Download Women Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence: Risk Factors and Characteristics and more Exams Literature in PDF only on Docsity!
__________ (^) Research Report _________ A Profile of Female Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence: Implications for Treatment Ce rapport est également disponible en français. This report is also available in French. Pour obtenir des exemplaires supplémentaires, veuillez vous adresser à la Direction de la recherche, Service correctionnel du Canada, 340, avenue Laurier ouest, Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 0P9. Should additional copies be required, they can be obtained from the Research Branch, Correctional Service of Canada, 340 Laurier Ave., West, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0P9. 2008 N° R- 175
A Profile of Female Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence: Implications for Treatment Natalie Gabora, Lynn Stewart, Kelly Lilley & Nicole Allegri Correctional Operations and Programs Correctional Service Canada November 2007
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................iii TABLE OF CONTENTS......................................................................................................... iv
INTRODUCTION
Historically, domestic violence has been conceptualized as male violence against female partners, and social, political and research attention on the perpetration of domestic violence has focused on male offenders. There has been a strong social and political bias against viewing females as perpetrators of abuse and violence, based on concern that attention would be diverted from the more serious problem of male-to-female violence (Koonin, Cabarcas & Geffner, 2002; Mills, 2003). Accordingly, there has been very little discussion about women perpetrators of intimate partner violence and very little attention on developing effective interventions for these women offenders. Despite high prevalence rates, violence in lesbian relationships in particular has received very little consideration (Mills, 2003; Worcester, 2002). Over the years, more than 30 surveys have found approximately equal rates of intimate violence perpetrated by men and women (Currie, 1998). A recent large-scale Canadian survey supports these findings, with 8% of women and 7% of men reporting having been victimized in the previous five-year period by their partner (Johnson & Hotton, 2001). In contrast, a second set of researchers has provided evidence to suggest that while female-to-male intimate violence exists, it only represents about 5% of all domestic violence cases (Dobash & Dobash, 2000; Pagelow, 1992). Johnson (1995) argues that the different rates of violence described by these two research traditions arise because they are sampling different, largely non-overlapping populations, experiencing distinct forms of violence. Common couple violence , which is relatively gender balanced, is tapped by the survey research methodology, while patriarchal terrorism , which involves men’s terroristic attacks on their female partners, is tapped by research from the criminal justice system or other social agencies such as shelters. A recent meta-analysis (Archer,
- found gender differences in the severity of violence and supported the view that studies examining acts of violence will get different results than those investigating consequences of violence. In this meta-analysis, Archer (2000) found that women were slightly more likely than men to report using physical aggression in intimate relationships and to use such aggression more frequently. However, men were more likely to inflict an injury than women. The Context of Women’s Violence Against Intimate Partners The interpersonal context and motives of women who use violence against their partners are not particularly well understood. Many studies indicate that the majority of women are
violent in the context of violence against them by their male partners. For instance, Saunders (1986) determined the vast majority of violence used by battered women against their partners was motivated by self-defence or fighting back when their partners were abusing them. Similar findings were obtained even with women who had been arrested for intimate partner violence (Hamberger & Polente, 1994; Henning, Jones & Holdford, 2003). These researchers concluded that women perpetrators of domestic violence differ from male offenders, whose violence is more often related to power and control issues or concerns about abandonment. Nevertheless, the finding that women are more likely to use physical violence exclusively out of retaliation or self-defence has not been supported by all research studies. For example, some research has found that women initiate violence as often as men (Stets & Straus, 1990), and that their violence is not predominately a response to violence by male partners, at least not in the case of minor assaults (Morse, 1995). Hamberger and Guse (2002) found that both women court-ordered to attend counselling for domestic violence and women in a shelter were more likely to report feeling intense fear and to call the police when their partners initiated violence than men who were court-ordered to attend counselling; in comparison, men more often laughed at their partner's violence. Court- ordered men and women appeared similar in the expressed violence, violence frequency and injurious outcome. However, the men exhibited more dominating and controlling behaviours than court-ordered women or women seeking shelter services, suggesting that even when women use violence, men are more likely to initiate and control the dynamics of violence. Similarly, Swan and Snow (2002) found that male aggressors were more coercively controlling than female aggressors. In comparison to the women, the male partners committed more of the following classic battering behaviours: sexual coercion, coercive control, injury, and severe physical violence. Harned (2001) found that women and men reported comparable amounts of violence from heterosexual and homosexual dating partners, although the type of violence was different. Women were more likely to experience sexual victimization, whereas men were more often the victims of psychological aggression. Rates of physical violence were similar across genders, although the impact of such violence was more severe for women. Interestingly, the study indicated that men and women were equally likely to use physical violence for self-defensive purposes.
While some studies suggest that violence in lesbian relationships shares many of the same risk factors and correlates of male-to-female intimate violence (Glass, Koziol-McLain, Campbell and Block, 2004; Renzetti, 1992), there is an absence of literature comparing women who are violent against female partners with women who are violent against male partners. It is recognized that perpetrators of domestic violence are not a homogeneous group and several typologies of women offenders have been proposed recently (Johnson, 2000; Swan & Snow, 2002). Babcock, Miller and Siard (2003) offered a typology based on the breadth of perpetrators’ use of violence: partner-only violent women are exclusively violent to their intimate partner, while generally violent women use violence both within and outside of intimate relationships. Half of the 52 women perpetrators of heterosexual and lesbian-partner violence in their study were classified as partner-only violent and half were classified as generally violent. In comparison to the partner-only women, generally violent women were more violent toward their partner, were motivated by a desire to control their partner, were more emotionally abusive, and externalized more blame for their violence. Further, their violence was more instrumental and used in a greater variety of situations. Generally violent women reported more trauma symptoms (e.g., nightmares, dissociation) than partner-only violent women, but they did not report a more severe abuse history, neither in childhood nor in their relationships with their partners. Generally violent women reported more psychological problems and more extensive criminal histories. Developmentally, generally violent women were more likely than partner- only violent women to witness their mother being violent toward their father, suggesting that they were socialized that it is acceptable for women to use violence against intimates.
CURRENT STUDY
Research to date has provided a preliminary insight into the issue of female relationship violence. Our review of the literature revealed a paucity of programs for women offenders of domestic violence that are based on theoretical and treatment models developed specifically for women offenders taking into account the unique motives and dynamics of women’s violence (for an exception, see Koonin, Cabarcas & Geffner, 2002). The current study aims to investigate the existence and nature of relationship violence by federally sentenced women offenders in Canada and to suggest appropriate areas for intervention. Research Questions
1. What demographic, offence-related, and risk/need characteristics describe women who _are perpetrators of intimate partner violence?
- What is the context surrounding women’s use of violence in intimate relationships?
- What are the consequences of women’s acts of violence for the victim?
- What are women’s motives for behaving violently towards a partner?
- What are indicators of risk for intimate partner violence among women offenders and do_ they differ from indicators for such violence reported by male offenders? METHODOLOGY Population The population under study included all women offenders under federal supervision in September 2002 who had a history of violence in intimate relationships during a current and/or prior sentence. This group was used to generate a descriptive profile of women who were violent against intimate partners. From this population, a random sample of 58 women was selected to examine the contextual factors, motives, and consequences of their violence. The sample was representative of the population of federally sentenced women who had a history of violence against an intimate partner on such variables as age, sentence length, and overall risk. Data Extraction Within the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC), offenders are assessed through an Offender Intake Assessment (OIA) process during the first weeks of their incarceration to identify static and dynamic factors that affect their criminal behaviour and subsequently their
RESULTS
Profile of Female Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence Demographic s In September 2002, 897 women were serving a federal sentence in Canada. Of these, 15.1% ( N =135) had a history of violence against an intimate partner(s). Their ages ranged from 20 to 71, with a mean age of 37 years. Seventy percent had completed at least a grade 10 level of education. The most common current marital status was single (38.3%), followed by common law (33.6%). A large percentage of the women in the sample (43.6%) was Aboriginal; 48.9% were Caucasian. Current Offence Sixteen of the 135 women (11.9%) were serving life sentences; for those serving determinate sentences the mean sentence length was 3.29 years. Over half of the women (58.5%) were convicted of at least one violent offence. The most common offence category was homicide (27.4%), followed by traffic/import drugs (24.4%) and robbery (19.3%). The majority (60.7%) were incarcerated, while the remainder was being supervised in the community. Risk/Need A majority of the women were identified at intake as posing a moderate risk (56.0%), showing moderate motivation to address the factors associated with their criminal pattern (51.1%), and as having high needs related to their criminal behaviour (52.2%). The women were most commonly rated at intake as having a high reintegration potential (38.3%). As shown in Table 1, a majority of the women were assessed at intake as not having a problem in the community functioning and attitude domains. Most frequently, the women were assessed as having some /considerable difficulty with employment, associates/social interaction, marital/family background, personal/emotional orientation, and substance abuse. Table 1. Assessment of Perpetrators’ Needs at Intake ( N = 134) Domain Asset/ No difficulty Some / Considerable Difficulty Community Functioning 69.4% 30.6% Attitude 67.9% 32.1% Employment 26.9% 73.1% Social Interaction 35.8% 64.2% Marital / Family 19.4% 80.6% Personal/ Emotional 5.2% 94.8% Substance Abuse 11.2% 88.8%
Context Surrounding Women’s Violence Childhood Victimization An in-depth review of the files for 58 women identified as perpetrators of intimate partner violence revealed considerable abuse during their childhood/adolescence: 76% had experienced emotional abuse and 77.2% had experienced physical abuse. The abuse was most often committed by someone other than a family member (64.1%), although 50% had been abused by their mothers, 31% by their fathers, and 44.4% by another family member(s). Most (70.6%) experienced their first episode of abuse between the ages of 5 and 15 years, although about 20% were under 5 years of age when they were first assaulted. The abuse was considered long-term or severe for more than three quarters of the women (78.4%). Intimate Relationships Most of the women (70.8%) had only been involved in heterosexual intimate relationships, while 6.9% had only been involved in same-sex relationships; almost one-quarter (22.4%) had been involved in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships. The average length of intimate relationships was more than five years for half of the women. Violence perpetrated by the women offenders and their partners is profiled in Table 2. Most of the women (72.5%) were violent in some of their intimate relationships. The women perpetrators were most likely to have also been victims in some of their intimate relationships (59.6%); only 5.3% of the women had never experienced violence by an intimate partner. For 63% of the women, the violence was reported to be long-term or severe. Table 2. Violence Perpetrated by the Women and by their Partners Proportion of Intimate Relationships Percentage of Perpetrators Percentage of Perpetrators Who Were Also Victims None 5.3% Some (a minority) 72.5% 59.6% Most (a majority) 13.7% 17.5% All 13.7% 17.5% Note. n = 58.
revenge/retaliation, two were related to instrumental violence, one was related to self-defence, and the motive was unknown for one case. Table 4. Motives for Offenders’ Relationship Violence^1 Motive Most Incidents ( n = 39) At Least One Incident Mutual violence/combat 2 59.0% 81.6% ( n =49) Primary perpetration 3 1 5.4% 63.9% ( n =36) Revenge/retaliation 4 7.7% 37.9% ( n =29) Instrumental purposes^5 7.7% 31.6% ( n =38) Fear of further control/abuse by partner^6 5.1% 19.4% ( n =31) Self-defence 7 5.1% 18.2% ( n =33) Defence of children 8 0% 2.4% ( n =42) Contributing Factors Factors contributing to the offenders’ perpetration of intimate partner violence in at least one incident are listed in Table 5. As shown, physical/sexual victimization and emotional abuse by the victim contributed to at least one incident of violence for the overwhelming majority of offenders. Table 5. Factors Contributing to the Offenders’ Intimate Partner Violence Contributing Factors Percentage of Offenders Physically/sexually abused by victim 84.3% ( n =51) Emotionally abused by victim 84.3% ( n =51) Alcohol abuse 66.7% ( n =39) Drug abuse 54.3% ( n =35) Financial issues 31.4% ( n =35) Jealousy 26.9% ( n =26) Child discipline/custody 2.5% ( n =40) (^1) The motive for the violence could not be determined from file documentation for a number of the cases. (^2) Both partners have been violent. (^3) No evidence that her intimate partner perpetrated violence towards her. (^4) Offender was violent to punish partner or gain revenge for a perceived or actual wrong. (^5) Violence was instrumental in achieving some other goal (e.g., insurance, desire to establish relationship with new partner, robbery). (^6) Fear not of immediate harm, but of future continuation of harm. (^7) Offender believed that if she did not defend herself she would become a victim of immediate harm. (^8) Belief that if she did not defend her child(ren), they would become the victim(s) of immediate harm.
Indicators of Risk of Intimate Partner Violence Results of the SARA for the sample of 58 women offenders are presented in Table 6. For comparison purposes, data for male federal offenders of domestic violence are presented as well. Six of the 20 risk factors are evident for a majority of the women (i.e., for more than two thirds of the women). These items are: past physical assault of an intimate partner; recent substance abuse/dependence; recent employment problems; severe violence and/or sexual assault in index offence; past violation of conditional release or community supervision; and victim of and/or witness to family violence as a child or adolescent. An additional seven indicators of risk were found to be reasonably evident for the women (i.e., common to between one third and two thirds of the women). The six SARA items that were absent for a large majority of the women (i.e., found among less than one third of women offenders) were: minimization of spousal assault history; attitudes supporting spousal assault; past assault of family members; recent psychotic/manic symptoms; past sexual assault/jealousy; and violations of “no contact” orders. The SARA summary risk rating provides an overall rating of risk for intimate partner violence. It is based on the evaluator’s consideration of the 20 risk factors. According to this, only 6.9% of the women were classified as high risk; 29.3% were classified as moderate risk; and 63.8% were classified as low risk. The corresponding percentages for male offenders with histories of domestic violence are 28.5% for high risk, 39.9% for moderate risk, and 31.6% for low risk (Correctional Service of Canada, 2005).
supervision (86.5% and 50% respectively), χ(1) = 8.5, p <.01. 12 Further, generally violent women were more likely than partner-only violent women to have used weapons or made credible threats of death against their intimate partner during past incidents (58.6% versus 13.3%), χ(1) = 8.26, p <.01. (^12) One cell with expected count less than 5.
DISCUSSION
Incidence At least 15% of federally sentenced women offenders have perpetrated intimate partner violence. While this rate is roughly consistent with large-scale surveys of Canadian (Johnson & Hotton, 2001) and American (Straus & Gelles, 1986) populations, it may well be an underestimate of the magnitude of intimate partner violence among federally sentenced women. The study employed a file review methodology, and relied on a few existing indicators to identify perpetrators of intimate partner violence. An alternative methodology, such as a confidential survey, may have identified a greater proportion of women who perpetrated violence towards their intimate partners. The present results suggest that the incidence of intimate partner violence among federally sentenced women offenders is about half that for male offenders. Earlier research within the Correctional Service of Canada using a similar file review methodology determined that 29% of male offenders had been violent toward a female partner (Robinson & Taylor, 1995). While survey research has consistently found relatively balanced rates of intimate partner violence among the genders, research with shelter and criminal justice populations has identified a distinct form of partner violence, termed patriarchal terrorism, which is perpetrated primarily by men (Johnson, 1995). Given the risk profiles of offenders who receive federal sentences (i.e., with criminal profiles that warrant a minimum of two-year term of imprisonment), it is likely that their violence is this more serious form. Demographic and Personal Characteristics The present results suggest that the perpetration of violence against intimate partners is a particularly serious problem for Aboriginal women. Aboriginal people comprise less than three percent of the Canadian population and over 22% of women inmates (Fortin, 2004). In the present study, over 40% of the women identified as perpetrators of intimate violence were Aboriginal. Rates of men’s violence against women, including lethal violence, are particularly high in Aboriginal communities (Four Worlds Centre for Development Learning, 2003). The absence of literature examining the issue of Aboriginal women’s violence is perhaps not surprising given the relative magnitude of the problem of violence against Aboriginal women. Factors such as financial issues and, in particular, substance abuse contribute to the intimate partner violence by female offenders currently serving a federal sentence in Canada. About 89%
