Citation

Rizo CF, Van Deinse T, Durant S, Lopez QS, Mason A, Ryan P. J. Fam. Violence 2022; 37(1): 23-41.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2022, Holtzbrinck Springer Nature Publishing Group)

DOI

10.1007/s10896-021-00257-6

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Co-located models to address intimate partner violence and sexual violence, such as Family Justice Centers (FJC) and Multi-Agency Model Centers (MAMC), have emerged as promising practices to meet the needs of survivors. Although implementation of FJCs and MAMCs is widespread and supported by a recent increase in funding, little is known about the effectiveness of these models. This systematic review synthesizes and critically analyzes the peer-reviewed and grey literature focused on evaluating FJCs and MAMCs in the United States. A systematic search of terms pertaining to intimate partner violence, sexual violence, and co-located models was conducted using 11 computerized article databases and 15 center and organization websites. Thirteen studies were included in the final sample, most of which were government or agency-initiated reports. Over half of the studies were process evaluations and four were outcome evaluations. Of the outcome evaluations, none included a comparison group and two used a longitudinal design. Overall, the studies largely focused on organizational outcomes as opposed to survivor outcomes. Despite the lack of information pertaining to survivor outcomes, study findings indicated a high degree of provider and survivor satisfaction with co-located models. Although the research on co-located models - such as FJCs and MAMCs - is growing, evidence about the models' impact on survivor outcomes related to safety and well-being is inconclusive. Using methodologically rigorous approaches to evaluation design and data analysis, future research should focus on exploring the relationship between coordination, collaboration, and survivor outcomes.

Language: en

Keywords

Co-location; Evaluation; Family justice center; Intimate partner violence; Sexual violence; Systematic review