Research Paper on Intimate Partner Violence: A Growing Public Health Concern

Introduction

Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) is a form of domestic violence to a current or former partner, which causes harm. IPV occurs in many households and institutions in America. In the military, for example, IPV is a growing public health concern in all branches such as the Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, Marine Corps, and Navy. IPV is linked to adverse health outcomes that result from the harm caused to victims. IPV can be in the form of physical, sexual, and psychological harm. In America, IPV is a problem that affects both men and women in the military. The military has distinctive psychological, social, and environmental factors, which increase the likelihood of IPV. Various causes of intimate partner violence include multiple deployments, family separation, substance abuse, mental illnesses, head trauma, and challenging workloads. Despite the growing public health issue, national programs to address the problem of IPV are scarce. In 2018, IPV was made a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (Shane, 2018). Prior to authorization of the Bill, IPV offenses were prosecuted under other regulations, which made the ability to track and monitor the issue of IPV problematic (Shane, 2018). The Department of Defense has been outspoken on the issue of IPV in the military. It is vital to comprehend the dynamics of IPV in the military because of the unique stressors, which military families face on a daily basis that put them at risk of the issue. The purpose of the paper is to discuss the definition, background, statistics, causes and risk factors, military culture, stigma, barriers to reporting, interventions, as well as the implications of IPV in the military.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Intimate Partner Violence, Defined

Powell, Marquez, and Perkins (2014) defined intimate partner violence as threats, attempts, or commission of the actual physical, sexual, and psychological harm by a spouse or former spouse. IPV can occur in same-sex or heterosexual couples (Powell et al., 2014). Furthermore, the Department of Defense (2017) outlined that spouse abuse occurs when either the offender or victim is an active member of the military or the civilian spouse of an active service member. The author indicted that in 2006, the term "intimate partner" was added in the cases of domestic violence in the military to refer to incidents that involve (1) a former spouse, (2) a person who shares a child with the victim, and (3) a current or former partner who lived together with the victim previously (Department of Defense, 2017). According to the Department of Defense policy, IPV involves physical, emotional, and sexual abuse as well as neglect (Department of Defense, 2017). Neglect is a form of IPV where a former spouse fails to provide assistance for their partner who is physically, emotionally, and culturally incapable of taking care of themselves (Department of Defense, 2017). Usually, cases of IPV are reported by the type of abuse on an individual victim. Before 2015, reporting was standardized as multiple incidents of IPV in the military were reported under one incident (Department of Defense, 2017).

Background of Intimate Partner Violence in the Military

Stamm (2009) articulated that in 1999, the television program, 60 minutes, aired a segment titled the war at home, which talked about domestic violence in the military. The reporter, Ed Bradley, analyzed reports from the Pentagon from 1992-1996 about domestic violence, before the term IPV was created (Stamm, 2009). The report established that domestic violence was 5 times higher in military families compared to civilian ones (Stamm, 2009). According to the report, the military ignored cases of domestic violence and only few perpetrators were held accountable (Stamm, 2009). After that report by 60 minutes, Congress stepped up and affirmed that the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) should establish a Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence (DTFDV) in 2000 to examine the cases of IPV in the military (Stamm, 2009). The role of the DTFDV was to direct the Department of Defense (DoD) on ways to improve IPV cases within the military and improve the DoDs response in areas such as safety plans for victims, accountability of offenders, and the prevention of IPV (Stamm, 2009).

The DTFDV task force released its first report on IPV within the military on February 26th, 2001 (Stamm, 2009). The report included information on domestic violence training, military collaboration with local communities, offender accountability, and safety of victims (2009). The goal of the report was to generate a substantial definition of domestic violence and give it to the DoD (Stamm, 2009). The second report, similar to the first report, was released on February 25th 2002 and included recommendations for improvement of the DoD and its response to domestic violence (Stamm, 2009). The third report, released in 2003, contained information about ways to improve the DoDs policies on IPV (Stamm, 2009). The report indicated that to address the issue of IPV in the military, the DoD must create a military culture that perceives domestic violence intolerable, holds offenders responsible for their actions, and provides victims of IPV with the assistance that they may need to help improve their health outcomes (Stamm, 2009).

Statistics of Intimate Partner Violence in The Military

Stamm (2009) asserted that the branch of the military with the highest rate of domestic violence is the Army, followed by the Marines, then the Navy, and finally the Air Force. In 2017, 8,069 cases of IPV were reported to the Family Advocacy Program (FAP) (Department of Defense, 2017). Slep, Foran, Heyman, Snarr, and U.S. Air Force Family Advocacy Program (2011) asserted that just as civilian IPV, the military members always keep cases of IPV private. Every year, the U.S armed service spends over $110 million on the FAP to track, prevent, and treat cases of IPV (Slep et al., 2011). In an anonymous study, the Army reported that few friends and coworkers know about their relationship problems and IPV, which make outreach and prevention strategies critical (Slep et al., 2011).

In the case of IPV in the military, physical abuse was the highest with 74.25%, emotional abuse was 21.99%, sexual abuse was 0.05%, and neglect was 3.72%. 62% of spouse abusers were males and 38% were females (Department of Defense, 2017). Regarding incidents of sexual abuse, 93% of offenders were males and 7% were female (Department of Defense, 2017). Concerning emotional abuse incidents, 75% of offenders were males and 25% female (Department of Defense, 2017). Concerning the issue of neglect, 62% of offenders were males and 38% were female while in physical abuse incidents, 60% of offenders were males and 40% female (Department of Defense, 2017).

Incidents of fatalities that resulted due to domestic violence in the military were reported to the FAP. The Department of Defense (2017) stated that in 2017, nine domestic abuse fatalities were reported to FAP. The fatalities were categorized into four spouse abuse fatalities, four intimate partner abuse fatalities, and one former spouse fatality (Department of Defense, 2017). The FAP were aware of four victims and five offenders (Department of Defense, 2017). In the domestic abuse fatality reports, eight offenders were male, and one was female (Department of Defense, 2017). Seven of the offenders were active duty military members and two of them were civilian ((Department of Defense, 2017). The IPV fatalities only show the number of reported deaths to the IDC after the death of the victim in 2017 and met the threshold for IPV ((Department of Defense, 2017).

Causes and Risk Factor of Intimate Partner Violence in the Military

Stamm (2009) indicated that IPV is prevalent in the military compared to civilians. The victims who are at more risk of IPV in the military are female, a civilian of an active duty service member (Stamm, 2009). On average, the victims of IPV in the military are always 25 years and below, are parents, and have been married for two years or less (Stamm, 2009).

Risk Factors and Causes

Risk factors of IPV can be categorized into individual, relationship, and community. Individual risk factors include young age, low income, substance abuse, low self-esteem, unemployment, and low academic achievement (Stamm, 2009). Relationship risk factors include dysfunctional family, desire for power and control, marital conflict, and anger towards the spouse (Stamm, 2009). The author added that the constant relocation of military members is a cause of IPV. When military members move from one place to another where they find people from different cultures and have different values, they are likely to isolate themselves from family members and support systems (Stamm, 2009). Furthermore, another risk factor is the deployment of military personnel. Upon the active military member's return from deployment, there may be a power struggle with the spouse who was left at home (Stamm, 2009). The author asserted that when an active service military member is deployed, the spouse left at home always assumes new responsibilities such as those to do with family finances (Stamm, 2009). When the active service military member returns from duty, the reversal of roles can be a major issue, which is likely to result in IPV (Stamm, 2009). Besides, the long separation may cause distrust among military families.

Trauma experienced by military members can be a likely risk factor of IPV. Tasso, Whitmarsh, and Ordway (2016) affirmed that Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) experienced by military personnel can reduce intimacy, child-rearing abilities, communication, and satisfaction, which are likely to fuel physical, sexual, and emotional abuse. The authors affirmed that a study examining PTSD in Vietnam war veterans and the prevalence of IPV found that military personnel with PTSD were more likely to be violent (Tasso et al., 2016). Other study results showed that veterans with PTSD had less relationship cohesiveness, little to no intimacy, had less emotional articulacy, and had relationships that had many conflicts.

Military Culture and Intimate Partner Violence

Cultural norms within the military create room for IPV. The military, just like any other career, has unique stressors on active duty members and their families. The military culture and their families share ethos, logos, and values. According to Sparrow, Kwan, Howard, Fear, and MacManus (2017), the military culture fosters a warrior ethos, which rewards physical and emotional competency and frowns upon weakness and timidity. According to the author, the military culture favors male strength and forbids weakness (Sparrow et al., 2017). The warrior culture is a likely risk factor for IPV. Considering statistics of IPV in the military, it is evident that the men are the highest perpetrators. Those statistics shed light on the warrior ethos culture created by the military where men feel the need to gain power, control, and dominance in the military. Women on the other hand, fear reporting because of the military culture, which prohibits weakness (Sparrow et al., 2017). Cultural factors such as rank, hierarchy, and combat affect romantic partnerships and illuminate experiences germane to IPV (Tasso et al., 2016).

Stigma and Barriers to Reporting associated with Intimate Partner Violence in the Military

Stigma

Stigma arises from the possession of a socially diminished individuality. A stigmatized identity is associated with shame. A majority of victims of IPV who face public stigma are males. Borden, Garrity, Gliske, Otto, and Richmond (2018) asserted that male IPV service members reduced their experiences to avoid the label of victim because of public stigma. According to the author, due to stigma, male v...