Intimate Partner Sexual Violence: Crossover Between the Domestic Violence and Sex Offending Behaviors

2/26/19

INTIMATE PARTNER SEXUAL VIOLENCE: CROSSOVER BETWEEN THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEX OFFENDING BEHAVIORS

JESSE HANSEN, MPA DVOMB PROGRAM COORDINATOR

BRENNA TINDALL, PSY.D., CAC III LICENSED PSYCHOLOGIST SOMB FULL OPERATING PROVIDER DVOMB FULL OPERATING PROVIDER

1 2/26/19

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Special Thanks! ¡ Merve Davies and Dominique Simons ¡ Colorado Domestic Violence Offender Management Board and Sex Offender Management Board ¡ Denver Fatality Review Committee ¡ Other pioneers in the field

AGENDA

¡ What’s the problem? ¡ Any research on the topic? ¡ What do you want me to do? ¡ Time for questions

2 2/26/19

DISCLAIMER OF LIMITATIONS

¡ Research in its infancy ¡ Evaluation and Treatment Challenges ¡ Politics, Policy, and People ¡ Recidivism vs. Re-offense Rates

Discussion point:

Do you think the criminal justice system handles domestic violence the same as sex offending?

3 2/26/19

Don’t ask a question you don’t want to know the answer to…

OFFENSE TYPOLOGIES BY FORCE AND INVASIVENESS

Sexual Coercion Sexual Assault The use of non-physical, controlling, The use of physical, controlling, degrading, and manipulative tactics to degrading, and manipulative tactics to obtain, or attempt to obtain, obtain, or attempt to obtain, unwanted unwanted oral, vaginal, or anal oral, vaginal, or anal intercourse, intercourse, including forced including forced penetration and sex penetration and sex with objects. with objects.

Sexual Abuse The use of psychological abuse tactics Forced Sexual Activity to keep an intimate partner in a Physically forced sexual touch that submissive position of power in the does not involve sexual penetration, sexual domain. Strategies include

e.g. being kissed, fondled, or grabbed. OFINVASIVENESS DEGREE sexual degradation, non-contact unwanted sexual experience, and reproductive and sexual control.

DEGREE OF FORCEFULNESS 8 Bagell-Grey (2016). Intimate Partner Sexual Violence Poses Risk Factor for Homicide

4 2/26/19

IPSV PREVALENCE IN THE 21ST CENTURY

¡ Estimates of IPSV suggest:

Women: Men:

¡ Challenges

¡ Actual prevalence unknown

¡ Measurement, sample, and research design limitations ¡ Limited high-quality empirical research studies with offending populations

“If the offender is capable of abusing their spouse in the bedroom, what makes you think these abuses aren’t happening in the living room or elsewhere?”

- Merve Davies

5 2/26/19

IMPACT TO CHILDREN EXPOSED TO LONG TERM EFFECTS ON CHILDREN OF SEXUAL VIOLENCE WITH CHRONIC EXPOSURE TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

¡ Concepts of sexuality, coercion, ¡ Impaired academic performance and violence are intertwined and distorted ¡ Reduced levels of motor and social skills ¡ Gender bias and sexual obligations ¡ Behavioral problems in adolescence ¡ Assumes sexual aggression is normative ¡ Juvenile delinquency ¡ Alcohol or substance abuse ¡ Intimacy and attachment issues ¡ Changes in brain physiology and ¡ Impulsivity and self-regulation problems function ¡ Emotional difficulties in adulthood ¡ Intergenerational Implications including depression, anxiety disorders and PTSD. (McOrmond-Plummer, Levy-Peck & (McDonaled, Jourilies (SP), et al, 2006) Easteal, 2017) 11

IMPACT OF TRAUMA

“Society reaps what it sows in nurturing its children. Whether abuse of a child is physical, psychological, or sexual, it sets off a ripple of hormonal changes that wire the child’s brain to cope with a malevolent world. It predisposes the child to have a biological basis for fear, though he may act and pretend otherwise. Early abuse molds the brain to be more irritable, impulsive, suspicious, and prone to be swamped by fight-or-flight reactions that the rational mind may be unable to control. The brain is programmed to a state of defensive adaptation, enhancing survival in a world of constant danger, but at a terrible price. To a brain so tuned, Eden itself would seem to hold its share of dangers; building a secure, stable relationship may later require virtually superhuman personal growth and transformation. Our brains are sculpted by our early experiences. Maltreatment is a chisel that shapes a brain to contend with strife, but at the cost of deep, enduring wounds. Childhood abuse isn’t something you ‘get over.’ It is an evil that we must acknowledge and confront if we aim to do anything about the unchecked cycle of violence in this country.”

Dr. Te i c h e r 12

6 2/26/19

COLORADO REVISED STATUTES

Legal Definition 18-6-800.3 C.R.S.: Definition of Domestic Violence: an act or threatened act of violence against a person with whom the offender is or has been involved in an intimate relationship…includes any other crime against a person, or against property, including an animal, …when used as a method of coercion, control, punishment, intimidation, or revenge.

Sentencing: 18-6-801 C.R.S.: Mandatory DV offender treatment according to DVOMB standards and with DVOMB approved provider.

GENERALISTS VS. SPECIALISTS

Piquero, et al., 2006 Richards et al., 2014 “Regarding specialization, the official “The results from this study indicated record data indicates that few SARP that more than half of the participants in domestic violence offenders the sample were rearrested for have been specializing exclusively in domestic violence (51.5%) and/or violence. We were certainly able to nondomestic violence (55.6%) over the identify many offenders with violence in 10-year follow-up period. This is their official criminal histories, but the consistent with prior research overwhelming majority of these demonstrating that individuals who are individuals also committed nonviolent arrested for domestic violence are often offenses.” repeat offenders (Piquero et al., 2006).”

Domestic violence offenders do not tend to specialize in domestic violence.

7 2/26/19

RESULTS FROM ONE COHORT

Percentage of Crossover Behaviors 120 100 100 89 77 73 80 68 69 60

Percentage 40 32 31

0 Domestic Violence Non-Consensual Sex with Sex with Partners while Sadistic Rape Fantasies Initmate Partners Asleep or Unconscious Category

Sex Offenders Domestic Violence Offenders (Davies & Simons, 2009)

8 2/26/19

DIFFERENCES IN PERPETRATORS OF INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE WHO SEXUALLY ASSAULT – THE ATSA FORUM

¡ Purpose: explore differences between offense type, offenders and victim characteristics with men who sexually assaulted their intimate partner (n = 164) versus men who physically assaulted their intimate partner (n = 6804) ¡ Findings: ¡ Findings indicated that it took victims of IPSV five times longer to report incidents of violence to the police than victims of IPV. ¡ Perpetrators of IPSV were more likely to re-offend criminally, violently and sexually than perpetrators of IPV, meaning that a sexual assault in the index offence indicated a greater likelihood that the perpetrator would re-offend in any capacity, not just sexually

Faitakis, M. (2018). Differences in Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence Who Sexually Assault, The Forum Newsletter, Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, Volume XXXI, Issue 1.

TYPOLOGIES AND CROSSOVER

Domestic Violence and

Risk FactorsLethality Sexual Deviancy

Propensity for Propensity for Risk Factors Sexual Abuse Sex Offense Specific Sexual Abuse (non-violent) (Violent or IPSV Coerced)

Antisocial Propensity for Coercive and Attitudes Abuse or Control And Beliefs Violence

Criminogenic Risk Factors 18

9 2/26/19

UNIQUE PERSPECTIVE

• Integration – field is moving towards this. • MATRIX Evaluations in Colorado – what are they? • Why is it important to look at domestic violence issues in a sex offense specific evaluation?

WHY ARE THESE CASES SO PROBLEMATIC

¡ CPS report for kiddos – injurious environment? ¡ Information and confidentiality about the victim? ¡ Prosecuting without victim to give testimony ¡ Bail hearings? ¡ Are DV providers (or Batter Intervention Programs) equipped to address sex offense specific stuff? ¡ DV providers may not be going after the right stuff when asking sex questions and SO providers are not asking the right questions.

10 2/26/19

CONSIDERATIONS

¡ RNR is of utmost importance with DV cases! ¡ Why the high rate of recidivism? What is lacking that is disallowing us to identify the needs of SO clients who have DV in their history? ¡ Addressing the domestic violence related risk with crossover clients is critical. ¡ Helps identify which needs are more prominent. ¡ Maybe an SO offender really needs DV-focused interventions instead of SO interventions? (or vice-versa)

IPV RISK ASSESSMENTS

Title Ty p e Validity (AUC) DomesticViolence Risk and Needs Actuarial N/A Assessment (DVRNA) Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA) Structured 0.52-0.65 Professional Judgement Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment Actuarial 0.64-0.70 (ODARA) / Domestic Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (DVRAG) Domestic Violence Screening Instrument Actuarial ~0.61 (DVSI), DVSI-R Danger Assessment Tool (DA) Structured 0.59 – 0.92 Professional

Judgement 22

11 2/26/19

SOME SEEMINGLY SURPRISING ONES….THAT ARE OH SO OBVIOUS

¡ Children present ¡ Victim pregnant at the time ¡ Being separated in the six months prior to incident. ¡ Fights with victim’s family members, own family members. ¡ What constitutes a weapon? ¡ Prior incidents of domestic violence NOT reported to police. ¡ Non-compliance with medication/intervention. ¡ Animal cruelty ¡ Strangulation ¡ Social services involvement

Hilton, N. Z., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., Houghton, R., & Eke, A. W. (2008). An indepth actuarial risk 25 assessment for wife assault recidivism: The Domestic Violence Risk Appraisal Guide. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 150-163. doi:10.1007/s10979-007-9088-6.

12 2/26/19

CASE CONCEPTUALIZATION AND INDIVIDUALIZATION

What are some take home points that you can focus on when you have an SO evaluation or therapy client with history of DV?

1. Asking the question IPV vs. DV? 2. Make the summary count. 3. Just because the referral is for a sex offense evaluation does not mean you overlook the DV issues. 4. Adding separate section for intimate partner violence 5. What would outcome be if didn’t pay attention to testing data?

¡ APD ¡ If MH or DV is pre-eminent, or both.

CRITICAL TO LOOK AT PSYCHOPATHY AND ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER

¡ An individual must show significant impairments in personality functioning manifested by the following:

¡ Impairments in self functioning with regard to identity (i.e., ego-centrism, self-esteem derived from personal gain, power, or pleasure) or self-direction (i.e., goal-setting based on personal gratification; absence of prosocial internal standards associated with failure to conform to lawful or culturally normative ethical behavior)

¡ Impairments in interpersonal functioning with regard to empathy (i.e., lack of concern for feelings, needs, or suffering of others; lack of remorse after hurting or mistreating another) or intimacy (i.e., incapacity for mutually intimate relationships, as exploitation is a primary means of relating to others, including by deceit and coercion; use of dominance or intimidation to control others).

13 2/26/19

CRITICAL TO LOOK AT PSYCHOPATHY AND ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER (CONT)

¡ An individual with APD will exhibit pathological personality traits in the following domains: ¡ Antagonism, characterized by manipulativeness (i.e., frequent use of subterfuge to influence or control others; use of seduction, charm, glibness, or ingratiation to achieve one’s ends); deceitfulness (i.e., dishonesty and fraudulence; misrepresentation of self; embellishment or fabrication when relating events); callousness (i.e., lack of concern for feelings or problems of others; lack of guilt or remorse about the negative or harmful effects of one’s actions on others; aggression; sadism); or hostility (i.e., persistent or frequent angry feelings; anger or irritability in response to minor slights and insults; mean, nasty, or vengeful behavior).

CRITICAL TO LOOK AT PSYCHOPATHY AND ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER (CONT)

¡ Disinhibition, characterized by:

¡ Irresponsibility (i.e., disregard for – and failure to honor – financial and other obligations or commitments; lack of respect for – and lack of follow through on – agreements and promises)

¡ Impulsivity (i.e., acting on the spur of the moment in response to immediate stimuli; acting on a momentary basis without a plan or consideration of outcomes; difficulty establishing and following plans);

¡ Risk taking (i.e., engagement in dangerous, risky, and potentially self-damaging activities, unnecessarily and without regard for consequences; boredom proneness and thoughtless initiation of activities to counter boredom; lack of concern for one’s limitations and denial of the reality of personal danger. ¡ Impairments in personality functioning and the individual’s personality trait expression

14 2/26/19

MCMI - EXAMPLE

Let’s look at a couple of de- identified case examples.

15 2/26/19

SUMMARY

¡ The genesis of evaluation recommendations typically follows suit with the index offense. ¡ What issue is most preeminent with the client? ¡ What alternatives will work best for that client?

¡ DV risk assessments and evaluation protocols

¡ More research is needed; no more tolerance

FINAL THOUGHTS

¡ Integration of best practices and services

¡ Experts are needed

¡ Coercive Control Behaviors vs. Sexually Deviant Behavior

16 2/26/19

REFERENCES

¡ Andrews & Bonta (2010). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(1), 39. ¡ Black et al. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. ¡ Davies & Simons (2017). Gender Bias and Domestic Violence and Sexual Offenders. Conference Presentation. ¡ Easteal & McOrmond-Plummer (2006). Real rape, real pain: Help for women sexually assaulted by male partners. Melbourne, Australia: Hybrid Publishers. ¡ Finkelhor, Turner, Shattuck, & Hamby (2013). Violence, Crime, and Abuse Exposure in a National Sample of Children and Youth. The Journal of the American Medical Association) Pediatrics, 167(7):614-621. ¡ Kellogg & Menard (2003). Violence among family members of children and adolescents evaluated for sexual abuse. Child Abuse Neglect, 27(12):1367-1376. ¡ Lee et al. (2016). Acceptability of Dating Violence and Expectations of Relationship Harm ¡ Among Adolescent Girls Exposed to Intimate Partner Violence. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 8(4), 487–494

17 2/26/19

REFERENCES CONTINUED

¡ McDonaled et al. (2006). McDonald, R., Jouriles, E. N., Ramisetty-Mikler, S., Caetano, R., & Green, C. E. (2006). Estimating the number of American children living in partner-violent families. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 137–142. ¡ McFarlane & Malecha (2005). Sexual assaults among intimates: Frequency, consequences and treatment. National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from: www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/nij/grants/211678.pdf. ¡ McOrmond-Plummer, Levy-Peck & Easteal (2017). Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Sexual Violence: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Prevention, Recognition, and Intervention. Routledge, New York, NY. ¡ Nicholls et al. (2013). Risk Assessment in Intimate Partner Violence – A Systematic Review of Contemporary Approaches. Partner Abuse. 4(1):76-168. ¡ Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2006). Extent, nature and consequences of rape victimization: Findings from the national violence against women survey. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice ¡ Teicher, M. (2000). “Cerebrum.” The Dana Forum on Brain Science, 2(4) ¡ Radatz, D. L., & Wright, E. M. (2015). Integrating the principles of effective intervention into Batterer Intervention Programming: The case for moving toward more evidence-based programming. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, Advanced Online Publication: doi 10.1177/1524838014566695.