Housing instability is as strong a predictor of poor health outcomes as level of danger in an abusive relationship: findings from the SHARE Study

Advocates, clinicians, policy makers, and survivors frequently cite intimate partner violence (IPV) as an immediate cause of or precursor to housing problems. Research has indicated an association between homelessness and IPV, yet few studies examine IPV and housing instability. Housing instability differs from homelessness, in that someone experiencing housing instability may currently have a place to live but faces difficulties with maintaining the residence. We present baseline findings from a longitudinal cohort study of 278 female IPV survivors with housing as a primary concern. Our analysis indicates the greater the number of housing instability risk factors (e.g., eviction notice, problems with landlord, moving multiple times), the more likely the abused woman reported symptoms consistent with PTSD (p < .001), depression (p < .001), reduced quality of life (p < .001), increased work/school absence (OR = 1.28, p < .004), and increased hospital/emergency department use (OR = 1.22, p < .001). These outcomes persist even when controlling for the level of danger in the abusive relationship and for survivors' drug and alcohol use. Importantly, both housing instability and danger level had stronger associations with negative health outcomes than other factors such as age, alcohol, and drug use; both make unique contributions to negative health outcomes and could contribute in different ways. Housing instability is an important and understudied social determinant of health for IPV survivors. These findings begin to address the literature gap on the relationship between housing instability, IPV, and survivors' health, employment, and utilization of medical care services.     

“Intimate Terrorism” and Gender Differences in Injury of Dating Partners by Male and Female University Students

A version of the partner violence typology developed by Johnson (Journal of Marriage and the Family 57: 283-294, 1995) that more fully reflects the inherently dyadic nature of partner violence is presented, as well as a method of using the Conflict Tactics Scales to identify cases in the typology, including “Intimate Terrorists.” Analysis of 13,877 university student dating relationships found a similar percent of male and female “Intimate Terrorists.” This is consistent with other studies of general populations and reflects inadequacies in Johnson’s methodology. Bidirectional violence, including Intimate Terrorism, was associated with the highest probability of injury, especially for women. The results suggest that programs to reduce partner violence, including reducing violence against women, should address violence and coercive control by both partners.     

Do Standards of Proof Affect Decision Making in Child Protection Investigations?

Every state investigates child maltreatment reports. Some states use a lower standard of proof of some credible evidence (or similar terms) to substantiate cases after investigation. Other state legislatures prescribe a higher standard of preponderance of the evidence. Legislatures use these terms of art as a matter of policy to control the risk of false-positive errors. A lower rate of substantiation should follow from a higher standard of proof. There was no statistically significant difference in the percent of substantiated and the percent of unsubstantiated cases in the two groups of states. If state policy to reduce the false-positive error rate is to be effective, something more is required than simply manipulating the verbal formula in legislation.     

Current Controversies Concerning Gender Differences in Perpetration of Physical Partner Violence

The article provides a general background for this special issue, describing its starting point and goals, and their implementation guidelines.     

How Can We End the Stigma Surrounding Domestic and Sexual Violence? A Modified Delphi Study with National Advocacy Leaders

The purpose of this study was to use a modified Delphi methodology study to identify priority actions that can be taken at the individual, local, and national levels to eliminate the stigma surrounding domestic and sexual violence. An expert panel of national organizational leaders provided input about the nature of the stigma surrounding domestic and sexual violence, as well as strategies to end this stigma. The findings were organized into three themes: (a) the social context of the stigma surrounding domestic and sexual violence; (b) the impact of the stigma on resources for victims and survivors; and (c) strategies for eradicating the stigma surrounding domestic and sexual violence. Implications of the study’s findings for research, practice, and advocacy are discussed.     

Gender differences in intended escalatory tendencies among marital partners

This study addresses the intended escalatory tendency in eight hypothetical situations in which the provocator's identity (partner or stranger, male or female) and the provocation form (verbal or physical aggression) were manipulated. The research question is "how does the identity of the provocator and the form of his or her provocation affect the participant's intended escalation level, and does the gender of the participant affect differences in intended escalation level?" The research sample consisted of 208 Israeli couples. The main finding is that women's intended response to their male partner is more escalatory than men's intended response to their female partner. Results also show that women's escalation is the most severe to partner provocation and the least severe to male strangers' provocation. Men's escalation is the most severe to provocation by male strangers and the least severe to their partner's provocation. Findings indicate that men's intention to escalate decreases as their partner's provocation becomes more severe. The severity of provocation has little effect on women's inten-tion to escalate. Such results are consistent with social role theory and sexual selection theory that maintain that status enhancement is more important for men than for women, and is more important for men than risk reduction is, whereas the opposite is true for women.