Gender and Racial/Ethnic Differences in Criminal Justice Decision Making in Intimate Partner Violence Cases

The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project

Manuscripts and Online Data Base

Overview of Findings by the Authors

Springer Publications

Introduction:

Over the years, research on partner abuse has become unnecessarily fragmented and politicized. The purpose of The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project (PASK) is to bring together in a rigorously evidence –based, transparent and methodical manner existing knowledge about partner abuse with reliable, up-to-date research that can easily be accessed both by researchers and the general public. In March, 2010, the Senior Editor of Partner Abuse1, recruited family violence scholars from the United States, Canada, and the U.K., to conduct an extensive and thorough review of the empirical literature, in 17 broad topic areas. Researchers were asked to conduct a formal search for published, peer-reviewed studies through standard, widely-used search programs, and the catalogue, and summarize all known research studies relevant to each major topic and its sub-topics. In the interest of thoroughness and transparency, the researchers agreed to summarize all quantitative studies published in peer-reviewed journals after 1990, as well as any major studies published prior to that time, and to clearly specify exclusion criteria. Included studies are organized in extended tables, each table containing summaries of studies relevant to its particular sub-topic.

In this unprecedented undertaking, a total of 42 scholars and 70 research assistants at 20 universities and research institutions spent two years or more researching their topics and writing the results. Approximately 12,000 studies were considered and more than 1,700 were summarized and organized into tables. The 17 manuscripts, which provide a review of findings on each of the topics, for a total of 2,657 pages, appear in 5 consecutive special issues of Partner Abuse published between April, 2012 and April, 2013.

All conclusions, including the extent to which the research evidence supports or undermines current theories, are based strictly on the data collected. In this article, key findings are summarized from each of the 17 topic areas. The reader, however, is encouraged to access the full manuscripts. To do so,please go to the Partner Abuse website, at www.springerpub.com and click on the “subscriptions” link.

Given the large volume of summarized studies, it was not possible for the published manuscripts to include tables containing the summarized studies. All of the tables,therefore, are available online. This online document is a unique contribution to domestic violence research, intervention and policy -providing the most comprehensive single data set on domestic violence available in one convenient location, free of charge to the public. To access it, you may go to the Partner Abuse website. On the home page, under “Online Resources,” click on “The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Free Online Data Base” John Hamel, LCSW conceived and supervised the project. The journal’s former Associate Editors, Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Ph.D., and Denise Hines, Ph.D., provided editorial assistance.

Overview of Findings

#1 Prevalence of Physical Violence in Intimate Relationships:

Part 1. Rates of Male and Female Victimization,

Sarah L. Desmarais, Kim A. Reeves, Tonia L. Nicholls, Robin P. Telford, & Martin S. Fiebert 148 pages. Full manuscript available in Partner Abuse Vol. 3, Issue no. 2 (2012), pp.140-169

Studies were included in the current review if they met three broad inclusion criteria.

First, they needed to present empirical data regarding the prevalence of physical IPV from the perspective of the victim (see Part 2 for perpetration rates).

Second, the IPV must have occurred within the context of a heterosexual intimate relationship.

Third, articles were excluded if they reported the findings of studies in which participants were sampled from an identified population of IPV victims, such as women staying at a domestic violence shelter.

Literature searches undertaken in three databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science)  followed by screening of titles and abstracts, as well as elimination of replicates, led to retrieval of 750 articles published between 2000 and 2010 for further analysis. Data were extracted regarding  measurement timeframe and instrument, and sample details. Results then were summarized by  study and grouped according to sample type: population-based, community, university or college, middle or high school, clinical, and justice or legal samples. Unweighted prevalence estimates were calculated for female and male victimization overall and by sample type, country, measurement timeframe, and measurement approach, to the extent possible.

Our final sample included 249 articles that reported 543 rates of physical IPV victimization in our review: 158 articles reported 318 rates for women, six articles reported eight rates for men, and 85 articles reported 217 rates for both men and women.

There were 52 population-based studies, 36 studies of community samples, 26 studies of university or college samples, 38 studies of middle or high school students, three studies of high school and university students, 80 studies of clinical samples, and 14 studies of justice or legal samples. The majority of articles (85.5%, k= 213) reported findings of studies conducted in the U.S. Sample sizes ranged widely from N = 42 to N= 134,955, with a mean of 4,308.24 (SD

= 14,912.49), median of 791, and mode of 120 participants per study. Studies varied in their operational definition and measurement of IPV, though a majority (47.4%,k= 118) of studies reported prevalence rates measured using items or scales drawn from the Conflict Tactic Scale family of instruments. Overall, results indicated that physical IPV victimization is prominent among men and women in heterosexual relationships.

Across all studies included in this review, approximately one in four women (23.1%) and one in five men (19.3%) experienced physical violence in an intimate relationship, with an overall pooled prevalence estimate of 22.4%. (emphasis added)

However, for both men and women, prevalence rates ranged widely from 0% to 99%. Physical IPV victimization was reported by approximately one-third (33.6%) of individuals in their lifetime and one-fifth (19.2%) of individuals in the year prior to the study.

Whether prevalence estimates were higher for male or female physical IPV victimization fluctuated as a function of sample type, measurement timeframe, and study location. For  example, in large population studies, studies of community samples, university or college samples, and clinical samples, pooled prevalence was higher among women than men, but across  studies of middle or high school students and justice or legal samples, pooled prevalence was higher among men than women (though only one study examined male victimization in a justice  or legal sample). Lifetime rates generally were higher among women than men, whereas past year prevalence was slightly higher among men than women. We also found differences by country. For instance, in studies conducted in the U.S. and Canada, pooled prevalence was higher among women than men whereas in studies conducted in the U.K., New Zealand, and South Africa, pooled prevalence rates were higher among men than women.

Taken together, results add to a growing body of literature documenting symmetry in rates of IPV among men and women. This comprehensive review of the current state of the field demonstrates the diversity of victims who experience physical IPV and documents the need for gender-inclusive responsiveness to this wide -ranging public health problem. In particular, there are currently few services for male victims and the high rates of violence experienced by women and men suggests a need for treatment and intervention strategies for victims of both sexes. (emphasis added)

Additionally, the high rates of physical IPV victimization among middle or high school students (or other similar age youth), as well as among university and college students, highlights the need for school-based IPV prevention and intervention efforts. Instead of victim sex, the methodological differences across studies may be the most important sources of variability affecting estimates of prevalence. Though many studies used standardized assessment instruments, a considerable proportion used other, unvalidated approaches. Researchers also differed in whether sexual violence was included in their definition of IPV. Finally, many studies reported lifetime and past year prevalence rates, while others combined rates of current or past year victimization, or used different timeframes altogether. Thus, future research efforts need to be directed at standardizing the measurement of IPV so that data can be compared across studies, sample types and countries.

Prevalence of Physical Violence in Intimate Relationships:

Part 2. Rates of Male and Female Perpetration

Sarah L. Desmarais, Kim A. Reeves, Tonia L. Nicholls, Robin P. Telford, & Martin S. Fiebert

96 pages. Full manuscript available in Partner Abuse Vol. 3, Issue no. 2 (2012), pp. 170-198

Our final sample included 111 articles that reported 272 rates of physical IPV perpetration: 25 articles reported 34 rates for male perpetration, 14 articles reported 24 rates for female perpetration, and 72 articles reported 214 rates for both men and women. There were 19 population-based studies, 24 studies of smaller community samples, 17 studies of middle and high school students or adolescents, 30 studies of university and college students or young adults, and 21 studies of clinical samples. The majority of articles (85.6%,k= 95) reported findings of studies conducted in the United States. Sample sizes ranged widely from N = 53 to N = 89,601, with a mean of 2,340.91 (SD= 8,748.44), median of 670, and mode of 356 participants per study. Studies varied in their operational definition and measurement of IPV, though almost three-quarters of studies (73.0%, k= 81) reported prevalence rates measured using the CTS, CTS2, or items or scales drawn from the CTS instruments. Findings underscore the pervasiveness of physical violence in heterosexual relationships. Across all studies included in this review, approximately one-quarter of participants (25.3%) reported perpetrating physical IPV. Physical IPV perpetration was reported by approximately one in four individuals both in their lifetime (24.2%) and in the year prior to the study (25.6%). Approximately one in five (22.9%) reported perpetrating physical IPV in their current or most recent relationship.

Consistent with prior reviews, rates of physical IPV perpetrated by men and women generally were more similar than they were different, with slightly higher rates for women than for men (pooled prevalence for female perpetration = 28.3% and male perpetration = 21.6%). (emphasis added)

There also was considerable consistency in the rates of physical IPV perpetration across countries, ranging from a pooled estimate of 14.1% for studies conducted in Australia to 31.8% for studies conducted in New Zealand.

Rates of physical IPV perpetration ranged widely across studies for both men (1.0% to 61.6%) and women (2.4% to 68.9%). (emphasis added)

Much of the variation can be attributed to the highly diverse sampling methods and study procedures. For instance, studies differed in their operational definitions of physical IPV perpetration and in their reporting of minor and/or severe IPV. Studies also varied in their measurement time frames; some reported lifetime and/or past year prevalence rates, others reported rates for the current or most recent relationship, and still others used different reference periods altogether (e.g., past two months, past six months).

Taken together, results add to a growing body of literature documenting symmetry in rates of physical IPV perpetration by men and women. (emphasis added)

The present review represents a comprehensive summary of the current state of knowledge regarding physical IPV perpetration among heterosexual men and women in English-speaking, industrialized nations.

With similar rates of physical IPV perpetrated by men and women, gendered explanations of IPV do not adequately account for our findings. (emphasis added)

Of note, however, results of the current review pertain only to the presence or absence, and not the severity or context, of perpetration. Thus, rather than perpetuating the debate regarding the comparability of physical IPV perpetrated by men and women,

findings should be used to support the development and implementation of interventions that acknowledge the use of violence by women in intimate relationships (emphasis added)

but also recognize how participants’ treatment needs may differ. Intervention strategies that are both gender-inclusive and gender-sensitive may have the greatest potential for reducing IPV. Though most studies included in our review employed a measurement approach based on the CTS, researchers varied considerably in their sampling and study procedures, their operation definitions of IPV, and in their reporting of results by severity (e.g., minor vs. severe IPV) or consequences (e.g., any physical IPV vs. IPV that resulted in injury). Future research synthesis efforts should include systematic coding and analysis across these variables. Moreover, we compared perpetration rates across rather than within studies; thus, future research should examine the degree to which there are similarities or differences in victimization and perpetration rates across and within samples. Finally, most studies were conducted in the United States, limiting cross-national comparisons; thus, future research efforts should focus on building evidence regarding the prevalence of physical IPV perpetrated by men and women in other English speaking, industrialized countries.

Excellent resource regarding intimate partner violence

Tags: domestic violence, intimate partner violence, ivp, john hamel, springer publishing