Veterans and Fatherhood: A Research Study Homeless Veteran Summit: Ending Homelessness Among Veteran - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Veterans and Fatherhood: A Research Study Homeless Veteran Summit: Ending Homelessness Among Veteran PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 251ce9-ZDc1Z



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Veterans and Fatherhood: A Research Study Homeless Veteran Summit: Ending Homelessness Among Veteran

Description:

Prison Population /Community Based Center/Halfway House ... More Engaged in One on One Activities. More Responsible and Involved in School. More Androgynous ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:36
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 34
Provided by: dickands
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Veterans and Fatherhood: A Research Study Homeless Veteran Summit: Ending Homelessness Among Veteran


1
Veterans and Fatherhood A Research Study
Homeless Veteran Summit Ending Homelessness
Among Veterans within Five years November 4,
2009 Washington, DC
  • Gary Dick, LISW, Ph.D.
  • University of Cincinnati, School of Social Work
  • Brad Schaffer, LMSW, BCD
  • VA Medical Center

2
Overview of the Study
  • Collaboration between the VA and the University
    of Cincinnati, School of Social Work
  • Purpose of the study Explore veterans
    relationships with their fathers

3
Homeless Program History
  • The VA has been addressing the needs of the
    homeless veteran population since the advent of
    Public Law 100-6 in 1987, which authorized
    appropriations to support clinical teams to
    conduct outreach to homeless veterans and with
    community providers.

4
VA National IPV Program Profile
  • Pittsburgh, PA 1st Batterers Program 1990
    1999
  • Buffalo, NY 26 week IPV program. Boston
    University and Boston VA IPV/PTSD Study
    underway.
  • Albuquerque, NM 16 Week Model
  • West L.A., CA Vet Center 12 52 Week Model
  • Tacoma, WA Vet Center Sampling Study
  • Cincinnati, OH 13 Week Model (Approved by the
    Ohio Dept. of Corrections for Reentry)
  • Note Only 4 active IPV programs within VA!

5
Background of the Problem
  • 33 of the homeless adults in the United States
    are veterans (U.S. Dept. of Veteran Affairs,
    2009)
  • 131,000 homeless veterans on any given night
  • 262,000 homeless veterans over the course a year,
    as many as 500,00 veterans experience
    homelessness
  • Most homeless veterans face multiple problems
    that require social work services including IPV
    treatment needs
  • 45 suffer from mental health issues 70 drugs
    alcohol problems
  • The majority of homeless veterans are high school
    graduates (85) and that nearly half (46) served
    in Vietnam
  • Nearly 15 of the Federal Prison population
    12.4 of the state prison population are
    veterans and ODRC estimate veterans at 8

6
Background of the Problem
  • 33 of Vietnam veterans with PTSD had assaulted
    their partners in the previous year, while the
    rates for veterans without PTSD was about 15
    (Jordan, Marmar, Fairbank, Schlenger, Kulka,
    Hough, et al., 1992)
  • 63 of veterans seeking treatment for PTSD, had
    displayed aggression toward their intimate
    partners within the previous year compared to 23
    of a non-PTSD sample
  • We have no knowledge on the types of
    relationships veterans had with their fathers.

7

Purpose of the Research
  • The purpose of this descriptive study is to
    determine
  • the type of relationships veterans perceived they
    had
  • with their fathers growing up.

8
Research Questions
  • What kinds of relationships did veterans have
    with their fathers while growing up?
  • What are the rates of intimate partner violence
    in a homeless and incarcerated veteran
    population?
  • Do violent veterans have a different type of
    relationship with their fathers than non-violent
    veterans?
  • What are the predictors of father involvement?

9
Sample
  • Subjects N 190
  • Gender 96 Male 4 Female
  • Age M 47.8, SD 9.34
  • Age Range 21 80
  • Marital Status
  • Divorced 52.9
  • Never Married 27.9
  • Separated 9.5
  • Married 5.8
  • Widowed 3.2

10
Demographic Data
  • Ethnicity
  • Caucasian 45
  • African America 39
  • Hispanic 9
  • Native American 2
  • Education
  • Less than High School 3
  • High School 32
  • GED 12
  • Vocational 10
  • College 35
  • Graduate 6
  • Identify with Religion 68
  • Regularly Attend Services 32
  • Convicted of DV 25
  • Employed 10
  • Length of Employment
  • M 3.8 Years, SD 5.75
  • Parents Divorced 54
  • Age _at_ Divorce M 9.8, SD 7.9

11
Demographics
  • Close relationship with the father 34
  • Always lived with biological father 43
  • Other father figure
  • Step-Father 32
  • No Father Figure Around 26
  • Adopted Father 10
  • Grandfather 12
  • Other 18
  • Fathers Born In 22 Different States
  • 39 Ohio
  • 15 KY
  • 7 AL
  • 5 GA
  • 3 NY
  • Fathers level of education
  • High School 42
  • Grade School 19
  • College 17
  • Graduate 9
  • GED 5
  • Vocational 4

12
Branch of Service
  • Army 50.8
  • Navy 24.6
  • Marines 14.2
  • Air Force 9.3
  • Coast Guard .5

13
Types of Fathering
14
Types of Fathering Veterans Reported
  • Never or Rarely
  • Often or Always
  • 71 Helped homework
  • 82 Read to me as a child
  • 62 Showed interest in school work
  • 64 Talked personal problems
  • 59 Took on activities
  • 59 Told they were loved
  • 60 Hugged me
  • 65 Comforted me
  • 45 My father was loving to me
  • 49 Felt close to father in childhood
  • 60 Did things together as a teen
  • 70 Went to church with me
  • 66 Remember playing sports Dad
  • 71 Help Mom clean house
  • 17 Took to Dr.
  • 34 Told father I love you
  • 16 Praised
  • 16 Attended school activities
  • 14 Talked to me about God
  • 24 Understands me
  • 33 Taught me to be a man
  • 32 Shouted if I did something
  • 10 Talked to me about sex
  • 11 Abused by father
  • 13 When I was angry talk things out
  • 24 Made me feel special
  • 18 Went to church
  • 23 Spanked me

15
There Were No Significant Differences on any
Measure of Fatherhood Between the Violent and
Non-Violent Group
16
Domestic Violence
  • Total DV Score M 3.7, SD .666
  • Physical Abuse M 1.7, SD .331
  • Emotional Abuse M 2.0, SD .346
  • Domestic Violence Screen Scores Range 1- 15
  • Physical Abuse Scores Range 1-7
  • Emotional Abuse Scores Range 1-8
  • Alpha Level DV Screen .92
  • Physical Subscale .89
  • Emotional Subscale .84

17
Types of Domestic Violence
  • Called Names 43
  • Insulted 39
  • Screamed 37
  • Neg. Comment 34
  • DV in Past 33
  • Slapped 27
  • Pushed 27
  • Hit Partner 25
  • Threaten Suicide 20
  • Squeezed Neck 17
  • Choked 15
  • Thrown 15
  • Pulled Hair 13
  • Abused Pet 11
  • Weapon 9
  • Forced Sex 7

18
Prison Population /Community Based Center/Halfway
House Types of Fathering Based On Whether or Not
They Always Lived with Their Father Significant
Differences on all 9 measures of Fatherhood
  • Positive Engagement
  • Positive Emotional
  • Responsiveness
  • Responsible Fathering
  • Negative Involvement
  • Assessable Father
  • Gender Role Model
  • Good Provider Role
  • Moral Father Role
  • Androgynous Role

19
Characteristics of Men Who Always Lived with
Their Father
  • Fathers were….
  • More nurturing
  • More Engaged in One on One Activities
  • More Responsible and Involved in School
  • More Androgynous
  • Less Abusive
  • More a Moral Leader in the Family
  • More assessable and available
  • More of a male role model

20
Characteristics of Men Who Were Close to Their
Fathers Vs Those Whose Fathers Were Not Around
  • Findings Significant Differences on 8 measures
    of Fatherhood
  • The only exception was negative/abusive fathering

21
Educational Level of Fathers
  • There were two significant difference between
    fathers with a grade school education and a
    college education
  • College educated fathers enacted the moral father
    role at a higher level
  • Were viewed as more of a male role model

22
Fathering Negative Father Involvement T-Tests
  • The men with negatively involved fathers were
    more likely to have been……..
  • Psychiatrically Hospitalized
  • Depressed
  • Suicidal Thoughts
  • Taken Prescribed Psychotropic Medication

23
Predicting Father Involvement
24
Variables in the Equation
25
(No Transcript)
26
Findings
  • Predicting Intimate Partner Violence with 6
    variables in the model
  • Serious mental health issues
  • Depression
  • Suicidal thoughts
  • Attempted suicide
  • Raised by the biological father
  • Did they live with the father while growing up
  • Correctly classified 79 into the right group
    83 into the non-violent
  • group and 74 into the violence group.

27
Findings
  • The differences in the type of fathering was
    related to the
  • perceived closeness in the relationship on the
    following aspects
  • of fatherhood
  • Entire Fatherhood Scale
  • Nurturing
  • Positive Engagement
  • Moral Father Role
  • Gender Role Model
  • Androgynous Role
  • Responsible Fathering
  • Assessable Father

28
Findings
  • The differences in the type of fathering was
    related to whether
  • they lived with their father while growing up on
    the following
  • 3 aspects of fatherhood
  • Entire Fatherhood Scale
  • Nurturing
  • Gender Role Model

29
Findings
  • The differences in the type of fathering was
    related to whether
  • they were raised by their biological father while
    growing up all
  • measures of fatherhood
  • Entire Fatherhood Scale
  • Nurturing
  • Positive Engagement
  • Gender Role Model
  • Negative Father Involvement
  • Moral Father Role
  • Gender Role Model
  • Androgynous Role
  • Responsible Fathering
  • Assessable Father

30
Findings
  • There were no differences in the type of
    fathering based on parental divorce.
  • The only statistical significant difference (SSD)
    in fathering between a step-father and an adopted
    father was negative fathering. Step-fathers
    scored higher on negative involvement.
  • There were not (SSDs) between step-fathers and
    grandfathers.
  • Majority of the fathers had a high school
    education 42.
  • There was a (SSD) between fathers with less than
    a high school education and those with a college
    education on Entire Fatherhood Scale, Moral
    Father Role, Gender Role Model, and Responsible
    Fathering.
  • The only (SSD) between fathers with a high school
    education and graduate education was negative
    fathering.

31
Findings
  • Predictors of father involvement
  • Logistic regression predicted correctly 85 of
    the men who had high father involvement into the
    correct group.
  • Logistic regression predicted correctly 67 of
    the men who had low father involvement into the
    correct group.
  • The most significant variable in the equation was
    the perceived closeness to the father

32
Implications for Practice
  • Include a one session component in batterers
    treatment groups on fathering.
  • Develop an extended batterers treatment 6 week
    group on fathering with 5 goals
  • A focus on increasing self-awareness of mens
    relationships with their own fathers
  • Help them self-evaluate the positive they got our
    of their fathers fathering, as well as what they
    missed
  • Increase empathy for their own abuse or paternal
    deprivation
  • Explore how their behavior impacts their children
  • Help them construct a positive paternal identity.

33
Some Group Interventions
  • Introduce their fathers to the group via Gestalt
    Exercise
  • Use the Fatherhood Scale
  • Write a letter to their father about what they
    got or needed but didnt get
  • Write a letter to their children
  • Write a mission statement for the ideal father
    role
  • Bring a picture of them and their father to group
  • Do an affirmation exercise (one group member sits
    in a chair, the others quietly whisper something
    every child longs to hear (Example I am so proud
    of you, Daddy loves you).
About PowerShow.com