Native American and Non-Native American Women Prisoners,Adverse Childhood Experiences,and the Perpetration of Physical Violence in Adult Intimate Relationships

Abstract

Native American women are at an especially high risk of lifetime violence, including childhood abuse, intimate partner violence (IPV), and sexual assault, and are overrepresented in the criminal justice system. Yet few studies have examined how the long-term effects of child maltreatment and other adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) affect Native American women prisoners’ perpetration of physical violence in adult intimate relationships. This is surprising because ample research illustrates that childhood adverse events, particularly childhood abuse and neglect, have far-reaching effects across the life course and that these experiences are especially apparent in the lives of women involved in the criminal justice system. Using data from a stratified random sample of Native American (n = 92) and non-Native American (n = 264) women prisoners in Oklahoma, we explore the relationships between individual, cumulative, and clusters of ACEs as they relate to the use of physical violence in adult intimate relationships. Utilizing a feminist life course theoretical framework, our findings indicate that ACEs are not only critical to understanding adult IPV but also that the mechanisms and processes underlying the relationships between ACEs and the perpetration of physical violence in adult intimate relationships differ for Native American and non-Native American women. The findings of the current study demonstrate that it is imperative that prison programming includes trauma-informed and trauma-specific interventions targeting Native Americans.

Keywords

Native American women prisoners adverse childhood experiences use of violence feminist life course perspective

Introduction

Native American, American Indian, and Alaska Native (henceforth Native American) women experience enduring oppression, marginalization, and disadvantage. In particular, research indicates that Native American women are at an especially high risk of lifetime violence, including childhood abuse, intimate partner violence (IPV), and sexual assault (Bohn, 2003; Evans-Campbell et al., 2006; Kong et al., 2018; Duran et al., 2004; Wahab & Olson, 2004). Indeed, studies consistently report that in comparison with women of all other racial/ethnic groups in the United States, Native American women experience the highest rates of violence overall (Kenny & Singh, 2016; Duran et al., 2004; Wahab & Olson, 2004). In addition, Native American women have higher rates of incarceration than women of all other racial/ethnic identities and are overrepresented in U.S. prisons and jails (Carson, 2018; Milton, 2017). Furthermore, in comparison with all other states, Oklahoma houses more women prisoners (double the national average) and also incarcerates the largest numbers of Native American prisoners (2015, n = 3,081; 2016, n = 2,939; Carson, 2018). Specifically, while Native Americans comprise only 7.4% of the state population, they comprise 10.4% of the Oklahoma prison population (Carson, 2018; U.S. Census Bureau, 2017). Together, this suggests that Native American women in the state of Oklahoma may be especially overrepresented in the criminal justice system.

While it is clear that Native American women prisoners experience overlapping and intersecting experiences with violence and criminal justice involvement throughout their lifetimes, the relationships between adverse childhood experiences (ACEs)¹ and the perpetration of physical violence in adult intimate partner relationships are significantly understudied among incarcerated Native American women. Examining these relationships can further help us understand the linkages between early life trauma and abuse and pathways to criminal behaviors among Native American women. A feminist life course theoretical approach (Jones et al., 2018b) that blends the strengths of the life course perspective (Elder, 1994; for example, early life experiences influence further decisions/events) with feminist pathways approaches (Daly, 1992; Salisbury & Van Voorhis, 2009; for example, abuse/oppression of women is linked to their offending) is important to such explorations.

The purpose of the current study is to utilize a feminist life course theoretical framework (Jones et al., 2018b) to critically examine how individual, cumulative, and clusters of ACEs relate to violence perpetration in the adult intimate relationships of Native American (n = 92) and non-Native American (n = 264) women prisoners not only to better understand the lives of Native American women involved in the criminal justice system but also to inform current programming needs of women offenders.

Native American Women Prisoners

While Native American women comprised less than 1% of the total U.S. population, in 2016, they comprised 2.6%² of all women prisoners (Carson, 2018). In addition, in local jails in 2011, female American Indian or Alaskan Native inmates were incarcerated at higher rates than male American Indian or Alaskan Native inmates (Milton, 2017). Overall, Native American women are at a disproportionate risk of contact with the criminal justice system (Hartney & Vuong, 2009; Ross, 1998).

Surprisingly, despite the established patterns associated with the incarceration of Native American women, studies focusing on the experiences of Native American women prisoners are relatively sparse. Luana Ross (1998) conducted one of the most in-depth studies to date about this subject. Specifically, she interviewed imprisoned Native American women in the state of Montana and found that they experienced extreme hardships both in and out of prison. In addition, in comparison with their White counterparts, they endured more experiences with stigma, abuse, and violence both while incarcerated and upon release from prison. Ross’s (1998) work illustrates the complexities in the lives of Native American women prisoners and demonstrates the need for continued research about their experiences with lifetime violence from childhood to adulthood.

ACEs

Childhood experiences with abuse, neglect, and chaotic home environments have often been explored using Felitti et al.’s (1998) ACE study. Broadly speaking, ACEs can include experiences such as sexual, physical, and emotional abuse; neglect; having witnessed violence at home; and having lived with someone with an alcohol or illicit drug use problem. Scholars find that childhood ACEs relate to a host of negative outcomes in adulthood, including experiences with violence in adult intimate relationships, depression, suicide attempts, alcohol and illicit drug use, chronic drug dependency, smoking, risky sexual behaviors, and obesity (Dong et al., 2004; Dube et al., 2003; Felitti et al., 1998; Merrick et al., 2018; Ports et al., 2016; Whitfield et al., 2003).

Prevalence of ACEs in the Lives of Women Prisoners

Research focusing on ACEs among women prisoners finds that incarcerated women are significantly more likely than both incarcerated men and women in the general population to report lifelong violence and abuse (Belknap & Holsinger, 2006; Bloom et al., 2003; Grella et al., 2013; McClellan et al., 1997; Sharp, 2014). These overlapping histories of ACEs among women prisoners include childhood physical abuse, childhood sexual abuse, neglect, and chaotic home environments, such as witnessing domestic violence as a child, the incarceration of a family member, and having lived with someone with a substance abuse problem or mental illness (Bowles et al., 2012; Grella et al., 2013; Owen, 1998). In addition, a high accumulation of ACEs in the lives of incarcerated women has been well documented (Jones et al., 2018b; Messina et al., 2007; Sharp et al., 2012). For example, in Sharp’s (2014) study of Oklahoma women prisoners, the majority reported they had experienced five or more ACEs and nearly one in five (19%) indicated eight or more ACEs. Thus, ACEs (and their deleterious impacts) are especially prominent in the lives of women prisoners.

Prevalence of ACEs in the Lives of Native American Women

While extensive research has demonstrated that exposure to adverse childhood events has far-reaching effects across the life course, the role of ACEs in the lives of Native American women has been largely overlooked in such explorations. This is somewhat surprising in that Native American children have a higher rate of childhood abuse and/or neglect (14.3 per 1,000 children) and exposure to multiple ACEs (Kenny & Singh, 2016) than children in any other racial group in the United States (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau, 2019).

In addition, Native American childhood adversities have been linked to additional difficulties. For example, previous studies find that Native American women who experienced ACEs are significantly more likely to report depressive symptoms (Kenny & Singh, 2016), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Brockie et al., 2015), suicide attempts (Bohn, 2003), alcohol and/or illicit drug dependency (Brems & Namyniuk, 2002; Duran et al., 2004; Libby et al., 2004), and involvement in abusive intimate relationships in both adolescence and adulthood (Brownridge et al., 2017; Kong et al., 2018; Whiteshell et al., 2009). Brems and Namyniuk (2002) found that abused Native American women were significantly younger at the age of onset of substance misuse, used substances more frequently, had more family members with substance abuse problems, and were more likely to report having been raped than non-abused Native American women. Other studies indicate that the cumulative impact of ACEs and the clustering of ACEs are especially damaging for Native American women, particularly in the development of depressive symptoms and poly-drug use in late adolescence and adulthood (Brockie et al., 2015; Kenny & Singh, 2016; Roh et al., 2015).

Although research on Native American women overall has been limited, there is even less work focused on the effects of ACEs for Native American incarcerated women. The handful of studies that have examined Native American women prisoners have found that exposure to multiple ACEs, particularly abuse and neglect, is directly associated with mental health issues (De Ravello et al., 2008; Vigessa, 2013). In addition, ACEs among Native American women prisoners have also been linked to illicit drug-related offenses and an accelerated time to recidivism upon release (De Ravello et al., 2008; Vigessa, 2013). Despite these findings, we still know very little about the impact of ACEs for non-incarcerated and incarcerated Native American women.

ACEs and the Perpetration of Violence in Adult Intimate Relationships

The majority of research that has investigated women’s use of violence in intimate relationships has focused on women using physical violence in response to violence initiated against them by their male intimate partners (for reviews, see Bair-Merrit et al., 2010; Hamberger & Larsen, 2015); however, ACEs in the lives of Native American women are often overlooked in these examinations. Overall, there is strong evidence to suggest that ACEs are risk factors for subsequent perpetration of physical abuse against an intimate partner for non-incarcerated and non-Native American women (Kendra et al., 2012; Paat & Markham, 2019; Roberts et al., 2011; Temple et al., 2013; Widom et al., 2014; Widom & White, 1997). In particular, previous research suggests that abused and/or neglected women who witness IPV in childhood are at a greater risk of perpetrating physical violence in adolescent and adult intimate relationships compared with women who do not experience abuse or neglect (Paat & Markham, 2019; White & Widom, 2003; Widom et al., 2014). Other studies indicate that there is a strong dose form response for the relationship between ACEs and perpetration of physical abuse in that exposure to multiple ACEs is associated with an increased risk of using physical violence against an intimate partner in adulthood (Miller et al., 2011; Roberts et al., 2011). Taken together, these studies suggest that individual and cumulative adverse events in childhood may play an important role in understanding women’s use of violence in adult intimate relationships.

Although there are some established links between ACEs and violence perpetration for women, most of what we do know about the role of ACEs in women’s use of physical violence in intimate relationships we have learned from non-incarcerated and non-Native American women samples. In particular, only one study could be located that explored ACEs and perpetration of violence among Native American women prisoners. De Ravello and colleagues (2008) interviewed 36 incarcerated American Indian/Alaska Native women in a New Mexico prison. They found that Native American women prisoners who reported a high ACE score (four or more ACEs) were 3 times more likely to have been arrested previously for a violent offense as compared with those who reported fewer ACEs. Thus, there is some evidence to suggest that ACEs may be related to the perpetration of physical violence against an adult intimate partner among Native American women prisoners before incarceration. Given that previous studies have found a high exposure to ACEs in both incarcerated and non-incarcerated Native American women samples (Brockie et al., 2015; Kenny & Singh, 2016; Roh et al., 2015; Vigessa, 2013), more research is needed to explore the relationships between ACEs and violence perpetration in adult intimate relationships.

Theoretical Framework: A Feminist Life Course Perspective

Life course theory, more commonly termed as the life course perspective, refers to a multidisciplinary approach to the study of people’s lives, structural contexts, and social change. This perspective suggests that social pathways, such as education, work, and family, influence developmental patterns and life trajectories. Moreover, the importance of the timing of life events, transitions, and turning points that can significantly influence human development and family life are central components of the life course approach (Bengtson & Allen, 1993; Dannifer, 2011; Elder, 1994, 1998). Overall, the life course perspective is a developmental perspective focusing on individuals’ behavioral changes from birth until death as well as the social development over the full life course, particularly developmental processes from childhood and adolescence through adulthood. The life course perspective also suggests that duration, timing, clustering, and ordering of life events, such as ACEs, can have negative repercussions later in the life course, including mental health problems, physical health problems, substance abuse, involvement in abusive relationships, and ultimately death (Dong et al., 2004; Felitti et al., 1998; Whitfield et al., 2003). As demonstrated in previous studies (e.g., Grella et al., 2005, 2013; Jones et al., 2018a; McClellan et al., 1997; Messina et al., 2007; Owen, 1998; Sharp, 2014), life course theory is especially relevant to understanding the lives of women prisoners because it emphasizes how early adverse events may place women on a trajectory of experiencing problems later in adulthood, such as mental health issues, exposure to IPV, and later involvement in criminal behavior.

Feminist pathways approaches are somewhat similar to the life course perspective in that both focus on experiencing various transitional points that place individuals on different trajectories or paths toward offending and incarceration. However, feminist pathways’ emphasis on abuse and oppression as pathways to crime are particularly important in understanding the offending behaviors of women. Indeed, research utilizing feminist pathways indicates that the pathways to female offending are uniquely tied to several sociological factors that contribute to oppression of girls and women—namely, economic marginalization, poverty, a lack of social power, and experiences of abuse in both childhood and adulthood (Daly, 1992; Owen, 1998; Richie, 1996; Salisbury & Van Voorhis, 2009; Sharp, 2014).

Considerable research on women’s pathways to crime has documented experiences with childhood abuse (Belknap & Holsinger, 2006; Jones et al., 2018b; Owen, 1998; Sharp, 2014), substance abuse (Daly, 1992; Owen, 1998; Salisbury & Van Voorhis, 2009), unhealthy intimate relationships (Jones et al., 2018b), and a lack of self-efficacy (Sharp, 2014) as direct pathways into offending for women, including their perpetration of physical violence (Johansson, Kempf-Leonard, 2009; Jones et al., 2018b; Kubiak et al., 2017). In addition, mental illness is often interconnected with extensive histories of childhood and adult abuse as well as substance abuse problems (Salisbury & Van Voorhis, 2009; Sharp, 2014).

Overall, the life course perspective and feminist pathways approaches help highlight the role of ACEs in negative outcomes in adulthood. By integrating the life course perspectives’ focus on how early life experiences influence future decisions and events (Elder, 1994) with feminist pathways approaches’ (Belknap & Holsinger, 2006; Daly, 1992; Salisbury & Van Voorhis, 2009) emphasis on women’s unique experiences with abuse, oppression, and structural disadvantages as they relate to their offending, these two theoretical frameworks can help us further understand how ACEs relate to the perpetration of physical violence in the adult intimate relationships of Native American and non-Native American women prisoners.

The Current Study

Research exploring the relationship between ACEs and violence perpetration among Native American women prisoners has been limited. The purposes of the current study are twofold. First, we explore how individual, cumulative, and clusters of ACEs influence the perpetration of physical violence in adult intimate relationships of Native American and non-Native American women prisoners. Second, because few studies to date have examined the effects of ACEs in the lives of Native American women prisoners (including their link to perpetrating physical violence), we explore how these patterns may vary among Native American and non-Native American women prisoners utilizing a feminist life course theoretical perspective. In doing so, this study moves beyond previous explorations of ACEs in the lives of women prisoners by expanding to specifically focus on the experiences of Native American women in an effort to further understand the lives of Native American women involved in the criminal justice system and to also inform current programming needs of women offenders.

Data and Methods

Sample

The data for this study were from the 2014 Oklahoma Study of Incarcerated Mothers and Their Children. Participants were sampled from the only three women’s correctional facilities at the time in the state of Oklahoma: Mabel Bassett Correctional Center (MBCC), Dr. Eddie Warrior Correctional Center (EWCC), and Kate Bernard Community Correctional Center (KBCCC). The researchers were not provided access to the full population nor demographics about the full population. Instead, the Oklahoma Department of Corrections provided the researchers with a random sample of 500 women prisoners that were stratified by age, race, and security level. Controlling for demographics of the study sample, the researchers assigned each woman with a randomly generated identification number, the list was sorted by identification numbers, and the first 1 to N women were selected from each list for each facility. Comparisons of the study sample with the full population demographics conducted by the Oklahoma Department of Corrections confirmed that the study sample did not differ statistically from Oklahoma’s women prisoner population on any of the selected demographics. To minimize sample attrition due to discharges, transfers, or segregation, all three samples were drawn the business day before the survey was undertaken; however, some women were unavailable due to work assignments, transfer, or being placed in segregated housing. Participants were given a 26-page self-administered paper/pencil questionnaire containing questions about their criminal record, abuse histories, family lives, and other characteristics. The survey questions lend themselves to a feminist life course theoretical approach by capturing life events, particularly ACEs and criminal behaviors, at different points in time. Inmates were instructed³ that completion of the questionnaire was voluntary and no compensation was provided. Out of 500 women, 367 completed questionnaires for an overall response rate of 73.4%. After excluding records with missing data on key variables used in our study, the overall current study sample consisted of 356 women. Because the goal of the current study is to explore the effects of ACEs as they relate to the use of physical violence in the adult intimate relationships of Native American women prisoners, we have divided our sample into two groups: women who self-identified their race/ethnicity as Native American (n = 92) and women who did not self-identify as Native American (n = 264).

Demographics

We included Age (18–69 in years), education prior to incarceration (education < high school, education= high school, and education > high school, with education < high school representing the reference category), marital status at time of arrest (married, cohabiting, and not married/widowed, with married as the reference category), and controlling offenses (alcohol- or drug-related offenses, crimes against people, and property-related crimes) as potential factors associated with the use of physical violence against an adult intimate partner.

Substance abuse

Alcohol and illicit drug use have consistently been shown to be a problem among Native American (Brems & Namyniuk, 2002; Duran et al.,2004; Libby et al., 2004) and incarcerated women (Jones et al., 2018a; Owen, 1998; Salisbury & Van Voorhis, 2009; Sharp, 2014), and may have a direct effect on women’s use of physical violence against an intimate partner (Caetano et al., 2005; Hamilton & Georders, 2010; Stuart et al., 2003, 2004). We controlled for two measures of substance use in this study: heavy illicit drug use and heavy alcohol use prior to incarceration. The majority of women had used one or more drugs in the year prior to their incarceration (all of the women reported using marijuana), so we created variables that were more representative of addiction by focusing on heavy use of the drugs. Heavy illicit drug use was measured using the question, “At the time of your arrest, how often were you using the following drugs? ‘crack or freebase cocaine’, ‘cocaine (snorting or shooting)’, ‘amphetamine/meth/speed/’, ‘heroin’, ‘speedball (heroin and cocaine)’, ‘other opiates or narcotics’, ‘barbiturates’, ‘tranquilizers’, ‘PCP/angel dust’, and ‘LSD, MDA, X.’” Available response categories were “1 or more times a day,” “2–6 times a week,” “once a week,” “2 or 3 times a month,” “once a month or less,” and “no response or N/A or did not use.” We then collapsed these categories into a dichotomous variable to estimate heavy use of any of these illicit substances. Responses of “1 or more times a day” and “2–6 times a week” for any of these substances were coded 1, and all others were coded 0. Heavy alcohol use was measured by using the question, “At the time of your arrest, how often were you using alcohol?” Available response categories were “1 or more times a day,” “2–6 times a week,” “once a week,” “2 or 3 times a month,” “once a month or less,” and “no response or N/A or did not use.” Responses of “1 or more times a day” and “2–6 times a week” for alcohol use were coded 1, and all others were coded 0. As shown in Table 1, characteristics of the Native American and Non-Native American women samples did not differ significantly across demographics or heavy substance use.⁴

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Native American (n = 92) and Non-Native American Women Prisoners (n = 264).

Variable	Native American		Non-Native American
Variable	Frequency	%	Frequency	%
Demographics
Age, M		36.8		36.6
Education at incarceration
Education < High school (reference category)	36	39.2	104	39.4
Education = High school	28	30.4	95	36.0
Education > High school	28	30.4	65	24.6
Marital status
Married (reference category)	20	21.7	65	24.6
Cohabiting	30	32.6	86	32.6
Not married/widowed	42	45.7	113	42.8
Substance abuse
Heavy illicit drug use	51	55.4	170	64.4
Heavy alcohol use	38	41.3	88	33.3
Incarcerated offense
Alcohol- or drug-related offenses	35	38.0	98	38.6
Crimes against people	38	41.3	105	39.8
Property-related crimes	19	20.7	57	21.6

Use of Physical Abuse

The use of physical abuse against an adult intimate partner was measured using a modified version of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2; Straus et al., 1996). The self-report questionnaire was devised to assess the nature and frequency of various tactics used by partners to manage conflict in an intimate relationship. Physical abuse was measured by asking the participant whether she had done any of the following 12 acts to her intimate partner in the last 12 months of her most recent relationship before coming to prison: (a) “I grabbed my partner,” (b) “I pushed or shoved my partner,” (c) “I threw something at my partner that could hurt,” (d) “I slapped my partner,” (e) “I twisted my partner’s arm or hair,” (f) “I kicked my partner,” (g) “I punched or hit my partner with something that could hurt,” (h) “I slammed my partner against a wall,” (i) “I choked or strangled my partner,” (j) “I burned or scalded my partner on purpose,” (k) “I beat my partner up,” and (l) “I used or threatened to use a knife or gun.” Affirmative responses to each of the 12 acts were summed together into an index representing physical abuse (Cronbach’s α = .89).

ACEs

Individual ACEs

Drawing from prior work on ACEs (Dong et al., 2004; Dube et al., 2003; Felitti et al., 1998), 10 ACEs were examined in the current study: physical neglect, emotional neglect, emotional abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, family member incarcerated, mother battered, parental separation and divorce, lived with someone with a mental illness, and lived with someone with a substance abuse problem. We created 10 dichotomous variables measuring each of these experiences. Childhood physical neglect was coded yes if the respondent said she did not feel protected as a child, did not have enough to eat, often had to wear dirty clothes, or had nobody to take her to the doctor when she was sick. Childhood emotional neglect was coded yes if the respondent reported that she did not feel loved as a child, that there was nobody who made her feel important, that nobody looked out for her well-being, or that she thought her parents wished she was never born. Childhood emotional abuse was coded yes if the respondent reported that she was called names as a child. Childhood physical abuse was coded yes if the respondent reported ever being physically abused as a child, and childhood sexual abuse was coded yes if the respondent reported ever being sexually abused as a child.

Family member incarcerated was coded yes if a participant reported that a member of her household was incarcerated during the first 18 years of her life. Battered mother was coded yes if the participant reported that her father had ever been violent to her mother or stepmother during the first 18 years of her life. Parental separation or divorce was coded yes if the participant reported her parents had ever been separated or divorced during the first 18 years of her life. Affirmative answers to questions asking whether the respondent had lived with someone with a mental illness or lived with someone with substance use during the first 18 years of her life were each coded as yes.

Cumulative ACEs

Because past research suggests that five or more ACEs are particularly relevant to understanding criminal behaviors among women prisoners (Friestad et al.,2014; Messina et al., 2007; Sharp, 2014), a dummy variable was created to represent cumulative ACEs: those indicating five or more ACEs represented high accumulation of ACEs and were coded 1 (high ACEs), and those indicating zero to four ACEs were coded 0 and served as the reference category (low ACEs).⁵

ACE cluster types

Previous research suggests that types of ACEs, such as abuse, neglect, and chaotic home environment ACEs, may cluster together in childhood and may contribute to continuing “clusters” of adverse experiences in adulthood (Bowles et al.,2012; Friestad et al., 2014; Grella et al., 2005; Messina et al., 2007; Messina & Grella, 2006). To explore the effects of different types of ACEs, the individual ACEs were placed into three clusters that represent abuse ACEs (ranging from 0 to 3), neglect ACEs (ranging from 0 to 2), and chaotic home environment ACEs (ranging from 0 to 5).

Statistical Analyses

Three methods of analysis were used to examine how ACEs were related to the perpetration of physical violence in the adult intimate relationships of Native American and non-Native American women prisoners: (a) t tests, (b) negative binomial regression, and (c) a test of equality of regression coefficients. Table 2 presents the mean values of the ACEs and the perpetration of physical violence among the Native American and non-Native American subsamples, and t tests are provided to compare the two groups. In Table 3, the relationships between individual, cumulative, clustering of ACEs, and the perpetration of physical violence against an adult intimate partner for Native American and non-Native American women prisoners were examined using negative binomial regression. Negative binomial regression was chosen because the coding of perpetration of physical violence led to “counts” of the number of acts of physical violence they had perpetrated in their most recent intimate relationship before coming to prison and because the variance for physical violence was higher than the mean.⁶ Results in Table 3 are presented in incident rate ratios (IRRs). Finally, a test of equality for regression coefficients was conducted to determine whether the link between ACEs and violence perpetration significantly differed between Native American and non-Native American women prisoners (Clogg et al., 1995).

Table 2.

The t Tests Comparing the Mean Values of ACEs and the Perpetration of Physical Violence for Native American (n = 92) and Non-Native American Women Prisoners (n = 264).

Variable	Native American		Non-Native American
Variable	M	SE	M	SE
Individual ACEs
Childhood physical neglect	0.53	0.05	0.48	0.03
Childhood emotional neglect	0.67*	0.05	0.58	0.03
Childhood emotional abuse	0.54*	0.05	0.43	0.03
Childhood physical abuse	0.51	0.05	0.47	0.03
Childhood sexual abuse	0.68*	0.05	0.54	0.03
Family member incarcerated	0.40*	0.05	0.31	0.03
Battered mother	0.45*	0.05	0.34	0.03
Parental separation or divorce	0.75	0.04	0.67	0.03
Lived with someone with mental illness	0.50	0.05	0.44	0.03
Lived with someone with substance use	0.77	0.04	0.73	0.03
Cumulative ACEs
High ACEs (five or more)	0.70*	0.07	0.57	0.03
Clustering of type of ACEs
Abuse ACEs	1.72*	0.10	1.44	0.07
Neglect ACEs	1.18*	0.09	1.06	0.05
Chaotic home environment ACEs	2.82*	0.15	2.47	0.09
Intimate partner violence
Perpetration of physical violence	2.03	0.31	2.06	0.16

Note. ACEs = adverse childhood experiences; SE = standard error.

p ≤ .05.

Table 3.

Negative Binomial Regression Results Predicting Perpetration of Physical Violence Against an Adult Intimate Partner.

Variable	Native American (n = 92)						Non-Native American (n = 264)						Difference test
	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3		Model 4		Model 5		Model 6
	IRR	SE	IRR	SE	IRR	SE	IRR	SE	IRR	SE	IRR	SE
Individual ACEs
Physical neglect	2.446*	0.521					0.857	0.086					**
Emotional neglect	0.902	0.173					1.084	0.127
Emotional abuse	1.484*	0.251					1.194	0.134
Physical abuse	1.606*	0.215					0.907	0.096
Sexual abuse	1.244	0.240					1.419*	0.151
Family member incarcerated	1.648*	0.284					1.060	0.100					**
Battered mother	1.612*	0.307					1.045	0.102					**
Parental separation or divorce	0.974	0.188					1.240*	0.132					**
Lived with someone with mental illness	1.196	0.160					1.132	0.115
Lived with someone with substance use	0.909	0.240					1.180	0.147
Cumulative ACEs
High ACEs (five or more)			1.666*	0.315					1.467*	0.139
Clustering of type of ACEs
Abuse ACEs					1.199*	0.118					1.149*	0.060
Neglect ACEs					1.393*	0.174					0.961	0.069	**
Chaotic home environment ACEs					1.113	0.070					1.095*	0.041
Control variables
Age	0.994	0.010	1.001	0.008	0.992	0.009	0.993	0.005	0.989	0.004	0.991	0.005
Education = High school	0.725	0.153	0.906	0.168	1.016	0.193	0.971	0.102	1.059	0.107	1.008	0.103
Education > High school	1.010	0.209	1.097	0.202	1.165	0.213	1.120	0.132	1.127	0.130	1.133	0.131
Not married/widowed	1.179	0.330	1.266	0.635	1.162	0.302	1.450*	0.194	1.430*	0.183	1.468*	0.215
Cohabiting	2.843*	0.820	2.569*	0.327	2.517*	0.626	1.662*	0.225	1.606*	0.189	1.624*	0.188
Heavy illicit drug use	1.619*	0.284	1.547*	0.253	1.538*	0.260	1.751*	0.190	1.745*	0.107	1.718*	0.185
Heavy alcohol use	1.641*	0.283	1.867*	0.286	1.791	0.275	1.181*	0.108	1.211*	0.189	1.201*	0.107
Constant	0.529	0.164	0.455*	0.287	1.387*	0.143	0.608	0.170	1.014	0.243	0.737	0.191
Pseudo-R²	0.113		0.163		0.204		0.098		0.076		0.088

Note. Reference categories—low ACEs, education < high school, married. Results are in IRRs. IRR = incident rate ratio; SE = standard error; ACEs = adverse childhood experiences.

p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .05 for Clogg et al.’s (1995) test of equality of regression coefficients.

Results

Mean Comparisons of ACEs and Perpetration of Physical Violence

In Table 2, the significant differences in the individual, cumulative, and clustering of types of ACEs as well as the perpetration of physical violence were examined for Native American and non-Native American women prisoners. Native American women reported significantly more exposure to emotional neglect, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, having had a family member incarcerated, and having had a battered mother during childhood than non-Native American women prisoners. Moreover, Native American women reported more high ACEs (five or more; M = 0.70, p ≤ .05) than non-Native American women (M = 0.57). The mean values of the clusters of abuse ACEs, neglect ACEs, and chaotic home environment ACEs were also higher for Native American than non-Native American women prisoners.

The Effects of ACEs on the Perpetration of Physical Violence for Native American and Non-Native American Women Prisoners

In Table 3, we examine the effects of individual, cumulative, and clustered ACEs on the perpetration of physical abuse against an adult intimate partner for Native American and non-Native American women prisoners using negative binomial regression. Models 1 to 3 focus on Native American women. In Model 1, Native American women who reported experiencing physical neglect (IRR = 2.446, p ≤ .001), emotional abuse (IRR = 1.484, p ≤ .05), an incarcerated family member (IRR = 1.648, p ≤ .05), physical abuse (IRR = 1.606, p ≤ .05), and having a battered mother (IRR = 1.612, p ≤ .05) were significantly more likely to use physical violence against their intimate partner before coming to prison than those who did not. In addition, Native American women who reported cohabitating (IRR = 2.843, p ≤ .05), heavy illicit drug use (IRR = 1.619, p ≤ .05), and heavy alcohol use (IRR = 1.641, p ≤ .05) prior to incarceration were significantly more likely to report using physical violence than women who did not. In Model 2, Native American women who experienced a high accumulation of ACEs (five or more) were 66.6% (IRR= 1.666, p ≤ .05) more likely to report using physical violence against their intimate partner than women who reported fewer ACEs.

In Model 3, the effects of clustered abuse and neglect ACEs were significantly related using physical violence for Native American women. Native American women who experienced a one-unit increase in abuse ACEs were 19.9% (IRR = 1.199, p ≤ .05) more likely to report using physical violence against an intimate partner prior to incarceration. Moreover, Native American women who experienced a one-unit increase in neglect ACEs were 39.3% (IRR = 3.393, p ≤ .05) more likely to report using physical violence against their intimate partner. The effects of cohabitation, heavy illicit drug use, and alcohol use on physical violence remained the same direction across all three models.

Models 4 to 6 focus on non-Native American women. In Model 4, non-Native American women who reported experiencing sexual abuse (IRR = 1.419, p ≤ .05) and parental separation or divorce (IRR = 1.240, p ≤ .05) were significantly more likely to use physical violence against their intimate partner before coming to prison than those who did not. Non-Native American women who reported not being married/widowed (IRR = 1.450, p ≤ .05), cohabitating (IRR = 1.662, p ≤ .05), heavy illicit drug use (IRR = 1.751, p ≤ .05), and heavy alcohol use (IRR = 1.181, p ≤ .05) prior to incarceration were significantly more likely to report using physical violence than women who did not. In Model 5, high accumulations of ACEs were significantly related to using physical violence in that non-Native American women who experienced a high accumulation of ACEs (five or more) were 46.7% (IRR = 1.467, p ≤ .05) more likely to report using physical violence against their intimate partner than women who reported fewer ACEs.

In Model 6, the effects of clustered abuse and neglect ACEs were significantly related to using physical violence for non-Native American women. Non-Native American women who experienced a one-unit increase in abuse ACEs were 14.9% (IRR = 1.149, p ≤ .05) more likely to report using physical violence against an intimate partner prior to incarceration. Moreover, non-Native American women who experienced a one-unit increase in chaotic home environment ACEs were 9.5% (IRR = 1.095, p ≤ .05) more likely to report using physical violence against their intimate partner. The effects of cohabitation, heavy illicit drug use, and heavy alcohol use on physical violence remained statistically significant and in the same direction across all three models. As found in Table 3, the results of the Clogg et al.’s (1995) test of equality of regression coefficients reveal that physical neglect, family member incarcerated, battered mother, parental separation or divorcing, and the clustering of neglect ACEs have a different relationship to the perpetration of physical violence among Native American and non-Native American women prisoners.

Discussion

Overall, both Native American and non-Native American women prisoners experienced extreme hardships, with the majority of both groups indicating multiple ACEs. In addition, a high accumulation of ACEs (five or more) was robustly related to the perpetration of physical violence against an adult intimate partner for both Native American and non-Native American women. This finding is in line with the current study’s feminist life course theoretical approach and continues to demonstrate patterns associated with childhood trauma and adulthood violence (Miller et al., 2011; Roberts et al., 2011). More specifically, these results support De Ravello and colleagues’ (2008) study on Native American women prisoners that determined that higher ACE scores relate to greater likelihood of perpetrating violence prior to incarceration. These findings are particularly significant because women prisoners in general report a startlingly high incidence of ACEs (in this sample of prisoners, 70.1% of Native American and 56.6% of non-Native American women reported five or more ACEs), which is much higher than non-incarcerated samples (one quarter of non-incarcerated samples report exposure to three or more ACEs) (Bloom et al., 2003; Merrick et al., 2018; Sharp, 2014).

Furthermore, the abuse cluster of ACEs was also positively associated with the perpetration of physical violence against an adult intimate partner for both groups, which supports existing literature (Kendra et al., 2012; Miller et al., 2011; Roberts et al., 2011). Indeed, ample research on women prisoners has documented a strong relationship between abuse in childhood and offending behaviors in adulthood (Belknap & Holsinger, 2006; Jones et al., 2018a; Salisbury & Van Voorhis, 2009; Sharp, 2014). Overall, both the cumulative impact of ACEs and the abuse cluster of ACEs had similar effects on the perpetration of physical violence against an intimate partner for both Native American and non-Native American women prisoners.

While there were similarities between the two groups, there were also some very real differences. For example, Native American women significantly differed from non-Native American women in their experiences with physical neglect. However, interestingly, though Native American women endured significantly more experiences with chaotic home environments (as indicated by the ACE cluster), this was not found to be significantly related to the perpetration of physical violence against an adult intimate partner. In contrast, the chaotic home environment ACE cluster had a robust positive effect on the perpetration of physical violence against an adult intimate partner for non-Native American women prisoners (who experienced significantly fewer chaotic home environment ACEs), which is consistent with past literature (Kubiak et al., 2017; Whitfield et al., 2003). Much research on women prisoners has recognized the role of chaotic home environments during childhood as one the most significant predictors of offending and later involvement in the criminal justice system (Bowles et al., 2012; Miller et al., 2011; Owen, 1998; Sharp, 2014). Because research on Native American women prisoners has been limited, we can only speculate as to why clusters of chaotic home environment ACEs were not significantly related to the perpetration of physical violence in their adult intimate relationships. Prior work suggests that Native American children have extremely difficult home lives, including alcohol or substance abusing parents, exposure to domestic violence, and are at high risk of removal from their homes (Evans-Campbell et al., 2012; Kong et al., 2018). It may be that because these experiences are so common among Native American women during childhood, growing up in a chaotic home environment may not have an independent effect on using physical violence against an intimate partner when accounting for clusters of abuse and neglect. Another potential reason could be that the existence of strong extended family caregiving practices that are often prevalent in Native American communities may offset challenges experienced at home and may contribute to resilience among Native American children (Bonvillian, 2017). Furthermore, our small sample size of Native American women prisoners might also explain the lack of significance between chaotic home environments and the perpetration of physical violence. Overall, because few existing studies have focused on these issues, much more research is needed to further tease out these relationships.

Another difference between the two groups relates to childhood neglect. In particular, the neglect ACE cluster was significantly related to the perpetration of physical violence against an adult intimate partner for Native American women, but not for non-Native American women. As most research that has examined the relationship between childhood neglect and women’s use of violence in intimate relationships has primarily utilized non-Native American samples (Paat & Markham, 2019; White & Widom, 2003; Widom et al., 2014), these differences are illuminating. It could be that when accounting for other clusters of ACEs, such as abuse and/or growing up in a chaotic home environment, neglect may be less influential when it comes to using violence against an adult intimate partner for non-Native American women. Moreover, as Native American women are at especially high risk for childhood maltreatment, including neglect (Duran et al., 2004; Wahab & Olson, 2004), it may be an especially important predictor of perpetration of physical violence for Native American women prisoners.

Looking at individual ACEs, it was surprising that there were many differences between Native American and non-Native American women. In particular, there were no overlapping similarities between the two groups among the effects of the individual ACEs on the perpetration of physical violence against an adult intimate partner, and there were many more significant effects among Native American women compared with non-Native American women. Specifically, while physical neglect, emotional abuse, physical abuse, having a family member incarcerated, and having a battered mother had positive impacts on the perpetration of physical violence against an adult intimate partner for Native American women, only sexual abuse and parental separation and divorce were significant in the non-Native American women model. Overall, these results indicate that ACEs have differential effects on the use of physical violence against an adult intimate partner for Native American and non-Native American women prisoners. Future research investigating ACEs in the lives of both Native and non-Native American women is needed to further explore these processes.

Finally, we also found some interesting differences worth noting across marital status and substance abusing behaviors as they related to perpetrating physical violence against an intimate partner worth noting. Native American and non-Native American women prisoners who reported cohabitating and/or not married/widowed prior to incarceration were significantly more likely to report perpetrating physical violence against their intimate partner. These findings are in line with research that has found that the highest rates of conflict and violence are among cohabitating and non-married family structures as compared with any other family constellation (Brown & Bulanda, 2008; Kenny & McLanahan, 2006). Moreover, heavy illicit drug use and heavy alcohol use were significantly related to perpetrating violence against an intimate partner for both Native American and non-Native American women prisoners, as also seen in past work (Caetano et al., 2005; Hamilton & Georders, 2010; Stuart et al., 2003, 2004). Such results suggest that we should continue to explore the complexities of women’s lives to best understand how relationship patterns and substance/alcohol abuse relate to their experiences with IPV.

Overall, our findings extend life course theory and feminist pathways literature by providing a better understanding of how individual, cumulative, and clustering of ACEs relate to the perpetration of physical violence in the adult intimate relationships of Native American and non-Native American women prisoners. Consistent with life course theory and feminist pathways approaches (Daly, 1992; Elder, 1994; Salisbury & Van Voorhis, 2009), many of these women reported extensive histories of ACEs and subsequent use of physical violence against their adult intimate partner before their incarceration. In particular, the current study’s findings demonstrate both similarities and differences in the ways that ACEs relate to Native American and non-Native American women’s use of physical violence in their adult intimate relationships. These results suggest that ACEs are critical to our understandings of adult IPV but that many of the mechanisms and processes underlying these relationships differ for Native American and non-Native American women. This is important because previous studies have not adequately examined these patterns in the lives of Native American women. In doing so, the current study underscores the need for continued research to best understand these experiences.

Limitations and Future Research

While the results of this study are informative and can be generalized to women prisoners in Oklahoma, there are several limitations. First, the measures of childhood adversity are limited. While we utilize the same measures outlined in Felitti et al.’s (1998) ACE study, there are other additional adverse events that may contribute to the perpetration of physical violence against an adult intimate partner, such as death of a loved one or parent or hospitalization due to abuse. Moreover, we are unable to determine the frequency or length of exposure to ACEs. Furthermore, due to our very small sample size of African American, Hispanic, and other racial minorities, we are unable to explore the possible unequal distribution of ACEs and perpetration of physical violence across these marginalized groups. Future research should continue to explore more types of ACEs as well as the frequency and durations of ACEs as they relate to offending behaviors among Native American and other non-Native American women prisoners, including their use of physical violence in adult intimate relationships. We were also unable to tease out potential differences between self-identification and administration records identifying women as “Native American” among our sample. As others have demonstrated (Abril, 2003), this is an important area of research that deserves further investigation due to the potentially under-recognized Native American population in prisons.

Second, we were unable to examine the potential intergenerational influence of ACEs in the lives of Native American women. Indigenous peoples of the Americas have experienced devastating collective intergenerational massive group trauma and compounding discrimination, racism, and oppression (Brave Heart et al., 2011). Issues of colonization and in particular forced assimilation using removal to boarding schools, orphanages, and later foster care and transracial adoption are prevalent among Native Americans (Brave Heart, 1999; Evans-Campbell et al., 2012). Moreover, there is strong evidence to suggest that historical trauma and loss evoke emotional distress that is directly linked to risky behaviors, such as alcohol abuse (Whitbeck, 2011; Whitbeck et al., 2004). Studies that capture other facets of historical trauma among Native American women, such as discrimination and racism, would be beneficial in future research on offending behaviors among Native American women.

Third, we are unable to determine whether women’s use of violence against their intimate partner is independent of potential violence perpetrated against them by the same partner. In other words, it is unclear if Native American and non-Native women prisoners are perpetrating violence against their intimate partner in response to violence initiated against them or if they are initiating violence against their partners, or both (Hamberger & Larsen, 2015; Hautala et al., 2017; Reingle & Maldonado-Molina, 2012 ; Turanovic & Pratt, 2017). While we cannot definitively establish an independent relationship between ACEs and the perpetration of physical violence when considering their partners own use of IPV, a number of studies suggest that women’s use of violence in intimate relationships is directly related to ACEs in childhood (Berzenski & Yates, 2010; Miller et al., 2011; Paat & Markham, 2019; Widom et al., 2014). Longitudinal studies that measure the timing of the onset of adult IPV would help clarify these relationships and would be desirable in future work.

Notwithstanding these limitations, the findings of our current study have theoretical and applied implications. What happens to a person in early childhood can have a lifelong impact. Based on our results, we suggest that policymakers and criminologists should consider the relationships between individual, cumulative, and clustering of ACEs in understanding the perpetration of physical violence in the adult intimate relationships of Native and non-Native American women prisoners. The vast majority of women in our sample reported an astonishingly high number of ACEs, with slightly higher experiences reported among Native American women prisoners. Thus, it is imperative that all prisons implement programming to help women process their childhood victimization and trauma, including how these experiences of trauma may be directly linked to their offending behaviors, such as the use of violence (Bloom et al., 2003). Helping these women resolve potential emotional and psychological issues that resulted from ACEs, and teaching them how to develop healthy alternative coping strategies, could help these women develop new and helpful ways to cope with their trauma.

As Native Americans, representing the smallest racial minority in the United States, are often described as the poorest, least educated minority group with extensive histories of ACEs, social and health problems, and stigma, abuse, and violence both in and out of prison (Ross, 1998), it is important that interventions for use of violence in adult intimate relationships begin with addressing the adverse events in childhood experienced by Native American women. Specifically, numerous individual ACEs affected the use of physical violence against an intimate partner among Native American women in the current study suggesting that interventions should focus on diverse understandings of ACEs as well as how particular clusters of ACEs, such as neglect, may have impacts on Native American women’s use of IPV in ways that differ from non-Native American women. Because there has been such limited research on trauma-informed and trauma-specific interventions targeting Native Americans (Lechner et al., 2016), the current study’s findings highlight the importance of early trauma-informed and trauma-specific intervention practices for Native American women prisoners.

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Melissa S. Jones

Notes

Author Biographies

Melissa S. Jones is an assistant professor of sociology and an affiliate faculty member of Global Women Studies at Brigham Young University. Her main areas of research are gender, deviance, and crime, intimate partner violence, childhood adversity, and incarcerated women.

Meredith G. F. Worthen is an associate professor of sociology, elected faculty member of the Women’s and Gender Studies Program, and affiliate faculty member of the Center for Social Justice at the University of Oklahoma. Her four main areas of research are deviance, stigma, sexualities, and gender and crime.

Susan F. Sharp is a David Ross Boyd Professor/Presidential Professor Emerita at the University of Oklahoma. Her research interests include gender differences in deviant behavior, effects of incarceration on the families of inmates, and the death penalty.

David A. McLeod is an assistant professor of social work at the University of Oklahoma. His research interests include criminal development, gender, forensic trauma, child protection, and social work education.

References

Abril

J. C.

(2003). Native American identities among women prisoners. The Prison Journal, 83(1), 38–50.

Bair-Merritt

M. H.

Crowne

S. S.

Thompson

D. A.

Sibinga

Trent

Campbell

(2010). Why do women use intimate partner violence? A systematic review of women’s motivations. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 11(4), 178–189.

Belknap

Holsinger

(2006). The gendered nature of risk factors for delinquency. Feminist Criminology, 1(1), 48–71.

Bengtson

V. L.

Allen

K. R.

(1993). The life course perspective applied to families over time. In Boss

P. G.

Doherty

W. J.

LaRossa

Schumm

Steinmetz

S. K

(Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 469–504). Plenum Press.

Berzenski

S. R.

Yates

T. M.

(2010). A developmental process analysis of the contribution of childhood emotional abuse to relationship violence. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, & Trauma, 19(2), 180–203.

Bloom

Owen

Covington

(2003). Gender-responsive strategies: Research, practice, and guiding principles for women offenders. U.S. National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice.

Bohn

D. K.

(2003). Lifetime physical and sexual abuse, substance abuse, depression, and suicide attempts among Native American women. Issues of Mental Health Nursing, 24(3), 333–352.

Bonvillian

(2017). Native nations: Cultures and histories of native North America (2nd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield.

Bowles

DeHart

Webb

(2012). Family influences on female offenders’ substance use: The role of adverse childhood events among incarcerated women. Journal of Family Violence, 27(7), 681–686.

10.

Brave Heart

M. Y. H

. (1999). Gender differences in the historical trauma response among the Lakota. Journal of Health & Social Policy, 10(4), 1–21.

11.

Brave Heart

M. Y. H.

Chase

Elkins

Altschul

D. B

. (2011). Historical trauma among Indigenous Peoples of the Americas: Concepts, research, and clinical considerations. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 43(4), 282–290.

12.

Brems

Namyniuk

(2002). The relationship of childhood abuse history and substance use in an Alaska sample. Substance Use & Misuse, 34(4), 473–494.

13.

Brockie

T. N.

Dana-Sacco

Wallen

G. R.

Wilcox

H. C.

Campbell

J. C.

(2015). The relationship of adverse childhood experiences to PTSD, depression, poly-drug use and suicide attempt in reservation-based Native American adolescents and young adults. American Journal of Community Psychology, 55(3–4), 411–421.

14.

Brown

S. L.

Bulanda

J. R.

(2008). Relationship violence in young adulthood: A comparison of daters, cohabitors, and marrieds. Social Science Research, 37(1), 73–87.

15.

Brownridge

D. A.

Taillieu

Afifi

Chan

K. L.

Emery

Lavoie

Elgar

(2017). Child maltreatment and intimate partner violence among indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians. Journal of Family Violence, 32(6), 607–619.

16.

Caetano

Ramisetty-Mikler

Field

C. A.

(2005). Unidirectional and bidirectional intimate partner violence among White, Black, and Hispanic couples in the United States. Violence and Victims, 20, 393–406.

17.

Carson

A. E.

(2018, August 7). Prisoners in 2016 [NCJ 251149]. U.S. Department of Justice/Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p16.pdf

18.

Clogg

C. C.

Petkova

Haritou

(1995). Statistical methods for comparing regression coefficients between models. American Journal of Sociology, 100(5), 1261–3112.

19.

Daly

(1992). Women’s pathways to felony court: Feminist theories of lawbreaking and problems of representation. Southern California of Law & Women’s Studies, 2(1), 11–52.

20.

Dannifer

(2011). Age, the life course, and the sociological imagination: Prospects for theory. In Binstock

George

(Eds.), Handbook of aging and the social sciences (pp. 3–16). Academic Press.

21.

De Ravello

Abeita

Brown

. (2008). Breaking the cycle/mending the hoop: Adverse childhood experiences among incarcerated American Indian/Alaska Native women in New Mexico. Health Care for Women International, 29(3), 300–315.

22.

Dong

Anda

R. F.

Felitti

V. J.

Dube

S. R.

Williamson

D. F.

Thompson

T. J.

Loo

C. M.

Giles

W. H.

(2004). The interrelatedness of multiple forms of childhood abuse, neglect, and household dysfunction. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28(7), 771–784.

23.

Dube

S. R.

Felitti

V. J.

Dong

Chapman

D. P.

Giles

W. H.

Anda

R. F.

(2003). Childhood abuse, neglect, and household dysfunction and the risk of illicit drug use: The adverse childhood experiences study. Pediatrics, 111(3), 564–572.

24.

Duran

Malcoe

L. H.

Sanders

Waitzkin

Skipper

Yager

(2004). Child maltreatment prevalence and mental disorders outcomes among American Indian women in primary care. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28(2), 131–145.

25.

Elder

G. H.

(1994). Time, human agency, and social change: Perspectives on the life course. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57(1), 4–15.

26.

Elder

G. H.

(1998). The life course as developmental theory. Child Development, 69(1), 1–12.

27.

Evans-Campbell

Lindhorst

Huang

Walters

K. L.

(2006). Interpersonal violence in the lives of urban American Indian and Alaska Native women: Implications for health, mental health, and help-seeking. American Journal of Public Health, 96(8), 1416–1422.

28.

Evans-Campbell

Walters

K. L.

Pearson

C. R.

Campbell

C. D.

(2012). Indian boarding school experience, substance use, and mental health among urban two-spirit American Indian/Alaska Natives. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 38(5), 421–427.

29.

Felitti

V. J.

Anda

R. F.

Nordenberg

Williamson

D. F.

Spitz

A. M.

Edwards

Koss

M. P.

Marks

J. S.

(1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: The adverse childhood experiences (ACE) study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(4), 245–258.

30.

Friestad

Ase-Bente

Kjelsberg

(2014). Adverse childhood experiences among women prisoners: Relationships to suicide attempts and drug abuse. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 60, 40–46.

31.

Grella

C. E.

Lovinger

Warda

U. S.

(2013). Relationships among trauma exposure, familial characteristics, and PTSD: A case-control study of women in prison and in the general population. Women & Criminal Justice, 23(1), 63–79.

32.

Grella

C. E.

Stein

J. A.

Greenwell

(2005). Associations among childhood trauma, adolescent problem behaviors, and adverse adult outcomes in substance-abusing women offenders. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 19(1), 43–53.

33.

Hamberger

L. K.

Larsen

S. E.

(2015). Men’s and women’s experience of intimate partner violence: A review of ten years of comparative studies in clinical samples; part I. Journal of Family Violence, 30(6), 699–717.

34.

Hamilton

A. B.

Georders

(2010). Violence perpetrated by women who use methamphetamine. Journal of Substance Use, 15(5), 313–329.

35.

Hartney

Vuong

(2009, March). Created equal: Racial and ethnic disparities in the US criminal justice system. National Council on Crime and Delinquency. http://www.nccdglobal.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdf/created-equal.pdf

36.

Hautala

D. S.

Sittner Hartshorn

K. J.

Armeta

Whitbeck

(2017). Prevalence and correlates of physical dating violence among North American Indigenous adolescents. Youth & Society, 49(3), 295–317.

37.

Johansson

Kempf-Leonard

(2009). A gender-specific pathway to serious, violent, and chronic offending? Exploring Howell’s risk factors for serious delinquency. Crime & Delinquency, 55(2), 216–240.

38.

Jones

M. S.

Worthen

M. G. F.

Sharp

S. F.

McLeod

D. A.

(2018a). Bruised inside out: The adverse and abusive life histories of incarcerated women as pathways to PTSD and illicit drug use. Justice Quarterly, 35(6), 1004–1029.

39.

Jones

M. S.

Worthen

M. G. F.

Sharp

S. F.

McLeod

D. A.

(2018b). Life as she knows it: The effects of adverse childhood experiences on intimate partner violence among women prisoners. Child Abuse & Neglect, 85, 68–79.

40.

Kendra

Bell

K. M.

Guimond

J. M.

(2012). The impact of child abuse history, PTSD symptoms, and anger arousal on dating violence perpetration among college women. Journal of Family Violence, 27(3), 165–175.

41.

Kenny

C. T.

McLanahan

S. S.

(2006). Why are cohabiting relationships more violent than marriages? Demography, 43, 127–140.

42.

Kenny

M. K.

Singh

G. K.

(2016). Adverse childhood experiences among American Indian/Alaska Native children: The 2011-2012 National Survey of Children’s Health. Scientifica, 2016, 7424239.

43.

Kong

Soonhee

Easton

S. D.

Lee

(2018). A history of childhood maltreatment and intimate partner violence victimization among Native American adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(18), 2826–2848.

44.

Kubiak

Fedock

Kim

W. J.

Bybee

(2017). Examining perpetration of physical violence by women: The influence of childhood adversity, victimization, mental illness, substance abuse, and anger. Violence and Victims, 32(1), 22–45.

45.

Lechner

Cavanaugh

Blyler

(2016, August 24). Addressing trauma in American Indian and Alaska Native Youth [Mathematical Policy Research]. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/207941/AIANYouthTIC.PDF

46.

Libby

A. M.

Orton

H. D.

Novins

D. K.

Spicer

Buchwald

Beals

Manson

S. M.

(2004). Childhood physical and sexual abuse and subsequent alcohol and drug use disorders in two American-Indian tribes. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 65(1), 74–83.

47.

McClellan

D. S.

Farabee

Crouch

B. M.

(1997). Early victimization, drug use, and criminality: A comparison of male and female prisoners. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24(4), 455–476.

48.

Merrick

M. T.

Ford

D. C.

Ports

K. A.

Guinn

A. S.

(2018). Prevalence of adverse childhood experiences from the 2011-2014 behavioral risk factor surveillance system in 23 States. JAMA Pediatrics, 172(11), 1038–1044.

49.

Messina

Grella

(2006). Childhood trauma and women’s health outcomes in a California population. American Journal of Public Health, 96, 1942–1848.

50.

Messina

Grella

Burdon

Prendergast

(2007). Childhood adverse events and current traumatic distress. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(11), 1385–1401.

51.

Miller

Bresalu

Chjung

W. J.

Green

J. G.

McLaughlin

K. A.

Kessler

R. C.

(2011). Adverse childhood experiences and risk of physical violence in adolescent dating relationships. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 65(11), 1006–1013.

52.

Milton

(2017, September). American Indian and Alaska Natives in local Jails, 1999-2014 [NCJ 250652]. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/aianlj9914.pdf

53.

Owen

(1998). In the mix: Struggle and survival in a women’s prison. State University of New York Press.

54.

Paat

Markham

(2019). The roles of family factors and relationship dynamics on dating violence victimization and perpetration among college men and women in emerging adulthood. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(1), 81–114.

55.

Ports

K. A.

Ford

D. C.

Merrick

M. T.

(2016). Adverse childhood experiences and sexual victimization in adulthood. Child Abuse & Neglect, 51, 313–322.

56.

Reingle

J. M.

Maldonado-Molina

M. M.

(2012). Victimization and violent offending: An assessment of the victim-offender overlap among Native American adolescents and young adults. International Criminal Justice Review, 22(2), 123–138.

57.

Richie

B. E.

(1996). Compelled to crime. Routledge.

58.

Roberts

A. L.

McLaughlin

K. A.

Conron

K. J.

Koenen

K. C.

(2011). Adulthood stressors, history of childhood adversity, and risk of perpetration of intimate partner violence. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 40(2), 128–138.

59.

Roh

Burnette

C. E.

Hag Lee

Yeon-Shim

Easton

S. D.

Lawer

M. J.

(2015). Risk and protective factors for depressive symptoms among American Indian older adults: Adverse childhood experiences and social support. Aging & Mental Health, 19(4), 371–380.

60.

Ross

(1998). Inventing the savage: The social construction of Native American criminality. The University of Texas Press.

61.

Salisbury

E. J.

Van Voorhis

(2009). Gendered pathways: A quantitative investigation of women probationers’ paths to incarceration. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(6), 541–566.

62.

Sharp

S. F.

(2014). Mean lives, mean laws: Oklahoma’s women prisoners. Oxford University Press.

63.

Sharp

S. F.

Jones

M. S.

McLeod

D. A.

(2014). Oklahoma study of incarcerated mothers and their children 2014. https://www.ok.gov/occy/documents/CIP%20incarcerated%20women%20study%20report%202014.pdf

64.

Sharp

S. F.

Peck

B. M.

Hartsfield

(2012). Childhood adversity and substance use of women prisoners: A general strain theory approach. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(3), 202–211.

65.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Boney-McCoy

Sugarman

D. B.

(1996). The revised conflict tactics scale (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283–316.

66.

Stuart

G. L.

Moore

T. M.

Ramsey

S. E.

Kahler

C. W.

(2003). Relationship aggression and substance use among women court-referred to domestic violence intervention programs. Addictive Behaviors, 28(9), 1603–1610.

67.

Stuart

G. L.

Moore

T. M.

Ramsey

S. E.

Kahler

C. W.

(2004). Hazardous drinking and relationship violence perpetration and victimization in women arrested for domestic violence. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 65(1), 46–53.

68.

Temple

J. R.

Shorey

R. C.

Tortolero

S. R.

Wolfe

D. A.

Stuart

G. L.

(2013). Importance of gender and attitudes about violence in the relationship between exposure to interparental violence and the perpetration of teen dating violence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37(5), 343–352.

69.

Turanovic

J. J.

Pratt

T. C.

(2017). Consequences of violent victimization for Native American youth in early adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(6), 1333–1350.

70.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2017). American Community Survey (ACS). https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs#

71.

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. (2019). Child maltreatment 2017. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cm2017.pdf

72.

Vigessa

L. E.

(2013). Abuse as a form of strain among Native American and white female prisoners: Predictors of substance-related offenses and recidivism. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 11(1–2), 1–21.

73.

Wahab

Olson

(2004). Intimate partner violence and sexual assault in Native American communities. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 5(4), 353–366.

74.

Whitbeck

L. B.

(2011). The beginnings of mental health disparities: Emergent mental disorders among indigenous adolescents. Health Disparities in Youth and Families, 57, 121–149.

75.

Whitbeck

L. B.

Adams

Hoyt

Chen

(2004). Conceptualizing and measuring historical trauma among American Indian people. American Journal of Community Psychology, 33(3/4), 119–130.

76.

White

H. R.

Widom

C. S.

(2003). Intimate partner violence among abused and neglected children in young adulthood: The mediating effects of early aggression, antisocial personality, hostility and alcohol problems. Aggressive Behavior, 29(4), 332–345.

77.

Whiteshell

N. R.

Beals

Mitchell

C. M.

Manson

S. M.

Turner

R. J.

(2009). Childhood exposure to adversity and risk of substance-use disorder in two American Indian populations: The meditational role of early substance-use initiation. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 70(6), 971–981.

78.

Whitfield

C. L.

Anda

R. F.

Dube

S. R.

Felitti

V. J.

(2003). Violent childhood experiences and the risk of intimate partner violence in adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(2), 166–185.

79.

Widom

C. S.

Czaja

Dutton

M. A.

(2014). Child abuse and neglect and intimate partner violence victimization and perpetration: A prospective investigation. Child Abuse & Neglect, 38(4), 650–663.

80.

Widom

C. S.

White

H. R.

(1997). Problem behaviours in abused and neglected children grown up: Prevalence and co-occurrence of substance abuse, crime and violence. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 7(4), 287–310.