The Criminogenic and Noncriminogenic Treatment Needs of Intimate Partner Violence Offenders

Abstract

The criminogenic needs of general offenders have been empirically studied, but the criminogenic treatment needs of intimate partner violence (IPV) offenders, or how they compare with other violent or nonviolent offenders, have not been as thoroughly explored. Therefore, we examined and compared the criminogenic and noncriminogenic needs of 99 IPV offenders, 233 non-IPV violent offenders, and 103 nonviolent offenders, all of whom were men who had undergone institutional forensic assessment. Results indicated that IPV offenders had more treatment needs than the other two offender groups, including the Central Eight criminogenic needs. These findings support a focus on criminogenic treatment needs in batterer intervention programs for men, consistent with the principles of effective intervention for offenders.

The Predictive Value of the Central Eight Criminogenic Risk Factors: A Multi-Group Comparison of Dually Diagnosed Violent Offenders with other Subgroups of Violent Offenders

“…In general, the only consistent big four risk factor predictive of general recidivism was a history of antisocial/criminal behavior. Previous studies on the predictive value of the central eight in several offender subsamples also resulted in inconsistent findings [22,25,26,28]. For instance, Hilton and Radatz [28] compared Intimate Partner Violent (IPV) offenders with general violent offenders and non-violent offenders on the prevalence of the RNR criminogenic needs and found that-compared to the other groups-IPV-offenders had the highest needs in all domains except education/employment.…”

“…A number of meta-analytic reviews have found evidence for the predictive validity of the central eight criminogenic factors and for the primacy of the big four over the moderate four risk factors among general offenders [18][19][20]. Moreover, the central eight risk factors were found relevant across age [21,22] gender [23][24][25] ethnic groups [26] and offender types [27,28]. Although the evidence supports the central eight risk factors as being applicable to a range of offenders, results are inconsistent with regard to the primacy of the big four over the moderate four risk factors among these offender subgroups.…”

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 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).…”

“…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). A review of dynamic risk factors for IPV indicates that substance abuse (particularly alcohol abuse) has garnered substantial evidence as an appropriate treatment target (Messing et al, 2016), with nearly 60% of persons in IPV perpetration samples reporting problems with binge drinking (Langenderfer, 2013).…”