A Blue Step Forward: An Exploratory Study of Law Enforcement Perceptions of Intimate Partner Violence in the Southern United States

Abstract

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a pervasive issue that is underreported to law enforcement. One reason why individuals do not report their victimization stems from a perceived lack of support from law enforcement officials. However, law enforcement perceptions of IPV are largely unknown as the empirical literature on this topic is both limited and dated. To fill this gap in the literature, we conduct an exploratory analysis of how officers perceive IPV events. Utilizing original survey data from 498 law enforcement officers in a Southern state, officer perceptions of offenders, victims, and the credibility of IPV calls are explored. We also evaluate whether those perceptions vary by personal characteristics of officers by utilizing t-tests and correlations. Findings indicate that, overall, officer perceptions have evolved from the historical viewpoint that IPV events were a private family matter to contemporary perceptions that IPV is a serious crime that requires attention from law enforcement. Furthermore, results suggest differences in perceptions by officers’ personal characteristics (i.e., gender, rank, age, and years of law enforcement experience). With increasing age and years of law enforcement experience, victim-related factors are less salient in police perceptions of IPV calls. Regarding gender, female officers are less likely than male officers to believe victims may easily leave an abusive relationship and less likely to consider physical evidence of trauma to be very important in determining the credibility of an IPV call—suggesting that female officers are more in tune with the complexity of IPV cases. While officers appear to have a strong understanding of the contours of IPV incidents, overall, clear differences by personal characteristics were evident.

Keywords

intimate partner violence (IPV)family violence domestic violence police officer law enforcement perceptions attitudes

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a pervasive issue in the United States that impacts millions each year—with women being the primary victims (Smith et al., 2017; Wilson & Webb, 2018). IPV is defined as “violence or aggression that occurs in a close relationship,” including behaviors of physical violence, sexual violence, stalking, and/or psychological aggression perpetrated by a spouse, former spouse, or a dating partner (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2018, p. 1). Recent data suggest that in the United States, approximately 1 in 4 women and 1 in 10 men have experienced IPV at some point in their lives (CDC, 2018). The different experiences and consequences endured by male and female victims are highlighted when one examines “IPV-related impacts” which may include, but are not limited to: being afraid, being concerned for one’s safety, having a symptom associated with PTSD, being in need of housing and victim services, needing to seek services from a medical provider, and missing at least one day of school or work (D’Inverno et al., 2019, p. 4). Approximately 69% of female victims acknowledged experiencing at least one of the impacts related to IPV during their lifetime, compared to approximately 33% of male victims (D’Inverno et al., 2019). Revictimization is also a concern, with over 75% of adult females reporting victimization by the same offender more than once (Catalano, 2012). Concerns about IPV have led the CDC to define it as a “significant public health issue that has considerable societal costs” (CDC, 2018, p. 1).

While it is known that IPV is a pervasive issue, less is known about police officers’ perceptions of IPV. Police attitudes regarding IPV are pertinent to understand as they may influence assessments and responses to IPV calls as well as shape victims’ perceptions of police (Logan, Shannon, & Walker, 2006). While scholars have explored officer perceptions of these type of calls in the past, IPV continues to be a serious and growing issue that officers have to address on a regular basis. How these calls are handled can have short- and long-term implications for both victims and offenders. Due to the importance of the attitude that law enforcement officers have when responding to IPV-related calls, it is necessary to study the current perceptions of these criminal justice professionals. This will not only aid in improving our understanding of the matter but also identify needed areas of improvement, if any. Further, understanding police attitudes may inform policy, such as officer training programs and forming protocols for handling IPV cases.

Previous research indicates that officers’ gender, race/ethnicity, time on the force, and education may influence how they perceive and respond to IPV calls (Belknap, 1995; Gracia et al., 2011; Robinson & Chandek, 2000; Stalans & Finn, 2000; Waaland & Keeley, 1985). In addition, studies have found that the characteristics of victims and abusers may also influence these perceptions (e.g., gender stereotypes, race/ethnicity, social class, substance use; Berk & Loseke, 1981; Buzawa & Austin, 1993; Finn & Stalans, 1997; Robinson & Chandek, 2000; Stewart & Maddren, 1997; Waaland & Keeley, 1985). However, this area of research is dated and underdeveloped, which creates a need for scholars to explore the current perceptions that law enforcement officers have of IPV cases. Using original survey data collected from police officers across nine different departments in one Southern state, this study explores officer perceptions of IPV incidents, including perceptions about offenders, victims, and credibility of the reported event.¹

While the purpose of the original research project was to better understand intimate partner violence, the penal code in the state where the research was conducted classified IPV as “Family Violence.” Therefore, the survey instrument referenced “family violence” but all questions clearly concerned situations of IPV. For this reason, we use the term intimate partner violence (or IPV) throughout the present study.

In doing so, we consider how officer characteristics (i.e., age, rank, gender, and years of experience) may impact their perceptions of IPV cases. This study will contribute to a greater understanding of how officers currently perceive IPV cases and which personal characteristics, if any, impact their views.

Overview of Factors Impacting Police Perceptions of IPV

Officers’ Perceptions of Intimate Partner Violence Calls

Prior to changes in law and public perceptions in the 1970s, law enforcement officers considered domestic violence a private matter. After domestic violence was recognized as a criminal act, many officers avoided such calls as they continued to view domestic violence as a private matter, regardless of the law, and as less prestigious than other calls (Zorza, 1992). Even if an officer did view domestic abuse as a crime, they did not necessarily believe that arresting the abuser was the best way to address the situation (Belknap, 1995; Saunders & Size, 1986).

More recently, officers have reported disliking, being easily frustrated by, and often resisting responding to cases of IPV because they had to assume a role of counselor and/or were ill-equipped to handle IPV situations (DeJong et al., 2008). Officers may also feel frustration when IPV victims refuse to cooperate with police and prosecutors to follow through with their legal cases (DeJong et al., 2008; Ferraro, 1989; Gover et al., 2011; Johnson, 2007). Other research suggests that it is common for officers to think that these cases take too much time, are frustrating when repeated calls to the same house are answered, and that they do not have enough discretion to handle them properly (Gover et al., 2011).

Not all studies indicate negative feelings from officers about responding to IPV calls (DeJong et al., 2008; Gracia et al., 2011). Officers have acknowledged that they had a duty as a first responder to assess and provide safety as well as short-term crisis intervention when responding to IPV calls (Horwitz et al., 2011). This, however, did not necessarily mean they believed arrest was always necessary, and instead may be influenced by how an officer views the importance of “keeping the peace” versus “enforcing the law” (Belknap, 1995, p. 59). For instance, enforcing the law may be seen as being less of a priority if the victim’s experience is not perceived as serious (e.g., lack of serious injury, lack of repeated incidents of violence; Gracia & Herrero, 2006a, 2006b; Gracia et al., 2008; Loseke, 1989, 1999). Indeed, discretion of arrest in cases of IPV can be shaped and potentially limited by state and local arrest policies which may vary by jurisdiction (American Bar Association, 2011; Hirschel et al., 2007).

Officer Characteristics

Research has explored whether characteristics of officers (e.g., gender, education) play a role in how they respond to and view these calls. With regards to gender, researchers studying police perceptions have found that while some view female officers as lacking in assertiveness, they may also be less likely to escalate matters and more likely to exhibit more patience, empathy, and compassion than their male colleagues (Homant & Kennedy, 1985; Stalans & Finn, 2000). While one study found that male and female officers arrested abusers at similar rates—their reasoning for doing so may differ. For instance, experienced female officers were more likely to empathize with victims of IPV and were more likely to recommend victims to shelters (Stalans & Finn, 2000). Another study found that male officers were more likely to make arrests overall (Robinson & Chandek, 2000). According to Robinson and Chandek (2000), female officers were more likely to adhere to victims’ preferences which resulted in them making fewer arrests than their male colleagues. Gracia et al. (2011), however, noted that female officers were found to be less sexist than their male counterparts; those found to be less sexist were more likely to be in favor of arresting abusers regardless of the victims’ requests (Gracia et al., 2011).

It has been suggested that officers’ level of education may play a role in how they respond to IPV calls. Research highlights that officers’ decision-making and professionalism has improved in tandem with increasing educational requirements (Patterson, 2004). Furthermore, training of police recruits may also influence their perceptions of IPV incidents (Patterson, 2004; Waaland & Keeley, 1985). While Belknap (1995) found no evidence that education influenced officers’ responses to IPV calls, a 2011 study found that officers with more advanced levels of education had higher empathy rates and were less sexist, which appeared to play a role in how they responded to IPV calls (Gracia et al., 2011). The subject matter studied may be important as well, with some research suggesting the incorporation of social work curricula for officers and future officers in college can influence how they interact with victims (McMullan et al., 2010; Trotter, 2000). This seems to suggest that educating officers in relevant disciplines can be beneficial in gaining a better understanding of IPV overall, including the impact of IPV from individual to societal levels (Sitaker, 2007).

An officer’s age or level of experience may play a role in perceptions as well. Belknap (1995) found that age influenced perceptions about whether victims were being honest when they said they wanted the offender to be arrested, noting that the “youngest officers were most likely and the oldest officers were least likely to believe that victims do not ‘mean it’ when they request the officers to arrest” (p. 55). Officers with more experience handling IPV calls were less likely to characterize victims as being cooperative (Robinson & Chandek, 2000). Experience may also influence decisions to arrest, with experienced officers being more likely than rookies to only arrest the husband as opposed to both spouses, to consider whether the violence perpetrated by the wife was a form of self-defense, whether an arrest would place victims in more or less danger, and whether a conviction would be secured by the prosecution (Stalans & Finn, 2006). Perceptions of IPV calls based on an officer’s level of experience may also intersect with gender. For instance, experienced female officers were less likely to recommend counseling and more likely to refer victims to shelters than experienced male officers (Stalans & Finn, 2000).

Victim and Offender Characteristics

Researchers have also explored whether characteristics of victims and offenders influence police officers’ responses to IPV calls, though research in this area is generally inconclusive and quite dated. Finn and Stalans (1997) found that gender stereotypes likely play a role in how police perceive perpetrators and victims in heterosexual couples. Compared to female victims, male victims may be seen as responsible for their victimization since they are perceived as more able to protect themselves (Finn & Stalans, 1997; Smith & Klein, 1984; Stewart & Maddren, 1997). This preconceived notion of male victims has the potential to create issues when arrest decisions are made in an incident with a female abuser and male victim (Finn & Stalans, 1997). These stereotypes, however, do not always favor female victims. For instance, research has suggested that due to negative stereotypes of females, officers tend to view female victims of domestic violence as being untrustworthy. Moreover, Belknap (1995) found that only about half of the officers she studied believed that females “meant it” when they asked officers to arrest their assailants. Viewing females as lacking credibility may reduce the likelihood that an officer will intervene in an IPV incident and arrest an abuser.

Research on whether the race and socioeconomic status (SES) of victims influences officer reactions to IPV calls is in particular need of more current understanding. A survey of 324 officers found that 8% of respondents believed that an arrest of an offender would be more likely if he was non-White (Belknap, 1995). Further, 18% believed that arrest would be more likely if the offender was classified as economically disadvantaged (Belknap, 1995). Additional studies have found that in deciding whether to make an arrest, race of the offender was not a factor that significantly influenced that decision (Berk & Loseke, 1981; Black, 1980; Smith & Klein, 1984). Buzawa and Austin (1993), however, found that Black offenders were more likely than White offenders to be arrested. They also noted that the police force they studied was approximately 70% minority officers, and as such they did not believe this finding could be attributed to the race of the officer (Buzawa & Austin, 1993).

The level of alcohol and drug use by both partners in IPV events has also been the subject of some study. In terms of offenders, arrest and being attributed blame by officers are more likely when the offender is intoxicated (Smith & Klein, 1984; Waaland & Keeley, 1985). For victims, research has found that being intoxicated may lead officers to perceive them as uncooperative and may contribute to officers not following their wishes regarding whether the abusers should be arrested (Buzawa & Buzawa, 2003; Robinson & Chandek, 2000). Further, victims may be seen as more blameworthy when they are intoxicated compared to those who are sober, with their intoxication potentially also serving as a mitigating factor for the abuser’s behavior (Stewart & Maddren, 1997; Waaland & Keeley, 1985).

Although much has been learned about IPV cases from the perspective of police officers, it is necessary to update what we know about how characteristics of officers may impact their perceptions of IPV cases—including their assessments of victims and offenders. A current examination of this topic will reveal whether officer perceptions of IPV incidents have changed over time. As such, utilizing original survey data, the following reports findings from an exploratory study of officers from the Southern United States. Of particular interest is how present-day law enforcement officers perceive victims, offenders, and the creditability of IPV events.

Methods

Data

Our findings are based on the analysis of original survey data collected in 2015 from 498 law enforcement officers across 9 agencies in the Southern United States. Although a convenience sample, agencies were strategically selected to represent diversity in the size of each agency, population of each city, demographics of each city, and demographics of sworn officers in each department. Seven of the nine agencies preferred printed copies of the survey for distribution, while two requested that the survey be conducted online.

The surveys were delivered to all sworn officers at the beginning of one shift, with an announcement of the instructions provided by the researchers. Participants could then take the surveys and fill them out at their leisure. Once completed, the surveys were then placed in a sealed envelope and delivered to the shift supervisor. All surveys were kept in a locked office of the shift supervisor and remained there until researchers returned to collect them, which was approximately every two weeks after initial deployment. Nix et al. (2017) highlight that response rates are low when law enforcement is surveyed. This method of survey collection was implemented to boost survey response rates as it was determined that officers would trust handing in surveys to their supervisors over other methods of submitting completed surveys. The online survey—identical to the paper survey in every way except for how it was delivered—included the exact same instructions, informed consent documentation, and questions. The total period of survey deployment was approximately six weeks.

Across the 9 police agencies, a total of 498 completed surveys were returned. There was an overall response rate of 35% across all participating agencies. Keep in mind, survey data with police officers as respondents are rare (Nix et al., 2017; Skogan, 2015). Due to a multitude of barriers to surveying police officers—including a general mistrust of outsiders and difficulty in obtaining permission from supervising officers—low response rates are expected in police surveys (Nix et al., 2017). The value of the survey data outweighs the low response rate. Furthermore, low response rates are usually weakly related to nonresponse bias (Nix et al., 2017). For the purposes of confidentiality, the location and names of participating agencies are not disclosed.

Measures

Demographic questions.

Respondents were asked several demographic questions including respondents’ gender, age, rank, and highest level of education. Gender was coded as a dichotomous variable (female = 0; male = 1). Age and rank were open-ended questions. Rank was then recoded as a dichotomous variable (officer = 0; supervisor = 1). Race/ethnicity was measured by the following categories: Asian (1), Black (2), Hispanic (3), Native American (4), White (5), and Other (6). The officers were also asked an open-ended question about the total number of years working in law enforcement. Information on the participants’ highest level of education was obtained and measured as a categorical variable (high school/GED = 1; some college = 2; bachelor’s degree = 3; graduate degree = 4).

Attitudinal questions.

Respondents were asked a total of 53 attitudinal questions regarding IPV and family violence calls. These questions were given either a 3-point or 4-point Likert response option. The 3-point Likert response options included as follows: 0 = disagree; 1 = neutral; 2 = agree. Whereas the 4-point Likert response options were as follows: 1 = not important; 2 = somewhat important; 3 = important; 4 = very important. For certain attitudinal questions, a 4-point Likert response option was purposely selected to avoid fence-sitting, or in other words, neutral responses. This ensured that with difficult questions, such as those regarding attitudes about IPV calls, respondents were not tempted by the allure of selecting a neutral answer.

Analytical Plan

Out of the 53 questions in the survey, 21 attitudinal questions were selected for the analysis as they examined at least one of the three most-relevant topics (i.e., victims, offenders, and credibility of IPV calls). Using the selected attitudinal questions, we examined the perceptions of law enforcement officers in a series of interrelated steps. First, a missing variable check was conducted to examine the amount of missing responses and whether there was any pattern to the missing responses. The results indicated that there were no systematic missing responses. Second, descriptive statistics were run to gain an overview of the respondents’ characteristics. Third, univariate statistics were estimated to examine the trends of police perceptions—specifically, regarding victims and aggressors of IPV as well as the credibility that an IPV event occurred. In total, percentages of 21 attitudinal questions were examined to find any trends listed in the aforementioned three categories. Fourth, participant characteristics—gender, rank, age, and years of law enforcement experience—were examined in the bivariate analysis (i.e., correlations and t-tests) to see if these characteristics impact officers’ responses to attitudinal questions regarding IPV. Having a diverse sample of respondents allowed for an in-depth examination of whether perceptions of IPV varied by personal characteristics. To explore the relationship between IPV perceptions and dichotomous variables (i.e., gender and rank), t-tests were conducted on all 21 attitudinal questions. Furthermore, correlations were estimated to study the relationship between IPV perceptions and continuous variables (i.e., age and years of law enforcement experience). Taken together, the analysis formed a clearer picture concerning the perceptions of IPV from contemporary law enforcement officers. Due to a lack of literature within this area, multivariate analyses were not utilized in the current study as a foundation is needed to better understand how law enforcement perceive IPV events before examining more complex relationships.

Results

Missing Responses

A pattern of missing responses—or in other words, systematic missing responses—highlight issues with a survey instrument in which respondents systematically do not respond to a certain question. The missing variable check indicated that every survey question had less than 30 missing responses and that there were no systematic missing responses. Indeed, the missing responses were randomly distributed and did not highlight any biases in survey responses.

Sample Description

The sample consisted of 498 law enforcement officers. Respondents on average were 40 years old, with ages ranging from 23 to 61. The average time respondents served in law enforcement was 13 years—including their current agency. The respondents were 83% (413) male and 17% (85) female. The largest racial and ethnic category was White (71%), followed by Hispanic (12%), and Black (8%). In terms of educational attainment, 4% of participants completed high school, 53% had some college experience, 35% had a bachelor’s degree, and 8% completed a graduate degree. The survey contains responses from 72% officers and 28% supervisors.

Univariate Analysis

Table 1 reports participant responses using percentages for the six questions in the survey about victims of IPV events. Departing from early law enforcement’s perceptions of IPV, 89.4% of respondents disagree that family violence is best handled as a private matter. Moreover, the majority of respondents (85.4%) agree that one of the most important outcomes of responding to a family violence call is offering assistance to the victim. Concerning victim characteristics of IPV, respondents disagree (56.1%) that minority victims of family violence are more likely to call the police than White victims. Furthermore, a majority of officers agree (73.3%) that male victims of IPV are less likely to report abuse compared to female victims. When asked whether IPV victims could easily leave their relationships but decide not to—45.1% agree. Almost half of the surveyed officers (49.4%) believe that the most dangerous time for victims of IPV is when the perpetrator and victim are separated.

Table 1.

Police Perceptions of Victims and Aggressors Involved With IPV.

	Percentage of Response
	Agree	Neutral	Disagree
Victims (n = 472)
Offering assistance to victims important outcome	85.4	10.2	4.4
Men less likely to report abuse by partner	73.3	17.6	9.1
Most deadly time for victims is when perpetrator is separated	49.4	35.6	15.0
Family violence victims can easily leave relationship	45.1	25.4	29.5
Minority victims more likely to call police	12.7	31.2	56.1
Family violence is a private matter	1.7	8.9	89.4
Aggressors (n = 471)
Women just as likely as men to engage in family violence	81.4	8.2	10.4
Difficult to identify the primary aggressor	61.7	20.1	18.2
Abusers need for power and control over victims	57.9	24.5	17.6
Family violence more prevalent among lower class	21.2	24.5	54.3
Best to arrest both parties when aggressor unknown	15.6	20.5	63.9
Family violence more prevalent among minorities	11.0	28.3	60.7

Examining the survey questions about aggressors of IPV, 57.9% of respondents agree that family violence incidents are a result of the abusers’ need for power and control. Table 1 highlights that when forming a typology of which families are more likely to experience IPV, most officers disagree that incidents were higher among low socioeconomic (54.3%) and minority (60.7%) families. When identifying aggressors of IPV, respondents agree (61.7%) that it is difficult to identify the primary aggressor for IPV calls, however, 63.9% disagree that it is best to arrest both parties when the primary aggressor cannot be identified.

One issue facing police officers is determining whether a crime actually occurred—this issue also affects IPV calls. Table 2 shows the trends for factors officers find important in determining that an IPV call is credible. For instance, respondents indicate that with IPV calls, evidence of physical trauma (51.3%), victim statements (62%), and credibility of witnesses (46.1%) are very important. In a shift from victim-blaming, respondents do not find it important if the victim was previously involved with illegal activity (28.3%) or if the victim has a criminal record (53.7%). However, 33.5% of law enforcement officers did find it important whether a victim consumed alcohol and/or drugs in determining the credibility of an IPV call. Respondents also found the following factors important when determining the credibility of an IPV call: credibility of witness (40.4%), credibility of suspect (45.6%), time between alleged incident and report (42.1%), as well as a history of family violence calls (40%).

Table 2.

Factors Influencing Police Perceptions of IPV Credibility (n = 487).

	Percentage of Response
	Not Important	Somewhat Important	Important	Very Important
Victim statements	1.0	3.3	33.7	62.0
Evidence of physical trauma	3.6	9.5	35.6	51.3
Credibility of witness	3.0	10.5	40.4	46.1
History family violence calls	6.9	17.8	40.0	35.3
Credibility of suspect	9.7	17.4	45.6	27.3
Time between alleged incident and report	7.7	26.3	42.1	23.9
Victim consumption of alcohol/drugs	13.6	37.4	33.5	15.5
Victim involvement in illegal activity	28.3	34.6	25.9	11.3
Victim criminal record	53.7	24.2	16.4	5.7

Bivariate Analysis

Table 3 illustrates the impact of gender on each attitudinal question with t-tests. Of the 21 attitudinal questions, significant differences were found with 7 questions. For instance, female officers are significantly more likely to disagree that victims of IPV can easily leave the relationship in comparison to male officers. When determining the credibility of an IPV call, females are significantly less likely than males to find physical evidence of trauma to be very important. These two findings indicate that female officers are more in tune with the complexities of IPV cases. Furthermore, males are significantly less likely than females to agree that the deadliest time for victims of IPV is when the perpetrator is separated. Males, in comparison to females, are also significantly more likely to perceive that victim consumption of alcohol and/or drugs, victim involvement in illegal activity, and victim criminal records are very important in determining credibility of IPV calls.

Table 3.

Differences in IPV Perceptions by Gender and Rank.

Variables	Mean(Male)	Mean(Female)	Mean Difference	t Statistic
Family violence victims can easily leave relationship	2.22	1.91	0.31	2.94**
Most deadly time for victims is when perpetrator is separated	2.30	2.55	–0.25	–2.83**
Evidence of physical trauma	3.40	3.09	0.31	3.21***
Victim consumption of alcohol/drugs	2.55	2.25	0.30	2.75**
Credibility of witness	3.33	3.11	0.22	2.28*
Victim involvement in illegal activity	2.26	1.85	0.41	3.48***
Victim criminal record	1.78	1.53	0.25	2.20*
Variables	Mean(Officer)	Mean(Supervisor)	MeanDifference	tStatistic
Family violence victims can easily leave relationship	2.24	1.98	0.26	3.11**
Men less likely to report abuse by partner	2.60	2.75	–0.15	–2.35*
Most deadly time for victims is when perpetrator is separated	2.87	2.70	0.17	1.95*
Victim involvement in illegal activity	2.26	2.06	0.20	2.06*
Victim criminal record	1.80	1.58	0.23	2.47**

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

Differences in perceptions of IPV by rank is also assessed (see Table 3). Results of the t-tests between line officers and supervisors on their perceptions of IPV cases indicate that there are statistically significant differences for five questions. Line officers, compared to supervisors, are more likely to agree that victims of IPV can easily leave an abusive relationship. They are also more likely to agree that the deadliest time for victims is when the perpetrator is separated. When determining the credibility of an IPV call, supervisors are significantly less likely to perceive that victim involvement in illegal activity and having a criminal record is very important, in comparison to officers. Supervisors are also significantly more likely to perceive that men do not report IPV abuse as much as women.

Recall, correlations were conducted using 21 attitudinal variables and two continuous variables—age and years of experience—to examine whether responses differed by these two characteristics. Table 4 reports significant results. The results indicate that younger officers are more likely to agree that IPV victims can easily leave the abusive relationship. Younger officers are also more likely to take into consideration if victims have previously reported incidents of IPV in determining the credibility of a call. Whereas older officers are more likely to agree that offering assistance to victims of IPV is one of the most important outcomes of the call.

Table 4.

Correlations Between IPV Perceptions by Age and Law Enforcement (LE) Experiences.

Variables	Age	LE Experiences	Mean	SD
Victim consumption of alcohol/drugs	–0.02	–0.14*	2.51	0.91
Most deadly time for victims is when perpetrator is separated	–0.04	–0.10*	2.82	0.88
History family violence calls	–0.12*	–0.15*	3.04	0.90
Family violence victims can easily leave relationship	–0.10*	–0.13*	2.17	0.85
Men less likely to report abuse by partner	0.07	0.10*	2.65	0.64
Victim involvement in illegal activity	–0.05	–0.13*	2.20	0.98
Offering assistance to victims important outcome	0.14*	0.09	2.81	0.50

Note. *p < .05.

When examining the correlation between years of law enforcement experience and attitudinal questions concerning IPV, there are six statistically significant results (see Table 4). Specifically, more experienced officers are more likely to perceive victims’ consumption of alcohol and/or drugs, involvement in illegal activity, and history of family violence calls as not important in determining the credibility of an IPV call. They are also more likely to disagree that IPV victims can easily leave abusive relationships. Officers with fewer years of experience are more likely to disagree that men report IPV abuse less compared to women. They are also more likely to disagree that offering assistance to victims is one of the most important outcomes in IPV calls. Those with more years of experience are more likely to disagree that the deadliest time for victims is when the perpetrator is separated.

Discussion

It is pertinent to understand how police officers regard IPV incidents because of their role when receiving such calls. Potential biases may hinder enforcement and may also be detrimental to both current and future interactions between police officers and citizens. Yet very little is known about how law enforcement presently perceives IPV incidents. In order to gain insight into how police officers perceive IPV, the current study explores 498 line and supervising officers’ perceptions to calls involving IPV and how these perceptions vary by personal characteristics.

Comparing police perceptions by officer characteristics indicate that there are more similarities than differences. Within the differences, however, there are unique trends in officer perceptions by personal characteristics. For instance, results revealed that the majority of the officers surveyed agreed that it is easy for victims to leave abusive relationships. Investigating further, there were significant gender differences amongst officers, with female officers more likely to disagree that victims of IPV can easily leave the relationship. Male officers were significantly more likely to view victim involvement in illegal activity and substance use as an important factor in determining call credibility. These findings of gender differences amongst officers are similar to those found previously (Homant & Kennedy, 1985; Robinson & Chandek, 2000; Stalans & Finn, 2000), in which female officers have generally been found to evoke a more empathetic response towards IPV victims and incidents compared to their male counterparts. Perceptions also differed by rank, with supervisors less likely to view victim involvement in illegal activity and having a criminal record as very important in determining call credibility. Younger officers, and those with fewer years of experience, were more likely to agree that it is easy for a victim to leave an abusive relationship. Older officers, female officers, as well as officers with more experience were generally more understanding of the complicated nature of IPV. In regard to level of experience, the findings herein are contrary to those of Robinson and Chandek (2000), who found that officers with more experience held more problematic views of victims. Findings from the current study indicate that more experience with IPV cases can increase understanding of these types of calls. This falls in line with results from DeJong et al. (2008), who noted that officers reported being frustrated by, disliking, and often resisting responding to IPV calls due to negative views of victim interactions and feelings of being ill-equipped to handle such cases.

Findings from the current study reveal two important points. First, police officer perceptions of IPV have evolved since IPV was formally introduced as a crime handled by the criminal justice system. Prior to the 1970s, law enforcement rarely intervened in IPV as many believed it to be a private family matter (Tatum & Pence, 2015). The emergence of women’s rights movements pushed the federal government to formally classify IPV as a serious criminal act necessitating law enforcement involvement (DeJong et al., 2008; Gover et al., 2011). This formal classification has generally shifted law enforcement perceptions about the seriousness of IPV. Indeed, less than 2% of respondents believed that IPV is a private matter. The majority, if not all, of respondents began their law enforcement career after changes in classification of IPV and efforts for agencies to protect the rights of victims of IPV, which may have likely contributed to officers’ evolving perceptions of IPV cases.

Second, although perceptions have evolved, police officers need to further understand the complexities of IPV. Recall that nearly half of those surveyed agreed that victims of IPV may easily leave abusive relationships. This finding is especially relevant for younger, less experienced, male officers. Such a perception suggests a lack of understanding regarding the factors influencing the decision to remain in an abusive relationship and the possible consequences surrounding this decision. Additionally, this view of IPV may negatively affect interactions with victims (Robinson & Chandek, 2000). If victims do not feel as though responding officers believe them or support them, they may be less likely to contact law enforcement in the future and may be more likely to remain in the abusive relationship (Logan, Walker et al., 2006). Thus, findings from the current study highlight the importance of continued education for all police officers on the complexities of IPV. Further, findings support increased efforts to train new officers on IPV as they will likely be patrol officers first responding to these incidents.

It is important that efforts to advance educational awareness of IPV are not limited solely to training whilst in the academy or once on the force. While educational requirements for police departments vary, prior research suggests that advanced educational requirements may prove beneficial for bias reduction and law enforcement interactions with citizens (Gracia et al., 2011; Patterson, 2004; Waaland & Keeley, 1985). With this in mind, the early implementation of required courses on IPV could be valuable for those who choose to pursue higher education, no matter the intended major. With this suggestion, it is necessary to note that not all police officers will attend an institution of higher education. Indeed, within the current sample, although the majority obtained at least some college experience, a small portion (4%) denoted high school completion as the highest educational level. Thus, continued education on IPV should be implemented within police departments. As suggested by McMullan et al. (2010) and Trotter (2000), the implementation of collaborative, interdisciplinary work with social work agencies, advocates, and organizations may improve police perceptions of IPV by providing important insight into its many complexities. In addition to increasing the knowledge base of police officers working IPV calls, developing an interagency working relationship could establish a direct line to resources for victims. The use of a peer-to-peer format of training, as described by Blaney (2010), could be useful to help validate officers’ experiences, as well as increase departmental cohesion. By training more experienced officers to train their peers on various aspects of IPV, officers may feel more comfortable as they are learning from one of their own. Investments in periodic specialized training and workshops in conjunction with widespread efforts by law enforcement and policy makers to address and reduce the prevalence of IPV may pay dividends to public safety (Blaney, 2010).

Although this study adds to the current literature concerning police perceptions of IPV, there are limitations that must be addressed. First, the study uses a convenience sample of metropolitan police agencies located in one state, which may limit generalizability to the broader population of police agencies. However, care was taken to ensure that the agencies were representative of the population and demographics of the cities in which they serve. It is suggested that future research investigate possible regional impacts on police perceptions. Second, officers were encouraged to complete the survey at their leisure. Therefore, there is no way of knowing if survey questions were discussed amongst officers, possibly influencing their responses. While not ideal from a research design standpoint, this was implemented so that officers would be encouraged to complete the survey on their own schedule. Future studies, however, may want to impose a shorter timeframe to complete the survey. Third, officers in the present study were instructed to submit completed surveys to their supervisors. Future studies should administer surveys with self-addressed stamped envelopes included so respondents may submit the survey themselves. This methodological step may eliminate social desirability and increase response rates. Future research should examine how police perceptions of IPV victims differ in same-sex and other relationships to gain further understanding of police perceptions of IPV and victims’ experiences. Additionally, future studies should aim to include a larger number of female officers to further examine the differences in police perceptions of IPV by gender.

Conclusion

IPV is a public safety issue affecting many globally (Devries et al., 2013). Despite its prevalence, little research has assessed the perceptions of police officers who may respond to calls involving IPV. In this study, 498 police officers in the Southern United States were surveyed to examine how they perceived victims and perpetrators of IPV as well as how these perceptions differed by personal characteristics. Findings point to both areas of progress and areas in need of continued evaluation and attention. Though perceptions have evolved since the 1970s, results indicate that there are still some antiquated and simplified perceptions of IPV held by officers. While recognizing the strides police agencies have made in responding to IPV cases, there remains work to be done to improve officer perceptions and response. The findings herein demonstrate that there is a clear need for continued training and education concerning the complicated and nuanced nature of IPV.

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

Sarah A. El Sayed

Author Biographies

Sarah A. El Sayed, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Texas at Arlington. Her research interests include developmental/life-course criminology, gender and criminal outcomes, and quantitative methods. Her recent articles have been published in outlets such as Criminal Justice and Behavior, Crime & Delinquency, and Journal of Quantitative Criminology.

Rashaan A. DeShay, JD, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Texas at Arlington. Her research interests include offender decision-making, institutional corrections, prisoner reentry, wrongful convictions, and qualitative methodology. Her recent articles can be found in outlets such as Crime & Delinquency, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, and Deviant Behavior.

Jaya B. Davis, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Texas at Arlington. Her primary research focus is in areas of re-entry and reintegration, women and criminal justice, and juvenile justice. In addition to these primary research foci, Dr Davis has investigated offender misconduct, community perceptions of service learning, and improving criminal justice education.

Krysta N. Knox, MA, MSW, is a criminal justice doctoral student at the University of Cincinnati. Her research interests include developmental/life-course criminology, juvenile delinquency, and intimate partner violence. Her current research focuses on the long-term behavioral impacts of family structure disruption.

Kent R. Kerley, PhD, is professor and Chair in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Texas at Arlington. Dr Kerley’s primary research interests include corrections, religiosity, and drug careers. He has received research funding from the National Science Foundation, Google, and the Religious Research Association.

References

American Bar Association. (2011). Domestic violence arrest policies by state . American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence.

Belknap

(1995). Law enforcement officers’ attitudes about the appropriate responses to woman battering. International Review of Victimology , 4, 47–62.

Berk

S. F.

, & Loseke

D. R.

(1981). Handling family violence: Situational determinants of police arrest in domestic disturbance. Law and Society Review , 15, 317–346. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053608

Black

(1980). The manners and customs of police . Academic Press.

Blaney

(2010). Police officers’ views of specialized intimate partner violence training. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management , 33, 354–375.

Buzawa

, & Austin

(1993). Determining police response to domestic violence victims. American Behavioral Scientist , 36, 610−623.

Buzawa

E. S.

, & Buzawa

C. G.

(2003). Domestic violence: The criminal justice response . Sage Publications.

Catalano

(2012). Intimate partner violence, 1993–2010 (NCJ 239203). U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2018). Preventing intimate partner violence . https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/intimatepartnerviolence/fastfact.html

10.

D’Inverno

A. S.

, Smith

S. G.

, Zhang

, & Chen

(2019). The impact of intimate partner violence: A 2015 NISVS Research-in-Brief . National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

11.

DeJong

, Burgess-Proctor

, & Elis

(2008). Police officer perceptions of intimate partner violence: An analysis of observational data. Violence and Victims , 23, 683–696. https://doi.org/10.1891-0886-6708.23.6.683

12.

Devries

K. M.

, Mak

J. Y. T.

, García-Moreno

, Petzold

, Child

J. C.

, Falder

, Lim

, Bacchus

L. J.

, Engell

R. E.

, Rosenfeld

, Pallitto

, Vos

, Abrahams

, & Watts

C. H.

(2013). The global prevalence of intimate partner violence against women. Science , 340, 1527–1528. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1240937

13.

Ferraro

K. J.

(1989). Policing woman battering. Social Problems , 36(1), 61–74.

14.

Finn

M. A.

, & Stalans

L. J.

(1997). The influence of gender and mental state on police decisions in domestic assault cases. Criminal Justice and Behavior , 24, 157–176.

15.

Gover

A. R.

, Paul

D. P.

, & Dodge

(2011). Law enforcement officers’ attitudes about domestic violence. Violence Against Women , 17, 619–636. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801211407477

16.

Gracia

, García

, & Lila

(2008). Police involvement in cases of intimate partner violence against women: The influence of perceived severity and personal responsibility. Violence Against Women , 14, 697–714. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801208317288.

17.

Gracia

, García

, & Lila

(2011). Police attitudes toward policing partner violence against women: Do they correspond to different psychosocial profiles? Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 26(1), 189–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260510362892

18.

Gracia

, & Herrero

(2006a). Acceptability of domestic violence against women in the European Union: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health , 60(2), 123–129. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2005.036533

19.

Gracia

, & Herrero

(2006b). Public attitudes toward reporting partner violence against women and reporting behavior. Journal of Marriage and Family , 68, 759–768. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00288.x

20.

Hirschel

, Buzawa

, Pattavina

, & Faggiani

(2007). Domestic violence and mandatory arrest laws: To what extent do they influence police arrest decisions? The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology , 98(1), 255–298.

21.

Homant

R. J.

, & Kennedy

D. B.

(1985). Police perceptions of spouse abuse: A comparison of male and female officers. Journal of Criminal Justice , 2(1), 29–47.

22.

Horwitz

S. H.

, Mitchell

, LaRussa-Trott

, Santiago

, Pearson

, Skiff

D. M.

, & Cerulli

(2011). An inside view of police officers’ experience with domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence , 26, 617–625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-011-9396-y

23.

Johnson

I. M.

(2007). Victims’ perceptions of police response to domestic violence incidents. Journal of Criminal Justice , 35, 498–510 https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2007.07.003

24.

Logan

, Shannon

, & Walker

(2006). Police attitudes toward domestic violence offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 21, 1365–1374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260506291653

25.

Logan

, Walker

, Jordan

, & Leukefeld

(2006). Women and victimization: Contributing factors, interventions, and implications . American Psychological Association Press.

26.

Loseke

D. R.

(1989). “Violence” is “violence” … or is it? The social construction of “wife abuse” and public policy. In Best

(Ed.), Images of issues: Typifying contemporary social problems (pp. 191–206). de Gruyter.

27.

Loseke

D. R.

(1999). Researching Sexual Violence against Women: Methodological and Personal Perspectives. Journal of Comparative Family Studies , 30(1), 160–161.

28.

McMullan

E. C.

, Carlan

P. E.

, & Nored

L. S.

(2010). Future law enforcement officers and social workers: Perceptions of domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 25, 1367–1387. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260509346062

29.

Nix

, Picket

J. T.

, Baek

, & Alpert

G. P.

(2017). Police research, officer surveys, and response rates. Policing and Society , 29, 530–550.

30.

Patterson

G. T.

(2004). Evaluating the effects of child abuse training on the attitudes, knowledge, and skills of police recruits. Research on Social Work Practice , 14, 273–280.

31.

Robinson

A. L.

, & Chandek

M. S.

(2000). The domestic violence arrest decision: Examining demographic, attitudinal, and situational variables. Crime & Delinquency , 46(1), 18–37.

32.

Saunders

D. G.

, & Size

P. B.

(1986). Attitudes about woman abuse among police officers, victims, and victim advocates. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 1(1), 25–42.

33.

Sitaker

(2007). The ecology of intimate partner violence: Theorized impacts on women’s use of violence. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, & Trauma , 15(3–4), 179–219.

34.

Skogan

W. G.

(2015). Surveying police officers. In Maltz

M. D.

, Rice

S. K.

(Eds.), Envisioning criminology (pp. 109 –115). Springer.

35.

Smith

D. A.

, & Klein

J. R.

(1984). Police control of interpersonal disputes. Social Problems , 31, 469−481.

36.

Smith

S. G.

, Chen

, Basile

K. C.

, Gilbert

L. K.

, Merrick

M. T.

, Patel

, Walling

, & Jain

(2017). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010–2012 state report . National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

37.

Stalans

L. J.

, & Finn

M. A.

(2000). Gender differences in officers’ perceptions and decisions about domestic violence cases. Women & Criminal Justice , 11(3), 1–24.

38.

Stalans

L. J.

, & Finn

M. A.

(2006). Public’s and police officers’ interpretation and handling of domestic violence cases: Divergent realities. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 21, 1129–1155. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260506290420

39.

Stewart

, & Maddren

(1997). Police officers’ judgements of blame in family violence: The impact of gender and alcohol. Sex Roles , 37, 921–933. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02936347

40.

Tatum

K. M.

, & Pence

(2015). Factors that affect the arrest decision in domestic violence cases. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management , 38(1), 56–70.

41.

Trotter

(2000). Social work education, pro-social orientation and effective probation practice. Probation Journal , 47, 256—261.

42.

Waaland

, & Keeley

(1985). Police decision making in wife abuse: The impact of legal and extralegal factors. Law and Human Behavior , 9, 355–366.

43.

Wilson

M. H.

, & Webb

(2018). Social work’s role in responding to intimate partner violence . National Association of Social Workers.

44.

Zorza

(1992). The criminal law of misdemeanor domestic violence, 1970–1990. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology , 83(1), 46–72. https://doi.org/10.2307/1143824