Risk factors for female perpetrators of intimate partner violence within criminal justice settings: A systematic review

Highlights

• We explored risk indicators of female IPV offenders within criminal justice system.

• No causal risk factors have been identified for women who perpetrate IPV.

• Some factors may be correlated with IPV perpetration e.g. experiencing child abuse.

• Protective factors did not feature in the studies we reviewed.

• The difference between the needs of women and men who perpetrate IPV is unclear.

Abstract

There is a lack of understanding of the risk factors for female-perpetrated intimate partner violence (IPV) relative to men's IPV behaviours. Males can access offence-specific interventions in prison and on probation. However, depending on national criminal justice policies, female IPV perpetrators access general offending behaviour programmes only or offence-specific programmes that have been designed with male perpetrators in mind. The extent to which men's and women's treatment needs are similar or different is unclear. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesise what is known about the risk factors for IPV perpetration by women located within criminal justice settings to inform appropriate interventions for this group of offenders. Thirty-one studies met inclusion criteria and no factors meeting our definition of risk factor were identified. However, there were associations between IPV perpetration and experience of child abuse, substance use, borderline personality traits, attachment issues and experiencing trauma. It remains unclear what factors need to be targeted in interventions for female IPV perpetrators, although associations have pointed to possible predisposing factors. In order to improve the evidence base for IPV interventions, researchers need to clearly define the term ‘risk factor’, extending beyond reporting on prevalence only, and to increase understanding of the pathways to IPV perpetration among women.

Introduction

Intimate partner violence (IPV) has traditionally been viewed as a problem affecting the lives of women and girls, and where females use IPV, they do so presumably to protect themselves from violent (male) partners (Dobash & Dobash, 1980; Johnson, 2006). However, the rates of male victimisation – in the UK, approximately one in 12 males report ever experiencing IPV (ONS, 2016) – indicate that IPV is a social and health issue for a significant proportion of men and boys. Women and girls experience higher rates of IPV globally; however, men and boys experience additional barriers to accessing help (Hines, Brown, & Dunning, 2007). Furthermore, the consequences of IPV in the lives of men have been relatively neglected. Attention has recently shifted to trying to better understand the nature of women's perpetration of IPV, tailoring clinical intervention and improving criminal justice measures. However, little is known about the risk factors and characteristics of criminal justice populations of women who perpetrate IPV, rendering the development of appropriate responses difficult. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesise studies located in criminal justice settings that have investigated the risk factors associated with female IPV perpetrators, in order to understand the intervention requirements of this population.

Identifying risk factors for IPV is complex, and part of the complexity is the lack of consistency in the way the term ‘risk factor’ is defined (Kraemer et al., 1997). Kraemer et al. (1997) define several terms related to risk that can all be used to define how characteristics are associated with an outcome (see Table 1 which outlines Kraemer et al.'s typology of risk factors). The first step is to establish a statistically significant association between the factor and the outcome, and include a judgement of the potency of this association. Of critical importance to establishing whether a factor is indeed a risk factor is its timing in relation to the outcome. When it comes to policy and clinical decisions for the treatment of IPV perpetration, it is the causal risk factors which are of most interest and importance – those risk factors which have been demonstrated to precede the perpetration of IPV and, when changed, reduce the risk of future IPV perpetration. In the criminological literature, these are also referred to as criminogenic needs (Andrews & Bonta, 2010) – dynamic individual and environmental factors which, when changed, impact on the likelihood of reoffending (Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2006).

Where studies have examined factors associated with women's use of IPV, they have tended to focus on motivations, that is, the reasons women give for perpetrating IPV (Langhinrichsen-Rohling, McCullars, & Misra, 2012), and not risk. Without knowledge of risk being integrated into interventions, practitioners are constrained in selecting appropriate approaches to target the risk factors associated with the offending behaviour (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). Since 2010, only five papers have been published which consolidate the literature concerning the factors and motivations associated with women's use of IPV (Bair-Merritt et al., 2010; Capaldi, Knoble, Shortt, & Kim, 2012; Costa et al., 2015; Laskey, 2016; Spencer, Cafferky, & Stith, 2016). However, none has focused on women in criminal justice populations. In a systematic review of 23 articles, Bair-Merritt et al. (2010) focused on women's motivations for using IPV, finding that women's motivations were linked to expression of feelings in 70% of the studies and self-defence in 87% of studies, whereas coercive control was listed as a motivation in 61% of the included studies, challenging that the view that women only use IPV as a form of self-defence. The first systematic review to examine correlates of IPV perpetrated by men and women (Capaldi et al., 2012) found the following factors were related to IPV perpetration: deprivation (unemployment and low income), minority group membership (with income as a mediator), acculturation stress, financial stress, work related stress, exposure to violence between parents in the family of origin and experience of child abuse (low to moderate significant associations, which may be mediated by an individual's anti-social behaviour and adult adjustment), involvement with aggressive peers in adolescence, conduct problems and anti-social behaviour (both often found to be mediators of early factors such as harsh parental treatment), substance abuse, being separated from partner, low relationship satisfaction and high discord/conflict. The authors noted that stronger associations were found for women between depression and alcohol use and IPV perpetration, although the direction of these associations is unclear. Capaldi et al.'s (2012) review did not include same-sex relationships however, as the studies with these samples did not meet the methodological inclusion criteria.

In a systematic review of longitudinal studies, Costa et al. (2015) found that abuse and childhood and adolescent problems experienced in the family of origin were consistent predictors of IPV for both men and women. Other significant predictors of IPV were childhood and adolescent behaviour problems (e.g. aggressive behaviour, withdrawal, conduct disorder), as well as adolescent alcohol and substance use. The authors found no studies of same-sex relationships, therefore these predictors are for heterosexual relationships, again highlighting this gap in the literature around prospective studies examining predictors of IPV perpetration in same-sex relationships. Spencer et al. (2016) carried out a meta-analysis to assess the difference in risk markers between men and women's IPV perpetration, and found that only three out of the 60 investigated factors differed between the sexes. Alcohol use, male demand and female withdrawal relationship patterns and witnessing/experiencing family of origin violence were stronger predictors for male IPV. Most recently, Laskey (2016) conducted a systematic review of the characteristics, but not specifically risk factors, of female IPV perpetrators, finding nine relevant studies (Laskey, 2016). Laskey's inclusion criteria was limited to peer reviewed articles published between 2000 and 2015, where women were part of the sample and the studies examined the characteristics of the female IPV perpetrators. Common correlates for female IPV perpetrators were: high prevalence of trauma symptoms, emotional dysregulation or loss of control, substance misuse, unstable mood, attachment issues and interpersonal dependency.

Systematic reviews that focus only on the risk factors or characteristics of female IPV perpetrators are lacking, with only one identified to date (Laskey, 2016). Previous reviews have failed to postulate how risk factors are defined and identified and do not specify the timing or precedence of the factors they are reviewing (Bair-Merritt et al., 2010; Capaldi et al., 2012; Laskey, 2016; Spencer et al., 2016). This has made it very difficult to draw conclusions about the causal risk factors associated with female perpetrated IPV. Where reviews that explore the characteristics of female IPV perpetrators do exist, they have explored: 1) the motivations for perpetration (Bair-Merritt et al., 2010), and therefore potentially missed studies which may have investigated the developmental and psychological antecedents that could be described as risk factors; and 2) a range of different samples such as community and student populations (Capaldi et al., 2012; Laskey, 2016; Spencer et al., 2016). Whilst this has given some indication of the factors associated with IPV perpetration, it may not be capturing the needs and risk factors of women who have perpetrated such serious or frequent IPV that they are accessing intervention within corrections systems or via other mandated systems, such as family or social services.

The objective of this review was to explore risk factors and motivations for IPV perpetration among women in criminal justice populations. In contrast to previous reviews, this review explores all intimate partner relationships and includes a range of abusive behaviours. Based on the legal definition of an adult in the UK, and the age at which women can enter the criminal justice system as an adult, it was decided to focus on women aged 18 and over in the review.