Gender Differences in Risk Factors for Intimate Partner Violence Recidivism

Problem

The problem the study aimed to address: 

This research investigates limitations in intimate partner violence (IPV) risk assessment measures, particularly the exclusion of general offender risk factors and the lack of validation for female offenders.

General impact on the system and/or public: 

Current IPV recidivism risk tools inadequately account for gender differences, leading to potential misclassification of offenders and inefficient resource allocation.

Research Questions:

1. Do male and female IPV offenders differ in their likelihood of recidivism?
2. Are there gender differences in risk factors for IPV recidivism?
3. Are existing risk factors equally predictive for male and female offenders
    

Method and Analysis

Program Evaluated: 

Risk assessment methods used in IPV cases, with a focus on the gender-specific applicability of existing tools.
 

Data and Sample Size: 

•  The study analyzed data from 2,854 male and 353 female IPV offenders evaluated at a Domestic Violence Assessment Center in a southern U.S. city.
   

Analysis Used:

• Risk factors were divided into five categories: demographic, relational, childhood history, psychological functioning, and criminal history.
• Recidivism was measured as subsequent involvement in IPV cases either as a suspect or victim.
• Statistical methods included correlation analysis and Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) to determine predictive validity.
   

Outcome

Key Findings:

• Recidivism Rates: Male offenders had significantly higher recidivism rates as suspects (28.2%) compared to females (15.3%). Conversely, females were more likely to reappear as victims (23.5% vs. 4.3% for males).
• Risk Factors:
  • For males, factors like prior IPV, childhood conduct issues, and antisocial attitudes predicted recidivism.
  • Female recidivism predictors were less robust, with some risk factors showing inverse effects compared to males.
• Current risk tools (e.g., ODARA, SARA) lacked predictive utility for females and may lead to inaccurate assessments.
   

Implications or Recommendations: 

• Develop gender-specific risk assessment tools for IPV offenders to enhance predictive accuracy.
• Investigate the role of partner and relationship dynamics, particularly for women, in future studies.
• Tailor intervention programs to address the unique risk profiles of male and female offenders.
   

This study underscores the need for tailored approaches in IPV risk assessment and highlights significant gender disparities in recidivism predictors, urging criminal justice systems to refine their tools and policies.