prosecuting). When VT or another organization is getting involved the purpose it to initiate a care process, sometimes simultaneously with the start of a criminal justice process or with another treatment. The organization of these simultaneous processes has proven to be difficult. Several actors with different objectives have to be aware of each other’s processes (e.g. a treatment program or a criminal investigation) to be able to contribute to maximum safety or optimal care (Lünnemann, 2014:19). The success of this cooperation depends on a successful analyses of the violent situation and the impact on the victims of it.
4. Methodological framework
In this thesis, a deductive qualitative approach will be used to explore and explain the relevance and practical utility of Intimate Partner Violence Typologies (IPVT) from the perspective of professionals providing services to partner violence victims and perpetrators. This research will take the form of an explanatory single case study to answer the research question: ‘To what extent are Intimate Partner Violence Typologies utilized in the decision-making process of domestic violence professionals in Amsterdam and how can this (in)competence be explained?’ The aim is to contribute to the understanding of the typologies of IPV in the practical field of domestic violence. The data that has been gathered through semi-structured interviews will be analyzed applying a qualitative content analysis. This chapter will start with a description of the type of case study and case selection, followed by the operationalization, method of data collection and analysis. In the final section of this chapter the implications of the used methods will be discussed.
4.1 Case selection
Partner violence is a type of violence that affects people from all socioeconomic backgrounds and crosses cultural, racial and educational lines (Heise et el., 1999). This research will be conducted in the Netherlands. There is an observable gap in the literature regarding the use of Intimate Partner Violence Typologies (IPVT’s) in the practice of domestic violence professionals. Following the Verwey Jonker institute (2009: 5), the amount of reports on domestic violence is three times higher in the four biggest cities (the G4, namely Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht) in the Netherlands compared to the rest of the country. The 2016 reports on Domestic Violence from Statistics Netherlands (CBS, Centraal Bureau Statistiek) show that the G4 cities alternate each other in terms of frequency of reports. Due to time constraints, it is not possible to investigate several municipalities and compare them. The scope of this research has been refined to the municipality of Amsterdam for practical reasons, such as the network under domestic violence professionals of the researcher. Domestic violence professionals in Amsterdam are the subject of this case study is because they are the ones at the frontline, actively responding to cases of domestic violence and partner violence on a day to day basis. When investigating the practical implications of IPVT’s it is necessary to talk with the actors that actually spend time with the victims and
