Profile and Programming Needs of Federal Offenders With Histories of Intimate Partner Violence

Abstract

This study presents data on male perpetrators of domestic violence (DV) in the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) using two samples: (a) a snapshot of all male offenders in CSC who had been assessed for DV (n = 15,166) and (b) a cumulative sample of male offenders in CSC from 2002-2010 who had been assessed as moderate or high risk for further DV (n = 4,261) DV offenders were compared to a cohort sample of non-DV offenders (n = 4,261). Analyses were disaggregated for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders. Results indicated that 40% of the federal male population had a suspected history of DV and were therefore screened in for in-depth DV risk assessment. Of these, 45% were assessed as moderate or high risk for future DV. DV offenders had higher risk and criminogenic need ratings, more learning disabilities, more mental health problems, and more extensive criminal histories than those without DV histories. Aboriginal DV offenders had high levels of alcohol dependence, suggesting a need for substance abuse treatment as part of DV programming. Most federal offenders with DV histories would be described as belonging to the Antisocial/Generalized Aggressive typology and, therefore, adhering to the Risk-Need-Responsivity principles of the effective correctional literature, cognitive-behavioral treatment that focuses on teaching skills of self-management, and changing attitudes supporting relationship violence would be recommended.

Recidivism risk and criminogenic needs of individuals who perpetrated intimate partner sexual violence offenses

“…Consistent with Stewart and Power (2014), Hilton and Radatz (2018) found that individuals with IPV offenses exhibited problems in six criminogenic need domains, with the most prevalent being employment/school circumstances, family/marital circumstances, and substance use. In addition, those with IPV offenses had significantly more criminogenic needs than those with either non-IPV violent offenses or nonviolent offenses, with the highest prevalence for every criminogenic need except for employment/school circumstances, and no group differences in noncriminogenic needs (i.e., major mental disorders and health problems).…”

“…The role of illicit drug use is less consistent, however, with some studies finding no significant association between IPV perpetration and illicit drug use (Cunradi et al, 2002) and others finding an association (Stuart et al, 2008). Furthermore, a profile of the criminogenic needs of federally incarcerated Canadian men attending a high-intensity IPV program confirmed that most had problems in all seven criminogenic needs (Stewart & Power, 2014), particularly in family/marital circumstances and substance abuse. Those with IPV offenses also had more diverse criminal histories, self-reported mental health problems, and learning disabilities (i.e., responsivity issues), than those with non-IPV offenses.…”

“…The existing research on the criminogenic needs of individuals who have perpetrated IPV suggests that they have the highest prevalence of criminogenic needs in comparison to other nonviolent and non-IPV individuals (Hilton & Radatz, 2018;Stewart & Power, 2014). This includes criminogenic needs featured in the central eight-a collection of the eight risk factors most commonly associated with recidivism (Andrews & Bonta, 2010;Hilton & Radatz, 2018).…”

Profile of Female Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence in an Offender Population: Implications for Treatment

“…According to the SARA results, 64% of the women perpetrators of domestic violence represent a low risk to be violent toward an intimate partner, and only 7% are high risk. This profile presents considerably lower rates than was found for federally sentenced male perpetrators of domestic violence where only 32% represent a low risk and 14% are high risk for IPV (Stewart et al, 2011). According to the risk principle of effective correctional interventions (Andrews & Bonta, 2010), 36% of the federally sentenced women perpetrators of intimate violence should receive a program that targets their future risk for IPV.…”

“…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 in CSC with histories of domestic violence were 14.3% high risk, 39.9% moderate risk, and 31.6% low risk (Stewart, Power, & Cousineau, 2011).…”