Recorded presentation

Catherine A. Taylor, MSW, MPH, PhD, School of Social Work, Columbia University, 1255 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 10027, 212-851-2418, ct2125@columbia.edu and Susan B. Sorenson, PhD, School of Public Health, Community Health Sciences Dept, University of California Los Angeles, Box 951772, Violence Prevention Research Group, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1772.

Purpose: To assess and examine community-based judgments about the involvement of child protection in cases of intimate partner violence (IPV). Methods: An RDD survey was conducted with over-sampling for specific ethnic groups (n=3,679). An experimental vignette design was used to assess normative judgments about the involvement of child protection in cases of IPV and to examine the influence of IPV contextual factors on these judgments. Each subject responded to two vignettes that had a “child in the other room” while the IPV was occurring (vignette n = 7,358). Frequencies, bivariate analyses and multivariate logistic regressions were conducted. Regression equations controlled for all vignette variables and respondent characteristics simultaneously and accounted for non-independence of the vignettes. Results: In 70% of the cases, respondents thought a social worker should be called. Of the nine types of abuse examined, support for involving child protection was lowest when the IPV was psychological in nature (62-63%), higher when the abuse involved threats, coercion, and minor physical abuse (68-72%), and highest when the IPV involved rape or serious physical abuse (76-81%). The odds of supporting social work intervention were also higher when the IPV occurred between gay men, involved weapons, or had occurred multiple times. Respondent gender and ethnicity were also associated with judgments: men (vs. women) and Vietnamese Americans (vs. whites) had lower odds of thinking social workers should be called. Conclusions: Support for involving child protection in IPV cases is high, and increases with severity of the abuse, involvement of weapons, and multiple incidents.

Learning Objectives:

• Describe the level of support in a community-based sample for involving child protection in intimate partner violence (IPV) cases.
• List the contextual factors of IPV that influenced judgments about involving social workers, when children were in the other room during the incident.
• Name two respondent characteristics associated with lowered odds of thinking social workers should be called in IPV cases.

Keywords: Violence Prevention, Social Work

Presenting author's disclosure statement:
I do not have any significant financial interest/arrangement or affiliation with any organization/institution whose products or services are being discussed in this session.

Recorded presentation