Kate Cavanagh

Bio: Kate Cavanagh is an academic researcher from University of Stirling. The author has contributed to research in topics: Poison control & Social work. The author has an hindex of 14, co-authored 21 publications receiving 972 citations.

Changing Violent Men

Abstract: Changing Violent Men is based on the evaluation of British criminal justice responses and treatment programmes for men who use violence against a woman partner. Court enforced abuser programmes are compared with more traditional sanctions such as fines and probation. Qualitative and quantitative data are used to delineate patterns of personal change and to allow the men and women involved to speak about their lives and the impact of criminal justice interventions upon them.

Lethal and Nonlethal Violence Against an Intimate Female Partner Comparing Male Murderers to Nonlethal Abusers

Abstract: Men's lethal and nonlethal violence against an intimate female partner are compared. Various risk factors are examined to compare men's lethal and nonlethal violence against an intimate woman partner. Relative to abusers, men who kill are generally more conventional with respect to childhood backgrounds, education, employment, and criminal careers, are more likely to be possessive and jealous, and are more likely to be separated from their partner at the time of the event. Men who kill are more likely to have used violence against a previous partner, to have sexually assaulted and strangled the victim, and to have used a weapon or instrument. However, they were less likely to have been drunk at the time of the event and/or to have previously used violence against the woman they killed. Overall, the findings do not support the notion of a simple progression from nonlethal to lethal violence and raise some dilemmas for the growing area of risk assessment.

Law's Progressive Potential: The Value of Engagement with the Law for Domestic Violence:

Abstract: Can the law be usefully employed to help women who experience domestic violence achieve 'justice'? This question has been at the heart of debates about domestic violence over the last few decades. In this paper, we review the positions of those who cautiously welcome engagement with the law - 'feminist realists', arrest studies researchers, 'sceptical reformers' and rehabilitation proponents - and those who see no value in legal intervention - 'abstentionists' and 'community justice' proponents. We argue that such pessimism is both theoretically misguided and empirically unsubstantiated and reflects the lack of cross-fertilization amongst writers from these various positions. In contrast to traditional research in this area, we argue that effective contributions to debates should address both women's and men's experiences of the justice system, should examine the process as well as outcome of legal intervention and should recognise women as survivors engaged in a process of 'active negotiation and strateg...

“Out of the Blue” Men Who Murder an Intimate Partner

Abstract: It came “out of the blue” is often said when a man with no known history of criminality kills his intimate partner. This reflects a belief that a “conventional man” without a criminogenic past or a...

Interventions for Violence Against Women: Scientific Review

Abstract: ContextIntimate partner violence is prevalent and is associated with significant impairment, yet it remains unclear which interventions, if any, reduce rates of abuse and reabuse.ObjectiveTo systematically review, from the perspective of primary health care, the available evidence on interventions aimed at preventing abuse or reabuse of women.Data SourcesMEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, HealthStar, and Sociological Abstracts were searched from the database start dates to March 2001 using database-specific key words such as domestic violence, spouse abuse, partner abuse, shelters, and battered women. References of key articles were hand searched. The search was updated in December 2002.Study SelectionBoth authors reviewed all titles and abstracts using established inclusion/exclusion criteria. Twenty-two articles met the inclusion criteria for critical appraisal.Data ExtractionFollowing the evidence-based methods of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, both authors independently reviewed the 22 included studies using an established hierarchy of study designs and criteria for rating internal validity. Quality ratings of individual studies—good, fair, or poor—were determined based on a set of operational parameters specific to each design category developed with the US Preventive Services Task Force.Data SynthesisScreening instruments exist that can identify women who are experiencing intimate partner violence. No study has examined, in a comparative design, the effectiveness of screening when the end point is improved outcomes for women (as opposed to identification of abuse). No high-quality evidence exists to evaluate the effectiveness of shelter stays to reduce violence. Among women who have spent at least 1 night in a shelter, there is fair evidence that those who received a specific program of advocacy and counseling services reported a decreased rate of reabuse and an improved quality of life. The benefits of several other intervention strategies in treating both women and men are unclear, primarily because of a lack of suitably designed research measuring appropriate outcomes. In most cases, the potential harms of interventions are not assessed within the studies reviewed.ConclusionsMuch has been learned in recent years about the epidemiology of violence against women, yet information about evidence-based approaches in the primary care setting for preventing intimate partner violence is seriously lacking. The evaluation of interventions to improve the health and well-being of abused women remains a key research priority.

Women's Violence to Men in Intimate Relationships Working on a Puzzle

Abstract: Different notions among researchers about the nature of intimate partner violence have long been the subjects of popular and academic debate. Research findings are contradictory and point in two directions, with some revealing that women are as likely as men to perpetrate violence against an intimate partner (symmetry) and others showing that it is overwhelmingly men who perpetrate violence against women partners (asymmetry). The puzzle about who perpetrates intimate partner violence not only concerns researchers but also policy makers and community advocates who, in differing ways, have a stake in the answer to this question, since it shapes the focus of public concern, legislation, public policy and interventions for victims and offenders. The question of who are the most usual victims and perpetrators rests, to a large extent, on ‘what counts’ as violence. It is here that we begin to try to unravel the puzzle, by focusing on concept formation, definitions, forms of measurement, context, consequences and approaches to claim-making, in order better to understand how researchers have arrived at such apparently contradictory findings and claims. The question also turns on having more detailed knowledge about the nature, extent and consequences of women’s violence, in order to consider the veracity of these contradictory findings. To date, there has been very little in-depth research about women’s violence to male partners and it is difficult, if not impossible, to consider this debate without such knowledge. We present quantitative and qualitative findings from 190 interviews with 95 couples in which men and women reported separately upon their own violence and upon that of their partner. Men’s and women’s violence are compared. The findings suggest that intimate partner violence is primarily an asymmetrical problem of men’s violence to women, and women’s violence does not equate to men’s in terms of frequency, severity, consequences and the victim’s sense of safety and well-being. But why bother about the apparent contradictions in findings of research? For those making and implementing policies and expending public and private resources, the apparent contradiction about the very nature of this problem has real consequences for what might be done for those who are its victims and those who * Russell P. Dobash is Professor of Criminology and Rebecca Emerson Dobash is Professor of Social Research at the University of Manchester. They have been researching violence against women since the 1970s and have co-authored several books, numerous government reports and scores of articles on the subject. Their books include Violence against Wives (1979), The Imprisonment of Women (1986), Women Viewing Violence (1992), Women, Violence and Social Change (1992), Penal Theory and Penal Practice: Traditions and Innovations (1994), Gender and Crime (1995), Rethinking Violence Against Women (1999) and Changing Violent Men (2000). They have won the World Congress of Victimology Award for Original Research and Publications in the area of Domestic Violence, the American Society of Criminology’s Distinguished Book Award for Comparative Research and the August Vollmer Award. The main focus of their research is violence and the policies and interventions relating to it. Specific studies include the areas of violence against women; convicted child sex abusers; evaluation of criminal justice-based treatment programmes for violent men; bodybuilding, steroids and violence; men’s and women’s responses to televised violence and the first national study of Homicide in Britain. They have held research grants and/or fellowships from the Carnegie Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Fulbright Foundation, the Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation, the Economic and Social Research Council, the Home Office, the Scottish Office and other government departments. They have served as research and policy advisors to various government agencies in Britain,