Intersections of Intimate Partner Violence and Violence against Children: Expert Perspectives on Improving Service Coordination in Kampala, Uganda

Evidence from International Men and Gender Equality Survey (IMAGES) Central Uganda and other studies show that intimate partner violence (IPV) and violence against children (VAC) frequently co-occur. Conducted in Kampala, Uganda, this qualitative study explores the intersection of IPV and VAC from the perspective of service providers, as opposed to the lay community, in order to understand perceptions about shared risk factors, common consequences, cycles of violence, and barriers and opportunities for collaboration.

Interviews were conducted with male and female service providers concerned with the prevention of or response to violence against women and/or violence against children in the Kampala metropolitan area. These key informants were purposively selected to represent various categories of actors in violence prevention and response, and included those working most closely with survivors of violence. Building on the Intersections Study conducted by Raising Voices, an interview guide was developed that included four vignettes (see Appendix A) depicting different scenarios in which IPV or VAC occur.

The service providers identified four themes of intersection between IPV and VAC:

1. Child neglect, occurring as a result of the breakdown of family functioning due to IPV, increases the likelihood of VAC within and outside the home.
2. Children witnessing IPV leads to greater likelihood of experiencing or perpetrating IPV as an adult.
3. Children are beaten for attempting to stop violence between their parents.
4. Mothers are beating children because they cannot retaliate against their violent partners.

Other select findings:

• Respondents discussed the underlying gender and social norms that contribute to both IPV and VAC, including negative masculinities, with links to financial and decision-making dominance and negative parenting models.
• Respondents identified multiple ways in which IPV and VAC are normalised (considered acceptable) in certain contexts, including within marriage and as part of parental rights and responsibilities when raising children. Both children and some service providers themselves seem to have internalised these norms and thus fail to identify experiences of violence as inappropriate.
• The major barrier to primary prevention of IPV and VAC identified by key informants was the difficulty of conducting participatory, transformative programmes that alter perceptions of the acceptability of violence and result in true normative change.
• When it comes to secondary prevention of and response to both IPV and VAC, according to key informants, a common norm that hampers response is the expectation that survivors remain silent, as violence is considered a family matter.
• Respondents suggested that establishing trust that institutions will respond to violence, improving police and court systems to hold perpetrators firmly to account, may encourage normative shifts in the acceptability of violence. In addition, strengthening social ties and informal community protection structures and engaging men as advocates against violence were identified as promising approaches to addressing both IPV and VAC.
• Community engagement in norm change interventions (such as the SASA! violence prevention methodology, which was developed and validated in Uganda by Raising Voices) was proposed as a promising strategy to reduce both IPV and VAC.
• To prevent IPV, specifically, the most common strategy endorsed by participants was economic empowerment of women; to prevent VAC, specifically, key informants most often recommended the implementation of activities meant to improve parenting skills.
• Despite the evident need for linkages between IPV and VAC services and respondents' awareness of the benefits of such collaboration, respondents experienced barriers such as: difficulty keeping track of what types of services different organisations provide, lack of trust and certainty related to the quality of services provided by other organisations, and challenges with case management and follow-up.

Key recommendations to improve service delivery for IPV and VAC prevention:

• Sustain social norms interventions over long periods of time, ensuring that they are intersectional and evidence-based, and that they not only change existing attitudes but also create new, positive attitudes and beliefs.
• Create awareness and sensitise service providers about the imbalances of gender and power that are root causes of sexual IPV and physical VAC.
• Improve linkages between services for survivors of IPV and VAC by broadening an individual organisation's mandate (creating internal linkages) and by creating external linkages between organisations working on the different types of violence. The success of linkages may depend on whether the organisations are focused on response or prevention, that there have adequate resources and capacity, and that the referral networks are trusted and vetted.