Preventing Intimate Partner Violence Across the Lifespan: A Technical Package of Programs, Policies, and Practices

Preventing Intimate Partner
Violence Across the Lifespan:
A Technical Package of Programs,
Policies, and Practices
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control
Division of Violence Prevention

Preventing Intimate PartnerViolence Across the Lifespan: ATechnical Package of Programs, Policies, and Practices 1
Preventing Intimate PartnerViolence
Across the Lifespan: ATechnical Package of
Programs, Policies, and Practices
Developed by:
Phyllis Holditch Niolon, PhD
Megan Kearns, PhD
Jenny Dills, MPH
Kirsten Rambo, PhD
Shalon Irving, PhD
Theresa L. Armstead, PhD
Leah Gilbert, PhD
2017
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Atlanta, Georgia

2 Preventing Intimate PartnerViolence Across the Lifespan: ATechnical Package of Programs, Policies, and Practices
Anne Schuchat, MD (RADM, USPHS), Acting Director
Debra E. Houry, MD, MPH, Director
James A. Mercy, PhD, Director
Suggested citation:
Niolon, P. H., Kearns, M., Dills, J., Rambo, K., Irving, S., Armstead, T., & Gilbert, L. (2017).
Preventing Intimate Partner Violence Across the Lifespan: A Technical Package of Programs,
Policies, and Practices. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Contents
Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................................... 5
External Reviewers.................................................................................................................................................. 5
Overview.................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Teach Safe and Healthy Relationship Skills..................................................................................................15
Engage Influential Adults and Peers..............................................................................................................19
Disrupt the Developmental Pathways Toward Partner Violence.........................................................23
Create Protective Environments......................................................................................................................29
Strengthen Economic Supports for Families ..............................................................................................33
Support Survivors to Increase Safety and Lessen Harms .......................................................................37
Sector Involvement..............................................................................................................................................43
Monitoring and Evaluation................................................................................................................................45
Conclusion...............................................................................................................................................................46
References ...............................................................................................................................................................47
Appendix: Summary of Strategies..................................................................................................................58

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the following individuals who contributed in specific ways to the development of this technical
package. We give special thanks to Linda Dahlberg for her vision, guidance, and support throughout the development
of this package. We thank Division, Center, and CDC leadership for their careful review and helpful feedback on earlier
iterations of this document. We thank Alida Knuth for her formatting and design expertise. We also extend our thanks
and gratitude to all the external reviewers for their helpful feedback, support and encouragement for this resource.
We dedicate this document to the memory of our co-author, Shalon M. Irving, who passed away during the
development of this publication. We are grateful for the time we shared with Shalon working on this publication.“Dr.
Shalon”, as she was affectionately known, worked tirelessly to improve community health outcomes and brought joy
to everyone who knew her. Her efforts to prevent violence and toward improving health equity at the CDC and across
the U.S. are part of her legacy.
External Reviewers
Casey Castaldi
Prevention Institute
Amalia Corby-Edwards
American Psychological Association
Diane Fields-Johnson
Lisa Fujie Parks
Jennifer Grove
National Sexual Violence Resource Center
Dan Hartley
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
Lisa James
Futures Without Violence
Marylouise Kelly
Family Violence Prevention and Services Program,
Administration for Children and Families
Ashleigh Klein Jimenez
California Coalition Against Sexual Assault
David S. Lee
California Coalition Against Sexual Assault
Anne Menard
National Resource Center on Domestic Violence
Bethany D. Miller
Maternal and Child Health Bureau,
Health Resources and Services Administration
Carrie Mulford
National Institute of Justice
Rebecca K. Odor
Family Violence Prevention and Services Program,
Administration for Children and Families
Alisha Somji
The experts above are listed with their affiliations at the time this document was reviewed.

Overview
This technical package represents a select group of strategies based on the best available evidence to help
communities and states sharpen their focus on prevention activities with the greatest potential to prevent intimate
partner violence (IPV) and its consequences across the lifespan. These strategies include teaching safe and healthy
relationship skills; engaging influential adults and peers; disrupting the developmental pathways toward IPV; creating
protective environments; strengthening economic supports for families; and supporting survivors to increase safety
and lessen harms. The strategies represented in this package include those with a focus on preventing IPV, including
teen dating violence (TDV), from happening in the first place or to prevent it from continuing, as well as approaches
to lessen the immediate and long-term harms of partner violence. Commitment, cooperation, and leadership from
numerous sectors, including public health, education, justice, health care, social services, business and labor, and
government can bring about the successful implementation of this package.
What is aTechnical Package?
A technical package is a compilation of a core set of strategies to achieve and sustain substantial reductions in a
specific risk factor or outcome.1
Technical packages help communities and states prioritize prevention activities based
on the best available evidence. This technical package has three components. The first component is the strategy or
the preventive direction or actions to achieve the goal of preventing IPV/TDV. The second component is the approach.
The approach includes the specific ways to advance the strategy. This can be accomplished through programs, policies,
and practices. The evidence for each of the approaches in preventing IPV or TDV and/or associated risk factors is
included as the third component. This package is intended as a resource to guide and inform prevention decision-
making in communities and states.
Preventing Intimate PartnerViolence is a Priority
IPV is a serious preventable public health problem that affects millions of Americans and occurs across the lifespan.2-4
It
can start as soon as people start dating or having intimate relationships, often in adolescence. IPV that happens when
individuals first begin dating, usually in their teen years, is often referred to as TDV. From here forward in this technical
package, we will use the term IPV broadly to refer to this type of violence as it occurs across the lifespan. However,
when outcomes are specific to TDV, we will note that.
IPV (also commonly referred to as domestic violence) includes“physical violence, sexual violence, stalking, and
psychological aggression (including coercive tactics) by a current or former intimate partner (i.e., spouse, boyfriend/
girlfriend, dating partner, or ongoing sexual partner).”5
Some forms of IPV (e.g., aspects of sexual violence,
psychological aggression, including coercive tactics, and stalking) can be perpetrated electronically through mobile
devices and social media sites, as well as, in person. IPV happens in all types of intimate relationships, including
heterosexual relationships and relationships among sexual minority populations. Family violence is another commonly
used term in prevention efforts. While the term domestic violence encompasses the same behaviors and dynamics as
IPV, the term family violence is broader and refers to a range of violence that can occur in families, including IPV, child
abuse, and elder abuse by caregivers and others. This package is focused on IPV across the lifespan, including partner
violence among older adult populations. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has developed a
separate technical package for the prevention of child abuse and neglect.6
IPV is highly prevalent. IPV affects millions of people in the United States each year. Data from the National Intimate
Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) indicate that nearly 1 in 4 adult women (23%) and approximately 1 in
7 men (14%) in the U.S. report having experienced severe physical violence (e.g., being kicked, beaten, choked, or
burned on purpose, having a weapon used against them, etc.) from an intimate partner in their lifetime. Additionally,
16% of women and 7% of men have experienced contact sexual violence (this includes rape, being made to penetrate

someone else, sexual coercion, and/or unwanted sexual contact) from an intimate partner. Ten percent of women and
2% of men in the U.S. report having been stalked by an intimate partner, and nearly half of all women (47%) and men
(47%) have experienced psychological aggression, such as humiliating or controlling behaviors.3
The burden of IPV is not shared equally across all groups; many racial/ethnic and sexual minority groups are
disproportionately affected by IPV. Data from NISVS indicate that the lifetime prevalence of experiencing contact
sexual violence, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner is 57% among multi-racial women, 48% among
American Indian/Alaska Native women, 45% among non-Hispanic Black women, 37% among non-Hispanic White
women, 34% among Hispanic women, and 18% among Asian-Pacific Islander women. The lifetime prevalence is
42% among multi-racial men, 41% among American Indian/Alaska Native men, 40% among non-Hispanic Black
men, 30% among non-Hispanic White men, 30% among Hispanic men, and 14% among Asian-Pacific Islander men.3
Additionally, the NISVS special report on victimization by sexual orientation demonstrates that some sexual minorities
are also disproportionately affected by IPV victimization; 61% of bisexual women, 37% of bisexual men, 44% of lesbian
women, 26% of gay men, 35% of heterosexual women, and 29% of heterosexual men experienced rape, physical
violence, and/or stalking from an intimate partner in their lifetimes.7
In regards to people living with disabilities, one
study using a nationally representative sample found that 4.3% of people with physical health impairments and 6.5%
of people with mental health impairments reported IPV victimization in the past year.8
Studies also show that people
with a disability have nearly double the lifetime risk of IPV victimization.9
IPV starts early in the lifespan. Data from NISVS demonstrate that IPV often begins in adolescence. An estimated 8.5
million women in the U.S. (7%) and over 4 million men (4%) reported experiencing physical violence, rape (or being
made to penetrate someone else), or stalking from an intimate partner in their lifetime and indicated that they first
experienced these or other forms of violence by that partner before the age of 18.3
A nationally representative survey
of U.S. high school students also indicates high levels of TDV. Findings from the 2015 Youth Risk Behavior Survey
indicate that among students who reported dating, 10% had experienced physical dating violence and a similar
percentage (11%) had experienced sexual dating violence in the past 12 months.10
In an analysis of the 2013 survey
where the authors examined students reporting physical and/or sexual dating violence, the findings indicate that
among students who had dated in the past year, 21% of girls and 10% of boys reported either physical violence, sexual
violence, or both forms of violence from a dating partner.11
While the YRBS does not provide national data on the
prevalence of stalking victimization among high school students, we know from NISVS that nearly 3.5 million women
(3%) and 900,000 men (1%) in the U.S. report that they first experienced stalking victimization before age 18.3
A study
conducted in Kentucky suggests that nearly 17% of high school students in that state report stalking victimization,
with most students indicating that they were most afraid of a former boyfriend or girlfriend as the stalker.12
Research
also indicates that IPV is most prevalent in adolescence and young adulthood and then begins to decline with age,2
demonstrating the critical importance of early prevention efforts.
IPV is associated with several risk and protective factors. Research indicates a number of factors increase risk for
perpetration and victimization of IPV. The risk and protective factors discussed here focus on risk for IPV perpetration,
although many of the same risk factors are also relevant for victimization.13-14
Factors that put individuals at risk for
perpetrating IPV include (but are not limited to) demographic factors such as age (adolescence and young adulthood),
low income, low educational attainment, and unemployment; childhood history factors such as exposure to violence
between parents, experiencing poor parenting, and experiencing child abuse and neglect, including sexual violence.
Other individual factors that put people at risk for perpetrating IPV include factors such as stress, anxiety, and antisocial
personality traits; attitudinal risk factors, such as attitudes condoning violence in relationships and belief in strict gender
roles; and other behavioral risk factors such as prior perpetration and victimization of IPV or other forms of aggression,
such as peer violence, a history of substance abuse, a history of delinquency, and hostile communication styles.13-16
Relationship level factors include hostility or conflict in the relationship, separation/ending of the relationship (e.g.,
break-ups, divorce/separation), aversive family communication and relationships, and having friends who perpetrate/
experience IPV.15-16
Although less studied than factors at other levels of the social ecology, community or societal level
factors include poverty, low social capital, low collective efficacy in neighborhoods (e.g., low willingness of neighbors

to intervene when they see violence), and harmful gender norms in societies (i.e., beliefs and expectations about the
roles and behavior of men and women).16-17
Additionally, a few protective factors have been identified that are associated with lower chances of perpetrating or
experiencing TDV. These include high empathy, good grades, high verbal IQ, a positive relationship with one’s mother,
and attachment to school.15
Less is known about protective factors at the community and societal level, but research
is emerging indicating that environmental factors such as lower alcohol outlet density18
and community norms that
are intolerant of IPV19
may be protective against IPV. Although more research is needed, there is some evidence
suggesting that increased economic opportunity and housing security may also be protective against IPV.20-22
IPV is connected to other forms of violence. Experience with many other forms of violence puts people at risk
for perpetrating and experiencing IPV. Children who are exposed to IPV between their parents or caregivers are
more likely to perpetrate or experience IPV, as are individuals who experience abuse and neglect as children.13,15,23
Additionally, adolescents who engage in bullying or peer violence are more likely to perpetrate IPV.15,24
Those who
experience sexual violence and emotional abuse are more likely to be victims of physical IPV.14
Research also suggests
IPV may increase risk for suicide. Both boys and girls who experience TDV are at greater risk for suicidal ideation.25-26
Women exposed to partner violence are nearly 5 times more likely to attempt suicide as women not exposed to
partner violence.27
Intimate partner problems, which includes IPV, were also found to be a precipitating factor for
suicide among men in a review of violent death records from 7 U.S. states.28
Research also shows that experience with
IPV (either perpetration or victimization) puts people at higher risk for experiencing IPV in the future.4,13-14
The different forms of violence often share the same individual, relationship, community, and societal risk factors.29
The interconnections between the different forms of violence suggests multiple opportunities for prevention.30
Many
of the strategies included in this technical package include example programs and policies that have demonstrated
impacts on other forms of violence as reflected in CDC’s other technical packages for prevention of child abuse and
neglect, sexual violence, youth violence and suicide.6,31-33
Recognizing and addressing the interconnections among the
different forms of violence will help us better prevent all forms of violence.
Research
indicatesthat
IPVismostprevalent
inadolescenceandyoung
adulthoodandthen
beginstodeclinewithage,
demonstratingthecritical
importanceofearly
preventionefforts.

The health and economic consequences of IPV are substantial. Approximately 41% of female IPV survivors and
14% of male IPV survivors experience some form of physical injury related to their experience of relationship violence.2
IPV can also extend beyond physical injury and result in death. Data from U.S. crime reports suggest that 16% (about
1 in 6) of murder victims are killed by an intimate partner, and that over 40% of female homicide victims in the U.S.
are killed by an intimate partner.34
There are also many other adverse health outcomes associated with IPV, including
a range of cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, reproductive, musculoskeletal, and nervous system conditions, many of
which are chronic in nature.35
Survivors of IPV also experience mental health consequences, such as depression and
posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).36
Population-based surveys suggest that 52% of women and 17% of men who
have experienced contact sexual violence, physical violence or stalking by an intimate partner report symptoms of
PTSD related to their experience of relationship violence.3
IPV survivors are also at higher risk for engaging in health
risk behaviors, such as smoking, binge drinking, and HIV risk behaviors.37
A substantial proportion of survivors also report other negative
impacts as a result of IPV, and there is wide variation in the proportions
of female and male survivors reporting these impacts. Population-
based surveys indicate that among women and men in the U.S.
who have experienced contact sexual violence, physical violence,
or stalking by an intimate partner during their lifetimes, 73% of the
women and 36% of the men report at least one measured negative
impact related to these victimization experiences (e.g., fear, concern
for safety, missing school or work, needing services).3
Among the
female IPV survivors, 62% reported feeling fearful, 57% reported being
concerned for their safety, 25% missed at least one day of school
or work from the IPV, 19% reported needing medical care, and 8%
needed housing services. Among the male survivors, 18% reported
feeling fearful, 17% reported being concerned for their safety, 14%
missed at least one day of school or work from the IPV, 5% reported
needing medical care, and 2% needed housing services.3
Although the personal consequences of IPV are considerable,
there are also considerable societal costs associated with medical
services for IPV-related injury and health consequences, mental
health services, lost productivity from paid work, childcare, and
household chores, and criminal justice and child welfare costs. The
only currently available estimates of societal costs of IPV are from
the mid-1990s, but suggest that the annual costs even 20 years ago
were estimated at $5.8 billion based on medical and mental health
services and lost productivity alone.38
IPV can be prevented. Primary prevention of IPV, including TDV, means preventing IPV before it begins. Primary
prevention strategies are key to ending partner violence in adolescence and adulthood and protecting people from
its effects. Partner violence in adolescence can be a pre-cursor or risk factor for partner violence in adulthood. Many
strategies to prevent IPV therefore see adolescence as a critical developmental period for the prevention of partner
violence in adulthood. It is also important to assist survivors and their children and protect them from future harm.
Although there is less evidence of what works to prevent IPV compared to other areas of violence, such as youth
violence or child maltreatment, a growing research base demonstrates that there are multiple strategies to prevent
IPV from occurring in the first place and to lessen the harms for survivors.39
Strategies are available that can benefit
adolescents and adults regardless of their level of risk as well as individuals and environments at greatest risk.
A comprehensive approach that simultaneously targets multiple risk and protective factors is critical to having
a broad and sustained impact on IPV. Even though more research is needed (e.g., to strengthen the evidence
addressing community and societal level factors), we cannot let the need for further research impede efforts to
effectively prevent IPV within our communities.

Acomprehensive
approachtargeting
multipleriskand
protectivefactorsis
criticaltohavinga
broadandsustained
impactonIPV.
Assessing the Evidence
This technical package includes programs, practices, and policies with evidence of impact on victimization, perpetration, or
risk factors for IPV.To be considered for inclusion in the technical package, the program, practice, or policy selected had to
meet at least one of these criteria: a) meta-analyses or systematic reviews showing impact on IPV victimization or perpetration;
b) evidence from at least one rigorous (e.g., randomized controlled trial [RCT] or quasi-experimental design) evaluation
study that found significant preventive effects on IPV victimization or perpetration; c) meta-analyses or systematic reviews
showing impact on risk factors for IPV victimization or perpetration, or d) evidence from at least one rigorous (e.g., RCT or
quasi-experimental design) evaluation study that found significant impacts on risk factors for IPV victimization or perpetration.
Finally, consideration was also given to the likelihood of achieving beneficial effects on multiple forms of violence; no evidence
of harmful effects on specific outcomes or with particular subgroups; and feasibility of implementation in a U.S. context if the
program, policy, or practice has been evaluated in another country.
Within this technical package, some approaches do not yet have research evidence demonstrating impact on rates of IPV
victimization or perpetration but instead are supported by evidence indicating impacts on risk factors for IPV (e.g., child
maltreatment, harsh parenting, attitudes accepting of violence, financial stress). In terms of the strength of the evidence,
programs that have demonstrated effects on IPV outcomes (reductions in perpetration or victimization) provide a higher-
level of evidence, but the evidence base is not that strong in all areas. For instance, there has been less evaluation of certain
approaches on IPV outcomes, such as those described in the strategy to DisrupttheDevelopmentalPathwaystoViolence, and
approaches at the outer levels of the social ecology, such as economic policy and interventions addressing community-level
risk factors.Thus, approaches in this package that have effects on risk factors reflect the developmental nature of the evidence
base and the use of the best available evidence at a given time.
There is a wide range in the nature and quality of evidence among the programs, policies, or practices that fall within one
approach or strategy. Not all programs, policies, or practices that utilize the same approach (e.g., programs to teach young
people skills to prevent dating violence) are equally effective – some have impact on dating violence behaviors while others
do not, and even those that are effective may not work across all populations. Few programs have been designed for and
tested with diverse populations (e.g., racial/ethnic, sexual minority, incarcerated, and immigrant populations to name a few),
so tailoring programs and more evaluation may also be necessary to address different population groups.The evidence-based
programs, practices, or policies included in the package are not intended to be a comprehensive list for each approach, but
rather to serve as examples that have been shown to impact IPV victimization or perpetration or have beneficial effects on risk
factors for IPV. In practice, the effectiveness of the programs, policies and practices identified in this package will be strongly
dependent on the quality of their implementation and the communities in which they are implemented. Implementation
guidance to assist practitioners, organizations and communities will be developed separately.

Context and Cross-CuttingThemes
The strategies and approaches included in this technical package represent different levels of the social ecology, with
efforts intended to impact individual behaviors and also the relationships, families, schools, and communities that
influence risk and protective factors for IPV. The strategies and approaches are intended to work in combination and
reinforce each other to prevent IPV (see box below). While individual skills are important and research has demonstrated
preventive effects in reducing IPV, approaches addressing peer, family, school and other environments as well as societal
factors are equally important for a comprehensive approach that can have the greatest public health impact.
Preventing IPV
Strategy Approach
Teach safe and healthy relationship skills
• Social-emotional learning programs for youth
• Healthy relationship programs for couples
Engage influential adults and peers
• Men and boys as allies in prevention
• Bystander empowerment and education
• Family-based programs
Disrupt the developmental pathways
toward partner violence
• Early childhood home visitation
• Preschool enrichment with family engagement
• Parenting skill and family relationship programs
• Treatment for at-risk children, youth and families
Create protective environments
• Improve school climate and safety
• Improve organizational policies and workplace climate
• Modify the physical and social environments of neighborhoods
Strengthen economic supports for
families
• Strengthen household financial security
• Strengthen work-family supports
Support survivors to increase safety and
lessen harms
• Victim-centered services
• Housing programs
• First responder and civil legal protections
• Patient-centered approaches
• Treatment and support for survivors of IPV, including TDV

While each of the strategies and approaches in the package has a particular focus, several important themes are
cross-cutting and are addressed by multiple strategies. One of these is an emphasis on creating safe, stable, nurturing
relationships and environments in childhood and adolescence to prevent IPV across the lifespan. Approaches such
as social-emotional learning, early childhood home visitation, preschool enrichment, parenting skill and family
relationship programs, and efforts to create protective environments and lessen harms are intended to address
exposures to violence, build skills, strengthen relationships, and create the context to prevent IPV across the lifespan.
The strategies and approaches in this regard are intended to be complementary and have a potentially synergistic
impact. Changing social norms, including harmful gender norms, is another aspect that cross-cuts many of the
strategies in this package. Social norms supportive of violence, including harmful gender norms, are demonstrated
risk factors for IPV.13-15
Social tolerance of violence and harmful gender norms are learned in childhood and reinforced
in different peer, family, social, economic, and cultural contexts. Challenging these norms is a key aspect of Teaching
Safe and Healthy Relationship Skills, Engaging Influential Adults and Peers, and Creating Protective Environments in
schools, neighborhoods, workplaces, and the broader community. Equally important is addressing the societal factors
that serve to maintain harmful norms and inequality across gender, racial/ethnic, and income groups.
The strategies and approaches included in this technical package repr
current best practices in the primary prevention of IPV and supporting
survivors with the after effects of IPV. This package does not include
approaches to prevent recidivism or treatment for offenders. Batterer
Intervention Programs (BIPs) are widely used in communities and within
the justice system, but the research findings on their effectiveness are
mixed,40-41
and conclusions of reviews have differed based on the level
rigor required for study inclusion, study methodology, and on the outc
used to determine effectiveness (police records vs. victim reports).40
D
the lack of clear evidence regarding the effectiveness of these progra
preventing further IPV,40-42
BIPs are not included in this technical packa
The example programs, policies, and practices in the package have
been implemented within particular contexts. Each community and
organization working on IPV prevention across the nation brings its
own social and cultural context to bear on the selection of strategies
and approaches that are most relevant to its populations and setting
Practitioners in the field may be in the best position to assess the nee
and strengths of their communities and work with community mem
to make decisions about the combination of approaches included he
that are best suited to their context.
This package includes strategies where public health agencies are we
positioned to bring leadership and resources to implementation effo
It also includes strategies where public health can serve as an import
collaborator (e.g., strategies addressing community and societal level
risks), but where leadership and commitment from other sectors suc
as business or labor (e.g., workplace policies) is critical to implement
a particular policy or program. The role of various sectors in the
implementation of a strategy or approach in preventing IPV is descri
further in the section on Sector Involvement.
In the sections that follow, the strategies and approaches with the be
available evidence for preventing IPV are described.
esent
of
ome
ue to
ms in
ge.
s.
ds
bers
re
ll
rts.
ant
h
bed
st

Teach Safe and Healthy Relationship Skills
Rationale
Fostering expectations for healthy relationships and teaching healthy relationship skills are critical to a primary
prevention approach to the problem of IPV. The evidence suggests that acceptance of partner violence, poor
emotional regulation and conflict management, and poor communication skills put individuals at risk for both
perpetration and victimization of IPV.15,43-44
Therefore, promoting expectations for healthy, non-violent relationships
and building skills in these areas can reduce risk for perpetration and victimization of IPV. Previous research shows that
strengthening social-emotional, conflict management, and communication skills can also reduce substance abuse,
sexual risk behaviors, sexual violence, delinquency, bullying and other forms of peer violence.31-32,45
Approaches
There are a number of approaches that teach skills and promote expectations for healthy, non-violent relationships,
including those that work with youth and with couples.
Social-emotional learning programs for youth promote expectations for mutually respectful, caring, non-violent
relationships among young people and work with youth to help them develop social-emotional skills such as
empathy, respect, and healthy communication and conflict resolution skills. Successful programs not only teach skills
for safe and healthy relationships but also offer multiple opportunities to practice and reinforce these skills. Although
typically implemented with adolescent populations in school-based settings, these approaches and skills may also be
useful with young adults.
Healthy relationship programs for couples focus on improving relationship dynamics and individual well-being
by improving communication, conflict management, and emotional regulation skills. Some of these programs work
with couples who are engaged or just entering committed relationships to increase relationship quality, relationship
satisfaction and relationship skills, while others work with couples trying to address a problem, such as substance use.
Couples-based approaches have historically been controversial in the field of IPV intervention, and most agree that
treatment programs for couples where severe violence and fear are already occurring are not safe for survivors.46
For
other couples, there is some evidence that relationship programs that focus on improving these relationship skills can
demonstrate effectiveness in reducing the likelihood of IPV perpetration in the future.
Potential Outcomes
• Increases in the use of healthy relationship skills
• Reductions in perpetration of physical, sexual and emotional IPV and stalking
• Reductions in victimization of physical, sexual and emotional IPV and stalking
• Reductions in perpetration of peer violence, including bullying
• Reductions in high-risk sexual behaviors
• Reductions in attitudes that accept violence in relationships
• Increases in relationship satisfaction and well-being
• Reductions in substance abuse
• Reductions in weapon-carrying

Evidence
The current evidence suggests that both social-emotional programs for youth and relationship skills programs
for adult couples can prevent IPV perpetration and victimization.
Social-emotional learning programs for youth. One program with evidence of effectiveness is Safe Dates,
which is a school-based program focused on the promotion of healthy relationships and the prevention of
TDV.47
Originally developed for 8th and 9th graders, the program offers opportunities for students to learn and
practice skills related to conflict resolution, positive communication, and managing anger. The program includes
10 classroom sessions, which provide many opportunities for role play and skill practice, a play presented to
the entire school, and a poster contest. Safe Dates was evaluated in a randomized controlled trial and found to
reduce both perpetration and victimization of physical and sexual dating violence, and results were sustained at
four-year follow-up, into late-adolescence. Students exposed to the program reported between 56% and 92%
less perpetration and victimization, respectively, at four-year follow-up when compared to control students, and
program effects were consistent across gender, race, and baseline experience with TDV.47
Students exposed to
Safe Dates also reported a 12% reduction in peer violence victimization and a 31% reduction in weapon carrying
at one-year follow-up compared to controls, demonstrating its effects on other violence outcomes associated
with TDV.48
Another example is “The Fourth R: Strategies for Healthy Teen Relationships.” The program is named “The Fourth
R” to indicate that teaching youth about“relationships”is as important as teaching them the three R’s of
“reading, writing and arithmetic.” This 21-session manualized curriculum focuses on 1) personal safety and injury
prevention; 2) healthy growth and sexuality, and 3) substance abuse. The program offers multiple opportunities
to practice and rehearse skills. The Fourth R was evaluated in a randomized controlled trial, and significant
program effects were found among boys: boys in the intervention were almost three times less likely to report
perpetration than boys in the control condition 2.5 years after baseline. However, there was no significant
intervention effect on girls’perpetration.49
Expect Respect Support Groups (ERSG) are a socio-emotional
learning approach for students at higher risk of TDV. ERSG
is designed for teens who are in an abusive relationship or
who have experienced any form of violence or abuse. Weekly
support groups are led by trained facilitators. The 24-session
curriculum focuses on developing communication skills,
choosing equality and respect, recognizing abuse, learning skills
for healthy relationships and becoming active proponents for
safe and healthy relationships. Ball et al.50
found that teens who
completed the ERSG reported an increase in relationship skills
and a decrease in TDV victimization and perpetration from pre
to post-test. In a recent controlled evaluation of ERSG using an
accelerated longitudinal design, the number of ERSG sessions
attended related to significant incremental declines for boys on
multiple outcomes, including perpetration and victimization of
psychological TDV and sexual TDV, physical TDV victimization, and
reactive and proactive aggression.51
Girls who participated in ERSG
demonstrated significant reductions in reactive and proactive
aggression compared to treatment as usual control participants,
but did not differ from controls on the TDV outcomes. It appears
that ERSG has beneficial effects for both boys and girls in regard to
reactive and proactive aggression, but is most effective for at-risk
boys in regards to TDV perpetration and victimization.

Healthy relationship programs for couples. Programs that work with couples to build and strengthen
relationship skills, including communication and conflict management skills, show evidence for preventing later
IPV. One example is the Pre-marital Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP), which is a five session intervention
for couples planning to marry that focuses on teaching couples skills, techniques, and principles designed
to enhance positive relationship functioning and promote effective management of negative affect with the
goal of maintaining high relationship functioning and preventing problems from occurring in the relationship.
This program has been empirically tested with many populations (e.g., community-based, active duty military,
incarcerated populations) and in various delivery formats (group delivery, computer-delivered). In the original
randomized controlled trial of PREP, at five-year follow-up couples who completed all or most of the PREP
intervention had significantly lower levels of physical relationship violence than couples in the control group.
The intervention group also had significantly higher levels of positive communication skills and lower levels of
negative communication skills than the control group.52
In a more recent RCT of ePREP, the computerized version
of the PREP program, married couples receiving the intervention demonstrated significant reductions in reports of
physical aggression and psychological aggression compared to individuals in a placebo-intervention control group
at the 10-month follow-up.53
Another example of a couples-based program is Behavioral Couples Therapy, or BCT, which is an individually-
based substance abuse treatment program for substance-abusing individuals and their partners. The therapy
consists of a combination of 12-20 weekly couple-based sessions. The program works with the couple on
conflict management and other relationship skills as part of the substance abuse treatment.54
A substantive and
methodological review of 23 studies (mostly quasi-experimental studies employing a demographically matched,
non-alcoholic comparison group) found that BCT is associated with significant reductions in perpetration of IPV
among couples participating in treatment groups.54
The effects of BCT have been found for both male and female
substance users and their partners, and these effects are particularly pronounced for individuals who successfully
stopped drinking (remitted alcoholics).54-57
Thus, the intervention appears most effective at reducing IPV among
those for whom it is effective in preventing further substance use.55-56
Programsthat
workwithcouplesto
buildandstrengthen
relationshipskills,
includingcommunication
andconflictmanagement
skills,showevidence
forpreventing
laterIPV.

Engage Influential Adults and Peers
Rationale
Programs that seek to engage influential adults and peers in promoting positive relationship expectations and
condemning violent and unhealthy relationship behaviors among adolescents and young adults are critical to the
prevention of IPV. Trusted adults and peers are important influencers of what adolescents and young adults think
and expect and how they behave. Beliefs and attitudes about the acceptability of violence and about gender
equity are predictive of IPV perpetration.15, 58
Engaging adults and peers to promote social norms that support
healthy relationship behaviors has great potential to change social contexts so that everyone knows that IPV is
not acceptable and will not be tolerated, and people feel more willing and able to intervene when they see IPV.59
These types of social contexts can discourage potential perpetrators from thinking that violence will be seen
as acceptable and increase their perception of the risk that there may be social consequences to such behavior.
These types of social contexts may also increase positive bystander behaviors, which can directly interrupt
violence as well as enforce norms unaccepting of violence.59
Approaches
There are a number of approaches that seek to influence the social context within which partner violence occurs
by engaging influential adults and peers.
Men and boys as allies in prevention. These approaches target men and boys and encourage them to be part
of efforts to prevent IPV, including TDV. These approaches not only encourage men and boys to support actual
and potential victims by intervening and speaking out, but also teach skills and promote social norms that reduce
their own risk for future perpetration. These approaches often target men in peer groups, such as athletic teams
and fraternities.
Bystander empowerment and education. These types of approaches attempt to promote social norms that
are protective against violence and empower and encourage people to intervene to prevent violence when
they see it. Participants in bystander empowerment and education programs learn specific strategies on how
to intervene in situations that involve IPV. Types of bystanders targeted for intervention include: informal
helpers (e.g., friends and roommates), popular opinion leaders (e.g., student government) or larger social
groups (e.g., men on college campuses).
Family-based programs seek to involve parents and other caregivers in prevention of TDV. Family-based
programs operate on the premise that the family is central to the development of norms and values, and
therefore amenable to interventions that promote acceptable behavior. These approaches are designed to
improve parental awareness and knowledge about TDV, change parental attitudes about the acceptability of TDV,
improve parent communication skills around TDV and skills for helping their teens resolve relationship conflicts,
and to improve their rule setting and monitoring skills.

Potential Outcomes
• Increase in self-efficacy and intentions to engage in
active bystander behavior
• Reductions in perpetration of TDV and IPV
• Reductions in victimization of TDV and IPV
• Reductions in peer norms supportive of TDV and IPV
• Increase in parental/caregiver efficacy in resolving
teen relationship conflicts and engaging in rule setting
• Reductions in acceptance of dating abuse among
adolescents
Evidence
There is growing evidence that engaging men and boys, bystander approaches, and family-based programs can
prevent IPV.
Men and boys as allies in prevention. Several programs have been developed and implemented that focus on
engaging men and boys as allies in the prevention of IPV. One such program with rigorous evaluation evidence is
Coaching Boys into Men (CBIM), an eleven session coach-led intervention with male high school athletes in grades
9–12. CBIM provides coaches with training tools to model and promote respectful, non-violent, healthy relationships
with their male athletes, and sessions are conducted during regularly scheduled team practices throughout the sports
season. CBIM was evaluated in a randomized controlled trial and was found to significantly reduce perpetration of TDV
at the 12-month follow-up assessment (including physical, sexual, and emotional aggression), as well as significantly
reduce engagement in negative bystander behaviors (such as laughing or encouraging abusive behaviors).60
Bystander empowerment and education. Research focused on engaging bystanders has shown that efforts to
increase bystander efficacy are beneficial in alcohol and drug use reduction and other health behaviors. More recently,
these approaches have been applied to bullying, dating violence, and sexual assault. One example is Bringing in the
Bystander. This program teaches college student participants about how relationship violence and sexual violence
occur along a continuum from less aggressive to more severe behaviors, and teaches participants how to safely
intervene, offering opportunities to practice these skills and create plans for how they will intervene to prevent
violence as a bystander. Participants in the program demonstrated increased self-reports of likelihood to intervene
and confidence in ability to intervene.61-62
In one recent study, higher levels of engaging in bystander behaviors
were reported by program participants at the one-year follow-up, when the situation involved helping friends (but
effects were not found for situations involving strangers).63
Higher intentions to intervene have been shown to be
a protective factor for TDV, with one study finding these intentions to be associated with a 40% lower likelihood of
perpetrating TDV.58
Another example of a bystander program is Green Dot. This program educates and empowers participants to
engage in both reactive and proactive responses to interpersonal violence, such as dating or sexual violence, to
reduce likelihood of assault. Bystander training is conducted in groups by trained facilitators in four to six hour
training sessions. An evaluation of Green Dot implemented with college students found that after three years of
implementation, the intervention campus had a 9% lower rate of overall violence victimization, 19% lower rate of
sexual harassment and stalking perpetration, and 11% lower rate of sexual harassment and stalking victimization
when compared with two non-intervention college campuses.64
Male students on Green Dot campuses reported lower
rates of perpetration of overall violence and lower rates of psychological dating violence relative to control campuses.

Female students on Green Dot campuses reported significantly less sexual assault resulting from inability to resist due
to drugs or alcohol than female students on control campuses. There were no significant program effects for physical
dating violence for male or female students.64
An evaluation of the program across a four-year study period found
similar results.65
A randomized controlled trial of the program with high school students found significant reductions
in dating violence perpetration and victimization after three years of program implementation, as well as reductions in
other related violence outcomes such as sexual violence (including sexual harassment) and stalking.66
Family-based programs. Family-based programs have been successful in reducing teen risk behavior, such as high-
risk sexual behavior,67
and may hold promise for prevention of TDV. One example is the Families for Safe Dates (FSD)
program. FSD consists of six booklets delivered to families (five of which are designed with interactive activities that
caregivers and teens complete together). Each booklet targets change in constructs associated with TDV, including
teen conflict resolution skills, teen’s acceptance of dating abuse, and caregiver knowledge about dating and efficacy
to influence TDV behavior. A health educator follows up with the caregiver two weeks after each booklet is mailed
to gauge progress in completing activities, encourage participation, and answer questions. FSD was evaluated in
a randomized controlled trial and found to motivate and facilitate parent/caregiver involvement in teen dating
abuse prevention activities, increase caregiver self-efficacy for talking about dating abuse, and decrease negative
communication with teens. At the 3-month follow-up, teens in the intervention group reported decreased acceptance
of dating abuse, which is a risk factor for TDV perpetration and victimization, and significant reductions in reports of
TDV victimization over time compared to no-treatment controls.68
Family-based
programshavebeen
successfulinreducing
teenriskbehaviorand
mayholdpromisefor
preventionofTDV.

Disrupt the Developmental Pathways
Toward PartnerViolence
Rationale
Findings from several longitudinal studies indicate that many of the factors associated with perpetrating violence against
intimate partners are evident well before adolescence.69-71
These factors include poor behavioral control; social problem-
solving deficits; early onset of drug and alcohol use; an arrest prior to the age of 13; and involvement with antisocial
peers, crime and violence.13,15,70-74
Findings from these studies also point to academic problems, exposure to chronic stress
and adverse experiences such as child abuse and neglect, witnessing violence in the home and community, and parental
substance abuse, depression, criminality, and incarceration.69-71
Negative parenting behaviors (e.g., poor communication
between family members, harsh and inconsistent discipline, poor parental monitoring and supervision, poor parent-
child boundaries) and family environments that are unstable, stressful, and that lack structure are also risk factors for
perpetration of TDV in adolescence and continued perpetration into adulthood.15,73-75
Approaches that can disrupt these
developmental risks and pathways have the potential to reduce IPV.
Approaches
There are a number of approaches for interrupting the developmental pathways contributing to partner violence,
including those that address early childhood environments, parenting skills, and other supports to prevent future
involvement in violence.
Early childhood home visitation programs provide information, caregiver support, and training about child health,
development, and care to families in their homes. Home visiting programs may be delivered by nurses, professionals,
or paraprofessionals.76
Many programs are offered to low-income, first time mothers to help them establish healthy
family environments.76
The content and structure of programs vary depending on the model being utilized (e.g., some
are highly manualized and others are more flexible in their delivery).76
Some programs begin during pregnancy, while
others begin after the birth of the child and may continue up through the child entering elementary school. Some
programs also include components to address co-occurring risks such as IPV in the home.
Preschool enrichment with family engagement programs provide high-quality early education and support to
economically disadvantaged families. These programs are designed to build a strong foundation for future learning
and healthy development, and to lower the risks for future behavioral problems. Programs are generally available to
children and families who meet basic qualifications, such as being residents in a high-poverty school area eligible
for federal Title I funding, demonstrate need and agree to participate, or have incomes at or below the federal
poverty level.77
Parental involvement is an important component to these programs which often begin in infancy or
toddlerhood and may continue into early or middle childhood.
Parenting skill and family relationship programs provide parents and caregivers with support and teach
communication, problem-solving, positive parenting skills and behavior monitoring and management skills to reduce
children’s involvement in crime and violence and later risk of perpetrating IPV. Programs are typically designed for
parents and families with children in a specific age range (e.g., preschool and elementary school, middle and/or
high school) with the content tailored to the developmental stage of the child.78-81
Programs may be self-directed or
delivered to individual or groups of families. For families at high-risk for conflict and child behavior problems, tailored
delivery to individual families yields greater benefits than group administration.79,82-83

Treatment for at-risk children, youth and families. These
approaches are designed for children and youth with
histories of child abuse and neglect, childhood aggression
and conduct problems, and prior involvement in violence
and crime. They are intended to mitigate the consequences
of these exposures and prevent the continuation and
escalation of violence into adulthood including abuse
directed toward partners and one’s own children. Referrals
for therapeutic interventions and other supports may
come from social services, the juvenile justice system,
schools, or other community organizations working with
children, youth, and families. Children of all ages may
participate in these programs, although the specific age
of children targeted depends on the specific program
being implemented. Programs are often delivered by
trained clinicians in the home or a clinic setting, and can be
delivered to individual families or groups of families.
Potential Outcomes
• Reductions in child abuse and neglect
• Reductions in child welfare encounters
• Reductions in rates of out of home placement of
children and youth
• Increases in parent-child engagement and interaction
• Reductions in harsh and ineffective discipline
• Increases in child health and development
• Reductions in rates of aggressive and social behavior
problems in children and youth
• Improved social competency, pro-social behavior and
interaction with peers
• Reductions in rates of deviant peer associations
• Reductions in rates of TDV and IPV
• Improvements in marital relationships
• Reductions in rates of involvement in crime, arrest and
incarceration
• Higher educational attainment
• Higher rates of full time employment
• Higher socioeconomic status and economic self-sufficiency
• Reductions in rates of substance abuse
• Reductions in rates of depressive symptoms

Evidence
A large body of evidence highlights the importance of intervening early to prevent future involvement in violence,
including future risk of perpetrating partner violence.
Early childhood home visitation. The evidence of effectiveness for home visiting programs is mixed, with some models
showing few or no effects and others showing strong effects, potentially due to the varying content and delivery of
these programs.76
Nurse Family Partnership (NFP), for instance, has been evaluated in multiple randomized controlled
trials and found to be effective in reducing multiple risk factors for IPV. It is associated with a 48% relative reduction in
child abuse and neglect, which is a risk factor for both victimization and perpetration of IPV.84
The NFP program also
reduced parental substance use, the use of welfare, and criminal behavior in women in the program compared to women
in the comparison group.84-85
At 25 and 50 months of age, children who had received nurse home visits had 45% fewer
behavioral problems and parent coping problems as noted in the physician record.86
By ages 15 and 19, participating
youth had significantly fewer arrests, convictions, and probation violations and lower rates of substance use.87-88
Although
the effectiveness of home visits on IPV needs more study, in one NFP trial, nurse-visited women reported significantly less
exposure to IPV in the previous six months at the four-year follow-up compared with those in the control group.89
Preschool enrichment with family engagement. These programs have documented positive impacts on the child’s
cognitive skills, school achievement, social skills, and conduct problems, and are effective in reducing child abuse and
neglect and youth involvement in crime and violence, which are risk factors for perpetrating IPV. Child Parent Centers
(CPCs) and Early Head Start (EHS) are two examples of effective programs. CPCs have been evaluated in multiple, long-
term studies. By age 20, youth who participated in the preschool program (relative to youth in other early childhood
programs) had significantly lower rates of juvenile arrest (16.9% vs 25.1%), violent arrests (9.0% vs 15.3%), and multiple
arrests (9.5% vs 12.8%).90
By age 24, those who participated in the program for four to six years (vs. preschool only) had
significantly lower rates of violent arrests, violent convictions, and multiple incarcerations.91
Across studies, participating
youth relative to comparison groups experienced lower rates of substantiated reports of child abuse and neglect, out-of-
home placements, grade retention, special education services, depression, and substance use, as well as higher rates of
high school completion, attendance in four-year colleges, health insurance, and full-time employment in adulthood.90-93
Alargebodyof
evidencehighlights
theimportanceof
interveningearly
topreventfuture
involvementinviolence,
includingfuturerisk
ofperpetrating
partnerviolence.

Multiple evaluations of EHS also demonstrate significant program impacts on multiple risk factors for IPV among
participants relative to comparison groups, including significantly fewer child welfare encounters, fewer reports of
substantiated physical or sexual abuse,94
better cognitive and language development; home environments that are more
supportive of learning; less aggressive and other social behavior problems; and stronger parent-child engagement.95-96
Parenting skill and family relationship programs. The Incredible Years® and the Parent Management Training Oregon
Model (PMTO) are two examples of effective parenting programs with impacts on risk and protective factors for
perpetration of TDV and later partner violence. The Incredible Years® is designed for families with young children up
to 12 years of age and can be implemented with additional components for teachers and children in school. A meta-
analysis of program effects found significant decreases in child behavior problems, increases in prosocial behaviors, and
improvements in parental monitoring, discipline, and mother-child interactions.97
A randomized controlled trial of an
enhanced version of the program also found beneficial effects for the non-target siblings, such as reduced antisocial
behavior and improved peer-relations.98-99
PMTO is designed for parents of children ages 3 to 16. The program uses didactic instruction, modeling, role-playing, and
home practice to teach parenting skills in encouragement, monitoring, limit setting, discipline, problem solving, and
to foster parent-child engagement in activities. It is delivered in group and individual family formats in diverse settings
(e.g., clinics, homes, schools, community centers, homeless shelters). PMTO is associated with reductions in coercive and
harsh parenting of children, and increases in positive parenting practices and adaptive family functioning,100-101
including
among parents with a history of hard drug use (e.g., cocaine, heroin, LSD), physical aggression toward a former or current
partner, and a prior arrest.102
The program is also associated with reductions in child behavior problems and reductions
in youth aggression, deviant peer associations, substance use, and rates of arrest.103-104
Other benefits include increases in
family socioeconomic status and greater rise out of poverty and improvements in the marital relationship.101,105-106
Treatment for at-risk children, youth and families.
Several therapeutic programs have demonstrated impact
on risk factors for later development of IPV, including
reductions in violent behavior and substance use,
and improvements in family functioning and positive
parenting. A systematic review of therapeutic foster
care approaches, such as Multidimensional Treatment
Foster Care (MTFC), demonstrate an approximate 72%
reduction in violent crimes among participants.107
MTFC
provides short-term placements of children and youth
with persistent and significant behavioral challenges
with extensively trained foster parents, family therapy
for biological parents, and behavioral and academic
supports to youth. Multiple studies show the benefit
of MTFC in reducing behavioral problems, attachment
issues, and neurophysiological changes due to stress in
preschool aged children; and reductions in violent crimes,
incarceration, and substance abuse among adolescents.108
For example, adolescent males who participated in MTFC
were less likely to commit violent offenses than youth in
service-as-usual group care. After controlling for age at
placement, age at first arrest, official and self-reported
prior offenses and time since baseline, 24% of group
care youth had two or more criminal referrals for violent
offenses in the two years following the baseline versus
only 5% of MFTC youth.109
At 12 and 18 months of follow-
up, MTFC boys also had lower levels of self-reported
tobacco, marijuana, and other drug use.110

Multisystemic Therapy (MST) is an intensive family and community-based treatment program for justice-involved youth
that engages the youth’s entire social network (e.g., friends, peers, family, teachers, school administrators, and members
of the community). MST therapists meet with families and youth in their home, school, and community environments
with the goal of strengthening family relationships, improving parenting skills, improving youths’academic achievement,
and promoting prosocial activities and behavior. MST has been evaluated in numerous trials with samples of chronic and
violent juveniles and is associated with significant long-term reductions in re-arrests (reduced by a median of 42%) and
out-of-home placements (reduced by a median of 54%).111
MST participants, relative to youth receiving individual therapy
had fewer violent felony arrests approximately 22 years later (4.3% vs. 15.5%).112
The siblings of these participants also
had fewer arrests for any crime (43.3% vs. 72%) and felonies (15% vs. 34%) approximately 25 years later.113
Other benefits
include decreased rates of child maltreatment,114
improvements in family functioning, parent-child interactions, and
positive parenting practices, and reductions in youth’s substance use and involvement with gangs.111-112,115
Several
parentingand
therapeutic
programshave
demonstrated
impactonrisk
factorsforIPV.

Create Protective Environments
Rationale
While many prevention strategies focus on individual and relationship-level factors that influence the likelihood
of becoming a survivor or perpetrator of IPV, it is important to acknowledge the influence of community
environments (i.e., schools, workplaces, and neighborhoods). Approaches that work to foster a broader social
and physical environment that improves safety, social connections, and awareness of IPV can help create a
climate that supports prevention of violence against intimate partners. These community-level approaches may
encourage higher rates of disclosure of IPV, increase resources and support leveraged on behalf of IPV survivors,
and promote social norms that are intolerant of IPV within the community, potentially increasing the likelihood
that community members will intervene when they witness IPV.19
Although evidence on community-level
approaches for IPV prevention is just beginning to emerge, there is support for the role of neighborhood and
community characteristics (e.g., neighborhood social control, social cohesion, collective efficacy, tangible help
and support for IPV survivors, social norms) as important protective factors against perpetration of IPV.13,29, 116
Approaches
Community-level approaches for creating protective environments against the perpetration of partner violence
include efforts to:
Improve school climate and safety. School environments offer a potentially influential context that can be
changed or adapted to promote prevention of TDV. Approaches that increase support from school personnel
and modify physical spaces in schools have potential to improve safety and raise awareness about dating
violence and harassment. Creating a school environment that enhances safety and feelings of safety, promotes
healthy relationships and respectful boundaries, and reduces tolerance for violence among students and school
personnel can play an important role in reducing rates of TDV perpetration. While efforts have traditionally
focused on middle and high school settings, there may be opportunities to adapt this type of approach to other
school contexts, such as college and university settings.
Improve organizational policies and workplace climate. These types of approaches are designed to foster
protective environments in the workplace through the creation of organizational policies and practices
that promote safety and encourage help-seeking behavior. Workplace approaches can aid employees and
managers in raising awareness about IPV, recognizing the potential for violence by an intimate partner of an
employee occurring in the workplace, facilitate how incidents can be reported and handled, and demonstrate
commitment to workplace safety (e.g., securing access points, visitor sign-in policies, crisis planning) while
providing support and resources to employees experiencing IPV.117
These approaches have potential to
encourage disclosure of IPV, normalize help-seeking, and increase tangible aid and social support to employees,
which has been shown to be a protective factor for IPV.13
In addition, these approaches can facilitate positive
changes in workplace climate, increase feelings of safety, and reduce perceived tolerance of violence towards
intimate partners among managers and employees in the workplace.

Modify the physical and social environments of neighborhoods. These approaches address aspects of
neighborhood settings that increase the risk for IPV, including alcohol outlet density, physical disorder and decay,
and social disorder.19,118-119
There are a number of mechanisms by which living in disadvantaged neighborhoods can
place people at greater risk for IPV. These neighborhoods typically have higher rates of crime and violence. Exposure
to neighborhood violence is a risk factor for IPV.116,119
Additionally, the stress associated with living in disadvantaged
neighborhoods and social norms that govern violence in these communities are also possible mechanisms for this
increased risk.119-120
Further, signs of neighborhood disorder may lead people, including potential perpetrators, to
believe that consequences for IPV perpetration, such as police intervention, are less likely.121
These community-level
factors can be addressed by changing, enacting, or enforcing laws and regulations (e.g., alcohol-related policies);
improving the economic stability of neighborhoods; and by changing the physical environment to improve social
interaction, and strengthen community ties and social cohesion in order to promote residents’willingness to monitor
and respond to problem behavior (e.g., collective efficacy). These types of approaches have potential for population-
level impact on IPV/TDV outcomes, often at relatively low cost for implementation.
Potential Outcomes
• Reductions in rates of IPV and TDV perpetration
• Reductions in rates of IPV and TDV victimization
• Reductions in intimate partner homicides
• Reductions in rates of peer violence perpetration
• Reductions in sexual harassment perpetration
• Reductions in community violence
• Improvements in workplace climate towards reduction or
prevention of IPV
• Increases in development of organizational policies and
resource-seeking for IPV
• Increases in knowledge and awareness of IPV
• Reductions in excessive alcohol use at the community level
• Increases in neighborhood collective efficacy
• Increases in disclosure and reporting of IPV
• Increases in social support provided to survivors of IPV
• Reductions in violent crime
Evidence
Although still developing, there is some evidence supporting the use of community-level approaches to preventing
partner violence.
Improve school climate and safety. The current evidence suggests that changing or adapting certain aspects
of school settings to improve student safety has potential to reduce rates of TDV. For example, the building-level
component of Shifting Boundaries is designed to improve safety in schools by increasing staff presence in“hot spots”
(building areas designated by students and staff as unsafe); promoting awareness and reporting of TDV to school

personnel through a school-based poster campaign; and introducing temporary building-based restraining orders
for students at risk for TDV. In a rigorous evaluation of the intervention in New York City middle schools, the building-
level component was found to reduce sexual violence victimization in dating relationships by 50%.122
No effects were
found for sexual violence perpetration within teen dating relationships. However, the building level intervention was
found to reduce the prevalence of sexual violence perpetration by peers (occurring outside of dating relationships) by
47% and sexual harassment perpetration by 34% compared to control schools that did not receive the classroom or
building-level intervention.122
The prevention effects on sexual violence perpetration by peers and sexual harassment
perpetration are important because peer violence is an empirically established risk factor for later TDV perpetration.15
This study was conducted in middle schools, so it is possible that it is too early developmentally to see effects on TDV
perpetration. The fact that this intervention had an impact on risk factors for TDV perpetration, however, is promising.
Improve organizational polices and workplace climate. Similar to school settings, the workplace also represents
an important context where safety and awareness around IPV could be addressed. For example, IPV and the Workplace
Training is one intervention with evidence for significantly improving workplace climate towards IPV in county
government organizations randomly assigned to receive the training, compared to a delayed control group.123
The
number of supervisors providing information to employees on a state law that provides protected work leave to IPV
survivors significantly increased after receiving the training. Organizations in the intervention group demonstrated
more public postings about the state leave law for IPV survivors and were more likely to develop IPV policies and
seek additional IPV resources for employees than organizations in the delayed control group. While impact on IPV
outcomes has not yet been tested, these findings may translate into increases within the workplace of tangible help
and social support, both of which have been found to be protective factors for victimization and perpetration of IPV.13
Another organizational approach is the United States Air Force Suicide Prevention Program. While not explicitly focused
on IPV prevention, this program was developed to reduce stigma and social norms that discourage help-seeking
among U.S. Air Force personnel. Eleven different prevention initiatives were put into practice within the Air Force
to enhance education and training and create policies aimed at promoting help-seeking (e.g., enhanced patient
privilege, greater coordination with mental health services, required training on suicide prevention). A longitudinal
evaluation of the program showed a 30% reduction in moderate family violence (exposure to repeated instances of
emotionally abusive behavior, neglect, or physical or sexual abuse) and a 54% reduction in severe family violence (a
pattern of abusive behavior that requires placement of the victim in an alternative environment) in the years after the
program launched.124
The program also significantly lowered rates of suicide.124
Creating an organizational culture that
encourages help-seeking and increases service referrals for individuals and families in distress may benefit not only
individuals at risk for suicide but also couples at risk for IPV.
Modify the physical and social environments of neighborhoods. Evidence suggests that changing or modifying
environmental characteristics of neighborhoods may be an effective approach for preventing IPV. For example,
one study found that residents of an urban public housing development randomly assigned to buildings in
proximity to green conditions (i.e., trees and grass) reported significantly lower rates of partner violence in the
past year than residents living in proximity to barren conditions.125
The researchers found that levels of mental
fatigue (inattentiveness, irritability, and impulsivity) were significantly higher in buildings next to barren areas and
that aggression accompanied mental fatigue.125
Additionally, research has also shown that green space in urban
communities has been linked to higher levels of neighborhood collective efficacy126
and reductions in violent crime,127
which is a risk factor for IPV.119
Alcohol-related policies represent another potential way to reduce risk for IPV at the neighborhood/community level.18
Alcohol outlet density, defined as the number of locations where alcohol can be purchased, has been consistently
linked to higher rates of IPV.18
For example, in a population-level survey of U.S. couples, an increase of 10 alcohol
outlets per 10,000 persons was associated with a 34% increase in male-to-female partner violence.128
Policies that work
to reduce a community’s alcohol outlet density are one example of an approach that might help reduce community
rates of IPV.

Strengthen Economic Supports for Families
Rationale
Addressing socioeconomic factors holds great potential for improving a wide range of health outcomes for
neighborhoods, communities and states129
and also has the potential to prevent IPV. Evidence suggests that poverty,
financial stress, and low income can increase risk for IPV. Reducing financial stress may decrease potential for
relationship conflict and dissatisfaction, which are strong predictors of IPV.13, 21
In addition, improving financial stability
and autonomy could reduce financial dependence on a potential perpetrator and provide alternatives to unhealthy
relationships.21
Studies also show that gender inequality in education, employment, and income is a risk factor for
IPV.13, 130
Therefore, efforts to improve financial security for families and women’s education, employment and income
may reduce risk for IPV.131
Approaches
Improving household financial security and work-family supports are ways to strengthen economic supports for
families and potentially reduce IPV.
Strengthen household financial security. Improving ways to support families in the absence of employment or
sufficient wages addresses several risk factors for IPV, including poverty, low income, financial stress, and gender
inequality. Providing income supplements, income generating opportunities, and decreasing the gender pay gap
target these risk factors directly. Examples of ways to strengthen household financial security include income supports
such as tax credits and child care subsidies. These are designed to support parental employment, cover necessities, and
offset the costs of childrearing as well as improve the availability of affordable high-quality child care to low-income
families. Cash transfers and other forms of assistance are another way to help families increase household income and
meet basic needs (e.g., food, shelter, and medical care).
Strengthen work-family supports. Policies such as paid leave (parental, sick, vacation) provide income replacement
to workers for life events such as the birth of a child, care of a family member during times of illness, or personal leave
to refresh or recover from a serious health condition. Job-protected leave is also available in some states to help IPV
survivors attend court hearings, seek medical treatment, or attend counseling. Paid and job-protected leave policies
help individuals keep their jobs and maintain income to cover expenses or address other needs.
Potential Outcomes
• Reductions in poverty, financial stress, and economic dependency
• Increases in annual family income
• Reductions in earnings inequality
• Increases in annual earnings for women
• Increases in empowerment of women
• Reductions in relationship conflict
• Increases in relationship satisfaction
• Reductions in IPV

Evidence
There are a number of policies and programs aimed at strengthening economic supports with evidence of impact on
risk factors for IPV.
Strengthen household financial security. Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) and the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) are examples of programs that can strengthen household financial security
through providing cash benefits to low-income households. States can administer these programs in ways that
maximize their impact on reducing poverty and financial stress, which are risk factors for IPV.13
For instance, states can
implement policies allowing child support payments to be added (versus off-setting) to TANF benefits for custodial
parents. The Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP), for example, focuses on encouraging work, reducing
long-term dependence on public assistance, and reducing poverty by continuing to provide financial supports to
struggling families after parents have gained employment—e.g., by increasing the“earned income disregard,”or the
amount of income that is not counted in calculating welfare grants. An effectiveness study of the program, in which
families were randomly assigned to MFIP or Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), which was the predecessor
of the TANF program, found a number of benefits. Families who received MFIP showed significant declines in IPV when
compared to families receiving AFDC at three-year follow up (49% of MFIP participants v. 60% of AFDC recipients
reported abuse during the three-year follow-up), as well as improved marriage rates for parents and improved school
performance and reductions in behavior problems for children.132
This study suggests that increasing income supports
to low income families can lead to reductions in IPV.
Research on tax credits (Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Child Tax Credit), shows that they can help lift families
out of poverty, which is a risk factor for IPV, and are associated with long-term educational and health benefits to
recipients and their children.133-134
Analyses of the use of tax credits shows that families mostly use them to cover
necessities as well as to obtain additional education or training to improve employability and earning power.133
Survivors of IPV often experience unemployment or underemployment, economic instability, and poverty as a result
of the abuse they experience. The EITC is associated with increases in both maternal employment and earnings, both
of which can help women leave an abusive relationship.134
Microfinance programs provide a range of financial services and opportunities to low-income families often with the
goal of improving a community’s financial health by empowering women. Microfinance takes many forms ranging
from communal borrowing to low- or no-interest startup loans for small, woman-owned enterprises to innovative
savings plans. In some projects, microfinance is paired with training for women on relevant job skills, finances,
entrepreneurship, and often on empowerment and social issues as well, including issues of gender, safe sex, and
IPV. Kim et al.135
and Pronyk et al.20
found microfinance in combination with training on gender norms and health
topics decreased the incidence of past-year physical and sexual IPV among participants in South Africa by almost
half after two years in the program, from 11.4% to 5.9% in the intervention group (versus a slight increase in the
control group from 9.0% to 12.1%). In addition, program participants showed increases in multiple indicators of
female empowerment, compared to the control group.135
Although microfinance has primarily been studied in low-
income settings in other countries, it holds promise for use in the United States. One U.S.-based study implemented a
microfinance intervention with low-income, drug-using women involved in the sex trade with promising findings for
HIV risk reduction.136
This study indicates that microfinance interventions may be feasible for implementation in the
U.S. and that they have been successful in impacting outcomes with similar risk factors. There are also organizations
providing this type of lending in the U.S.

Comparable worth policies. While most states have equal pay laws, these laws vary in terms of their provisions,
populations covered, and remedies available to employees. The laws also vary in terms of comparable worth
provisions, which determine pay rates according to the skill level, working conditions, effort, and responsibility of
positions. While these policies have not yet been evaluated for their impact on IPV, they could potentially have an
impact on IPV by increasing economic stability of women and their families given that economic inequality is a known
risk factor for IPV victimization.130
Studies of the potential impact of a national comparable worth policy on earnings
inequality show decreases in overall earnings inequality, inequality between women and men, and inequality among
women.137
Recent findings from an analysis of the 2010-2012 Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic
supplement show potential impacts on women’s annual earnings, annual family income, and poverty rates even after
controlling for labor supply, human capital, and labor market characteristics.138
Strengthen work-family supports. Employers can also adopt paid leave policies that allow parents to keep their jobs
and thus maintain their incomes after the birth of a child, during an illness, or while caring for sick family members.
Research demonstrates that women with paid maternity leave are more likely to maintain their current employment
with the same employer after the birth of a child,139
and women who take maternity leave and delay return to
work after the birth of a child have fewer depressive symptoms than those who return to work earlier.140
One study
conducted in Australia found that women working during early pregnancy who qualified for paid maternity leave
were significantly less likely to experience physical and emotional IPV in the first 12 months postpartum than women
not working.141
This finding suggests that access to paid maternity leave may be protective against IPV, in addition to
helping women maintain employment and potentially reduce mental health issues.
Thereare
anumberof
policiesandprograms
aimedatstrengthening
economicsupports
withevidenceof
impactonrisk
factorsforIPV.

Support Survivors to Increase Safety
and Lessen Harms
Rationale
IPV survivors can experience long-term negative health outcomes, including HIV and other sexually transmitted
infections, chronic pain, gastrointestinal and neurological disorders, substance abuse, depression and anxiety,
PTSD, eating and sleep disorders, chronic diseases, suicide and homicide.35-36
IPV is also associated with unplanned
pregnancy, preterm birth, low birth weight, and decreased gestational age.35
Furthermore, individuals who
have experienced violence and their dependent children are also at increased risk for housing instability and
homelessness. The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013142
and the Family Violence Prevention and
Services Act143
address these issues by putting in place various supports for survivors. Denial of housing based on an
individual’s status as a victim of abuse and lease termination as a result of violence are now prohibited. However,
obstacles to safe and affordable housing still remain when leaving a relationship.144-145
Efforts to address the
psychological, physical, emotional, housing and other needs of survivors and their children may help prevent future
experiences of IPV and may lessen or reduce negative consequences experienced by IPV survivors.
Approaches
The current evidence suggests the following approaches to prevent future experiences of IPV and lessen or reduce
the negative consequences experienced by IPV survivors:
Victim-centered services include shelter, hotlines, crisis intervention and counseling, medical and legal advocacy,
and access to community resources to help improve outcomes for survivors and mitigate long-term negative health
consequences of IPV. Services are based on the unique needs and circumstances of victims and survivors and
coordinated among community agencies and victim advocates.
Housing programs that support survivors in obtaining rapid access to stable and affordable housing reduce barriers
to seeking safety.22
Once this immediate need is met, the survivor can focus on meeting other needs and the needs
of impacted children. These programs can include access to emergency shelter, transitional housing, rapid re-
housing into a permanent home, flexible funds to address immediate housing-related needs (e.g., security deposits,
rental assistance, transportation), and other related services and supports.
First responder and civil legal protections. These approaches provide increased safety for survivors and their
children after violence has occurred. Included here are law enforcement efforts designed to help survivors and
decrease their immediate risk for future violence, orders of protection, and supports for children. These protections
address survivors’immediate and long-term needs and safety.

Patient-centered approaches recognize the importance of universal prevention education, screening, and
intervention for IPV, reproductive coercion, and other behavioral risks. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
(USPSTF) recommends screening women of childbearing age for IPV and referring women who screen positive to
intervention services.146
Women may be screened for IPV and other behavioral risk factors (e.g., smoking, alcohol,
depression) and may also be screened for reproductive coercion and educated about how IPV can impact health and
reproductive choices (contraceptive use, pregnancy, and timing of pregnancy). However, not all survivors disclose
experiences with violence and there are also opportunities within health care settings to offer universal education on
healthy relationships, potential signs of abuse, and available resources and support. Universal prevention education,
screening, and intervention may occur in health care settings but may also be considered in the context of other
intervention or program models. Intervention services may include counseling, health promotion, patient education
resources, referrals to community services and other supports tailored to a patient’s specific risks.
Treatment and support for survivors of IPV, including TDV. These approaches include a range of evidence-based
therapeutic interventions conducted by licensed mental health providers to mitigate the negative impacts of IPV on
survivors and their children. These interventions are designed to be trauma-informed, meaning that they are delivered
in a way that is influenced by knowledge and understanding of how trauma impacts a survivor’s life and experiences
long-term.147
Treatments are intended to address depression, traumatic stress, fear and anxiety, problems adjusting to
school, work or daily life, and other symptoms of distress associated with experiencing IPV.
Potential Outcomes
• Increases in physical safety and housing stability
• Reductions in subsequent experiences of IPV
• Increases in access to services and help-seeking
• Reductions in short- and long-term negative health
consequences of IPV, including injury, PTSD, depression,
and anxiety
• Increases in positive parenting behaviors
• Decreases in the use of corporal punishment
• Decreases in verbal and physical aggression and increases
in prosocial behavior among children of IPV survivors
• Reductions in IPV homicide and firearm IPV homicide
• Improvements in pregnancy outcomes for women
experiencing IPV (i.e., higher birth weights, longer
gestational age at delivery)
• Reductions in rates of reproductive coercion and
unplanned pregnancy

Evidence
The evidence suggests that having supports and programs in place for survivors of IPV improve short- and long-term
outcomes for health and safety.
Victim-centered services. Domestic violence shelters and outreach programs that connect survivors and their
families with an advocate provide the survivor with the opportunity to navigate and use community resources more
easily than they might be able to on their own. Domestic violence advocacy includes assessing a survivor’s individual
needs and supporting them in accessing community resources such as legal, medical, housing, employment, child
care, and social support services. For children of survivors, advocacy includes meeting their needs around recreation,
school supports, and material goods. In a randomized controlled trial of women and their children leaving abusive
relationships, Sullivan et al.148
found that, after 16 weeks of client-centered advocacy services, women experienced less
abuse from their former partners at immediate follow-up than control women. Women receiving advocacy services
also reported less depression and greater self-esteem than controls, indicating an improvement in IPV survivors’
overall safety and well-being.
Housing programs. Washington State’s Housing First program is an example of a housing program for survivors of
IPV. The program connects survivors to advocacy services and flexible financial assistance in order to quickly establish
permanent housing and to cover transportation, child care, and other costs needed to establish a sense of safety and
stability. In a pilot evaluation, 96% of participants remained stably housed after 18 months. Fully 84% of survivors
reported an increase in physical safety for themselves and their children.149
Although this program has not been
rigorously evaluated, these pilot findings indicate that providing stable housing to IPV survivors may reduce risk for
homelessness and improve women’s ability to keep themselves and their children safe from the abuser.
First responder and civil legal protections. Lethality Assessment Programs can be an important tool to help police
responding to domestic violence and to decrease risk for survivors. Law enforcement officers responding to the scene
of a domestic violence incident use a short risk assessment tool to screen for risk of homicide. The assessment tool
includes the partner’s access to firearms, the partner’s employment status, previous threats, and acts of violence.
Survivors who screen at high risk are put into immediate contact with an advocate and are provided safety planning,
resources, and medical and legal advocacy. An evaluation of the Lethality Assessment Program indicated that at a
7-month follow-up interview, program participants receiving the intervention experienced a significant decrease
in severity and frequency of physical and emotional violence. Help-seeking behavior also increased at follow-up
and included actions such as applying for, and receiving an order of protection, removing or hiding their partner’s
weapons, and seeking medical care.150
Given that leaving the relationship is one of the most potentially lethal times in an abusive relationship,151
an increase
in safety for survivors leaving relationships is particularly salient. Supervised Visitation and Exchange is another example
that seeks to decrease risk for survivors and their children by creating a safe space for non-custodial parent-child
interaction monitored by a third-party. Flory et al. 152
found participation in a supervised visitation program resulted in
a 50% reduction in verbal and physical aggression between custodial and non-custodial parents (from an average of
12 incidents to an average of 6 incidents post-intervention). Additionally, parents referred to supervised services were
significantly less likely to use corporal punishment after participation in the program,153
indicating a potential increase
in positive parenting behaviors.

Protection orders (POs) are another support option available to survivors. POs are court-ordered injunctions aimed at
limiting or prohibiting contact between an alleged perpetrator and survivor of IPV to prevent further violence from
occurring.154
Although the process varies considerably by state, it typically begins with a petition to immediately issue
a temporary (or ex parte) order until a hearing can be scheduled for a judge to hear from both parties and evaluate
whether issuing a permanent order is justified and what the terms should be.154
In a review of available research,
Benitez et al.155
concluded that POs are associated with lower risk of subsequent violence toward the survivor. For
example, Holt et al.156
examined a large sample of women who had experienced a police-reported episode of IPV and
found that women with permanent POs experienced an 80% reduction in physical abuse during the follow-up period
(compared to women with no PO). However, women with temporary POs were more likely than women without POs to
be psychologically abused, highlighting the potential importance of longer-term POs at reducing risk for subsequent
IPV. In addition, Spitzberg157
conducted a meta-analysis suggesting that an average of 40% of POs are violated, and
one study found only a few differences when comparing IPV survivors with and without POs; women with POs had
lower levels of hyperarousal and sexual re-abuse at 6-month follow-up than women without POs, but no differences
were found for other PTSD symptoms, physical assault, injury, or psychological re-abuse.158
However, research suggests
that having a PO significantly increases feelings of well-being among survivors of IPV,159
making POs a potentially
important tool in supporting survivors.
Another existing protection for survivors is reducing lethal means for people who have been convicted of a crime
related to IPV or who have a restraining or PO against them. Women are at increased risk for homicide when their
violent intimate partner has access to a firearm.151
Federal law makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to
ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms. The law includes individuals subject to a court order restraining the person
from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner, and persons who have
been convicted of a misdemeanor or felony crime of domestic violence. In 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a
lower court’s decision that firearms may be removed from the possession of someone found guilty of misdemeanor
domestic abuse (Voisine v. U.S., 2016).160
State laws often mirror federal law and, in some cases, enact policy that
further limits access or allows law enforcement to remove or seize firearms. Intimate partner homicide was reduced
by 7% in states with laws limiting access to firearms for persons under domestic violence restraining orders.161
In a
multiple time series design study, Zeoli and Webster162
found that in 46 of the largest U.S. cities with state statutes that
reduce access to firearms for individuals with domestic violence restraining orders, intimate partner homicide and
firearm intimate partner homicide risk decreased by 19% and 25%, respectively, between 1979 and 2003.
Civillegalprotections
canhelpaddress
survivors’immediate
andlong-termneeds
andsafety.

Patient-centered approaches are associated
with a number of benefits including reduced IPV.
The evidence, however, is mixed, potentially due
to variability in the nature of intervention models
tested, populations studied, loss to follow-up, and
other methodological factors.163-165
A systematic
review of primary care-based interventions for IPV
found brief, women-focused interventions delivered
mostly in the primary care office by non-physician
healthcare workers were successful at reducing IPV,
improving physical and emotional health, increasing
safety-promoting behaviors, and positively affecting
the use of IPV and community-based resources.166
Other systematic reviews have noted significant
benefits of counseling interventions in reducing
IPV and improving birth outcomes for pregnant
women, reducing pregnancy coercion, and women’s
involvement in unsafe relationships.165
One rigorous study of a prenatal counseling intervention found that women in the intervention group (compared with
usual care) were 52% less likely to have recurrent episodes of IPV during pregnancy and postpartum; had reduced
rates of very low birthweight infants (0.8% vs 4.6%), and longer mean gestational age at delivery (38.2 weeks versus
36.9 weeks).167
In another rigorous intervention study conducted in four clinics, family planning counselors asked
about IPV and reproductive coercion when determining reason for visit and then assisted patients in identifying
strategies specific to the reason for the clinic visit (e.g., offering a more hidden form of birth control if partner has
been influencing birth control use; offering emergency contraception if indicated; educating client about local IPV
and sexual assault resources and facilitating their use). The control group received standard care consisting of a brief
IPV screen without any questions on reproductive coercion and were provided a list of IPV resources. In this study, the
intervention group was 71% less likely to experience pregnancy reproductive coercion among female patients who
had experienced IPV within the past three months compared to a control group.168
In a subsequent, larger cluster
randomized controlled trial of the intervention across 25 family planning clinics, Miller et al.169
found improvements in
knowledge of partner violence resources and self-efficacy to enact harm reduction behaviors among the intervention
group (relative to the control group) at the 12-month follow-up. While there were no differences in IPV or reproductive
coercion among the full sample at follow-up, the intervention led to a significant reduction in reproductive coercion
among women reporting the highest levels of reproductive coercion at baseline.
Another intervention study embedded an IPV intervention into home visitation programs for pregnant women
and new mothers, where women in the intervention group were screened by home visitors who had received
special training on IPV and the intervention. If women screened positively for IPV, the nurse delivered a brochure-
based empowerment intervention during six sessions of the home visiting program. The intervention consisted
of a standardized assessment of the level of danger from IPV, a discussion of safety and response options with the
participant, assistance with choosing a response, and provision of referrals to services. Women in the intervention
group reported a significantly larger decrease in IPV from baseline to two or more year follow-up than women in a
service-as-usual control group.170
Treatment and support for survivors of IPV, including TDV. Supportive interventions are associated with improved
psychological health and long-term positive impact for survivors of IPV. For example, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
(CBT) is an example of a treatment for survivors of IPV who experience PTSD and depression. CBT includes treatments
such as Cognitive Processing Therapy (CPT) to help the patient learn to recognize and challenge cognitive distortions
(i.e., negative ways of thinking about a situation that makes things appear worse than they really are). A randomized
clinical trial that assessed participants before treatment, six times during treatment, and at a 6-month follow-up, found
that women who received CBT for treatment of PTSD experienced reductions in PTSD and depression. Reductions in

PTSD and depression, in turn, were associated with a decreased likelihood of IPV victimization at the 6-month follow-
up controlling for recent IPV (i.e., IPV from a current partner within the year prior to beginning the study) and prior
interpersonal traumas.171
Another example is Cognitive Trauma Therapy for Battered Women (CTT-BW), which is a cognitive behavioral approach
used with survivors of IPV, who are no longer at risk for violence. Designed in collaboration with survivors and
advocates, the goal of CTT-BW is to address the negative effects of IPV (e.g., PTSD, depression, anxiety, and emotional
and behavioral problems). Of the women who completed treatment, 87% no longer met diagnostic criteria for PTSD,
and 83% had depression scores in the normal range at the 6-month follow-up.172
Althoughpublic
healthcanplaya
leadershiprolein
preventingIPV,the
strategiesandapproaches
outlinedinthistechnical
packagecannotbe
accomplishedbythe
publichealth
sectoralone.

Sector Involvement
Public health can play an important and unique role in addressing intimate partner violence. Public health agencies,
which typically place prevention at the forefront of efforts and work to create broad population-level impact, can
bring critical leadership and resources to bear on this problem. For example, these agencies can serve as a convener,
bringing together partners and stakeholders to plan, prioritize, and coordinate IPV prevention efforts. Public health
agencies are also well positioned to collect and disseminate data, implement preventive measures, evaluate programs,
and track progress. Although public health can play a leadership role in preventing IPV, the strategies and approaches
outlined in this technical package cannot be accomplished by the public health sector alone.
Other sectors vital to implementing this package include, but are not limited to, education, government (local, state,
and federal), social services, health services, business and labor, justice, housing, media, and organizations that
comprise the civil society sector such as domestic violence coalitions and service providers, faith-based organizations,
youth-serving organizations, foundations, and other non-governmental organizations. Multiple sectors working
simultaneously across several strategies is key to taking a comprehensive approach to prevention. Collectively, all
of the sectors can make a difference in preventing IPV by impacting the various contexts and underlying risks that
contribute to partner violence.
The strategies and approaches described in this technical package are summarized in the Appendix along with the
relevant sectors that are well positioned to bring leadership and resources to implementation efforts. For example,
many of the approaches and programs for the first two strategies (Teach Safe and Healthy Relationship Skills and
Engage Influential Adults and Peers) are delivered in educational settings, making education an important sector for
implementation. Health departments across the country often work in partnership with school districts, universities,
and community-based organizations to implement and evaluate prevention programs in educational settings.
Other approaches (e.g., healthy relationship programs for couples and family-based programs) are often delivered in
community settings. Through their work with community-based organizations, local and state health departments can
also play a leadership role in implementing and evaluating these programs.
Programs to Disrupt the Developmental Pathways Toward Partner Violence are implemented in a variety of settings
and involve the collaborative work of public health, social services, justice, community organizations, and education.
For instance, the social services, education and public health sectors are vital for implementation and continued
provision of early childhood and parenting programs. Social services, for instance, can help families receive the skills
training and services necessary to promote the physical, cognitive, social, and emotional development of children,
thereby preparing youth for long-term academic success and positive behavioral and health outcomes. The public
health sector can play a vital role by educating communities and other sectors about the importance of ensuring
early childhood programs and continuing research that documents the benefits of these programs on health and
development, family well-being, and prevention of violence against peers and dating partners, as this evidence is
important in making the case for continued support of these programs for children, youth, and families in need.
The health care, justice, and social service sectors can work collaboratively to support children, youth and families
with histories of child abuse and neglect, conduct problems, and prior involvement in violence and crime. As with
other prevention programs, local and state public health departments can bring community organizations and other
partners together to plan, prioritize, and coordinate prevention efforts and play a leadership role in evaluating these
programs and tracking their impact on health, behavioral, and other outcomes.
The business and labor sectors, as well as government entities, are in the best position to establish and implement
policies to Strengthen Economic Supports and Create Protective Environments in workplaces and community settings.
These are the sectors that can more directly address some of the community-level risks and environmental contexts
that make IPV more likely to occur. Public health entities can play an important role by gathering and synthesizing
information, working with other agencies within the executive branch of their state or local governments in support of

policy and other approaches, and evaluating the effectiveness of measures taken. Further, partnerships with domestic
violence coalitions and other community organizations can be instrumental in increasing awareness of and garnering
support for policies and programs affecting women, children, and families.
Finally, this technical package includes victim-centered services, criminal justice and social service protections, and a
number of therapeutic approaches to Support Survivors and Lessen Harms. Domestic violence advocates, community
organizations, and other professionals who work with survivors, in collaboration with justice, housing, social services,
and the health care sector, are uniquely positioned to identify and deliver critical intervention support and victim-
centered services in a manner that best meets the needs and circumstances of survivors. The health care sector,
working with victim advocates and in collaboration with justice and social services, is also uniquely positioned to
address trauma and the long-term consequences of IPV. In addition to having licensed providers trained to recognize
and address trauma, the health care sector can also coordinate wrap-around behavioral health and social services to
address the health consequences of IPV and also the conditions that may increase the risk of repeated violence.
Regardless of strategy, action by many sectors will be necessary for the successful implementation of this package. In
this regard, all sectors can play an important and influential role in supporting healthy intimate relationship behaviors
and contexts, and supporting survivors and their families when they do experience IPV.
Regardlessof
strategy,actionby
manysectorswill
benecessaryfor
thesuccessful
implementation
ofthispackage.

Monitoring and Evaluation
Monitoring and evaluation are necessary components of the public health approach to prevention. Timely and reliable
data are essential for monitoring the extent of the problem and evaluating the impact of prevention efforts. Data are
also necessary for program planning and implementation.
Surveillance data helps researchers and practitioners track
changes in the burden of IPV. Surveillance systems exist at
the federal, state, and local levels. Assessing the availability
of surveillance data and data systems across these levels is
useful for identifying and addressing gaps in these systems.
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey
(NISVS) and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)
are examples of surveillance systems that provide data on IPV.
NISVS collects information on IPV, sexual violence, and stalking
victimization at both the state and national level, including data
on characteristics of the victimization, demographic information
on victims and perpetrators, impacts of the violence, first
experiences of these types of violence, and health outcomes
associated with the violence.173
The NCVS gathers information
from a nationally representative sample of households on
the frequency, characteristics, and consequences of criminal
victimization among persons aged 12 and older in the United
States. The Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System is another
source of data that collects information on TDV victimization
(including physical and sexual), sexual violence victimization,
youth violence victimization (including bullying) and suicidal
behavior among high-school students. This information is
available at the local, state, and national levels. In addition, there
are data at the local level including school surveys, women’s
health surveys, criminal justice data and other data that are
important in local efforts to monitor the problem of IPV.
It is also important at all levels (local, state, and federal) to address gaps in responses, track progress of prevention
efforts and evaluate the impact of those efforts, including the impact of this technical package. Evaluation data,
produced through program implementation and monitoring, is essential to provide information on what does and
does not work to reduce rates of IPV and its associated risk and protective factors. Theories of change and logic models
that identify short, intermediate, and long-term outcomes are an important part of program evaluation.
The evidence-base for IPV prevention has advanced greatly over the last few decades. However, additional research
is needed to evaluate the impact of strategies that we know relate to risk factors for IPV, such as disrupting the
developmental pathways to aggression on IPV outcomes directly. Along the same lines, more research is needed
to evaluate policies and other efforts at the outer levels of the social ecology on IPV outcomes.174
Consistent with
DVP’s Strategic Vision for Connecting the Dots, evaluation research could also be advanced by measuring IPV and
TDV outcomes in studies that are intended to prevent other forms of violence, such as peer violence, bullying, child
abuse and neglect, suicide, sexual violence, and problem behaviors such as drug and alcohol abuse, high-risk sexual
behavior, among others.30
Lastly, it will be important for researchers to test the effectiveness of combinations of the
strategies and approaches included in this package. Most existing evaluations focus on approaches implemented
in isolation. However, there is potential to understand the synergistic effects within a comprehensive prevention
approach. Additional research is needed to understand the extent to which combinations of strategies and
approaches result in greater reductions in IPV than individual programs, practices, or policies.

Conclusion
Intimate partner violence represents a significant public health issue that has considerable societal costs. Supporting the
development of healthy, respectful, and nonviolent relationships has the potential to reduce the occurrence of IPV and
prevent its harmful and long-lasting effects on individuals, families, and the communities where they live.This technical
package contains a variety of strategies and approaches that ideally would be used in combination in a multi-level,
multi-sector approach to preventing IPV. Consistent with CDC’s emphasis on the primary prevention of IPV, the current
package includes multiple strategies intended to stop perpetration of partner violence before it starts, in addition to
approaches designed to provide support to survivors and diminish the short- and long-term harms of IPV. The hope is
that multiple sectors, such as public health, health care, education, business, justice, social services, domestic violence
coalitions and the many other organizations that comprise the civil society sector will use this technical package to
prevent IPV and its consequences.
The strategies and approaches identified in this technical package represent the best available evidence to address the
problem of IPV. It is based on research which suggests that the strategies and approaches described have demonstrated
impact on rates of IPV or on risk and protective factors for IPV. Although the research evidence on what works to stop IPV
is not as expansive as it is for other areas (e.g., youth violence), ongoing monitoring and evaluation of existing or newly
developed strategies and approaches will create opportunities for building upon the current evidence. As new evidence
emerges,itwillbeincorporatedintothetechnicalpackageandusedtoinformandguidecommunitiesseekingtoaddress
the problem of IPV.Violence between intimate partners is a costly public health issue, but it is also preventable.Through
continued research and evaluation of promising approaches for preventing IPV, we can strengthen our understanding
of how to support healthy relationships between intimate partners and alleviate the burden of IPV to society as a whole.
Thestrategies
andapproaches
identifiedinthis
technicalpackage
representthebest
availableevidence
toaddressthe
problemofIPV.

References
1. Frieden, T. R. (2014). Six components necessary for effective public health program implementation. American
Journal of Public Health, 104(1), 17-22.
2. Breiding, M. J., Chen J., & Black, M. C. (2014). Intimate partner violence in the United States — 2010. Atlanta, GA:
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
3. Smith, S. G., Chen, J., Basile, K. C., Gilbert, L. K., Merrick, M. T., Patel, N., Walling, M., & Jain, A. (2017). The National
Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010-2012 State Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury
Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
4. Exner-Cortens, D., Eckenrode, J., Bunge, J., & Rothman, E. (2017). Revictimization after adolescent dating violence
in a matched, national sample of youth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 60(2), 176-183.
5. Breiding, M. J., Basile, K. C., Smith, S. G., Black, M. C., & Mahendra, R. R. (2015). Intimate partner violence
surveillance: uniform definitions and recommended data elements, Version 2.0. Atlanta (GA): National Center for
Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
6. Fortson, B. L., Klevens, J., Merrick, M. T., Gilbert, L. K., & Alexander, S. P. (2016). Preventing child abuse and neglect: a
technical package for policy, norm, and programmatic activities. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention
and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
7. Walters, M.L., Chen J., & Breiding, M.J. (2013). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS):
2010 Findings on Victimization by Sexual Orientation. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and
Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
8. Hahn, J. W., McCormick, M. C., Silverman, J. G., Robinson, E. B., & Koenen, K. C. (2014). Examining the impact
of disability status on intimate partner violence victimization in a population sample. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 29(17), 3063-3085.
9. Smith, D. L. (2008). Disability, gender and intimate partner violence: relationships from the behavioral risk factor
surveillance system. Sexuality and Disability, 26(1), 15-28.
10. Kann, L., McManus, T., Harris, W. A., Shanklin, S. L., Flint, K. H., Hawkins, J. et al. (2016). Youth risk behavior
surveillance – United States, 2015. MMWR Surveillance Summaries. Volume 65 (No. SS-6), 1-174.
11. Vagi, K. J., Olsen, E. O., Basile, K. C., & Vivolo-Kantor, A. M. (2015). Teen dating violence (physical and sexual)
among U.S. high school students: findings from the 2013 national youth risk behavior survey. JAMA Pediatrics,
169(5), 474-482.
12. Fisher, B. S., Coker, A. L., Garcia, L. S., Williams, C. M., Clear, E. R., & Cook-Craig, P. G. (2014). Statewide estimates
of stalking among high school students in Kentucky: demographic profile and sex differences. Violence Against
Women, 20(10), 1258-1279.
13. Capaldi, D. M., Knoble, N. B., Shortt, J. W., & Kim, H. K. (2012). A systematic review of risk factors for intimate
partner violence. Partner Abuse, 3(2), 231-80.
14. Stith, S. M., Smith, D. B., Penn, C. E., Ward, D. B., & Tritt, D. (2004). Intimate partner physical abuse perpetration and
victimization risk factors: a meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10(1), 65-98.
15. Vagi, K. J., Rothman, E. F., Latzman, N. E., Tharp, A. T., Hall, D. M., & Breiding, M. J. (2013). Beyond correlates:
a review of risk and protective factors for adolescent dating violence perpetration. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 42(4), 633-649.

16. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2016). Intimate partner violence: risk and protective factors. Retrieved
July 2016 from http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/intimatepartnerviolence/riskprotectivefactors.html
17. Reyes, H. L. M., Foshee, V. A., Niolon, P. H., Reidy, D. E., & Hall, J. E. (2016). Gender role attitudes and male
adolescent dating violence perpetration: normative beliefs as moderators. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
45(2), 350-360.
18. Kearns, M. C., Reidy, D. E., & Valle, L. A. (2015). The role of alcohol policies in preventing intimate partner violence:
a review of the literature. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 76(1), 21-30.
19. Browning, C. R. (2002). The span of collective efficacy: extending social disorganization theory to partner
violence. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(4), 833-850.
20. Pronyk, P. M., Hargreaves, J. R., Kim, J. C., Morison, L. A., Phetla, G., Watts, C., Busza, J., & Porter, J.D. (2006). Effect of
a structural intervention for the prevention of intimate-partner violence and HIV in rural South Africa: a cluster
randomized trial. The Lancet, 368(9551), 1973-1983.
21. Matjasko, J. L., Niolon, P. H., & Valle, L. A. (2013). The role of economic factors and economic support in
preventing and escaping from intimate partner violence. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 32(1), 122-
128.
22. Baker, C. K., Billhardt, K. A., Warren, J., Rollins, C., & Glass, N. E. (2010). Domestic violence, housing instability, and
homelessness: a review of housing policies and program practices for meeting the needs of survivors. Aggression
and Violent Behavior, 15(2010), 430–439.
23. Temple, J. R., Shorey, R. C., Tortolero, S. R., Wolfe, D. A., & Stuart, G. L. (2013). Importance of gender and attitudes
about violence in the relationship between exposure to interparental violence and the perpetration of teen
dating violence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37(5):343-352.
24. Niolon, P. H., Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Latzman, N. E., Valle, L. A., Kuoh, H., Burton, T., Taylor, B. G., & Tharp, A. T. (2015).
Prevalence of teen dating violence and co-occurring risk factors among middle school youth in high-risk urban
communities. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56(2), S5-S13.
25. Exner-Cortens, D., Eckenrode, J., & Rothman, E. (2013). Longitudinal associations between teen dating violence
victimization and adverse health outcomes. Pediatrics, 131(1), 71-78.
26. Silverman, J. G., Raj, A., Mucci, L. A., & Hathaway, J. E. (2001). Dating violence against adolescent girls and
associated substance use, unhealthy weight control, sexual risk behavior, pregnancy, and suicidality. Journal of
the American Medical Association, 286(5), 572-579.
27. World Health Organization (2013). Global and regional estimates of violence against women: prevalence and health
effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence. Geneva: World Health Organization.
28. Schiff, L. B., Holland, K. M., Stone, D. M., Logan, J., Marshall, K. J., Martell, B., & Bartholow, B. (2015). Acute and
chronic risk preceding suicidal crises among middle-aged men without known mental health and/or substance
abuse problems. Crisis, 36(5), 304-315.
29. Wilkins, N., Tsao, B., Hertz, M., Davis, R., & Klevens, J. (2014). Connecting the dots: an overview of the links among
multiple forms of violence. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, and Oakland, CA: Prevention Institute.
30. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2016). Preventing multiple forms of violence: a strategic vision for
connecting the dots. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention.
31. Basile, K. C., DeGue, S., Jones, K., Freire, K., Dills, J., Smith, S. G., & Raiford, J. L. (2016). STOP SV: a technical package
to prevent sexual violence. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention.

32. David-Ferdon, C., Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Dahlberg, L. L., Marshall, K. J., Rainford, N. & Hall, J. E. (2016). A
comprehensive technical package for the prevention of youth violence and associated risk behaviors. Atlanta, GA:
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
33. Stone, D. M., Holland, K. M., Bartholow, B., Crosby, A. E., Davis, S., and Wilkins, N. (2017). Preventing suicide: a
technical package of policies, programs, and practices. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and
Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
34. Cooper, A., & Smith, E. L. (2011). Homicide trends in the United States, 1980–2008. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of
Justice Statistics. NCJ 236018.
35. Black, M. C. (2011). Intimate partner violence and adverse health consequences: implications for clinicians.
American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, 5(5), 428-439.
36. Warshaw, C., Brashler, P., & Gil, J. (2009). Mental health consequences of intimate partner violence. In C. Mitchell & D.
Anglin (Eds.), Intimate partner violence: a health-based perspective (pp. 147–170). NewYork: Oxford University Press.
37. Breiding, M. J., Black, M. C., & Ryan, G. W. (2008). Chronic disease and health risk behaviors associated with
intimate partner violence—18 U.S. states/territories, 2005. Annals of Epidemiology, 18(7), 538-544.
38. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2003). Costs of intimate partner violence against women in the United
States. Atlanta (GA): National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
39. Jennings, W. G., Okeem, C., Piquero, A. R., Sellers, C. S., Theobald, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2017). Dating and intimate
partner violence among young persons ages 15–30: evidence from a systematic review. Aggression and Violent
Behavior. (e-publication ahead of print; DOI: 10.1016/j.avb.2017.01.007.
40. Whitaker, D.J., & Niolon, P. H. (2009). Advancing interventions for perpetrators of physical partner violence:
batterer intervention programs and beyond. In D. J. Whitaker & J. R. Lutzker’s (Eds.), Preventing partner violence:
research and evidence-based intervention strategies (pp. 169-192). Washington, D. C.: American Psychological
Association.
41. Eckhardt, C. I., Murphy, C. M., Whitaker, D. J., Sprunger, J., Dyskstra, R., & Woodard, K. (2013). The effectiveness of
intervention programs for perpetrators and victims of intimate partner violence: findings from the partner abuse
state of knowledge project. Partner Abuse, 4(2), 196-231.
42. Feder, L., & Wilson, D. B. (2005). A meta-analytic review of court-mandated batterer intervention programs: can
courts affect abusers’behavior? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1(2), 239-262
43. Feldman, C. M., & Ridley, C. A. (2000). The role of conflict-based communication responses and outcomes in male
domestic violence toward female partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(4-5), 552-573.
44. Moffitt, T. E., Krueger, R. F., Caspi, A., & Fagan, J. (2000). Partner abuse and general crime: how are they the same?
how are they different? Criminology, 38(1), 199-232.
45. Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. (2017). Blueprints for violence prevention. Boulder, CO:
University of Colorado Boulder, Institute of Behavioral Science, Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence.
Retrieved July 2016 from http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/.
46. McCollum, E. E., & Stith, S. M. (2008). Couples treatment for interpersonal violence: a review of outcome research
literature and current clinical practices. Violence and Victims, 23(2), 187-201.
47. Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Ennett, S. T., Linder, G. F., Benefield, T., & Suchindran, C. (2004). Assessing the long-
term effects of the Safe Dates program and a booster in preventing and reducing adolescent dating violence
victimization and perpetration. American Journal of Public Health, 94(4), 619-624.
48. Foshee, V. A., Reyes, L. M., Agnew-Brune, C. B., Simon, T. R., Vagi, K. J., Lee, R. D., & Suchindran, C. (2014). The
effects of the evidence-based Safe Dates dating abuse prevention program on other youth violence outcomes.
Prevention Science, 15(6), 907-916.

49. Wolfe, D. A., Crooks, C., Jaffe, P., Chiodo, D., Hughes, R., Ellis, W., Stitt, L., & Donner, A. (2009). A school-based
program to prevent adolescent dating violence: a cluster randomized trial. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent
Medicine, 163(8), 692-699.
50. Ball, B., Tharp, A. T., Noonan, R. K., Valle, L. A., Hamburger, M. E., & Rosenbluth, B. (2012). Expect Respect Support
Groups: preliminary evaluation of a dating violence prevention program for at-risk youth. Violence Against
Women, 18(7), 746-762.
51. Reidy, D. E., Holland, K. M., Cortina, K., Ball, B., & Rosenbluth, B. (2017). Expect Respect Support Groups: a
dating violence prevention program for high-risk youth. Preventive Medicine. (e-pub ahead of print; https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.05.003)
52. Markman, H. J., Renick, M. J., Floyd, F. J., Stanley, S. M., & Clements, M. (1993). Preventing marital distress through
communication and conflict management training: a 4-and 5-year follow-up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 61(1), 70-77.
53. Braithwaite, S. R., & Fincham, F. D. (2014). Computer-based prevention of intimate partner violence in marriage.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 54(2014), 12-21.
54. Ruff, S., McComb, J. L., Coker, C. J., & Sprenkle, D. H. (2010). Behavioral Couples Therapy for the treatment of
substance abuse: a substantive and methodological review of O’Farrell, Fals‐Stewart, and colleagues’program of
research. Family Process, 49(4), 439-456.
55. O’Farrell, T. J., Fals-Stewart, W., Murphy, M., & Murphy, C. M. (2003). Partner violence before and after individually
based alcoholism treatment for male alcoholic patients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(1), 92-102.
56. O’Farrell, T. J., Murphy, C. M., Stephan, S. H., Fals-Stewart, W., & Murphy, M. (2004). Partner violence before and
after couples-based alcoholism treatment for male alcoholic patients: the role of treatment involvement and
abstinence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(2), 202-217.
57. Schumm, J. A., O’Farrell,T. J., Murphy, C. M., & Fals-Stewart,W. (2009). Partner violence before and after couples-based
alcoholism treatment for female alcoholic patients. JournalofConsultingandClinicalPsychology, 77(6), 1136-1146.
58. McCauley, H. L., Tancredi, D. J., Silverman, J. G., Decker, M. R., Austin, S. B., McCormick, M. C., Virata, M. C. D.,
& Miller, E. (2013). Gender-equitable attitudes, bystander behavior, and recent abuse perpetration against
heterosexual dating partners of male high school athletes. American Journal of Public Health, 103(10), 1882-1887.
59. Banyard, V. L. (2015). Toward the next generation of bystander prevention of sexual and relationship violence: action
coils to engage communities. Springer International Publishing.
60. Miller, E., Tancredi, D. J., McCauley, H. L., Decker, M. R., Virata, M. C. D., Anderson, H. A., O’Conner, B., & Silverman,
J. G. (2013). One-year follow-up of a coach-delivered dating violence prevention program: a cluster randomized
controlled trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 45(1), 108-112.
61. Banyard, V. L., Moynihan, M. M., & Crossman, M. T. (2009). Reducing sexual violence on campus: the role of
student leaders as empowered bystanders. Journal of College Student Development, 50(4), 446-457.
62. Banyard, V. L., Moynihan, M. M., & Plante, E. G. (2007). Sexual violence prevention through bystander education:
an experimental evaluation. Journal of Community Psychology, 35(4), 463–481.
63. Moynihan, M. M., Banyard, V. L., Cares, A. C., Potter, S. J., Williams, L. M., & Stapleton, J. G. (2015). Encouraging
responses in sexual and relationship violence prevention what program effects remain 1 year later? Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 30(1), 110-132.
64. Coker, A. L., Fisher, B. S., Bush, H. M., Swan, S. C., Williams, C. M., Clear, E. R., & DeGue, S. (2015). Evaluation of
the Green Dot bystander intervention to reduce interpersonal violence among college students across three
campuses. Violence Against Women, 21(12), 1507-1527.

65. Coker, A. L., Bush, H. M., Fisher, B. S., Swan, S. C., Williams, C. M., Clear, E. R., & DeGue, S. (2016). Multi-college
bystander intervention evaluation for violence prevention. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 50(3), 295-302.
66. Coker, A. L., Bush, H. M., Cook-Craig, P. G., DeGue, S. A., Clear, E. R., Brancato, C. J., Fisher, B. S., & Recktenwald, E. A.
(2017). RCT testing bystander effectiveness to reduce violence. American Journal of Preventive Medicine (e-pub
ahead of print, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2017.01.020)
67. Forehand, R., Armistead, L., Long, N., Wyckoff, S. C., Kotchick, B. A., Whitaker, D., Shaffer, A., Greenberg, A., Murray,
V., Jackson, L., Kelly, A., McNair, L., Dittus, P., & Miller, K. (2007). Efficacy of a parent-based sexual-risk prevention
program for African American preadolescents: a randomized controlled trial. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent
Medicine, 161(12), 1123-1129.
68. Foshee, V. A., Reyes, H. L. M., Ennett, S. T., Cance, J. D., Bauman, K. E., & Bowling, J. M. (2012). Assessing the effects
of Families for Safe Dates, a family-based teen dating abuse prevention program. Journal of Adolescent Health,
51(4), 349-356.
69. Ehrensaft, M. K, Cohen, P., Brown, J., Smailes, E., Chen, H., & Johnson, J. G. (2003). Intergenerational transmission
of partner violence: a 20-year prospective study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(4), 741-753.
70. Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. P. (2001). Child delinquents: development, intervention, and service needs. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
71. Thornberry, T. P., & Krohn, M. D. (2006). Taking stock of delinquency: an overview of findings from contemporary
longitudinal studies. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
72. Dahlberg, L. L., & Simon, T. R. (2006). Predicting and preventing youth violence: developmental pathways and
risk. In J. R. Lutzker (Ed.), Preventing violence: research and evidence-based intervention strategies (pp. 97-124).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
73. Farrington, D. P., Loeber, R., & Ttofi, M. M. (2012). Risk and protective factors for offending. In B.C. Welsh & D. P.
Farrington (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Crime Prevention (pp. 46-69). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
74. Smith, C. A., Greenman, S. J., Thornberry, T. P., Henry, K. L., & Ireland, T. O. (2015). Adolescent risk for intimate
partner violence perpetration. Prevention Science, 16(6), 862-872.
75. Derzon, J. H. (2010). The correspondence of family features with problem, aggressive, criminal, and violent
behavior: a meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6(3), 263-292.
76. Avellar, S., Paulsell, D., Sama-Miller, E., Del Grosso, P., Akers, L., & Kleinman, R. (2016). Home visiting evidence of
effectiveness review: executive summary. Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children
and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Washington, DC. Retrieved July 2016 from http://
homvee.acf.hhs.gov/.
77. Chicago Public Schools, Early Childhood – Child Parent Center. Retrieved July 2016 from http://cps.edu/Schools/
EarlyChildhood/Pages/Childparentcenter.aspx.
78. Farrington, D. P., & Welsh, B. C. (2003). Family-based prevention of offending: a meta-analysis. Australian & New
Zealand Journal of Criminology, 36(2), 127-151.
79. Lundahl, B., Risser, H. J., & Lovejoy, M. C. (2006). A meta-analysis of parent training: moderators and follow-up
effects. Clinical Psychology Review, 26(1), 86-104.
80. Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., Welsh, B. C., Tremblay, R., & Jennings, W. G. (2009). Effects of family/parent training
programs on antisocial behavior and delinquency. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5(2), 83-120.
81. Piquero, A. R., Jennings, W. G., Diamond, B., Farrington, D. P., Tremblay, R. E., Welsh, B. C., & Gonzalez, J. M. R.
(2016). A meta-analysis update on the effects of early family/parent training programs on antisocial behavior
and delinquency. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 12(2), 229-248.

82. Burrus, B., Leeks, K. D., Sipe,T. A., Dolina, S., Soler, R. E., Elder, R.W., Barrios, L., Greenspan, A., Fishbein, D., Lindegren, M.
L., Achrekar, A., & Dittus, P. (2012). Person-to-person interventions targeted to parents and other caregivers to improve
adolescent health: A community guide systematic review. AmericanJournalofPreventiveMedicine,42(3), 316-326.
83. O’Brien, M., & Daley, D. (2011). Self‐help parenting interventions for childhood behaviour disorders: a review of
the evidence. Child: Care, Health and Development, 37(5), 623-637.
84. Olds, D. L., Eckenrode, J., Henderson, C. R., Kitzman, H., Powers, J., Cole, R., Sidora, K., Morris, P., Pettitt, L. M., &
Luckey, D. (1997). Long-term effects of home visitation on maternal life course and child abuse and neglect:
fifteen-year follow-up of a randomized trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278(8), 637-643.
85. Olds, D. L., Kitzman, H., Hanks, C., Cole, R., Anson, E., Sidora-Arcoleo, K., Luckey, D. W., Henderson C. R. Jr.,
Holmberg, J., Tutt, R. A., Stevenson, A. J., & Bondy, J. (2007). Effects of nurse home visiting on maternal and child
functioning: age-9 follow-up of a randomized trial. Pediatrics, 120(4), e832-e845.
86. Olds, D. L., Henderson, C. R., & Kitzman, H. (1994). Does prenatal and infancy nurse home visitation have enduring
effects on qualities of parental caregiving and child health at 25 to 50 months of life? Pediatrics, 93(1), 89-98.
87. Olds, D. L., Henderson, C. R., Cole, R., Eckenrode, J., Kitzman, H., Luckey, D., Pettitt, L., Sidora, K., Morris, P., &
Powers, J. (1998). Long-term effects of Nurse Home Visitation on children’s criminal and antisocial behavior: 15-
year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280(14), 1238-1244.
88. Eckenrode, J., Campa, M., Luckey, D. W., Henderson Jr., C. R., Cole, R., Kitzman, H., Anson, E., Sidora-Arcoleo, K.,
Powers, J., & Olds, D. L. (2010). Long-term effects of prenatal and infancy nurse home visitation on the life course
of youths: 19-year follow-up of a randomized trial. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 164(1), 9-15.
89. Olds, D. L., Robinson, J., Pettitt, L., Luckey, D. W., Holmberg, J., Ng, R. K., Isaacs, K., Sheff, L., & Henderson, C. R. Jr.
(2004). Effects of home visits by paraprofessionals and by nurses: age 4 follow-up results of a randomized trial.
Pediatrics, 114(16), 1560-1568.
90. Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., Robertson, D. L., & Mann, E. A. (2001). Long-term effects of an early childhood
intervention on educational achievement and juvenile arrest: a 15-year follow-up of low-income children in
public schools. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285(18), 2339-2346.
91. Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., Ou, S. R., Robertson, D. L., Mersky, J. P., Topitzes, J. W., & Niles, M. D. (2007). Effects of
a school-based, early childhood intervention on adult health and well-being: a 19-year follow-up of low-income
families. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 161(8), 730-739.
92. Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., White. B. A. B., Ou, S., & Robertson, D. L. (2011). Age-26 cost-benefit analysis of the
child-parent early education program. Child Development, 82(1), 379-404.
93. Reynolds, A. J., & Robertson, D. L. (2003). School-based early intervention and later child maltreatment in the
Chicago Longitudinal Study. Child Development, 74(1), 3-26.
94. Green, B. L., Ayoub, C., Bartlett, J. D., Von Ende, A., Furrer, C., Chazan-Cohen, R., Vallotton, C., & Klevens, J. (2014).
The effect of Early Head Start on child welfare system involvement: a first look at longitudinal child maltreatment
outcomes. Children and Youth Services Review, 42, 127-135.
95. Harden, B. J., Chazan-Cohen, R., Raikes, H., & Vogel, C. (2012). Early Head Start home visitation: the role of
implementation in bolstering program benefits. Journal of Community Psychology, 40(4), 438-455.
96. Love, J. M., Kisker, E. E., Ross, C., Constantine, J., Boller, K., Chazan-Cohen, R., Brady-Smith, C., Fuligni A. S., Raikes, H.,
Brooks-Gunn, J., Tarullo, L., Schochet, P. Z., Paulsell, D., & Vogel, C. (2005). The effectiveness of Early Head Start for
3-year-old children and their parents: lessons for policy and programs. Developmental Psychology, 41(6), 885-901.
97. Menting, A. T., de Castro, B. O., & Matthys, W. (2013). Effectiveness of The Incredible Years parent training to modify
disruptive and prosocial child behavior: a meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(8), 901-913.

98. Brotman, L. M., Dawson-McClure, S., Gouley, K. K., McGuire, K., Burraston, B., & Bank, L. (2005). Older siblings
benefit from a family-based preventive intervention for preschoolers at risk for conduct problems. Journal of
Family Psychology, 19(4), 581-591.
99. Brotman, L. M., Gouley, K. K., Chesir-Teran, D., Dennis, T., Klein, R. G., & Shrout, P. (2005). Prevention for
preschoolers at high risk for conduct problems: immediate outcomes on parenting practices and child social
competence. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34(4), 724-734.
100. Kjøbli, J., & Ogden, T. (2012). A randomized effectiveness trial of brief parent training in primary care settings.
Prevention Science, 13(6), 616-626.
101. Patterson, G. R., Forgatch, M. S., & DeGarmo, D. S. (2010). Cascading effects following intervention. Development
and Psychopathology, 22(4), 949-970.
102. Wachlarowicz, M., Snyder, J., Low, S., Forgatch, M. S., & DeGarmo, D. A. (2012). The moderating effects of parent
antisocial characteristics on the effects of Parent Management Training - Oregon (PMTO), Prevention Science,
13(3), 229-240.
103. Forgatch, M. S., Patterson, G. R., DeGarmo, D. S., & Beldavs, Z. (2009). Testing the Oregon delinquency model with
9-year follow-up of the Oregon Divorce Study. Development and Psychopathology, 21(5), 637-660.
104. Martinez, C., & Eddy, M. (2005). Effects of culturally adapted Parent Management Training on Latino youth
behavioral health outcomes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(4), 841-851.
105. Bullard, L., Wachlarowicz, M., DeLeeuw, J., Snyder, J., Low, S., Forgatch, M., & DeGarmo, D. (2010). Effects of the
Oregon Model of Parent Management Training (PMTO) on marital adjustment in new stepfamilies: a randomized
trial. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(4), 485-496.
106. Forgatch, M. S., & DeGarmo, D. S. (2007). Accelerating recovery from poverty: prevention effects for recently
separated mothers. Journal of Early and Intensive Behavioral Intervention, 4(4), 681-702.
107. Hahn, R. A., Bilukha, O., Lowry, J., Crosby, A. E., Fullilove, M. T., Liberman, A., Moscicki, E., Snyder, S., Tuma, F., Corso, P.,
Schofield, A. & Task Force on Community Preventive Services. (2005). The effectiveness of therapeutic foster care for
the prevention of violence: a systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2Suppl 1), 72-90.
108. Fisher, P. A., & Gilliam, K. S. (2012). Multidimensional treatment foster care: an alternative to residential treatment
for high risk children and adolescents. Psychosocial Intervention, 21(2), 195-203.
109. Eddy J. M., Whaley, R. B., & Chamberlain, P. (2004). The prevention of violent behavior by chronic and serious
male juvenile offenders: a 2-year follow-up of a randomized clinical trial. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral
Disorders, 12(1), 2-8.
110. Smith, D. K., Chamberlain, P., & Eddy, J. M. (2010). Preliminary support for multidimensional treatment foster care
in reducing substance use in delinquent boys. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse, 19(4), 343-358.
111. Multisystemic Therapy Services. (2016). Multisystemic Therapy (MST) research at a glance: published MST outcome,
implementation, and benchmarking studies. Mount Pleasant, SC: Multisystemic Therapy Services. Retrieved July
2016 from http://mstservices.com/files/outcomestudies.pdf.
112. Sawyer, A. M., & Borduin, C. M. (2011). Effects of Multisystemic Therapy through midlife: a 21.9-year follow-up to a
randomized clinical trial with serious and violent juvenile offenders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
79(5), 643-652.
113. Wagner, D. V., Borduin, C. M., Sawyer, A. M., & Dopp, A. R. (2014). Long-term prevention of criminality in siblings of
serious and violent juvenile offenders: a 25-year follow-up to a randomized clinical trial of Multisystemic Therapy.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82(3), 492-499.

114. Schaeffer, C. M., Swenson, C. C., Tuerk, E. H., & Henggeler, S. W. (2013). Comprehensive treatment for co-occurring
child maltreatment and parental substance abuse: outcomes from a 24-month pilot study of the MST-Building
Stronger Families program. Child Abuse and Neglect, 37(8), 596-607.
115. Van der Stouwe, T., Asscher, J. J., Stams, G. J. J. M., Deković, M., van der Laan, P. H. (2014). The effectiveness of
Multisystemic Therapy (MST): a meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 34(6), 468-481.
116. Foshee, V. A., Reyes, H. L. M., Ennett, S. T., Suchindran, C., Mathias, J. P., Karriker-Jaffe, K. J., Bauman, K., E., &
Benefield, T. S. (2011). Risk and protective factors distinguishing profiles of adolescent peer and dating violence
perpetration. Journal of Adolescent Health, 48(4), 344-350.
117. Randel, J.A., & Wells, K.K. (2003). Corporate approaches to reducing intimate partner violence through workplace
initiatives. Clinics in Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 3(4), 821-841.
118. Pinchevsky, G. M., & Wright, E. M. (2012). The impact of neighborhoods on intimate partner violence and
victimization. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 13(2), 112-132.
119. Raghavan, C., Mennerich, A., Sexton, E., & James, S. E. (2006). Community violence and its direct, indirect, and
mediating effects on intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 12(12), 1132-1149.
120. Wright, E. M., & Benson, M. L. (2011). Clarifying the effects of neighborhood context on violence“behind closed
doors”. Justice Quarterly, 28(5), 775-798.
121. Cunradi, C. B. (2010). Neighborhoods, alcohol outlets and intimate partner violence: addressing research gaps in
explanatory mechanisms. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 7(3), 799-813.
122. Taylor, B. G., Stein, N. D., Mumford, E. A., & Woods, D. (2013). Shifting Boundaries: an experimental evaluation of a
dating violence prevention program in middle schools. Prevention Science, 14(1), 64-76.
123. Glass, N., Hanson, G. C., Laharnar, N., Anger, W. K., & Perrin, N. (2016). Interactive training improves workplace
climate, knowledge, and support towards domestic violence. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 59(7), 538-548.
124. Knox, K. L., Litts, D. A., Talcott, G. W., Feig, J. C., & Caine, E. D. (2003). Risk of suicide and related adverse
outcomes after exposure to a suicide prevention programme in the US Air Force: cohort study. British Medical
Journal, 327, 1376-1380.
125. Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2001). Aggression and violence in the inner city effects of environment via mental
fatigue. Environment and Behavior, 33(4), 543-571.
126. Cohen, D. A., Inagami, S., & Finch, B. (2008). The built environment and collective efficacy. Health & Place, 14(2),
198-208.
127. Branas, C. C., Cheney, R. A., MacDonald, J. M., Tam, V. W., Jackson, T. D., & Ten Have, T. R. (2011). A difference-
in-differences analysis of health, safety, and greening vacant urban space. American Journal of Epidemiology,
174(11), 1296-1306.
128. McKinney, C. M., Caetano, R., Harris, T. R., & Ebama, M. S. (2009). Alcohol availability and intimate partner violence
among U.S. couples. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 33(1), 169-176.
129. Frieden, T. R. (2010). A framework for public health action: the health impact pyramid. American Journal of Public
Health, 100(4), 590-595.
130. World Health Organization/London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (2010). Preventing intimate partner
and sexual violence against women: taking action and generating evidence. Geneva, World Health Organization.
131. Vyas, S., & Watts C. (2009). How does economic empowerment affect women’s risk of intimate partner violence
in low- and middle-income countries? a systematic review of published evidence. Journal of International
Development, 21(5), 577–602.

132. Knox, V., Miller, C., & Gennetian, L. S. (2000). Reforming welfare and rewarding work: a summary of the final report
on the Minnesota Family Investment Program. Minnesota Department of Human Services. Retrieved July 2016
from www.mdrc.org/publications/27/summary.html.
133. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2016). Policy Basics: the Earned Income Tax Credit. Washington D.C.: Center
on Budget and Policy Priorities. Retrieved July 2016 from http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/policy-
basics-the-earned-income-tax-credit.
134. Marr, C., Huang, C. C., Sherman, A., & DeBot, B. (2015). EITC and child tax credit promote work, reduce poverty, and
support children’s development, research finds. Washington, D.C.: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Retrieved
July 2016 from http://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/6-26-12tax.pdf.
135. Kim, J. C., Watts, C. H., Hargreaves, J. R., Ndhlovu, L. X., Phetla, G., Morison, L. A., Busza, J., Porter, J. D. H., & Pronyk,
P. (2007). Understanding the impact of a microfinance-based intervention on women’s empowerment and the
reduction of intimate partner violence in South Africa. American Journal of Public Health, 97(10), 1794-1802.
136. Sherman, S. G., German, D., Cheng, Y., Marks, M., & Bailey-Kloche, M. (2006). The evaluation of the JEWEL project:
an innovative economic enhancement and HIV prevention intervention study targeting drug using women
involved in prostitution. AIDS Care, 18(1), 1-11.
137. Figart, D. M., & Lapidus, J. (1996). The impact of comparable worth on earnings inequality. Work and Occupations,
23(3), 297-318.
138. Hartmann, H., Hayes, J., & Clark J. (2014). How equal pay for working women would reduce poverty and grow
the American economy. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Women’s Policy Research, Briefing paper (IWPR #C411).
Retrieved July 2016 from http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/how-equal-pay-for-working-women-would-
reduce-poverty-and-grow-the-american-economy.
139. Waldfogel, J. (1997). Working mothers then and now: a cross-cohort analysis of the effects of maternity leave on
women’s pay. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, New Orleans, LA.
140. Chatterji, P., & Markowitz, S. (2005). Does the length of maternity leave affect maternal health? Southern
Economic Journal, 72(1), 16-41.
141. Gartland, D., Hemphill, S. A., Hegarty, K., & Brown, S. J. (2011). Intimate partner violence during pregnancy and the
first year postpartum in an Australian pregnancy cohort study. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 15(5), 570-578.
142. U.S. Government Printing Office. (2013). S.47 (113th): Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013.
Retrieved February 2017 from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s47enr/pdf/BILLS-113s47enr.pdf.
143. U.S. Government Printing Office. (2010). Title 42 United States Code, Chapter 110, Family Violence Prevention
and Services Act. Retrieved February 2017 from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title42/html/
USCODE-2010-title42-chap110.htm.
144. Baker, C. K., Cook, S. L., & Norris, F. H. (2003) Domestic violence and housing problems: a contextual analysis of women’s
help-seeking, received informal support, and formal system response. ViolenceAgainstWomen,9(7), 754–783.
145. Menard, A. (2001). Domestic violence and housing: key policy and program challenges. Violence Against Women,
7(6), 707–720.
146. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (2014, December). Final recommendation statement: intimate partner
violence and abuse of elderly and vulnerable adults: screening. Retrieved July 2016 from http://www.
uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/RecommendationStatementFinal/intimate-partner-
violence-and-abuse-of-elderly-and-vulnerable-adults-screening
147. Elliott, D. E., Bjelajac, P., Fallot, R. D., Markoff, L. S., & Reed, B. G. (2005). Trauma‐informed or trauma‐denied: principles
and implementation of trauma‐informed services for women. Journal of Community Psychology, 33(4), 461-477.

148. Sullivan, C.M. (2012, October). Domestic violence shelter services: a review of the empirical evidence. Harrisburg, PA:
National Resource Center on Domestic Violence. Retrieved April 2016, from http://www.dvevidenceproject.org.
149. Mbilinyi, L. (2015). The Washington State Domestic Violence Housing First Program: cohort 2 agencies final
evaluation report. Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Retrieved May 2016 from https://
wscadv.org/resources/the-washington-state-domestic-violence-housing-first-program-cohort-2-agencies-final-
evaluation-report-september-2011-september-2014/
150. Messing, J. T., Campbell, J., Wilson, J. S., Brown, S., Patchell, B., & Shall, C. (2014). Police departments’ use of the
Lethality Assessment Program: a quasi-experimental evaluation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice
(document #247456).
151. Campbell, J. C., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, J., Block, C., Campbell, D., Curry, M. A., Glass, N., McFarlane, J., Sachs, C.,
Sharps, P., Ulrich, Y., Wilt, S. A., Manganello, J., Xu, X., Schollenberger, J., Frye, V., & Laughton, K. (2003). Risk factors
for femicide in abusive relationships: results from a multisite case control study. American Journal of Public
Health, 93(7), 1089-1097.
152. Flory, B. E., Dunn, J., Berg‐Weger, M., & Milstead, M. (2001). Supervised access and exchange: an exploratory study
of supervised access and custody exchange services: the parental experience. Family Court Review, 39(4), 469-482.
153. Dunn, J. H., Flory, B. E., & Berg-Weger, M. (2004). Parenting plans and visitation: an exploratory study of
supervised access and custody exchange services: the children’s experience. Family Court Review, 42(1), 60-73.
154. DeJong, C., & Burgess-Proctor, A. (2006). A summary of personal protection order statutes in the United States.
Violence Against Women, 12(1), 68-88.
155. Benitez, C. T., McNiel, D. E., & Binder, R. L. (2010). Do protection orders protect? Journal of the American Academy
of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 38(3), 376-385.
156. Holt, V. L., Kernic, M. A., Lumley, T., Wolf, M. E., & Rivara, F. P. (2002). Civil protection orders and risk of subsequent
police-reported violence. Journal of the American Medical Association, 288(5), 589-594.
157. Spitzberg, B. H. (2002). The tactical topography of stalking victimization and management. Trauma, Violence, &
Abuse, 3(4), 261-288.
158. Wright, C. V., & Johnson, D. M. (2012). Encouraging legal help seeking for victims of intimate partner violence: the
therapeutic effects of the civil protection order. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 25(6), 675-681.
159. Russell, B. (2012). Effectiveness, victim safety, characteristics, and enforcement of protective orders. Partner
Abuse, 3(4), 531-552.
160. Office of Legislative Research (2016). Voisine v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2272. (2016-R0238). Retrieved February
2017 from https://www.cga.ct.gov/2016/rpt/pdf/2016-R-0238.pdf.
161. Vigdor, E. R., & Mercy, J. A. (2006). Do laws restricting access to firearms by domestic violence offenders prevent
intimate partner homicide? Evaluation Review, 30(3), 313-346.
162. Zeoli, A. M., & Webster, D. W. (2010). Effects of domestic violence policies, alcohol taxes and police staffing levels
on intimate partner homicide in large US cities. Injury Prevention, 16(2), 90-95.
163. Klevens, J., Kee, R., Trick, W., Garcia, D., Angulo, F. R., Jones, R., & Sadowski, L. S. (2012). Effect of screening for
partner violence on women’s quality of life: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical
Association, 308(7), 681-689.
164. MacMillan, H. L., Wathen, C. N., Jamieson, E., Boyle, M.H., Shannon, H. S., Ford-Gilboe, M., Worster, A., Lent, B.,
Coben, J., Campbell, J. C., & McNutt, L. A. (2009). Screening for intimate partner violence in health care settings: a
randomized trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 302(5), 493-501.

165. Nelson, H. D., Bougatsos, C., & Blazina, I. (2012). Screening women for intimate partner violence: a systematic review
to update the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 156(11), 796-808.
166. Bair-Merritt, M. H., Lewis-O’Connor, A., Goel, S., Amato, P., Ismailji, T., Jelley, M., Lenahan, P., & Cronholm, P.
(2014). Primary care–based interventions for intimate partner violence: a systematic review. American Journal of
Preventive Medicine, 46(2), 188-194.
167. Kiely, M., El-Mohandes, A. A., El-Khorazaty, M. N., & Gantz, M. G. (2010). An integrated intervention to reduce
intimate partner violence in pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 115(2), 273-283.
168. Miller, E., Decker, M. R., McCauley, H. L., Tancredi, D. J., Levenson, R. R., Waldman, J., Schoenwalde, P., & Silverman,
J. G. (2011). A family planning clinic partner violence intervention to reduce risk associated with reproductive
coercion. Contraception, 83(3), 274-280.
169. Miller, E., Tancredi, D. J., Decker, M. R., McCauley, H. L., Jones, K. A., Anderson, H., James, L., & Silverman, J. G.
(2016). A family planning clinic-based intervention to address reproductive coercion: a cluster randomized
controlled trial. Contraception, 94(1), 58-67.
170. Sharps, P. W., Bullock, L. F., Campbell, J. C., Alhusen, J. L., Ghazarian, S. R., Bhandari, S. S., & Schminkey, D. L. (2016).
Domestic violence enhanced perinatal home visits: the DOVE randomized clinical trial. Journal of Women’s
Health, 25(11), 1129-1138.
171. Iverson, K. M., Gradus, J. L., Resick, P. A., Suvak, M. K., Smith, K. F., & Monson, C. M. (2011). Cognitive-behavioral
therapy for PTSD and depression symptoms reduces risk for future intimate partner violence among
interpersonal trauma survivors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79(2), 193-202.
172. Kubany, E. S., Hill, E. E., Owens, J. A., Iannce-Spencer, C., McCaig, M. A., Tremayne, K. J., & Williams, P.L. (2004).
Cognitive Trauma Therapy for battered women with PTSD (CTT-BW). Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 72(1), 3-18.
173. Black, M.C., Basile, K.C., Breiding, M.J., Smith, S.G., Walters, M.L., Merrick, M.T., Chen, J., & Stevens, M.R. (2011). The
National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center
for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
174. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2015). CDC Injury Center Research Priorities. Atlanta, GA: National
Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved April 2017 from
https://www.cdc.gov/injury/pdfs/researchpriorities/cdc-injury-research-priorities.pdf.

Appendix:SummaryofStrategies
andApproachestoPreventIPV
Strategy
Approach/Program,
Practice or Policy
Best Available Evidence
Lead Sectors1
TDV/IPV
Perpetration
TDV/IPV
Victimization
Risk Factors
forTDV/IPV
Teach safe
and healthy
relationship
skills
Social-emotional learning programs
Public Health
Education
Safe Dates   
Fourth R 
Expect Respect Support Groups  
Healthy relationship programs for couples
Public Health
Community
Organizations
Premarital Relationship Enhancement
Program (PREP)
  
BehavioralCouplesTherapy(BCT)  
Engage
influential
adults and
peers
Men and boys as allies in prevention Public Health
Education
Coaching Boys Into Men (CBIM)  
Bystander empowerment and education Public Health
Education
Bringing in the Bystander 
Green Dot  
Family-based programs
Public Health
Families for Safe Dates  
Disrupt the
developmental
pathways
toward partner
violence
Early childhood home visitation Public Health
Healthcare
Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) 
Preschool enrichment with family engagement Social Services
Public Health
Education
Child Parent Centers (CPC) 
Early Head Start (EHS) 
Parenting skill and family relationship programs Public Health
Education
The Incredible Years 
Parent Management Training – Oregon Model 
Treatment for at-risk children, youth and families Social Services
Justice
MultidimensionalTreatmentFosterCare(MTFC) 
Multisystemic Therapy (MST) 
Create
protective
environments
Improve school climate and safety Public Health
Education
Shifting Boundaries Building-Level
Intervention
 
Improve organizational policies and workplace climate Business/labor
Government
(local, state,
Federal)
IPV and the Workplace Training 
U.S. Air Force Suicide Prevention Program 
Modify the physical and social environments of neighborhoods Government
(local, state)
Business
Greening urban spaces 
Alcohol policies (e.g., outlet density) 

Strategy
Approach/Program,
Practice or Policy
Best Available Evidence
Lead Sectors1
TDV/IPV
Perpetration
TDV/IPV
Victimization
Risk Factors
forTDV/IPV
Strengthen
economic
supports for
families
Strengthen household financial security
Business/labor
Government
(local, state,
Federal)
Income supports (e.g., tax credits, child care
subsidies, cash transfers)

Microfinance programs  
Comparable worth policies 
Strengthen work-family supports Business/labor
Government
(local, state,
Federal)
Paid leave policies (parental, sick, vacation,
job-protected)

Support
survivors to
increase safety
and lessen
harms
Victim-centered services Community
Organizations
Domestic Violence Advocacy Services 2
Housing programs Government
(local, state,
Federal)
Domestic Violence Housing First N/A3
N/A3
N/A3
First responder and civil legal protections
Justice
Social Services
Government
(local, state,
Federal)
Lethality Assessment Programs  
Supervised Visitation and Exchange  
Protective Orders 
Reduce access to lethal means for persons
convicted of IPV-related crime or under a
restraining or protective order for IPV
4
4
Patient-centered approaches
Healthcare
Public Health
Education with tailored intervention for
specific risks such as reproductive coercion

Educationandscreeninginthecontextofother
preventionprograms(e.g.,homevisitation)

Treatment and support for survivors of IPV, including TDV
Healthcare
Community
Organizations
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) 2

Cognitive Trauma Therapy for Battered
Women (CTT-BW)
N/A3
N/A3
N/A3
1
This column refers to the lead sectors well positioned to bring leadership and resources to implementation efforts. For each
strategy, there are many other sectors such as non-governmental organizations that are instrumental to prevention planning
and implementing the specific programmatic activities.
2
This approach reduces risk for IPV victimization, but is also designed to provide support to survivors and mitigate consequences
of IPV.
3
The program is designed to lessen the harms of violence exposures (e.g., PTSD, depression, behavioral problems).
4
This approach has an impact on rates of lethal forms of IPV, namely homicide.

For more information
To learn more about preventing intimate partner violence,
call 1-800-CDC-INFO or visit CDC’s violence prevention
pages at www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention.
AK2017
TM

Preventing Intimate Partner Violence Across the Lifespan: A Technical Package of Programs, Policies, and Practices

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Preventing Intimate Partner Violence Across the Lifespan: A Technical Package of Programs, Policies, and Practices (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Preventing Intimate Partner Violence Across the Lifespan: A Technical Package of Programs, Policies, and Practices