Differences Among Incarcerated Women With Assaultive Offenses

Abstract

A majority of the existing research on women’s use of violence focuses on intimate partner violence, often excluding other types of violence for which women may be incarcerated. The current study expands this area of research by assessing between and within-group differences among a randomly selected group of incarcerated women (n = 543). Comparisons between violent and nonviolent offense types among women found few differences, but significant differences among women with an assaultive offense, based on the presence or absence of a self-reported uncaught violence, were found. Differences in women with isolated (i.e., single incident of violence perpetration through a review of formal and self-report data) and patterned uses of violence were present in relation to issues of mental health, substance abuse, criminogenic risk, and expressions of anger and personality factors. These findings have important implications for intervention as well as future research.

Keywords

women offenders violent offenders criminology

Introduction

Women comprise a small fraction of those arrested (14%) and sentenced (5%) for a violent offense within the United States(West, Sabol, & Greenman, 2010), and as such, little is known about the women who commit these violent offenses especially in regards to variation in individual personality and situational factors associated with that violence (Torres, 2007). Violent offenses are defined as those that involve force, or threat of force, and include offense types such as homicide, robbery, assault, and sex offenses. Although most of the offenses women commit are nonviolent (e.g., drug and property offenses), 32% of women sentenced for criminal behavior have committed homicide, robbery, or assaultive offenses (Sabol, West, & Cooper, 2009).

Previous studies demonstrate a relationship between involvement in violent behavior or perpetration of violent crime and childhood / adult victimization, substance use and misuse, and mental health disorders in both men and women (Silver, Felson, & Vaneseltine, 2008; Widom & Maxfield, 2001). However, in contrast to men, women who use violence are more likely to have a relationship with the victim (Greenfeld & Snell, 1999; Pizarro, DeJong, & McGarell, 2010). Owing to the likelihood that the victims of women’s violence are partners or family members, much of the previous research on correlates of violence has been conducted with women involved in perpetrating intimate partner violence (IPV). However, research on characteristics of women engaged in a broader continuum of violence that may involve nonpartner targets or other types of offending and violent behaviors is far more limited. Moreover, the limited research examining this broader continuum often employs a dichotomous categorization of women with violent versus nonviolent current offenses, negating a more nuanced examination of similarities and differences among women (Byrd & Davis, 2009). This study expands the work of previous researchers by taking into account a range of violent behaviors—those officially identified (i.e., caught) as well as unidentified (i.e., uncaught) violent behaviors, and examining the within- and between-group differences in personality and temperament among incarcerated women.

Background

Although increases in the rates of incarceration for women between 1995 and 2005 were primarily attributable to factors such as new sentencing guidelines (Harrison & Beck, 2006), recent data demonstrates decreases in drug-related incarcerations and a corresponding increase in the proportion of women imprisoned for violent crime (West & Sabol, 2009). However, violent crime among women has remained relatively stable since 1960, with an overall decrease in homicide and robbery, but an increase in assaults throughout the 1990s (Koons-Witt & Schram, 2003; Kruttschnitt, 2002; Pollock & Davis, 2005; Schwartz, Steffensmeier, & Feldmeyer, 2009). Historically, nearly three quarters of women convicted of violent offenses were charged with simple assault (Greenfeld & Snell, 1999) and there has been some speculation that mandatory arrest policies in situations of domestic violence may be responsible for the increases in arrest/conviction for assault (Pollock & Davis, 2005; Schwartz et al., 2009). Even with this rise in assaults, notably, women still only comprise of approximately 20% of all arrests for simple and aggravated assault and approximately 10% of all homicide arrests (Pollock & Davis, 2005). Often, the perpetration of a violent crime by women is an isolated event occurring within the context of family and intimate relationships (Kruttschnitt, 2002; Mann, 1996). Nearly half (44%) of all homicides perpetrated by women involve an intimate partner with an additional one third described as acquaintances (Pollock & Davis, 2005).

Trauma theory (Herman, 1992, 1997) provides a foundation for this study’s exploration into the correlates of women’s use of violence. Trauma theory focuses on the idea that early trauma influences both perceptions of and reactions to life events (Kendall-Tackett, 2000). Moreover, exposure, particularly early and/or ongoing, to traumatic events may result in mental health distress and disorders (Greenfield & Marks, 2010; Mechanic, Weaver, & Resick, 2008), the use of alcohol and other drugs (Hedtke et al., 2008; Najavits, Weiss, & Shaw, 1997), and repressed anger (Neumann, Houskamp, Pollock, & Briere, 1996; Newman & Peterson, 1996; Springer, Sheridan, Kuo, & Carnes, 2007). Both mental health disorders and substance abuse have been linked to violence perpetration (e.g., Logan & Blackburn, 2009; Stuart et al., 2008). Likewise, anger from trauma is theorized to be confounded with emotional pain and often lacks healthy expressions, leading to the continual repression of anger and pain that may result in assaultive and violent behavior for women (Thomas, 2005).

Correlates to Women’s Use of Violence

Relationships in women’s lives are a catalyst for greater exposure to physical, sexual, and emotional abuse than in the lives of male offenders (Messina, Burdon, Hagopian, & Prendergrast, 2006; Raj et al., 2008). Although histories of victimization as a child or adult have been associated with violent behavior in men and women (Widom & Maxfield, 2001), women in prison are three times more likely to report having experienced sexual or physical abuse before the age of 18 than men (Harlow, 1999), and incarcerated women are more likely to experience childhood sexual assault, as well as later revictimization, when compared to nonincarcerated women (Tusher & Cook, 2010). Childhood physical and sexual abuse increases the risk of women utilizing violence in intimate relationships in adulthood (Dowd, Leisring, & Rosenbaum, 2005; Kernsmith, 2006; Siegel & Williams, 2003; Sullivan, Meese, Swan, Mazure, & Snow, 2005). In addition, studies of women’s perpetration of violence against their partners show that women who engage in violence are much more likely to have experienced physical abuse by their partners. In a birth cohort study, women who were victimized by their partners were 13 times more likely to be perpetrators of violence in intimate relationships than nonvictimized women, and in particular, women who experienced psychological abuse were seven times more likely to perpetrate violence than nonvictims (Magdol, Moffitt, Caspi, & Silva, 1998).

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a mental health disorder that is strongly associated with experiences of physical and sexual assault (Greenfield & Marks, 2010; Mechanic et al., 2008; Pico-Alfonso et al., 2006; Schneider, Baumrind, & Kimerling, 2007; Temple, Weston, Rodriguez, & Marshall, 2007) and commonly found in samples of women involved in the criminal justice system (Jordan, Schlenger, Fairbank, & Caddell, 1996; Kubiak, Beeble, & Bybee, 2010; Teplin, Abram, & McClelland, 1996). This is pivotal, as mental health disorders in general have been linked to women’s use of violence (Logan & Blackburn, 2009; Silver et al., 2008) and incarcerated women have higher rates of mental health disorders when compared to women in surrounding communities (Jordan et al., 1996; Teplin et al., 1996) or men involved in the criminal justice system (James & Glaze, 2006). Furthermore, symptoms of specific disorders such as posttraumatic stress and depression have been linked to women who use violence (Anderson, 2002; Goldenson, Geffner, Foster, & Clipson, 2007; Hamberger, 1997; Leisring, Dowd, & Rosenbaum, 2003; Swan, Gambone, Fields, Sullivan, & Snow, 2005).

In addition, the relationship between the use of alcohol and other drugs and aggression has been well established (e.g., Chermack & Giancola, 1997; Stuart et al., 2008) with some notable gender distinctions. Several studies of women seeking treatment for misuse of substances have found that many have perpetrated violence against a partner in the past year (Chase, O’Farrell, Murphy, Fals-Stewart, & Murphy, 2003; Chermack, Fuller, & Blow, 2000; Chermack, Walton, Fuller, & Blow, 2001), and Chermack and colleagues (2000) found that 21% of women entering treatment perpetrated severe violence against a nonpartner compared to 48% of men. Substance use disorders are highly prevalent among women involved in the criminal justice system with approximately 75% of incarcerated women meeting criteria for dependency (Kubiak, Boyd, Young, & Slayden, 2005) and 82% of women for a substance use disorder (Gunter et al., 2008). Furthermore, substance use/misuse often co-occurs with mental health disorders (Weizmann-Henelius, Putkonen, Naukkarinen, & Eronen, 2009) and/or histories of victimization (Dowd et al., 2005; Widom & White, 1997).

In addition to trauma, mental health issues, and substance use, women’s expression of anger has been linked to their use of violence. Under-controlled anger expression has been linked with women’s aggressive behavior, specifically with intimate partners (Swan et al., 2005). Female offenders in general have been found to score higher on anger expression scales (Suter, Bryne, Bryne, Howells, & Day, 2002), and violent offenders, in particular, have scored significantly higher on anger scales (Archer & Haigh, 1997). Verona and Carbonell’s (2000) study of female prisoners found relationships between elevated levels of inhibition, over controlling behaviors and explosive violence. After dividing the inmates into the categories of nonviolent, one-time violent, and repeat violent offenders, the repeat violent female offenders had the highest reports of acting out when provoked and the lowest inhibition against aggressive responses, whereas nonviolent offenders reported greater control over their experiences of anger (Verona & Carbonell, 2000).

Current Study

While women’s use of criminal violence is rare and that there is little risk of violent reoffending (Deschenes, Owen, & Crow, 2007), differences among women suggest a more patterned use of violence among a small minority of women with violent offenses (Byrd & Davis, 2009; Verona & Carbonell, 2000). Because of the limited number of studies involving women with violent offenses, the nuances between women using violence are not well understood. To increase this understanding, Pollock, Mullings, and Crouch (2006) expanded the definition of “violent” for female offenders beyond simply the offense classification by inquiring into recent histories (12 months prior to incarceration) of uncaught violent criminal behaviors. The authors asked inmates to report previous uncaught violent criminal behaviors, such as shooting a gun at someone or committing robbery with a gun. The category “violent” was then expanded to include those with a current violent offense as well as those who reported at least one uncaught violent criminal activity. Using this definition, Pollock and colleagues (2006) found significant differences between nonviolent and violent female offenders in sociodemographic factors, criminal history, gang membership, and childhood abuse.

Replicating and expanding upon this previous work, our study examines between and within-group differences among women with and without violent offenses and/or behaviors. Our primary goal is to identify potential differences among women who use violence to inform policy and practices within the correctional facility, as well as intervention and treatment, particularly for women who use violence. Our first question is, what are the individual characteristics and attributes of women who commit violent offenses/behaviors and how do they differ from women without assaultive offenses/behaviors? Our second research question asks, what are the important within-group differences among women with assaultive offenses and/or uncaught violent behaviors?

Method

A cross-sectional survey of randomly selected women in a Midwestern state prison system was utilized to gather the data for this project. Completion of the survey was voluntary and anonymous and approved by the Institutional Review Board.

Sampling

Approximately 30% of women entering this state prison are convicted of an assaultive offense. The primary goal of the sampling plan was to yield a large enough sample to be able to assess multiple similarities and differences among women with and without assault offenses, across multiple security levels. In addition, because previous literature reports the association between violence and substance abuse, and most incarcerated women have a substance use disorder (SUD), a secondary goal was to assure that we could test this relationship within the sample. Therefore, women were randomly selected, but the selection was stratified across three security levels (low, medium, high) and the presence or absence of a SUD. Because the highest security level was sparsely populated, we included all of the women in this level. The stratification across those with and without a SUD was based upon the department’s screening via the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI; Lazowski, Miller, Boye, & Miller, 1998).

In total, 822 women were selected for the survey and put on the correctional facility’s “call out” list that required them to be present at a prespecified time and place to hear about the survey and decide if they wanted to participate. Because other requirements of the correctional facility took priority over the survey, not all women attended the data collection meeting. Of those that were “called out,” 71% (n = 580) participated and completed all or part of the survey. Due to the anonymous nature of the survey, we have no information as to the similarity or differences between those that did and those that did not attend.

Missing Data

Among the 580 surveys obtained, six cases were eliminated because they were missing responses to more than 80% of the items. In addition, 31 cases were eliminated because there was a missing a response to current offense—a variable used for grouping cases—resulting in 543 (94%) usable surveys. These remaining surveys contained a modest amount of missing data (5% of the data matrix). A statistical test, Little’s Test of Missing Completely at Random (Little’s MCAR), indicated that the pattern of missing data could be considered “ignorable,” or missing at random (Little’s MCAR χ² = 90,233.5 (df = 90,246), p = .51) and therefore appropriate for statistical estimation. We estimated missing data using expectation maximization (EM) in order to maximize statistical power for analysis and to reduce bias that can be caused by ad hoc methods of handling missing data (Little & Rubin, 2002).

Measures

Violent Offense/Behavior

There were two measures of violent behavior used in the study. The first was conviction of a violent offense based upon having either a current or past offense involving robbery, assault, homicide, or sex offense with force, as defined by the Department of Corrections guidelines. The second measure was a brief series of 10 behaviorally explicit questions regarding their engagement in violent behavior in the 12 months prior to incarceration for which they were “not caught.” These questions replicated items from a study on violence perpetrated by incarcerated women by Pollock and colleagues (2006). Women were asked: “in the 12 months before incarceration did you participate in any of the following activities that you did not get caught: (a) committed robbery with a gun or knife (9%), (b) committed robbery without a weapon (15%), (c) injured or killed someone (16%), (d) threatened another with a gun or knife (18%), (e) shot a gun or cut with a knife (14%), (f) sexually assaulted another (1%), and (g) beat up another person (30%).” Affirmative answers to any of these resulted in women being grouped into the “violent” category.

Mental Health History and Current Distress

Participants responded to three dichotomous questions about receipt of mental health services prior to incarceration: (a) whether they received any mental health treatment in the community prior to the current incarceration, (b) whether they had ever taken a prescription medication for a mental health problem, and (c) whether they had ever spent a night in a mental hospital or in the psychiatric unit of a hospital. In addition, the K6, a 6- item scale validated nationally and internationally (Kessler et al., 2002, 2003), and among incarcerated women (Kubiak et al., 2009, 2010), was used to screen for current (previous 4 weeks) symptoms indicative of serious mental illness. As a brief screening tool the K6 is designed to detect any past year diagnosis of a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV; 1994) Axis I disorder and a Global Assessment of Functioning score (GAF) of 60 or below. Taken together these two parameters indicate significant functional impairment (Kessler et al., 2002, 2003). Participants responded on a scale from 0 (none of the time) to 4 (all of the time) and responses were summed. The established cut score of 13 or above, indicating serious psychological distress, which was used to create a dichotomous variable for serious mental illness (SMI). The range of scores was 0 to 24 with a mean of 8.1 (SD = 5.9) and Cronbach’s α for K6 scale was .88.

Substance Use/Misuse

The SASSI is utilized by the correctional facility to assess the presence or absence of a SUD. Research on the SASSI demonstrated a high accuracy (94%) in screening for substance dependence diagnosis (Lazowski et al., 1998). Convergent validity was also demonstrated with a variety of other indexes, including the Michigan Alcohol Screening Test (MAST), the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Invertory-2 (MMPI-2), and the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-II (MCMI-II; Lazowski et al., 1998). In addition, SASSI showed higher accuracy (89%) in detecting women with substance dependence than in detecting men (59%; Perez & Wish, 2011). Additional dichotomous questions in the survey asked about respondents’ use of either alcohol or other drugs in the year before being incarcerated. Researchers were provided with the screening output attributable to the SASSI only, and were unable to assess single item data for reliability testing. However, correlations with a validated measure of the need for treatment (SAQ—see below) found that the substance abuse treatment subscale was highly correlated with a determination for substance dependency on the SASSI (r _s = .530, p < .001). Likewise, women who were substance dependent had significantly higher score in SAQAD than those who were not substance dependent (4.3 vs. 1.8, p < .001).

Inhibition

The high correlation between use/misuse of alcohol and other drugs and perpetration of violence is well known (see Chermack et al., 2009). However, no self-report scales assess the degree to which the use of alcohol or other drugs may reduce inhibitions toward aggressive behavior. Therefore, the scale in this survey was generated by the research team to assess the role of alcohol/drugs in women’s use of aggression. The questions asked whether participants were more or less likely to be involved in the six specific activities when they were drinking and/or using drugs: “being true to myself and who I am as a person,” “arguing with others,” “saying hurtful things,” “getting in physical fights with my romantic or sexual partner,” “getting in physical fights with others,” and “taking risks that I usually would not.” A response range from the least (1) to the most (7) likely was used to sum the scores, with higher scores indicating “less inhibited” while using alcohol/drugs. The range of scores was 0 to 42 with a mean of 20.1 (SD = 11.9) and a Cronbach’s α of .85.

Instrumental and Expressive Anger

Instrumental and expressive anger were assessed through the Revised Expressions of Aggression Scale (Revised Expagg). The Revised Expagg was developed to measure a respondent’s view of his/her own aggression as either an instrumental or expressive act using two subscales with 8 items each (Campbell, Muncer, McManus, & Woodhouse, 1999). The unbiased mean effect size across 1,674 participants was large (d = .84) and the reliability of the questionnaire in various samples ranged from .70 to .91 (Campbell et al., 1999). The scale measures aggression through a total from all 16 scale items. The first subscale, measures instrumental anger, or anger used to manipulate or threaten, with items such as “I believe that physical force is needed to get through to some people” and “If I hit someone and hurt them, they were asking for it.” The second subscale assessed expressive anger, or anger that erupts from repressed feelings, using items such as “During a physical fight I feel out of control” and “After a physical fight I feel drained and guilty.” Participants responded on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Both subscales were summed after appropriately reverse scoring some items. Both anger scales had the same range of scores, 8 to 40 with a mean of 16.3 (SD = 7.2) for instrumental anger and a mean of 21.0 (SD = 8.0) for expressive anger respectively. We found α coefficients of .90 (instrumental anger) and .88 (expressive anger).

Impulsivity

Impulsivity was measured by the Dysfunctional Impulsivity subscale within the Functional and Dysfunctional Impulsivity (FDI) scale, (Dickman, 1990). FDI shows high internal reliability and has been validated via both self-report and behavioral measures (Dickman, 1990). The Dysfunctional Impulsivity subscale has 12 true/false items that measures the tendency to act with less forethought Individuals items include, “I will often say whatever comes into my head without thinking first” and “I enjoy working out problems slowly and carefully.” After reverse scoring appropriate items, a sum score was created with higher score indicating more impulsivity. The range of scores was 0 to 12 with a mean of 5.4 (SD = 3.7) and a Cronbach’s α of .86.

Perpetration and Victimization History

Women were asked to provide information about their interpersonal violence perpetration and victimization in lifetime. Items were categorized into one of three subscales. Physical violence items were based upon the Conflict Tactics Scales (Straus, 1979; Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996) Items such as “burned,” “choked,” and “beat unconscious” comprised the 5-item severe physical violence subscale. The minor physical violence subscale contained two items, “pushed, grabbed, shoved, thrown” and “held to keep from leaving or restrained physically.” In addition, we created a nine-item intimidation scale included items such as, “threatened to kill,” “threatened to harm,” and “threatened with HIV.” Several of these items were based on the Abusive Behavior Inventory (Shepard & Campbell, 1992). Women were asked to report whether or not they had been the victim and/or perpetrator of each act by romantic partners and/or someone other than a romantic partner. Responses were dichotomized into either no (0) or yes (1), and scores were summed to indicate the total number of items endorsed.

Criminogenic Risks

The Self-Appraisal Questionnaire (SAQ) is a criminal justice risk/need assessment tool consisting of a 72-item scale with eight subscales measuring criminal tendencies, conduct problems, criminal history, alcohol and drug abuse, antisocial associates, anger, antisocial personality problems, and validity subscale (Loza, Neo, Shahinfar, & Loza-Fanous, 2005). All of the subscales combined (67 items), with the exception of the anger subscale, are used to predict violent and nonviolent recidivism (Loza et al., 2005). The anger subscale was shown insignificant in previous research (Loza & Loza-Fanous, 1999a, 1999b). Items on the SAQ validity subscale (SAQVAL) are incorporated within the other SAQ subscales (Loza et al., 2005). SAQ responses were coded dichotomously (true or false). For this analysis, the total SAQ score is utilized. The range of scores was 2 to 64 with a mean of 25.0 (SD = 12.4). Cronbach’s α for the scale was .92.

Analysis

χ² were conducted to examine differences on mental health, substance dependency, criminal behavior, and IPV between groups. One-way ANOVAs with post hoc Tukey’s were conducted to test within-group differences on scales and violence categories. Marascuillo procedure (Marascuilo & McSweeney, 1977) was used for comparing proportions of the three groups of women.

Results

The average age of women upon entering prison was 32 years (SD = 9.9) and the current mean age was 37 years (SD = 10.5). The average prison stay at the time of the data collection was 6 years (SD = 6.5). Nearly two-thirds of the women (61%, n = 333) had a current assaultive offense as defined by the department of corrections (i.e., assault, arson, homicide, robbery); 17% of women (n = 92) had a drug related offense (i.e., drug use, drug sales, and driving under the influence) and 24% (n = 129) had a property offense (i.e., burglary, fraud). About 15% of the women (n = 81) were incarcerated for other offenses, including prostitution and possession of a weapon. In assessing violent behavior the women engaged in—but were not caught for—we found that 245 women (45%) engaged in some types of violent behavior in the year before coming to prison, for which they were not arrested.

Between-Group Analysis: Comparing Women With Violent and Nonviolent Behaviors

In the first set of analyses, women were divided into two groups—“violent” and “nonviolent” based upon their current/prior offenses were assaultive and/or they engaged in “uncaught” violence within the community in the year prior to incarceration. As a result, 417 (76.8%) women were defined as violent and 126 (23.2%) women were defined as nonviolent. Of the women in the “violent” group, 46% reported both violence-related charges and additional violent behaviors in the community; 41% had violent criminal offenses but no additional uncaught violent behaviors; and 13% reported having engaged in violent prior behaviors but were serving sentences for nonviolent offenses.

Table 1 presents differences between the “violent” and “nonviolent” groups of women in relation to age, mental health and substance use disorders, criminal justice history, and personality indicators. Women in the nonviolent group differed significantly on age, currently (40 vs. 37 years) as well as at prison admission (37 vs. 30 years) and had spent less time in prison (4 vs. 7 years) than women in the violent group. Interestingly, a higher proportion of women in the nonviolent group were significantly more likely to have been to prison previously (34% vs. 22%), but women in the violent group scored higher on the criminal justice risk measure (Mean = 26.3 vs. 20.8). There were no differences on the presence or absence of previous arrest or conviction. Women in the violent group were more likely to have experienced severe physical abuse victimization by both intimate partners (61% vs. 51%) and others (36% vs. 22%) compared to those in the nonviolent group. They were also more likely to experience intimidation by others than were women in the nonviolent group (36% vs. 23%). There were no between-group difference in experiences of intimidation by partners. Although there were no differences on the inhibition or impulsivity scales between groups, both measures of anger—expressive and instrumental—were significantly higher in the group of violent women when compared to those in the nonviolent group. Differences in psychiatric hospitalizations trending toward significance (p = .08), with the violent group having more experiences (36% vs. 27%). Similarly, there were no significant differences on other measures of mental health—including serious mental illness—or the presence of a substance use disorder. However, women in the violent group tended to regularly use alcohol or drugs in the year preceding their arrest in greater proportion than in the group of nonviolent women (82% vs. 73%).

Table 1.

Comparison Between Violent and Nonviolent Women.

	Total	No Violence	Violent Offense or Behavior
	N = 543 (100%)	N = 126 (23.2%)	N = 417 (76.8%)
	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	t (541)
Age
Current age	37.7 (10.5)	40.3 (9.0)	37.0 (10.8)	3.47**
Age at incarceration	31.7 (9.9)	36.5 (8.4)	30.2 (9.9)	7.06***
Length of stay	6.0 (6.5)	3.8 (4.3)	6.7 (6.9)	5.76***
	%	%	%	χ² (1,543)
Offense type
Assaultive offense	61.3	0	79.9	260.17***
Drug offense	16.9	33.3	12.0	31.32***
Property offense	23.8	51.6	15.3	70.16***
Others (prostitution, weapons)	14.9	21.4	12.9	5.48*
Uncaught violence	45.1	0	58.7
Robbery with a gun or knife	9.2	0	12.0	16.64***
Robbery without a weapon	15.3	0	19.9	29.60***
Injuring or killing someone	16	0	20.9	31.30***
Threatening with a gun or knife	18.2	0	23.7	36.58***
Shooting gun or cutting with knife	14.2	0	18.5	27.11***
Sexually assaulting another	1.3	0	1.7	2.14
Beating up another person	29.5	0	38.4	68.54***
Mental health (MH) history
Previous MH treatment	44.6	38.9	46.3	2.14
Psychiatric medication	50.3	50.0	50.4	0.01
Psychiatric hospitalization	33.5	27.0	35.5	3.14
Serious mental illness	24.1	24.6	24.0	0.02
Substance use
Substance dependence	65.4	63.5	65.9	0.26
Use alcohol or drugs	79.6	73.0	81.5	4.32*
Criminal justice history
Previously arrested	65.7	69.0	64.7	0.79
Previously convicted	56.9	61.1	55.6	1.18
Previously been in prison	24.7	34.1	21.8	7.88**
Victimization history
Severe physical abuse by partner	58.9	50.8	61.4	4.49*
Intimidation by partner	56.4	50.8	58.0	2.06
Severe physical abuse by other	32.4	22.2	35.5	7.78**
Intimidation by other	32.6	23.0	35.5	6.86**
	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	t (541)
Personality indicators
Inhibition	20.1 (11.8)	19.0 (11.6)	20.4 (11.9)	1.12
Instrumental anger	16.3 (7.2)	13.5 (5.3)	17.2 (7.5)	6.10***
Expressive anger	21.0 (8.0)	18.2 (7.6)	21.8 (7.9)	4.55***
Impulsivity scale	5.4 (3.7)	5.3 (3.5)	5.5 (3.8)	0.57
CJ Risk (SAQ Total)	25.0 (12.4)	20.8 (10.1)	26.3 (12.8)	–5.01***

Note: *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Within-Group Analyses: Examining Differences Among Women Using Violence

We assessed within-group differences comparing three groups of women characterized as violent: Group A comprised of women who were involved in any uncaught violence in the 12 months prior to last arrest but who were not convicted of a violent offense (uncaught, n = 52); Group B were those who were convicted of a singular violent offense, but did not report engagement in other violent behavior (isolated violence, n = 172); and Group C was made up of women who were convicted of a violent offense AND engaged in violent behavior in the year prior, for which they were not caught (patterned violence, n = 193). To be clear, women in the “uncaught” violence group would be those that would not be identified in a corrections classification as a “violent offender” because their current or past offense would not have included violence.

Isolated Versus Patterned Use of Violence

There was no significant difference on current age among the three subgroups of women in the “violent” category; however, women engaging in patterned violence entered prison at an age approximately 4 years younger than those with uncaught violence when entering prison. Women in the isolated violence group entered prison at an age slightly older than women with uncaught violence, but the difference was not significant. Although women in the isolated violence group (Group B) were significantly less likely to have a previous arrest, conviction or incarceration in state prison than either uncaught violence only (Group A) or patterned violence (Group C), their length of stay in prison on this current sentence was no different than women in the patterned violence group. Women with isolated and patterned violence averaged about 5 years longer in prison than the group with uncaught violence (see Table 2). Interestingly, the criminal justice risk assessment tool (SAQ) assessed the isolated violence group with significantly less risk (Mean = 19.4, SD = 10.2) than either the uncaught violence (Mean = 32.3, SD = 12.1) or patterned violence (Mean = 30.8, SD = 12.3) groups.

Table 2.

Comparison Within Violent Women (n = 417).

	(A)	(B)	(C)
	Uncaught	Isolated	Patterned
	Violence	Violence	Violence
	N = 52 (12.5%)	N = 172 (41.2%)	N = 193 (46.3%)
	%	%	%	χ² (2,417)	Group Difference^a
Mental health history
Previous MH treatment	59.6	36.0	51.8	13.34**	B < A = C
Psychiatric medication	59.6	39.5	57.5	13.76**	B < A = C
Psychiatric hospitalization	38.5	29.1	40.4	5.34	No difference
Serious mental illness	28.8	17.4	28.5	6.87*	B < C
Substance use
Substance dependence	75.0	55.2	73.1	15.03**	B < A = C
Use alcohol or drugs	92.3	75.0	84.5	9.98**	B < A
Criminal justice history
Previously arrested	86.5	50.0	72.0	31.68***	B < C < A
Previously convicted	75.0	42.4	62.2	23.38***	B < A = C
Previously been in prison	44.2	13.4	23.3	22.76***	B < C < A
Victimization history
Severe physical by partner	59.6	62.8	60.6	0.26	No difference
Intimidation by partner	61.5	57.6	57.5	0.30	No difference
Severe physical by other	36.5	23.3	46.1	20.78***	B < C
Intimidation by other	44.2	23.8	43.5	17.38***	B < A = C
	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	F(2,414)	Group difference^b
Age
Current age	35.7 (9.8)	38.4 (10.9)	36.0 (11.0)	2.73	No difference
Age of incarceration	33.0 (9.5)	30.8 (10.1)	29.0 (9.6)	3.89*	C < A
Length of stay	2.7 (2.7)	7.7 (7.2)	7.0 (7.1)	10.99***	A < B = C
Personality scale
Inhibition	25.0 (10.5)	16.4 (12.0)	22.7 (11.1)	18.72***	B < A = C
Instrumental anger	18.4 (6.3)	14.4 (6.0)	19.3 (8.1)	22.47***	B < A = C
Expressive anger	22.9 (7.8)	19.3 (7.9)	23.8 (7.4)	16.29***	B < A = C
Impulsivity scale	7.1 (3.7)	4.1 (3.7)	6.3 (3.6)	21.43***	B < A = C
CJ RISK (SAQ Total)	32.3 (12.1)	19.4 (10.2)	30.8 (12.3)	53.50***	B < A = C

Note: ^aDifferences in proportions of women among groups are significant at p < .05 in the Marascuilo procedure (Marascuilo & McSweeney, 1977).

Differences of mean scores among groups are significant at p < .05 in the Tukey honestly significant difference comparison.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

There were significant differences on mental health history across groups on all variables except psychiatric hospitalization, which continued to trend toward significance. Women in the isolated violence group were the least likely to have mental health histories than the other groups. Approximately a third (36%) of women with isolated violence received mental health treatment within the community and 40% received psychiatric medications prior to incarceration. In comparison, over half of the women with uncaught violence (60%) and patterned violence (52%) received mental health treatment in the community and 60% of the group with uncaught violence and 58% of those in the patterned violence group received psychiatric medication in the community. In terms of serious mental illness (SMI), a similar pattern emerged, with the women in the uncaught and patterned violence groups encompassing a significantly higher and similar proportion (29%) compared to those in the isolated violence group (17%). In addition, the uncaught and patterned violence groups were significantly more likely to have a substance dependence disorder (75% and 73% respectively) compared to 55% for the isolated violence group. Routine use of alcohol and drugs prior to incarceration averaged 82% across groups, but those in the uncaught and patterned violence groups (92% and 85% respectively) were significantly more likely to use in the year prior to arrest than those in the isolated group (75%). Also, women in the uncaught and patterned violence groups were significantly more likely to have experienced intimidation by others (44% of both groups) than those in the isolated group (24%). Women in the patterned violence group were significantly more likely to be physically victimized by others than the isolated violence group (46% vs. 23%). There was no difference on severe physical victimization and intimidation by partner. Interestingly, a larger proportion of women in the isolated group were serving sentences for homicide than those in the patterned violence group (54% vs. 39%, χ² (1) = 7.9, p = .005).

On all measures of personality, the isolated violence group scored more favorably and significantly different from the other two groups, who again were similar to each other. In the area of decreasing inhibition toward violence when drinking or drugging, the isolated group averaged a score of 16.4 (SD = 12.0) while the uncaught violence and patterned violence group scored 25.0 (SD = 10.5) and 22.7 (SD = 11.1) respectively. Similarly, impulsivity was significantly lower among women with isolated violence (Mean = 4, SD = 3.74) compared to those with uncaught and patterned violence (Mean = 7.1, SD = 3.74 and Mean = 6.3, SD = 3.64, respectively). Expressive anger was higher than instrumental anger across violence groups (Mean = 21.8 vs. 17.2). However, women with isolated violence averaged a score of 19.3 on expressive and 14.4 on instrumental anger. This was significantly different from the other two groups, who were statistically similar to each other: expressive anger averaged 22.9 for the uncaught group and 23.8 for the patterned group, and instrumental anger averaged 18.4 for the uncaught and 19.3 for the patterned groups.

Discussion

This study assessed a randomly selected sample of incarcerated women within a Midwestern prison system to examine differences between and within those with and without violent behavior. The majority of these randomly selected women (61%, n = 333) had a violent offense for which they were currently incarcerated. In addition, 45% of the women (n = 245) engaged in violent behavior within the community in the 12 months prior to incarceration for which they were not “caught” or arrested. Taken together, 77% of this sample of women (n = 417), had either a conviction for a violent offense and/or engaged in violent behavior for which they could have been arrested in the year prior to incarceration.

Using the offense women were convicted on as well as these “uncaught” behaviors to categorize them as “violent” replicates categorizations used in a previous study of incarcerated women in Texas (Pollock et al., 2006). The conceptualization in that study was that, irrespective of the legal response, perpetration of future violence—and return to the correctional facility—is equally problematic for both groups of women. However, in this previous study, there was no within-group investigation to assess how women with violent behavior/crimes may differ from each other. Potential differences among women who use violence may be associated with the situational or contextual factors surrounding the violent behavior (i.e., self-defense, preemptive or protective violence, and primary aggressor; see Miller & Meloy, 2006) or other factors such as mental health or substance abuse issues. In any event, these differences may necessitate variation in intervention approaches. For these reasons, we used both between and within-group analyses to assess differences, finding that a dichotomous categorization obscures differences among women with violent behavior/crimes.

With the dichotomous categorization of violence or no violence, between-group differences were not found on measures of substance use disorder, serious mental illness, previous mental health treatment, and previous arrest/conviction. Other studies using a similar dichotomy have also found few demographic and/or criminal history differences (Byrd & Davis, 2009; Pollock et al., 2006) . However, these studies did not assess mental health or substance use disorders. The lack of differences on these indicators was surprising given prior research findings that serious mental health problems were predictive of assaultive offenses (Silver et al., 2008). However, the association between mental health disorders and violence has been debated extensively in the literature. Admittedly, this is a complex issue to untangle, particularly when measures of mental health/mental illness vary across studies and do not lend themselves to direct comparison (for a review, see Lurigio & Harris, 2009). It is possible that the use of a screening measure (i.e., K6) may not have provided enough detailed nuances to fully capture the presence of an SMI. Therefore, further research could explore the nuances of the role of serious mental illness and women’s engagement in violence.

Similar to previous studies of incarcerated women, there were differences in experiences of victimization between the violent and nonviolent groups. Although the majority of all women in the study reported severe physical abuse by partners (59%), women in the violent group were more likely to experience severe physical violence by their partners (61% vs. 51%) and others (35% vs. 22%) when compared to the no violence group. This relationship between victimization and perpetration of violence has been found in other studies of incarcerated women (Byrd & Davis, 2009; Pollock et al., 2006). Although our survey did not specifically query childhood abuse, prior studies would suggest that physical violence by “other”—defined as “by someone other than a romantic partner”—could in many cases be violence perpetrated by a parent, guardian, and/or stranger. Given the dearth of interventions specifically designed for women with violent behaviors (see Tripodi, Bledsoe, Kim, & Bender, 2011 for a review of interventions for incarcerated women), intervention development for this group of women can benefit from a trauma-informed perspective. Likewise, such interventions could address the myriad of forms of interpersonal violence present in women’s lives.

Overall, our sample of incarcerated women scored higher than community samples on anger measures (Campbell & Muncer, 2008). Although there were no differences in personality measures of inhibition and impulsivity between women with and without violent offense/behaviors, there were differences in measures of instrumental and expressive anger. As defined by Campbell and colleagues (1999), expressive anger is characterized by holding in or suppressing anger until there is an “explosion” of emotion. In contrast, instrumental anger is a more outward expression of anger that is often used to control others. Women in the violent group were significantly higher on both expressive and instrumental anger. A number of studies have shown that a tendency to react to life events with either form of anger was positively associated with posttraumatic stress disorder and a detrimental response to treatment (Foa, Cascardi, Zoellner, & Feeny, 2000). Therefore, the higher anger scores for women in the violent category may be due to the higher rates of trauma and victimization for this group. Likewise, further research could explore the connection between women’s expressions of anger and specific forms of aggressive behaviors. For example, expressive anger is similar in characteristics to impulsive aggression (an emotionally charged, loss of control aggressive reaction; Barratt, 1991), and instrumental anger appears similar to premeditated aggression which is planned, intentional, and focused on control (Stanford, Houston, Villemarette-Pittman, & Greve, 2003). Current research on women’s use of these forms of aggression in the context of intimate partner violence shows that these two categories are not significant or as relevant for women as when studied with men. In fact, some studies suggest that women using either form of aggression in IPV perpetration are similar to male batters utilizing impulsive aggression (Lake & Stanford, 2011). Likewise, although the Revised Expagg has been validated in many studies using women (Campbell et al., 1999), there were items some of the women in our study rejected. For example, items that were written assuming that there was a physical altercation gave women limited options for answering. Many women wrote notes in the margin of the measure with questions about how to respond if they had never been in a physical fight. Future research exploring the nuances of anger expression and aggression type for women is warranted, as is research into better capturing such information from women, in order to better understand women’s experiences.

For a more thorough understanding of women engaged in violence, our analyses considered within-group differences of women with violent offenses/behaviors who were categorized into three groups: (A) uncaught perpetration of violence (uncaught); (B) current violent offense, but no reported uncaught behaviors (isolated violence); and (C) both uncaught and convicted violence (patterned violence). In contrast to the relative absence of differences when using the dichotomous categories of violent/nonviolent, nearly every variable (with the exception of victimization history) illustrated differences between the three groups. There were striking similarities between women with uncaught community violence (Group A) and those with patterns of caught and/or uncaught criminal violence (Group C) and, in stark contrast, little commonality with women that were involved in isolated violence (Group B). Women in the uncaught and patterned violence groups (A & C) had significantly higher rates of mental health and substance use disorders, criminal justice involvement, personality indicators of anger, impulsivity and disinhibition, and overall criminogenic risk than women in the isolated violence group (B). Previous research has found differences in women engaged in a single act of violence versus women engaged in multiple or repeated acts of violence (Verona & Carbonell, 2000; D’Silva & Duggan, 2010), and has suggested that women with isolated violence tend to be involved in extreme acts of violence against an intimate partner. Indeed, women who have killed their intimate partners have shown differences from other female offenders, including less extensive histories of previous criminal behaviors (Leonard, 2001). In addition, women who are generally violent, versus violent just against their partner, have shown more psychological distress stemming from previous abuse and trauma (Babcock, Miller, & Siard, 2003). Congruent with trauma theory, while the patterned violence women in our study did not experience significantly more trauma than the isolated violence women, their reactions to such extensive trauma and victimization could include high rates of mental health distress, substance abuse, extreme anger expression, and subsequent violence perpetration.

The difference in terms of personality indicators, especially anger, resonate with the previous findings on women’s anger and violent offending (D’Silva & Duggan, 2010); women do not fit into the models of under/over controlled typology utilized for violent male offenders (developed by Megargee, 1966). Instead, these findings suggest that it is women’s extreme expression of anger—whether extremely expressed instrumentally or extremely contained in an expressive manner—that is associated with repeat violence engagement. These findings call for further research to understand the practical significance and implications for intervention strategies. For example, one practical implication may result in assessing women within the isolated group as having less risk of recidivism than women in the other violent groups.

There has been an ongoing debate within the criminology literature on whether current risk assessment tools are adequate to assess the criminogenic risks among women in a method that is sensitive to the differences between male and female offenders (see Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2006; Salisbury & VanVoorhis, 2009). Considering Loza and colleagues (2005) experienced some success in predicting risk of reoffending among violent female offenders with the SAQ, the SAQ was used in this study. The dichotomous categorization analysis resulted in a significantly higher score for women in the violent group. The within violence group comparisons depict much greater variation. Women in Group B (isolated violence) had an average risk score lower than the no-violent group that is also quite distinctly lower than the scores of the patterned and uncaught violence groups. In addition, the SAQ risk scores suggest cut points for treatment recommendation on various subscales and it is important to note that nearly half the woman in the pattern violence group did not meet the threshold scores on the SAQ for recommendations to treatment (see Kubiak, Kim, Bybee, & Eshelman, 2013). Moreover, these discrepancies between risk scores and treatment recommendations support the need for more gender responsive assessment instruments (Van Voorhis, Wright, Salisbury, & Baumer, 2010). These findings also have implications for parole boards and departments of corrections in terms of programming, confinement, and release decisions, especially considering the low-risk associated with women with isolated violence. For example, if a woman with a minimal history of criminal involvement, current conviction for homicide and low risk score was presented, would there be the inclination to allow a low security level of confinement, and/or more involvement in institutional programming?

Interestingly, and perhaps reinforcing the relationship between victimization and perpetration, our broader examination comparing women within the violent groups found differences for experiences of victimization. Women with uncaught and patterned violence had significantly higher rates of physical victimization and intimidation by someone other than a romantic partner than women with isolated violence. Again, because our survey lacked specificity on who “other” might be, we are uncertain if women experiencing such threats victimization are exposed to more pervasive community violence than other forms of interpersonal violence. This is an area where future research will be helpful.

Although our study is limited by reliance on self-reported data, our use of anonymous surveys collected by noninstitutional staff increase the reliability of self-report. In the spirit on anonymity, we collected few demographic characteristics and thus are unable to compare women on factors such as race, socioeconomic status, and details of their current offense. Although limiting our analyses on the one hand, we believe that the women’s disclosure of uncaught violence provided an indication of their comfort and cooperation that might have been absent with questions that may have compromised their anonymity. However, the lack of identification of who the “other” nonintimate partner is in our measures of victimization limits our ability to test if childhood abuse was related to perpetration of violence as other studies have found. Moreover, the lack of information on who may be threatening or intimidating women other than partners handicaps our assessment of exposure to other forms of violence women within the community and why such exposure would differ between women within the violence group. Finally, the lack of additional information about the women’s offenses limits our ability to assess if their crime was related to IPV. Although there is no reason to assume this population of women would differ from national statistics on the targets of women’s violence, the absence of that data limits our analysis.

Conclusion

This study expands previous research in two ways. First, it uses data collected in a Midwestern prison system to replicate categorizations of violent offenses as well as “uncaught” violent behavior that were used in a study of women in a Texas prison (see Pollock & Davis, 2005). Second, it goes beyond analyses that compare violent and nonviolent women by examining differences among women with violent offenses or recent uncaught violent behaviors. We found fewer differences among women when using the dichotomous violent/nonviolent categorization than when we examined within violent group differences. This suggests that simple categorization—whether by criminal justice personnel or researchers—may mask important within-group differences that may be salient to understanding women’s use of violence as well as their criminogenic risk. Women who have committed a violent offense but who have no recent history of other uncaught or caught violence, reflect a profile that is much more similar to women with no violence history, and as such, may pose minimal risk of violent or nonviolent offending. Future research examining long-term outcomes of these groups will provide useful information to the field.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The project received state support. However, the state funding source wishes to remain unnamed.

Author Biographies

Sheryl Pimlott Kubiak, PhD, is an associate professor and the PhD Program Coordinator at Michigan State University. Her research examines the intersections of mental health, substance abuse, and criminal justice at individual and systems levels.

Woo Jong Kim is a PhD student in the Social Work program at Michigan State University. Her research interests include issues of social policy, especially for families of young children, and exploring issues relevant to social work with incarcerated women, such as risk assessment.

Gina Fedock is a PhD student in the Social Work program at Michigan State University. Her research interests focus on women’s health and mental health, especially for women marginalized by identity factors and in marginalized contexts such as prisons.

Deborah Bybee, PhD, is a professor of Ecological/Community Psychology at Michigan State University who specializes in research design and statistical methodology. Her work focuses on the application of multivariate techniques to understand complex, real-world phenomena, especially those that involve change over time. Her substantive interests include violence against women, trauma, and mental health.

References

Anderson

K. L.

(2002). Perpetrator or victim? Relationships between intimate partner violence and well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 851-863.

Andrews

D. A.

Bonta

Wormith

J. S.

(2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 7-27.

Archer

Haigh

A. M.

(1997). Beliefs about aggression among male and female prisoners. Aggressive Behavior, 23, 405-415.

Babcock

J. C.

Miller

S. A.

Siard

(2003). Toward a typology of abusive women: Differences between partner-only and generally violent women in the use of violence. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27, 153-161.

Barratt

E. S.

(1991). Measuring and predicting aggression within the context of a personality theory. Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 3, S35-S53.

Byrd

P. M.

Davis

J. L.

(2009). Violent behavior in female inmates: Possible predictors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 379-392.

Campbell

Muncer

(2008). Intent to harm or injure? Gender and the expression of anger.” Aggressive Behavior, 34, 232-293.

Campbell

Muncer

Mcmanus

Woodhouse

(1999). Instrumental and expressive representations of aggression: One scale or two? Aggressive Behavior, 25, 435-444.

Chase

K. A.

O’Farrell

T. J.

Murphy

C. M.

Fals-Stewart

Murphy

(2003). Factors associated with partner violence among female alcoholic patients and their male partners. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 64, 137-149.

10.

Chermack

S. T.

Fuller

B. E.

Blow

F. C.

(2000). Predictors of expressed partner and non-partner violence among patients in substance abuse treatment. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 58, 43-54.

11.

Chermack

S. T.

Giancola

(1997). The relationship between alcohol and aggression: An integrated biopsychosocial conceptualization. Clinical Psychology Review, 17, 621-649.

12.

Chermack

S. T.

Murray

R. L.

Winters

J. L.

Walton

M. A.

Booth

B. M.

Blow

F. C.

(2009). Treatment needs of men and women with violence problems in substance use disorder treatment. Substance Use and Misuse, 44, 1236-1262.

13.

Chermack

S. T.

Walton

M. A.

Fuller

B. E.

Blow

F. C.

(2001). Correlates of expressed and received violence across relationship types among men and women substance abusers. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 15(2), 140-151.

14.

Deschenes

E. P.

Owen

Crow

(2007). Recidivism among female prisoners: Secondary analysis of the 1994 BJS recidivism data set (NIJ Document No.: 216950). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

15.

Dickman

S. J.

(1990). Functional and dysfunctional impulsivity: Personality and cognitive correlates. Journal of Personality and social psychology, 58(1), 95-102.

16.

D’Silva

Duggan

(2010). Revisiting the overcontrolled–undercontrolled typology of violent offenders. Personality and Mental Health, 4(3), 193-205.

17.

Dowd

L. S.

Leisring

P. A.

Rosenbaum

(2005). Partner aggressive women: Characteristics and treatment attrition. Violence and Victims, 20(2), 219-233.

18.

Foa

E. B.

Cascardi

Zoellner

L. A.

Feeny

N. C.

(2000). Psychological and environmental factors associated with partner violence. Trauma Violence & Abuse, 1, 67-91.

19.

Goldenson

Geffner

Foster

S. L.

Clipson

C. R.

(2007). Female domestic violence offenders: Their attachment security, trauma symptoms, and personality organization. Violence and Victims, 22, 532-545.

20.

Greenfield

E. A.

Marks

N. F.

(2010). Identifying experiences of physical and psychological violence in childhood that jeopardize mental health in adulthood. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34(3), 161-171.

21.

Greenfeld

L. A.

Snell

T. L.

(1999). Women offenders (NCJ Publication No. 175688). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

22.

Gunter

T. D.

Arndt

Wenman

Allen

Loveless

Sieleni

Black

D. W.

(2008). Frequency of mental and addictive disorders among 320 men and women entering the Iowa prison system: Use of the MINI-Plus. Journal of American Academy Psychiatry Law, 36(1), 27-34.

23.

Hamberger

L. K.

(1997). Female offenders in domestic violence: A look at actions in their context. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 1, 117-129.

24.

Harlow

C. W.

(1999). Prior abuse reported by inmates and probationers. (NCJ Publication No. 172879). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

25.

Harrison

P. M.

Beck

A. J.

(2006). Prison and jail inmates at midyear 2005. (NCJ Publication No. 213133). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

26.

Hedtke

K. A.

Ruggiero

K. T.

Fitzgerald

M. M.

Zinson

H. M.

Saunders

B. E.

Resick

H. S.

Kilpatrick

D. G.

(2008). A longitudinal investigation of interpersonal violence in relation to mental health and substance abuse. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 633-647.

27.

Herman

J. L.

(1992). Complex PTSD: A syndrome in survivors of prolonger and repeated trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 5(3), 377-391.

28.

Herman

J. L.

(1997). Trauma and recovery: The aftermath of violence: From domestic abuse to political terror. New York, NY: Basic Books

29.

James

D. J.

Glaze

L. E.

(2006). Mental health problems of prison and jail inmates. (NCJ Publication No. 213600). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

30.

Jordan

Schlenger

W. E.

Fairbank

J. A.

Caddell

J. M.

(1996). Prevalence of psychiatric disorders among incarcerated women. Archives of General Psychiatry, 53, 513-519.

31.

Kendall-Tackett

(2002). The health effects of childhood abuse: Four pathways by which abuse can influence health. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26(6-7), 715-729.

32.

Kernsmith

(2006). Gender differences in the impact of family of origin violence on perpetrators of domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 21(2), 163-171.

33.

Kessler

R. C.

Andrews

Colpe

L. J.

Hiripi

Mroczek

D. K.

Normand

S.-L. T.

Zaslavsky

A. M.

(2002). Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychological Medicine, 32, 959-976.

34.

Kessler

R. C.

Berglund

Demler

Jin

Koretz

Merikangas

K. R.

Wang

P. S.

(2003). The epidemiology of major depressive disorder: Results from the national comorbidity survey replication. Journal of the American Medical Association, 289, 3095-3105.

35.

Koons-Witt

B. A.

Schram

P. J.

(2003). The prevalence and nature of violent offending by females. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 361-371.

36.

Kruttschnitt

(2002). Women’s involvement in serious interpersonal violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 529-565.

37.

Kubiak

S. P.

Beeble

M. L.

Bybee

(2010). Testing the validity of the K6 in detecting major depression and PTSD among jailed women. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(1), 64-80.

38.

Kubiak

S. P.

Boyd

Young

Slayden

(2005). Assessment of the substance abuse treatment needs of prisoners: Implementation of an integrated statewide approach. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 41(2), 1-19.

39.

Kubiak

S. P.

Kim

W. J.

Bybee

Eshelman

(2013). Assessing the validity of the Self Appraisal Questionnaire in differentiating high risk and violent female offenders. Manuscript submitted for publication.

40.

Lake

S. L.

Stanford

S. S.

, (2011). Comparison of impulsive and premeditated female perpetrators of intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 2(3), 284-299.

41.

Lazowski

L. E.

Miller

F. G.

Boye

M. W.

Miller

G. A.

(1998). Efficacy of the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory-3 (SASSI-3) in identifying substance dependence disorders in clinical settings. Journal of Personality Assessment, 71(1), 114-128.

42.

Leisring

P. A.

Dowd

Rosenbaum

(2003). Treatment of partner aggressive women. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, and Trauma, 7, 257-277.

43.

Leonard

E. D.

(2001). Convicted survivors: Comparing and describing California’s battered women inmates. The Prison Journal, 81, 73-87.

44.

Little

R. J. A.

Rubin

D. B.

(2002). Statistical analysis with missing data (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley Online Library.

45.

Logan

Blackburn

(2009). Mental disorder in violent women in secure settings: Potential relevance to risk for future violence. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 32, 31-38.

46.

Loza

Loza-Fanous

(1999a). Anger and prediction of violent and nonviolent offender’s recidivism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 1014-1029.

47.

Loza

Loza-Fanous

(1999b). The fallacy of reducing rape and violent recidivism by treating anger. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 43, 492-502.

48.

Loza

Neo

L. H.

Shahinfar

Loza-Fanous

(2005). Cross-validation of the Self-Appraisal Questionnaire: A tool for assessing violent and non-violent recidivism with female offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49, 547-560.

49.

Lurigio

A. J.

Harris

A. J.

(2009). Mental illness, violence, and risk assessment: An evidence-based review. Victims & Offenders, 4, 341-347.

50.

Magdol

Moffitt

T. E.

Caspi

Silva

P. A.

(1998). Developmental antecedents of partner abuse: A prospective-longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107, 375-389.

51.

Mann

(1996). When women kill. Albany, NY: SUNY Albany Press.

52.

Marascuilo

L. A.

McSweeney

(1977). Nonparametric and distribution-free methods for the social sciences. Monterey, CA: Brooks/ Cole Publishing Co.

53.

Mechanic

M. B.

Weaver

T. L.

Resick

P. A.

(2008). Mental health consequences of intimate partner abuse: A multidimensional assessment of four different forms of abuse. Violence Against Women, 14, 634-654.

54.

Megargee

(1966). Undercontrolled and overcontrolled personality types in extreme antisocial aggression. Psychological Monographs, 80(3), 1-29.

55.

Messina

Burdon

Hagopian

Prendergrast

(2006). Predictors of prison-based treatment outcomes: A comparison of men and women participants. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 32(1), 7-28.

56.

Miller

S. L.

Meloy

M. L.

(2006). Women’s use of force: Voices of women arrested for domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 12(1), 89-115.

57.

Najavits

L. M.

Weiss

R. D.

Shaw

S. R.

(1997). The link between substance abuse and posttraumatic stress disorder in women: A research review. American Journal on Addictions, 6, 273-283.

58.

Neumann

D. A.

Houskamp

B. M.

Pollock

V. E.

Briere

(1996). The long term sequelae of childhood sexual abuse in women: A meta-analytic review. Child Maltreatment, 1, 6-16.

59.

Newman

Peterson

(1996). Anger of women incest survivors. Sex Roles, 34(7-8), 463-474.

60.

Perez

Wish

E. D.

(2011). Gender differences in the validity of the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory–3 (SASSI-3) with a criminal justice population. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55, 476-491.

61.

Pico-Alfonso

M. A.

Garcia-Linares

M. I.

Celda-Navarro

Blasco-Ros

Echeburúa

Martinez

(2006). The impact of physical, psychological, and sexual intimate male partner violence on women’s mental health: Depressive symptoms, posttraumatic stress disorder, state anxiety, and suicide. Journal of Women’s Health, 15, 599-611.

62.

Pizarro

J. M.

DeJong

McGarell

E. F.

(2010). An examination of the covariates of female homicide victimization and offending. Feminist Criminology, 5(1), 51-72.

63.

Pollock

J. M.

Davis

S. M.

(2005). The continuing myth of the violent female offender. Criminal Justice Review, 30(5), 5-28.

64.

Pollock

Mullings

Crouch

(2006). Violent women: Findings from the Texas women inmates’ study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 485-502.

65.

Raj

Rose

Decker

M. R.

Rosengard

Hebert

M. R.

Stein

Clarke

J. G.

(2008). Prevalence and patterns of sexual assault across the life span among incarcerated women. Violence Against Women, 14, 528-541.

66.

Sabol

West

Cooper

(2009). Prisoners in 2008 (NCJ Publication no. 228417). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

67.

Salisbury

VanVoorhis

(2009). Gendered pathways: A quantitative investigation of women probationers paths to recidivism. Criminal Justice in Behavior, 36, 541-566.

68.

Schneider

Baumrind

Kimerling

(2007). Exposure to child abuse and risk for mental health problems in women. Violence and Victims, 22, 620-631.

69.

Schwartz

Steffensmeier

D. J.

Feldmeyer

(2009). Assessing trends in women’s violence via data triangulation: Arrests, convictions, incarcerations, and victim reports. Social Problems, 56, 494-525.

70.

Shepard

M. F.

Campbell

J. A.

(1992). The abusive behavior inventory: A measure of psychological and physical abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7(3), 291-305.

71.

Siegel

J. A.

Williams

L. M.

(2003). The relationship between child sexual abuse and female delinquency and crime: A prospective study. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40, 71-94.

72.

Silver

F. E.

Felson

R. B.

Vaneseltine

(2008). The relationship between mental health problems and violence among criminal offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 405-426.

73.

Springer

K. W.

Sheridan

Kuo

Carnes

(2007). Long-term physical and mental health consequences of childhood physical abuse: results from a large population-based sample of men and women. Child Abuse Neglect, 31, 517-530.

74.

Stanford

M. S.

Houston

R. J.

Villemarette-Pittman

N. R.

Greve

K. W.

(2003). Premeditated aggression: Clinical assessment and cognitive psychophysiology. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 773-781.

75.

Straus

M. A.

(1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS). Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41(1), 75-88.

76.

Straus

M. A.

Gelles

R. J.

Steinmetz

S. K.

(1980). Behind closed doors: Violence in the American family. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

77.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Boney-McCoy

Sugarman

D. B.

(1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283-316.

78.

Stuart

G. L.

Temple

J. R.

Follansbee

K. W.

Bucossi

M. M.

Hellmuth

J. C.

Moore

T. M.

(2008). The role of drug use in a conceptual model of intimate partner violence in men and women arrested for domestic violence. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 22(1), 12-24.

79.

Sullivan

T. P.

Meese

K. J.

Swan

S. C.

Mazure

C. M.

Snow

D. L.

(2005). Precursors and correlates of women’s violence: Child abuse traumatization, victimization of women, avoidance coping, and psychological symptoms. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 290-301.

80.

Suter

J. M.

Bryne

M. K.

Bryne

Howells

Day

(2002). Anger in prisoners: Women are different than men. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1087-1100.

81.

Swan

S. C.

Gambone

L. J.

Fields

A. M.

Sullivan

T. P.

Snow

D. L.

(2005). Women who use violence in intimate relationships: The role of anger, victimization, and symptoms of posttraumatic stress and depression. Violence and Victims, 20, 267-285.

82.

Temple

J. R.

Weston

Rodriguez

B. F.

Marshall

L. L.

(2007). Differing effects of partner and nonpartner sexual assault on women’s mental health. Violence Against Women, 13, 285-297.

83.

Teplin

L. A.

Abram

K. M.

McClelland

G. M.

(1996). Prevalence of psychiatric disorders among incarcerated women. Archives of General Psychiatry, 53, 505-512.

84.

Thomas

S. P.

(2005). Women’s anger, aggression, and violence. Health Care for Women International, 26(6), 504-522.

85.

Torres

(2007). Women’s pathways to SHU: Serious rule violations in the Security Housing Units of California prisons (Thesis). California State University, Fresno.

86.

Tripodi

S. J.

Bledsoe

S. E.

Kim

J. S.

Bender

(2011). Effects of correctional-based programs for female inmates: A systematic review. Research on Social Work Practice, 21(1), 15-31.

87.

Tusher

C. P.

Cook

S. L.

(2010). Comparing revictimization in two groups of marginalized women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10, 1893-1911.

88.

Van Voorhis

Wright

E. M.

Salisbury

Baumer

. (2010). Women’s risk factors and their contribution to existing risk/needs assessment: The current status of a gender responsive supplement. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 261-288.

89.

Verona

Carbonell

J. L.

(2000). Female violence and personality: Evidence for a pattern of overcontrolled hostility among one-time violent female offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27(2), 176-195.

90.

Weizmann-Henelius

Putkonen

Naukkarinen

Eronen

(2009). Intoxication and violent women. Archives of Women’s Mental Health, 12(1), 15-25.

91.

West

H. C.

Sabol

W. J.

(2009). Prisons inmates at midyear 2008-statistical tables (NCJ Publication no. 225619). Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

92.

West

H. C.

Sabol

W. J.

Greenman

S. J.

(2010). Prisoners in 2009 (NCJ Publication no. 231675). Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin.

93.

Widom

C. S.

Maxfield

M. G.

(2001). An update on the “Cycle of Violence” Research in Brief. (NIJ Publication no. 20531). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

94.

Widom

C. S.

White

H. R.

(1997). Problem behaviors in abused and neglected children grown up: Prevalence and co-occurrence of substance abuse, crime and violence. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 7, 287-310.