ABSTRACT
Domestic and community violence are two pervasive societal issues. While research indicates significant connections between these forms of violence, detailed exploration of their co-occurrence and specific characteristics within intervention and prevention programs remains lacking. Understanding these complex interactions is crucial, as many programs are not designed to address the diverse manifestations of violence simultaneously. They often focus on one type, potentially overlooking the broader spectrum of violence that individuals might experience or contribute to. This study aims to illuminate the frequency and nature of these violence types within the context of intervention efforts. To bridge this gap, we engaged in a systematic, secondary analysis, delving into 1,943 conflicts documented across 25 CeaseFire program sites in Chicago between 2000 and 2015. Data included information from mediation forms regularly completed by CeaseFire staff post-mediation. Our primary focus encompassed a content analysis of these cases to establish a baseline occurrence of domestic violence within violence mediations. Subsequently, we probed the prevalence and intricate interplay between community and domestic violence, exploring potential bidirectional influences. Of the 1,943 conflicts mediated among program sites in Chicago, 151 conflicts displayed signs of interconnection with community violence, falling into the categories of retaliation or intervention. In summation, the findings underscore the entwined nature of domestic and community violence, often transitioning from one form (primarily domestic) to another (typically community-based) in the form of escalating retaliatory behaviors. Violence prevention and intervention endeavors must consider the plausible escalation patterns stemming from interconnected violence forms, significantly shaping mediation strategies.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the CeaseFire program who granted our research team permission to use their data to conduct our analysis. We also acknowledge the assistance of Mark Aber PhD., Nathan R. Todd PhD, Julian Rappaport PhD, Nkechinyelum Chioneso PhD., Hope Holland BS., Brett Boeh BS., Jessica J. Fitts BS., Colleen Vaughan BS., Danyelle N. Dawson BS., and Jacqueline Yi BS for their critiques and contributions to the development of this manuscript.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Ethical standards and informed consent
This study involved a secondary data analysis of CeaseFire’s program data and was deemed exempt from further ethical review by the University of Illinois Champaign Urbana Institutional Review Board.