Citation
Evaluation of the co-occurrence of domestic violence and sex offending behaviors in adult males currently participating in offense-specific treatment

Material Information

Title:
Evaluation of the co-occurrence of domestic violence and sex offending behaviors in adult males currently participating in offense-specific treatment
Creator:
Hume, Kelly Elizabeth
Place of Publication:
Denver, CO
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( Master of criminal justice)
Degree Grantor:
University of Colorado Denver
Degree Divisions:
School of Public Affairs, CU Denver
Degree Disciplines:
Criminal justice
Committee Chair:
Rennison, Callie Marie
Committee Members:
Huss, Sheila
Hansen, Jesse

Notes

Abstract:
The purpose of this research is to examine the co-occurrence of domestic violence and sex offending behaviors. Existing research does not examine the co-occurrence of these two offending behaviors even though it could be an important factor in treatment. To address this important topic, this paper compares the frequency of domestic violence and sex offending behaviors as well as offense supportive attitudes of domestic violence offenders and sex offenders currently in offense-specific treatment. Results indicate that domestic violence offenders and sex offenders engage in these behaviors equally and hold the same offense-supportive attitudes. Additional results indicate that the two groups engage in domestic violence offending and sex offending equally, even when certain variables are controlled. Conversely, for the frequency of behaviors, the number of prior violent offenses and the amount of time spent in treatment in the community were related to higher scores. For offense supportive attitudes, the number of prior violent offenses and the number of prior sex offenses were related to higher scores.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
Copyright Kelly Elizabeth Hume. Permission granted to University of Colorado Denver to digitize and display this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

EVALUATION OF THE CO OCCURRENCE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEX OFFENDING BEHAVIORS IN ADULT MALES CURRENTLY PARTICIPATING IN OFFENSE SPECIFIC TREATMENT By KELLY ELIZABETH HUME B.A., University of South Florida St. Petersburg , 2013 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Criminal Justice School of Public Affair s 2018

PAGE 2

ii This thesis for the Master of Criminal Justice degree by Kelly Elizabeth Hume h as been approved by C allie M arie Rennison, Chair Sheila Huss Jesse Hansen D ate: July 28, 2018

PAGE 3

iii Hume , Kelly Elizabeth (MCJ, Criminal Justice Program) Evaluation of the Co Occurrence of Domestic Violence and Sex Offending Behaviors in Adult Males Currently Participating in Offense Specific T reatment Thesis directed by Professor Callie Marie Rennison ABSTRACT The purpose of this research is to examine the co occurrence of domestic violence and sex offending behaviors. Existing research does not examine the co occurrence of these two offending behaviors even though it could be an important factor in treatment . To address this important topic, this paper compares the frequency of domestic violence and sex offending behaviors as well as offense supportive attitudes of domestic violence offenders and sex offenders currently in offense specific treatment. Results indicate that domestic violence offenders and sex offenders engage in these behaviors equally and hold the same offense supportive attitudes. Additional results indicate that the two groups engage in domestic violence offending and sex offending equally, even when certain variables are controlled. Conversely, for the frequency of behaviors, the number of prior violent offenses and the amount of time spent in treatment in the community were related to higher scores. For offense supportive attitudes, the num ber of prior violent offenses and the number of prior sex offenses were related to higher scores. The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication. Approved: Callie M arie Rennison

PAGE 4

iv Table of Contents CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 1 Treatment Mandates ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 2 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................ ................................ .................... 6 Co Occurrence of Domestic Violence and Sex Offending ................................ ................. 6 Generalists versus Specialists ................................ ................................ ............................. 8 Domestic Violence Offenders ................................ ................................ ............................. 8 Sex Offenders ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 9 Standard Risk Assessments ................................ ................................ ............................... 10 Offense Supportive Attitudes ................................ ................................ ............................ 11 III. METHODS ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 1 3 Sampling Strategy and Research Design ................................ ................................ .......... 13 Variables and Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 15 Analytic Strategy ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 17 IV. RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 19 Respondents ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 19 Offense Related ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 20 Co Occurrence of Domestic Violence and Sex Offending Behaviors .............................. 26 Analysis 1: Do domestic violence and sex offenders engage in these behaviors equally? ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 27 Analysis 2: Do domestic violence offenders and sex offenders hold offense supportive attitudes equally? ................................ ................................ ....................... 28 Analysis 3: Do domesti c violence and sex offenders engage in these behaviors equally, when controlled? ................................ ................................ ........................... 30 Analysis 4: Do domestic violence offenders and sex offenders hold offense supportive attitudes equally, when controlled? ................................ ........................... 31 V. CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 33 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 34 Future Research ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 35 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 44 APPENDIX ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 47 A. Sex Offenses in C olorado ................................ ................................ ............................ 47

PAGE 5

v B. Domestic Violence Core Competencies ................................ ................................ ....... 57 C. Sex Offender Core Treatment Concepts ................................ ................................ ...... 58 D. Script ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 59 E. Co Occurrence of Domestic Violence and Sex Offending Scale ................................ . 60 F. Source Scales ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 65 G. Codebook and Anomalies ................................ ................................ ............................ 69

PAGE 6

vi LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. ...... .. 20 2. ...... .. . 2 3 3. Index .. .... .. 2 4 4. ... .. 32 5. Independent Samples t ... ... 32 6. ....... .. ... 32 7. Independent Samples t ... .. 33 8. ... .. 33 9. Independent Samples t test: Offense Supportive Attitudes Items Removed ... 34

PAGE 7

1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The purpose of this research is to examine the co occurrence of domestic violence and sex offending behaviors. To address this important topic, this paper compares the frequency of domestic violence and sex offending behaviors as well as offense supportive attitudes of domestic violence offenders and sex offenders currently in offense specific treatment. T his paper will provide background information on the topic, including policy dictating t he management and supervision of domestic violence and sex offenders. Next, a literature review will provide Offender Management Board (DVOMB) and Sex Offend er Management Board (SOMB), including treatment goals for these types of offenders. The remainder of this paper will address the methods used to answer this research question, and offer results and situate them in the literature. While research has establ ished that sexual violence can be a component in a domestic or intimate partner relationship (McFarlane and Malech, 2005 ), research has not specifically examined if those who do commit both types of offenses have any similar characteristics as offenders. A ny existing research focuses primarily on domestic violence offenders who engage in sexual violence against the primary victim of the domestic violence ( e.g. McFarlane and Malech, 2005 ). There is no information available on whether or not these offenders a lso engage in sexual violence against individuals who are not their spouse or partner. Additionally, there is no research published where off ender self report is analyzed, as opposed to victim self report. Attaining this knowledge would shed light on poten tial risks to the community, the victims, and how to prevent future offending. The present research may find that offenders who engage in both types of offending have common beliefs, attitudes, or motivation, and may benefit from

PAGE 8

2 different types of treatme nt than standard domestic violence or sex offense specific treatment programs (Hall, Walters, & Basile, 2012). It may also assist during the investigation and sentencing of these offenders to ensure they are correctly charged and supervised after sentencin g. Treatment Mandates Colorado Revised Statute §18 6 800.3 an act or threatened act of violence upon a person with whom the actor is or has been involve d in an intimate any other crime against a person, or against property, including an animal, or any municipal ordinance violation against a person, or against property, including an animal, when used as a method of coercion, control, punishment, intimidation, or revenge directed against a person wi th whom the actor is or has been involved in an intimate relationship . a relationship between spouses, former spouses, past or present unmarried couples, or persons who are both the parents of the same child regardless of whether the persons have been married or have lived together at any time . Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.) regarding sex offenses are included in Articles 3 through 7, including offenses such as sexual assault, human trafficking, sexual exploitatio n of children, offenses related to prostitution, and sexual offenses against at risk individuals. There are 37 individual offenses which qualify as sex offenses, 23 of which require the offender to register as a sex offender (Appendix A). The classific ations for registration as a sex offender are as follows: Anyone convicted on or after July 1, 1991, of an unlawful sexual offense or enticement of a child in the state of Colorado, internet luring of a child, or an equivalent offense in another state or jurisdiction ;

PAGE 9

3 Anyone released on or after July 1, 1991, from the corrections department in Colorado or any other state, having served a sentence for unlawful sexual offense, enticement of a child, internet luring of a child, or an equivalent offense in an other state or jurisdiction; Anyone convicted on or after July 1, 1994, in the state of Colorado of unlawful sexual behavior or of another offense, the underlying factual basis of which involved unlawful sexual behavior; Anyone convicted of an offense in a ny other state or jurisdiction for which the person is required to register in the state or jurisdiction of conviction, or for which such a person would be required to register if convicted in Colorado; Anyone who receives a disposition or is adjudicated a juvenile delinquent for committing any act that may constitute unlawful sexual behavior; Anyone who receives a deferred juvenile adjudication for committing any act that may constitute unlawful sexual behavior. In Colorado, individuals convicted of a dom estic violence offense or a sex offense are required to complete specialized treatment programs to address their specific offense, referred to Offender Management Board , n.d.). These treatment programs follow curricula set forward by the DVOMB and by SOMB, respectively. The DVOMB is in charge of the Standards for Treatment with Court Ordered Domestic Violence Offenders ( DV Standards ), which provides requirements for trea tment providers and guidelines for supervising officers, victim advocates, and other professionals working with domestic violence offenders. The SOMB is in charge of the

PAGE 10

4 Standards and Guidelines for the Assessment, Evaluation, Treatment and Behavioral Moni toring of Adult Sex Offenders ( SO Standards ), which dictates requirements for treatment providers and guidelines for supervising officers, victim advocates, and other professionals working with sex offenders. Both domestic violence and sex offense specific treatments require that certain benchmarks are met by the offender throughout the treatment process (Domestic Violence Offender Management Board, n.d.; Sex Offender Management Board, n.d.). Domestic violence 18 concepts which the offender must achieve prior to be discharged from treatment. These core competencies are outlined in the DV Standards , established by the DVOMB . These core competencies include accepting responsibility for their b ehavior, understanding different types of violence, learning to manage their violent behaviors, and comply with supervision. Offenders who are participating in domestic violence offense t o meet prior to being successfully discharged from treatment , in addition to adhering to a treatment plan and offender c ontract. There are a total of 18 competencies which focus on issues like demonstrative behavior change, accepting responsibility, unders tanding the consequences of violence, and developing empathy for victims of violence. The complete list of core and additional competencies is in Appendix B. The t reatment p lan is developed based on the in addition to the intake evaluation. The offender c ontract outlines what is expected of the offender and what their responsibilities are in order to complete treatment. Sex offender treatment is slightly different since their term of treatment is often d ependent on the length of their supervision and their length of registration. There are still

PAGE 11

5 certain behavior changes that the sex offender has to exhibit in order to be successfully r Management Board, n.d.). These are outlined by the SO Standards , as established by the SOMB. Treatment plans for sex offenders are not as prescriptive as those for domestic violence offenders since many sex offenders are on lifetime supervision and conti nue treatment for indefinite periods. Sex offense specific treatment must meet 21 goals as outlined in the SO Standards , however mastering these goals does not necessarily translate into completion of treatment for sex offenders. Treatment plans focus on i ssues like community safety and victim protection, offender accountability, management of deviant sexual urges, and educate offenders on healthy sexual relationships. The complete list of sex offense specific treatment requirements is in Appendix C. Extan t literature offers a great deal of information about sex offenders. Similarly, existing literature presents vast understanding about domestic violence offenders. What is missing is information on the co occurrence of the two. That is, do domestic violence offenders and sex offenders engage in domestic violence and sex offending behaviors equally and do they hold the same offense supportive attitudes . The purpose of this study is to address those questions. Specifically, the purpose of this work is to evalu ate the prevalence of the co occurrence , of sex offending and domestic violence offending, as reported by offenders currently in offense specific treatment. In order to study this topic, this research is structured as follows. Relevant literature is reviewed first, followed by the methods used for the purposes of this study, and lastly the results are presented.

PAGE 12

6 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Several strands of literature are relevant to the topic of domestic violence and sex offending co occurrence. First, the present research on co occurring domestic violence and sex offending behaviors is discussed, followed by information on generalist versus specialist offending types. Next, literature specific to domestic violence offenders is revi ewed. Lastly, the literature specific to sex offenders is reviewed. Co Occurrence of Domestic Violence and Sex Offending The co occurrence of domestic violence offenses and sex offenses is a topic that has not been studied in depth, but is becoming more f requently addressed in research (Bergen, 2006). Existing research focuses primarily on topics like marital rape and intimate partner violence, but has not closely examined the prevalence of offenses legally considered sexual offenses and domestic violence offenses (Bergen, 2006). If these types of offenders do exhibit similar tendencies, it would be beneficial for them to complete both treatment types or a hybrid of the two, in order address all present concerns. With both types of co occurrence, whether do mestic violence with sexual abuse or sexual offending within a domestic relationship, there is a large gap in the research. To date, there are only a few studies regarding the co occurrence of domestic violence and sex offending behavior that have looked specifically at offender self report. Bergen and Bukovec (2006) surveyed men who were part of an intervention program for abusive men, asking about how often they committed various types of abusive behavior. They found that 53% of their sample had sexually abused their partner at least once. The most common form of sexual abuse was the men emotionally pressuring their partner to have sex against her will (40%). The

PAGE 13

7 next most common forms were having sex with their partner while she was unable to con sent (17%) and physically forcing their partner to have sex against her will (14%). Stalans, Hacker, and Talbot (2016) examined sex offenders who were had arrests for non sexual domestic violence and compared them to non violent sex offenders, and sex off enders arrested for non sexual violent crimes against non family members. They found that the sex offenders arrested for domestic violence had significantly higher recidivism rates for both sexual and non sexual crimes within the first seven years of super vision. They also found that these sex offender subgroups did not vary greatly on the counts for which they were indicted in court, suggestion a lack of distinction by the judicial system. Additionally, the groups did not differ greatly in their victim cho ice, escalation, or violence used during the offense. Interestingly, those who had a history of violent offenses, were more likely to have diverse criminal histories. These results all suggest that sex offenders who commit domestic violence offenses do not vary greatly from those sex offenders who do not, but they are at a higher risk to reoffend. Davies and Simons (2015) surveyed domestic violence offenders and sex offenders participating in offense specific treatment who were being supervised in the comm unity. This study is unique in that it surveyed both domestic violence offenders and sex offenders, as opposed to just one or the other. Additionally, this study utilized vignettes describing both healthy and unhealthy relationships in addition to Likert t ype scales. They found that 89% of their domestic violence offender sample committed interpersonal rape, which they defined as or when intimate partner is un committing some form of domestic violence behavior against their partner, and 77% reported specifically having committed interpersonal rape. The most common form of interpersonal rape

PAGE 14

8 for both gr oups was having sex with their partner while the partner was asleep or unconscious. These results are alarming, particularly since they are higher than what is typically reported by victims. Generalists versus Specialists Research has found that sex offen ders are not specialists, however those who offend against children are more likely to be specialists (Lin & Simon, 2016 ; Miethe, Olson, & Mitchell, 2006 ) . Domestic violence offenders are also typically not specialists, and engage in both general offending and violent behavior outside of the intimate partner relationship (Piquero, Brame, Fagan, & Moffitt, 2006; Richards, Jennings, Tomsich, & Gover, 2014). Both types of offenders engage in a variety of crime types, not just those for which they have to compl ete offense specific treatment. For domestic violence offenders, this has been shown to be a predictive factor for future criminal behavior , both domestic violence and non domestic violence offending (Piquero et al., 2006; Richards et al., 2014). Sex offen der risk to recidivate, on the other hand, is better predicted by dynamic and psychologically meaningful factors, such as deviant sexual interests ( Mann, Hanson, & Thornton, 2010). Domestic Violence Offenders Typically, sexually abusive behaviors are cons idered part of the domestic violence offending, and are not considered separate sex offender behaviors. Research estimates that between 40% to 75% of intimate partner relationships contain some form of sexual violence, although this is based on victim self report (Schafran, 2010). McFarlane and Malech (2002) found that of women with protection orders against their partner who experienced physical violence, 68% reported also experiencing sexual violence. In a national sample, Basile (2002) found that 34% of women who participated in a telephone poll had experienced some form of

PAGE 15

9 unwanted sexual contact with a partner during their lifetime. Of this group, 43% reported feeling that it was their duty to their current husband or partner. These studies show that th ere is a high incident rate of sexual violence against partners, indicating a need for further research on the subject. The existing research however, relies heavily on victim self report and does not actually examine the behaviors of the offender. Domestic violence offenders have some characteristics which tend to be homogenous. Capaldi, Knoble, Shortt, and Kim (2012) found in their meta analysis that minority groups were more likely to engage in domestic violence or interpersonal violence behaviors . Age is negatively associated with domestic violence offending, where young adulthood is most frequently associated with risk for domestic violence offending (Capaldi et al., 2012; Riggs, Caultfied, and Street, 2000). Lastly, annual income has been shown to have an inverse relationship with domestic violence and intimate partner violence offending (Capaldi et al., 2012; Riggs et al. , 2000). Those with lower socioeconomic status and lower income are more likely to engage in these types of behaviors, theoret ically because of the added stress (Capaldi et al., 2012; Riggs et al. , 2000). Sex Offenders There are several characteristics that have been found in research to relate to the sex offending population. According to Robbers (2009), sex offenders are more likely to be non Hispanic whites than any other race or ethnicity. Additionally, research has shown that sexual offending behaviors typically taper off with age (Crag, 2011; Hanson, 2002). The average age of sex offenders with adult victims is around 32 y ears of age, and the average age of sex offenders with child victims is between 37 and 38 years of age (Hanson, 2002).

PAGE 16

10 A history of violent offenses has also been related to sex offending. In their 2016 study, Stalans, Hacker, and Talbot examined the crim inal histories of sex offenders to compare violent and non violent sex offenders. They found that sex offenders with a history of domestic battery were more likely to sexually recidivate than non violent offenders ( Stalans et al., 2016 ). Stalans et al. (20 16), defined domestic batterers as those who were convicted of domestic violence offenses with physical aggression either before or after being placed on probation for the sex offense. Those offenders who committed a violent act during the sex offense were not considered domestic batterers even if the offense was against a partner since the offender was not charged with a domestic violence offense. Standard Risk Assessments Standard risk assessments are required to determine the level of risk the offender poses to recidivate. These are reviewed because they include factors considered to be predictive of future offending by historical and contemporary research. For each type of offender, clinicians must use risk assessment tools per the DV Standards and SO Standards . For domestic violence offenders, clinicians are required to use the Domestic Violence Risk and Needs Assessment Instrument (DVRNA) in addition to one alternate, domestic violence risk assessment tool. The most commonly used additional assessment s include the Domestic Violence Screening Instrument (DVSI), the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA), and the Domestic Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (DVRAG) (Domestic Violence Offender Management Board, n.d) . The DVRNA specifically asks about forced sex within the domestic or intimate partner relationship and acknowledges that forced sexual contact places the victim at increased risk for future victimization (Domestic Violence Offender Management Board, n.d) . There is, however, no additional we ight granted to this question and it is the only question which asks about the sexual

PAGE 17

11 The other risk assessments also do not place any additional emphasis on sexual violence. The SO Standards require two risk assessments; one which measures dynamic risk factors and one which measures static risk factors. The most commonly used risk assessments are the Vermont Assessment of Sex Offender Risk 2 (VASOR 2), the Sex Offender Treatment Intervention and Progress Scale (SOTIPS), and the Static 99 Revised (Static 99R) or Static 2002 Revised (Static 2002R) (Sex Offender Management Board, n.d.) . No domestic violence risk assessment is required, although this topic is required to be addressed in the clinic al interview. The VASOR 2 and the SOTIPS ask questions about sexual coercion or violent behavior during the sexual assault, however these questions are not weighted more heavily than other questions ( McGrath, Cumming, 2012; McGrath, Lasher, Cumming, Langto n, & Hoke , 2014) . The assessments also only ask about coercion or violence specifically related to the sexual act, not about general domestic violence ( McGrath, Lasher, Cumming, 2012; McGrath, Lasher, Cumming, Langton, & Hoke , 2014) . The Static 99 and the Static 2002 ask about prior offenses, including domestic violence or protection order violations stemming from domestic violence (Han son & Thornton, 2000; Hanson & Thornton, 2003). Again, these items are not weighted more than other questions (Hanson & Tho rnton, 2000; Hanson & Thornton, 2003) . Overall, the most common sex offense risk assessments consider prior domestic violence and violent behavior during the sex offense concerning, but not concerning enough to make the topic a focus. Offense Supportive At titudes Attitudes of entitlement, denial, minimization, and victim blaming are all types of cognitive distortions which are found in both domestic violence an d sex offenders (Scott &

PAGE 18

12 Straus , 2007). These cognitive distortions are often manifested in offense supportive attitudes, which are associated with higher risk to recidivate (H elmus, Hanson, Babchishin, and Mann , 2013). Minimization and denial are often placed on a continuum ranging from downplaying the harm caused to the victim to refusing to ac knowledge that their actions caused any harm at all they are better than others and have no regard for the consequences of their actions (Helmus et al., 2013; P emberton and Wakeling, 2009). Offense supportive attitudes are an extension of minimization, denial, and attitudes of entitlement, where the offender not only denies doing anything wrong, but actually asserts that what they did was acceptable (Hemus et al. , 2013). These offense supportive attitudes apply to both domestic violence offenders and sex offenders as they encompass such a wide range of beliefs. Certain sex offenders appear to exhibit cognitive distortions depending on their offense. As an example, offenders who have committed a sexual hold attitudes of minimization and denial (Nunes and Jung, 2012; Pemberton and Wakeling, 2009). While there are four well established attitudes related to sex offending, Pemberton and Wakelin (2009) identified two additional attitudes in their sex offender sample that are also characteristic among domestic violence offenders, as exemplified in the widely used Duluth Power and Control Wheel (Pence & Paymar, 1993). Domestic violence offenders mostly engage in minimization of any harm done to the victim or by justifying their behavior by blaming the victim (Henning, J ones, and H oldford, 2005; Scott and Straus , 2007).

PAGE 19

13 CHAPTER III METHOD S The overall research question guiding this research asks is there a difference between domestic violence offenders and sex offenders on the C o Occurrence of Domestic Violence and Sex Offending (CODVSO) scale between domestic violence offenders and sex offenders? This question is broken into four research questions. The first asks whether there is a difference between domestic violence offenders and sex offenders when looking at how frequently they engage in domestic violence or sex offense related behaviors. The second examines whether domestic violence offenders and sex offenders hold the same offense supportive attitudes equally. The third question analyzes if there is a difference between these two groups and the frequency in which they engage in behaviors when controlling for certain variables. The last question asks whether domestic violence and sex offenders hold the same attitudes equally, after controlling for certain variables. These question s will address if domestic violence offenders and sex offenders e ngage in domestic violence offending and sex offending equally . This section begins by addressing the sampling strategy used, followed by the measures and variables used, and finally by the strategy for analyzing the collected data. Sampling Strategy and R esearch Design In order to conduct this research, a sample of domestic violence offenders and sex offenders was used. The population of interest was adult male domestic violence offenders and sex offenders who are currently participating in non residential offense specific treatment in Colorado. The offenders are required to complete offense specific treatment as a condition of their conviction. The treatment groups are screened for individuals with development or intellectual disabilities prior to entering a group. Individuals who present for either of these are placed in a separate treatment group. Additionally, offenders whose first language is not English

PAGE 20

14 are also placed in separate treatment groups. Offenders who are placed in separate treatment groups after these pre screenings are not included in this analysis. The sample includes only offenders who speak English and who do not have any sort of cognitive impairment. A convenience sample was used since offenders for study are selected at the discretion of treatment providers. T wo treatment agencies allowed survey distribution to their clients. One agency provides services to sex offenders exclusively and the other provides services to domestic violence offenders. The treatment agencies are not identifi ed to preserve anonymity. The initial sample size was 149 participants (90 domestic violence offenders and 59 sex offenders). Three sex offenders were excluded due to incomplete surveys. The final sample size was 146 participants (90 domestic violence offe nders and 56 sex offenders). This study employed in person survey distribution . Treatment agencies were contacted via email, with details about the study design and purpose. Heads of both agencies responded with approval for survey administration and prov ided letters of support. The agencies agreed to allow survey administration to clients at the beginning or end of the treatment session. Treatment providers agreed to not be present while offenders completed the surveys in order to preserve anonymity. Trea tment providers were given the opportunity to review the surveys prior to the administration. The treatment providers did not know which offenders chose to participate. Surveys were administered to offenders who were in offense specific treatment for either a domestic violence offense or a sex offense. Administration occur red in person either before or after the treatment group session at the treatment agency location. The offenders were given a verbal explanation of the survey, which included the purpose of the study, after which they were able to decide whether to participate or not. Participation was completely voluntary and anonymous , and offenders did not receive any compensation or reward for participating.

PAGE 21

15 Empha sizing anonymity to the offenders was particularly important since the information collected could implicate the m in criminal activity for which they were not convicted. Indeed, t he surveys asked questions that measure d behaviors that constituted domestic violence and sex offending. Both groups receive d the same survey. The final sample size was 146 offenders. A copy of the verb al explanation can be found in A ppendix D and a copy of the consent form an d CODVSO Scale can be found in A ppendix E . Variables and Measures The first dependent variable of interest is the co occurring behavior reported by each offender on the co occurrence survey. Although the offender was convicted of a certain type of offense, this does not necessarily mean that they did not engag e in other criminal activity during the index offense or during past unreported offenses. The dependent variable is measured by finding the sum of the behavior frequencies reported on the survey. Hence, those who reported engaging in more activities relate d to domestic violence and sex offending behaviors received a higher score, than offenders who reported committing fewer behaviors. The behaviors in the scale were becoming violent in general, becoming violent toward the partner or spouse, forcing the part ner or spouse into unwanted sexual contact, exhibiting stalking behaviors, and behaving in a threatening manner towards the partner or spouse. The secondary dependent variable was an attitudinal scale. Specifically, 28 items were added to give each respo ndent a score on this dependent variable. Responses were coded such that higher support for domestic violence or sex offending b ehaviors received higher scores. This ere asked to indicate

PAGE 22

16 those two options was entered as their respo nse. The items including statements regarding attitudes toward sexual offending, attitudes toward power and control dynamics, jealously, and attitudes regarding attraction to children. The independent variable in this research is the offender type, determi ned offense specific treatment group in which the offenders were participating (either domestic violence offense or sex offense specific). The independent variable was measured with a question verifying that in which offense specific treatment the offender was enrolled. The question asked offenders to indicate which type of treatment group they were attending (sex offense specific or domestic violence offense specific). Additionally, offenders were asked to indicate of what offense they were convicted and h ow long they were attending treatment at time of survey administration. The literature has identified several characteristics that are associated with certain types of offending. These factors were controlled for in the present research. Several controls w ere demographic variables. Race and Hispanic origin were measured at the nominal level based on respondent self report. Age was measured at the ordinal level in years. Annual income was measured at the ordinal level based on respondent self report. Educati on level was measured at the ordinal level with response options including: high school diploma or GED, vocational Marital status was measured at the ordinal level with response options including: single, separated, married, and divorced. Since only males were surveyed, gender was not controlled.

PAGE 23

17 Control variables regarding the offenders index offense and prior criminal history included number of prior non vi olent/non sexual offenses, number of prior violent offenses, number of prior sex offenses, which were all measured at the ordinal level. Next was d rug and/or alcohol use during the offense, which was measured at the nominal level. Lastly, the amount of tim e they have bee n in offense specific treatment, which was measured at the ordinal level. For the purposes of this study, the Co Occurrence of Domestic Violence and Sex Offending Scale was used to collect information from the offenders. Questions on the CODVSOS were taken or adapted from seven existing scales and measures. A list of the specific questions used from each scale can be found in A ppendix F . Analytic Strategy A two independent sample t test was used for the first two research questions . The first question asks whether domestic violence and sex offenders engage in domestic violence and sex offending equally. The second asks whether these offenders hold the same offense supportive attitudes equally. A two independent sample t test is appro priate when examining the difference in means between two groups (sex offenders and domestic violence offenders) where participants are only being surveyed once. The means of each group are based on the scores taken from their surveys. The third and fourth research questions are answered using an Ordinary Least Squares Regression analysis. The third research question asks whether domestic violence and sex offenders engage in domestic violence and sex offending equally, when certain variables are controlled. The fourth research question asks whether these offenders hold the same offense supportive attitudes equally, when certain variables are controlled. Descriptive statistics on the general prevalence of co occurring behaviors and descriptive statistics on t he individual populations will also reported .

PAGE 24

18 Codes were assigned to all non numeric demographic information and attitude related responses. After codes were assigned, the data were entered into SPSS. The number of reported prior offenses, age, annual inc ome, months spent in treatment, and the frequency of each behavior were entered as raw numbers. If the respondent entered a range, the mean of that range was entered. If the respondent entered an open ended range (e.g., 10+), the base integer was used (e.g These responses were assumed to have occurred at least one time, and were therefore assigned the number one. The questions regarding how much the participant agr eed with each statement had Likert type responses and were coded based on the level of support that was which can be found in Appendix G .

PAGE 25

19 CHAPTER IV RESULTS Before addressing the research question, I first describe the sample used. The first descriptive section focuses on the respondents, while the second section focuses on the offenses. Respondents A total of 149 participants were surveyed, 90 of whom were domestic violence offenders and 59 of whom were sex offenders. Three sex offender surveys were excluded due to incomplete surveys. Table 1 shows the frequency of reported demographic information fo r the total sample, for domestic violence offenders only, and for sex offenders only. The final sample size was 146 participants, 61.6%were domestic violence offenders and 38.4% were sex offenders. A majority of the offenders (65%) surveyed identified as w hite. Offenders ranged from 19 to 69 years of age. The most frequent age range for the overall sample was in the 26 to 32 category (21.2%). High school diploma or General Equivalency Diploma (GED) was the sample reported being single (50.7%) at the time of the survey. Over half of the total sample reported an annual household income of $60,000 or less, with the most common income range being from $21,000 to $40,0 00 (25.3%). The majority of domestic violence offenders identified as white (67.8%). High school diploma or General Equivalency Diploma (GED) were most frequently reported as the highest level of education achieved by domestic violence (33.3%). Although t he most frequent income category was $21,000 to $40,000 (22.2%), the reported incomes were more evenly distributed for domestic violence offenders than for the whole sample. Domestic violence offenders were mostly single (44.4%) . The most frequent age rang e for domestic violence offenders was 26 to 32 years of age (23.3%).

PAGE 26

20 The majority of sex offenders identified as white (60.7%). High school diploma or General Equivalency Diploma (GED) were most frequently reported as the highest level of education achiev ed by sex offenders (33.9%). Over half of the sex offender sample reported an annual household income of $60,000 or less, with roughly one third (30.4%) of the sample reporting an income between $21,000 and $40,000. More than half of the sex offender sampl e reported being single (60.7%). The most common age group for sex offenders was between 33 and 39 years old (23.2%). Offense Related Table 2 shows the survey responses regarding offense related demographic information for the total sample, domestic viole nce sample only, and sex offender sample only. Offense related demographics include prior criminal histories, drug and alcohol use during the index offense, incarceration time, and time in offense specific treatment. Approximately half of the total sample was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the offense for which they were convicted (45.2%). Over half of the total sample served at least some time in jail for their index offense (63.7%), and 11% reported having served time in prison for their offense. Almost 45% (43.8%) of the total sample had spent six months or fewer in offense specific treatment at the time they took the survey. Most of the total sample reported having no prior offenses at all. Specifically, 54.1% reported no prior no n violent/non sex offenses (e.g. Driving Under the Influence); 74% reported no prior violent offenses, and 85.6% reported no prior sex offenses.

PAGE 27

21 Table 1. Respondent Demographic Information Demographics Total Sample (n=146) Domestic Violence Offender (n=90) Sex Offender (n=56) TOTAL TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Race /Hispanic Origin White 65.1% 67.8% 60.7% Black 4.1% 5.6% 1.8% Hispanic 19.2% 13.3% 28.6% Native American 1.4% 0% 3.6% Asian 0.7% 1.1% 0% M ixed/Multiple 4.8% 7.8% 0% Missing 4.8% 4.4% 5.4% Age in years 19 25 17.8% 18.9% 16.1% 26 32 21.2% 23.3% 17.9% 33 39 19.2% 16.7% 23.2% 40 46 17.8% 20.0% 14.3% 47 53 8.2% 11.1% 3.6% 54+ 6.8% 4.4% 10.7% Missing 8.9% 5.6% 14.3% Highest Level of Education High School Diploma/ GED 33.6% 33.3% 33.9% Vocational/Certificate 6.8% 4.4% 10.7% Some College 24% 27.8% 17.9% Associates Degree 13% 7.8% 21.4% 16.4% 18.9% 12.5% Graduate Degree 4.1% 5.6% 1.8% Missing 2.1% 2.2% 1.8% Marital Status Single 50.7% 44.4% 60.7% Married 25.3% 31.1% 16.1% Separated 4.1% 4.4% 3.6% Divorced 19.2% 18.9% 19.6% Missing 0.7% 1.1% 0% Income Amount (USD $ 0 $ 20, 999 9.6% 6.7% 14.3% $ 21,000 $ 40, 999 25.3% 22.2% 30.4% $ 41,000 $ 60, 999 20.5% 15.6% 28.6% $ 61,000 $ 80, 999 13.0% 18.9% 3.6% $ 81,000 $ 100, 999 9.6% 13.3% 3.6% $ 101,000 $ 150, 999 6.8% 10.0% 1.8% $ 151,000 + 4.1% 5.6% 1.8% Missing 11% 7.8% 16.1%

PAGE 28

22 Regarding offense related variables, just under half of domestic violence reported being under the influence of drugs or alcohol during the commission of their index offense (47.8%). More than half of domestic violence offenders reported no prior non violent/non sexual offenses (56.7%). Approximately one third of domestic violence offenders reported one to two prior non violent/non sexual offenses (27.8%). A significant majority of domestic violence offenders reported no prior vi olent offenses (72.2%). The majority of domestic violence offenders reported having served at least some jail time for their offense (77.8%). Just over half of domestic violence offenders reported being in treatment for six months or fewer (53.3%). Almost all domestic violence offenders denied being convicted of any prior sexual offenses (98.9%). About half of sex offenders reported being under the influence of drugs or alcohol during the commission of their index offense (41.1%). More than half of sex off enders reported no prior non violent/non sexual offenses (50%). Approximately one third sex offenders reported one to two prior non violent/non sexual offenses (33.9%). A significant majority of sex offenders reported no prior violent offenses (76.8%). Whi le most sex offenders reported having served only jail time (41.1%), almost one third reported having served time in prison (26.8%). This finding is not unexpected since sex offenses typically carry a steeper penalty than do domestic violence offenses. The majority of sex offenders reported having been in offense specific treatment for six months or fewer (28.6%), however 26.9% of sex offenders were in treatment for two or more years. A pproximately one third of sex offenders (32.1%) reported being convicted of one prior sex offense. Additionally, 23.3% of sex offenders reported at least one prior violent offense conviction. Lastly, the index offenses of each offender were tallied and are listed in Table 3. Sex offenders reported 19 unique charges and domesti c violence offenders reported 17 unique

PAGE 29

23 charges. This is likely due to there being more sex offenses in the C.R.S. as they pertain to criminal code. In most cases, domestic violence offenses are non specialized offenses which receive a domestic violence en hancer, which triggers the requirement for offense specific any other charges. Since there was no additional information provided, this was listed as an individual charge for the purposes of this paper. Domestic violence offenders most frequently reported assault as their index offense (17.8%), followed by general DV (15.6%), and haras sment (11.1%). Sex offenders most frequently reported attempted sexual assault on a child as their index offense (19.7%), followed by sexual assault on a child (14.3%). The codebook in Appendix G lists the codes for each offense.

PAGE 30

24 Table 2. Offense Related Demographic Information Offense Related Total Sample (n=146) Domestic Violence Offender (n=90) Sex Offender (n=56) TOTAL TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Influence of Drugs or Alcohol No 54.1% 51.1% 58.9% Yes 45.2% 47.8% 41.1% Missing 0.7% 1.1% 0% Prison and/or Jail Time Served No 14.4% 18.9% 7.1% Yes, Jail 63.7% 77.8% 41.1% Yes, Prison 11% 1.1% 26.8% Yes, Both 10.3% 1.1% 25% Missing 0.7% 1.1% 0% Time in Treatment (months) 1 6 43.8% 53.3% 28.6% 7 12 28.8% 40.0% 10.7% 13 18 6.8% 1.1% 16.1% 19 24 7.5% 2.2% 16.1% 25 30 2.7% 1.1% 5.4% 31 36 0.7% 0% 1.8% 37 42 0.7% 0% 1.8% 43 48 1.4% 0% 3.6% 49+ 5.5% 0% 14.3% Missing 2.1% 2.2% 1.8% Prior Non Violent/Non Sex Offenses 0 54.1% 56.7% 50% 1 2 30.1% 27.8% 33.9% 3 4 5.5% 4.4% 7.1% 5 6 2.7% 3.3% 1.8% 7 8 0.7% 1.1% 0% 9+ 2.1% 3.3% 0% Missing 4.8% 3.3% 7.1% Prior Violent Offenses 0 74% 72.2% 76.8% 1 16.4% 15.6% 17.9% 2 2.7% 3.3% 1.8% 3 4.1% 5.6% 1.8% 4+ 1.4% 1.1% 1.8% Missing 1.4% 2.2% 0% Prior Sex Offenses 0 85.6% 98.9% 64.3% 1 12.3% 0% 32.1% 2 0.7% 0% 1.8% 28 0.7% 0% 1.8% Missing 0.7% 1.1% 0%

PAGE 31

25 Table 3. Index Offenses Offense Total Sample (n=146) Domestic Violence Offender (n=90) Sex Offender (n=56) Offense Classification* TOTAL TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% Assault 11% 17.8% DV Attempted Internet Luring 0.7% 1.8% SO Attempted Internet Sexual Exploitation of a Child 1.4% 3.6% SO Attempted Lewdness with a Child 0.7% 1.8% SO Attempted Sexual Assault 2.7% 7.1% SO Attempted Sexual Assault on a Child 6.8% 19.7% SO Attempted Sexual Exploitation of a Child 0.7% 1.8% SO Attempted Solicitation 0.7% 1.8% SO Burglary 0.7% 1.1% DV Civil Protection Order Violation 0.7% 1.1% DV Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor 0.7% 1.8% SO Criminal Mischief DV 2.7% 4.4% DV Destruction of Property 0.7% 1.1% DV Disorderly Conduct 0.7% 1.1% DV Drug 0.7% 1.8% SO DV DUI 2.1% 3.3% DV DV General** 9.6% 15.6% DV Exploitation 0.7% 1.8% SO False info to pawn broker 0.7% 1.1% DV Harassment DV 6.8% 11.1% DV Indecent Exposure 0.7% 1.8% SO Interference with Cellular Usage 0.7% 1.1% DV Invasion of Privacy Sexual Gratification 1.4% 3.6% SO Menacing 1.4% 2.2% DV Misdemeanor Tampering 0.7% 1.1% DV

PAGE 32

26 Table 3 Cont . Index Offenses Offense Total Sample (n=146) Domestic Violence Offender (n=90) Sex Offender (n=56) Offense Classification* TOTAL TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% Possession Child Pornography 0.7% 1.8% SO Property Damage 0.7% 1.1% DV Sexual Assault 2.7% 7.1% SO Sexual Assault on Child 5.5% 14.3% SO Sexual Assault on Child POT 3.4% 8.9% SO Sexual Exploitation of a Child 1.4% 3.6% SO Solicitation of a Child 0.7% 1.8% SO Stalking 1.4% 2.2% DV Theft 1.4% 2.2% DV Unlawful Sexual Contact 2.1% 5.4% SO Willful Hurt 0.7% 1.1% DV Missing 23.3% 31.1% 10.7% *Some DV designated charges received a DV Enhancer but are not inherently DV offenses Co Occurrence of Domestic Violence and Sex Offending Behaviors To address the question of whether or not there is a difference between domestic violence offenders and sex engagement in domestic violence and sex offending behaviors and hold offense supportive attitudes, the analysis was separated into four p ortions. The first examined the frequencies of behaviors related to domestic violence and sex offending behaviors , as reported by respondents on the frequency of behavior portion of the Co Occurrence of Domestic Violence and Sex Offending (CODVSO) scale. T he second examined if there was a difference between domestic violence offenders and sex offenders on the offense supportive attitudes portion of the CODVSO scale. The third examined the frequencies of behaviors related to domestic violence and sex offendi ng behaviors , as reported by respondents on the frequency

PAGE 33

27 of behavior portion of the CODVSO scale when relevant variables were controlled. Lastly, the four examined if there was a difference between domestic violence offenders and sex offenders on the offe nse supportive attitudes portion of the CODVSO scale when relevant variables were controlled. Based on the minimal existing research, the expected outcome was for there to be no difference in means for either portion of the analysis. Analysis 1: Do domesti c violence and sex offenders engage in these behaviors equally ? The analysis show that domestic violence offenders and sex offenders engage in domestic violence and sex offending behaviors at the same rate. A two independent sample t test was used to deter mine if there was a difference in means between domestic violence offenders and sex offenders on the frequency portion of the Co Occurrence of Domestic Violence and Sex Offending scale. For the purposes of this analysis, ten domestic violence offenders and two sex offenders were excluded due to incomplete surveys. The resulting samples sizes were 80 domestic violence offenders and 54 sex offenders. A two tailed test with an alpha level of .05 ( = .05) was used this analysis. H 0: µ 1 = µ 2 There is no significant difference between means for domestic violence offenders and sex offenders . H 1 µ 1 µ 2 There is a significant difference between means for domestic violence offenders and sex offenders . After completing the tw o independent sample t test, the resulting SPSS output was used to analyze the results. The tables from the output are depicted in Table 4 and 5 . The t value indicates that the sample mean lies .533 from the mean. For this particular comparison, the criti cal values were 1.978 and 1.978 (df = 132, = .05). These results indicate that the mean difference in domestic violence and sex offending behaviors committed by domestic violence

PAGE 34

28 offenders and sex offenders was not statistically significant t(132) = , p < .05. Based on these results, the null hypothesis is not rejected as there was no difference between the two groups. Analysis 2: Do domestic violence offenders and sex offenders hold offense supportive attitudes equally ? Using the data collected, a two independent sample t test was run in order to determine if there was a difference in means between domestic violence offenders and sex offenders on the frequency portion of the CODVSO scale . For the purposes of this analysis , 12 domestic violence offenders and seven sex offenders were excluded due to incomplete surveys. The resulting samples sizes were 78 domestic violence offenders and 49 sex offenders. A two tailed test with a .05 level of significance ( was used fo r this analysis . This second analysis focused on attitudes held by domestic violence and sex offenders regarding these specific offenses. Based on the minimal existing research, the expected outcome was for there to be no difference in means for either por tion of the analysis. H 0: µ 1 = µ 2 There is no significant difference between means for domestic violence offenders and sex offenders . H 1 µ 1 µ 2 There is a significant difference between means for domestic violence offenders and sex offenders attitudes . This analysis showed that the offense supportive attitude scores between the two groups are statistically equal. After completing the two independent sample t test, SPSS output was used to interpret the results. The tables from the output are d epicted in Table 6 and 7 . The mean difference was not statistically significant . The t value indicates that the sample mean lies .252 standard deviations from the average . The critical values were 1.979 and 1.979 (df = 125, = .05). These results indicate that the mean difference in offense supportive attitudes held by

PAGE 35

29 domestic violence and sex offenders was not statistically significant t(125) = , p < .05. Based on these results, the null hypothesis is not rejected as there was no difference between the two groups. In other words, domestic violence offenders and sex offenders engage in these behaviors at the same rate. While analyzing the data, four items were measured poorly and in such a way that causal validity of the fi ndings likely would be affected. The first two were included in the Likert type questions regarding agreement toward certain statements and the second two asked participants children are more adult re if the participant believed this was ma ny people would be upset by such a circumstance and it may not be circ umstance. Due to this, an additional analysis was run with these four items removed in order to get more accurate results. The results of this analysis are displayed in table 8 and 9 . The secondary analysis showed that there was no significant difference in the mean scores of the domestic violence offender group or the sex offender group. The mean for domestic violence offenders (M 1 = 15.1818, SD 1 = 5.58846) was only 0.8191 points higher than the mean for sex offenders (M 2 = 14.3627, SD 2 = 4.45093). These scores were 4.5426 and 5.0761 points lower, respectively, when compared to the original analysis. The t value indicates that the sample

PAGE 36

30 mean lies .895 standard deviations from the mean. For this particular comparison, the critical values were 1.9774 and 1.9774 (df = 137, = .05). These results indicate that the mean difference in offense supportive attitudes held by domestic violence and sex offenders was not statistically significant t(137) = , p < .05. Based on these results, the null hypothesis is not rejected as there was no difference between the two groups. This finding was expected and is consistent with the literature. Analysis 3: Do domestic violence and sex offenders engage in these behaviors equally, when controlled? Using the data collected, an Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) linear regression was used to determine i f there was a significant difference between domestic violence and sex offenders on the frequency of behavior portion of the CODVSO scale when controlling fo r demographic and offense related variables. The dependent variable in this analysis was the score on the frequency of behavior portion on the CODVSO. The independent variable was the type of offense the offender committed (domestic violence or sex offence ). The control variables included age, race/ethnicity, highest level of education, marital status, number of prior non violent/non sex offenses, number of prior violent offenses, number of prior sex offenses, under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of the offense, time in treatment, and if there was any time spent incarcerated. The control variables accounted for 34.3% of the variation between groups, based on the R 2 value, as shown in table 10. There was no significant difference between domest ic violence offenders and sex offenders on the frequency of behavior portion of the CODVSO scale, as shown in table 11. The number of prior violent offenses and the amount of time spent in treatment in the community both reached statistical significance at a .05 level of significance (p < .05) . Specifically, for every additional violent offense, there was a 58.4 point increase on the

PAGE 37

31 CODVSO scale. This result is not surprising as violent behavior is seen as a risk factor for both domestic violence and sex o ffenders ( Cattaneo and Goodman, 2005; Stalans et al., 2010 ). Additionally, for every one month spent in treatment, there was a 1.8 point increase on the CODVSO scale. This finding was surprising at first since it is logical to assume that additional treatm ent would be associated wi th lowered risk for recidivism , however upon further examination one would reasonably expect those with more offending behaviors to be in treatment for longer periods of time. Analysis 4 : Do domestic violence offenders and sex of fenders hold offense supportive attitudes equally, when controlled ? Using the data collected, an Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) linear regression was used to determine i f there was a significant difference between domestic violence and sex offenders on the attitudes portion of the CODVSO scale when controlling for demographic and offense related variables. The dependent variable in this analysis was the score on the offen se supportive attitudes portion on the CODVSO. The independent variable was the type of offense the offender committed (domestic violence or sex offence). The control variables included age, race/ethnicity, highest level of education, marital status, numbe r of prior non violent/non sex offenses, number of prior violent offenses, number of prior sex offenses, under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of the offense, time in treatment, and if there was any time spent incarcerated. The control variab les accounted for 23 .7% of the variation between groups, based on the R 2 value, as shown in table 12. There was no significant difference between domestic violence offenders and sex offenders on the offense supportive attitudes portion of the CODVSO scale, as shown in table 13. The number of prior violent offenses and the number of prior sex offenses both reached statistical significance at a .05 level of significance (p < .05). Specifically, for every additional

PAGE 38

32 violent offense, there was a 2.5 point incre ase on the CODVSO scale and for every additional sex offense, there was a 0.6 point increase on the CODVSO scale. This result is not surprising since offenders with offense supportive attitudes are less likely to see anything wrong with their behaviors. ( H elmus et al., 2013; Nunes and Jung, 2012) ).

PAGE 39

33 CHAPTER V CONCLUSION The purpose of this research was to assess the co occurrence of domestic violence and sex offending behaviors among domestic violence and sex offenders in offense specific treatment. The frequency of behaviors related to these types of offending and offens e supportive attitudes were examined. Analysis indicate that there was no significant difference between domestic violence offenders and sex offenders when it comes to domestic violence and sex offending behaviors, as expected. The results suggest that dom estic violence and sex offending behaviors are not exclusive to the offenders who are in domestic violence or sex offense specific treatment. Additionally, there was no significant difference between domestic violence offenders and sex offenders in their o ffense supportive attitudes related to domestic violence and sex offending. This indicates that these attitudes are not exclusive to the offenders who are in domestic violence or sex offense specific treatment. These results support the notion that neith er domestic violence offenders nor sex offenders specialize in one type of criminal behavior. Additionally, they support the findings of Davies and Simon (2015), who also found significant co occurrence of domestic violence and sex offending behaviors. The offenders surveyed engaged in cognitive distortions related to offense supportive attitudes, which no difference between the groups. This again supports existing research which identifies similar cognitive distortions in these two groups. The OLS regressi on indicates that prior violent offenses and the amount of time spent in treatment are related to an increased amount of past domestic violence and sex offending behaviors. Additionally, prior violent offenses and prior sex offenses are related to stronger offense supportive attitudes.

PAGE 40

34 Limitations Although the sample size was larger than initially anticipated, it was limited both in number and diversity. Only two treatment agencies from the Denver Metro area were used for participant recruitment, representing a relatively homogenous group of individuals. Additionally, since the surveys were anonymous, there was no way to verify that the information provided by the participants was accurate and reflected their past behaviors. Participants may have been inclined to under or over report their behaviors if they believed it would benefit them or the study. Also, but without specifying whether they had previously been married, although options for be misspecified due to missing variables, which may not have been available at the ti me of the analysis (e.g. risk level of the offender). After the data were entered into SPSS, it became apparent that some questions were either poorly worded or confusing to the participants. As an example, when asked to indicate how much they agreed or disagreed with each statement, the majority of participants agreed with statement was to identify individuals who believed children are physically more adult l ike, however it may have been misleading where individuals interpreted more mature, intelligent, or sophisticated than other children. This type of misinterpretation and poorly developed question can affect the causal validity of the research ( Privitera, 2 014 ). Lastly, since there is no Domestic Violence charge in the C olorado R evised Statutes , future research should consider examining court documents to verify what the index offense was

PAGE 41

35 and verify that it had a domestic violence enhancer. This would resu lt in more accurate reporting of index offenses and shed more light on if domestic violence offenders are being convicted of sex related offenses. Future Research Even with these limitations, this research is valuable and suggests future research. Future research would benefit from looking at these two phenomena in greater detail. Specifically, focusing on each type of offending within each population to identify if there are certain types of behaviors or attitudes that are shared more frequently. Future research should also examine if risk levels identified by treatment evaluations and assessments are in anyway related to the frequency of the behaviors and attitudes. If these behaviors and attitudes are related to recidivism and reoffending, this would in dicate that the individuals are higher risk. In theory, this should then be reflected by the risk assessments. Unfortunately, most risk assessments currently used in the field for both domestic violence offenders and for sex offenders do not lend much weig ht to co occurring offending behaviors. Another potential area of exploration would be to examine if there are certain types of behaviors or specific attitudes that each group engages in more frequently. For example, are sex offenders more likely to hit their intimate partners or monitor their partners? Are domestic violence offenders more likely to believe knowing everything their partner does is more acceptable than sex offenders do? Knowing these details would be beneficial for risk assessment developm ent, treatment, and determining the degree to which sex offending and domestic violence offending co occur. For the sex offender population specifically, it may be beneficial to survey those who are currently in carcerated and have not yet started offense specific treatment. This population may

PAGE 42

36 present with more cognitive distortions that are similar to those of domestic violence offenders and will likely be less censored in their responses since they have not yet started learning pro social concepts through treatment. While this would also be good to do for the domestic violence population, domestic violence offenders are not necessarily incarcerated for long periods of time and may have started their treatment pr ior to being taken into custody. If possible, however, future research should also consider capturing this information prior to treatment for domestic violence offenders also.

PAGE 43

37 Table 4 Group Statistics Treatment Type N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Frequency of Behaviors SO 54 49.8981 110.34121 15.01554 DV 80 58.8375 83.70733 9.35876 Table 5 Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t test for Equality of Means F Sig. t df Sig. (2 tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Frequency of Behaviors Equal variances assumed .059 .808 .533 132 .595 8.93935 16.78427 42.14030 24.26160 Equal variances not assumed .505 92.78 2 .615 8.93935 17.69330 44.07582 26.19712 Table 6 Group Statistics Treatment Type N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Offense Supportive Attitudes SO 49 19.4388 5.87689 .83956 DV 78 19.7244 6.40649 .72539

PAGE 44

38 Table 7 Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t test for Equality of Means F Sig. t df Sig. (2 tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Offense Supportive Attitudes Equal variances assumed .425 .516 .252 125 .801 .28558 1.13173 2.52541 1.95424 Equal variances not assumed .257 108.666 .797 .28558 1.10953 2.48470 1.91354 Table 8 Group Statistics Treatment Type N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Offense Supportive Attitudes (Items removed) SO 51 14.3627 4.45093 .62325 DV 88 15.1818 5.58846 .59573

PAGE 45

39 Table 9 Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t test for Equality of Means F Sig. t df Sig. (2 tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Offense Supportive Attitudes (Items removed) Equal variances assumed 1.869 .174 .895 137 .373 .81907 .91552 2.62946 .99131 Equal variances not assumed .950 123.739 .344 .81907 .86217 2.52559 .88745 Table 10 Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .585 a .343 .117 100.27952 a. Predictors: (Constant), Both jail and prison served, Number of prior sex offenses, Asian, Black, Mixed, Prison time served, Hispanic, Under the influence of alcohol or drugs, Married, Bachelors Degree, Time in treatment in the community, Number of prior non violent/non sex offenses, Income, Separated, Associates Degree, Vocational or Certificate, Divorced, Graduate Degree, Number of prior violent offenses, High School/GED, Age, SO

PAGE 46

40 Table 11 Coefficients a Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardize d Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta (Constant) 19.373 63.639 .304 .762 SO 52.434 37.071 .235 1.414 .162 Age .408 1.561 .042 .261 .795 White (reference) Black 123.105 71.401 .212 1.724 .090 Hispanic 57.583 30.597 .215 1.882 .064 Asian 19.229 123.978 .019 .155 .877 Mixed 39.724 58.436 .078 .680 .499 High School/GED 11.104 35.034 .049 .317 .752 Vocational or Certificate 31.099 56.599 .068 .549 .585 Some College (reference) Associates Degree 15.176 40.217 .049 .377 .707 Bachelors Degree 10.462 35.280 .041 .297 .768 Graduate Degree 30.515 68.046 .060 .448 .655 Single (reference) Married 13.849 31.889 .058 .434 .666 Separated 42.083 69.738 .072 .603 .548 Divorced 11.916 41.227 .042 .289 .773 Income .000 .000 .079 .665 .509 Number of prior non violent/non sex offenses 7.320 6.602 .145 1.109 .272

PAGE 47

41 Number of prior violent offenses 58.393 20.413 .424 2.861 .006 Number of prior sex offenses .513 4.526 .014 .113 .910 Under the influence of alcohol or drugs 6.286 24.236 .030 .259 .796 Time in treatment in the community 1.786 .683 .357 2.616 .011 Prison time served 90.848 51.929 .233 1.749 .085 Both jail and prison served 25.422 52.091 .065 .488 .627 a. Dependent Variable: SCALE_FREQ Table 12 Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .487 a .237 .038 6.22229 a. Predictors: (Constant), Both jail and prison served, Associates Degree, Hispanic, Under the influence of alcohol or drugs, Prison time served, Asian, Number of prior violent offenses, Mixed, Time in treatment in the community, Income, Vocational or Cert ificate, Number of prior sex offenses, Separated, Bachelors Degree, Married, Black, Divorced, Number of prior non violent/non sex offenses, Graduate Degree, High School/GED, Age, SO

PAGE 48

42 Table 13 Coefficients a Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardize d Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta (Constant) 23.672 3.903 6.065 .000 SO .203 2.416 .016 .084 .933 Age .094 .097 .171 .961 .341 White (reference) Black 2.517 4.421 .077 .569 .571 Hispanic .424 1.945 .027 .218 .828 Asian 5.122 8.136 .092 .630 .531 Mixed 1.794 3.355 .070 .535 .595 High School/GED 1.165 2.246 .088 .519 .606 Vocational or Certificate 3.552 3.388 .138 1.048 .299 Some College (reference) Associates Degree 3.508 2.418 .209 1.451 .152 Bachelors Degree .865 2.216 .060 .390 .698 Graduate Degree 2.970 5.010 .091 .593 .556 Single (reference) Married .058 2.021 .004 .029 .977 Separated .245 3.745 .009 .066 .948 Divorced 2.367 2.552 .157 .928 .357 Income 1.772E 6 .000 .018 .132 .895 Number of prior non violent/non sex offenses .328 .406 .115 .809 .422

PAGE 49

43 Number of prior violent offenses 2.535 1.142 .346 2.219 .030 Number of prior sex offenses .618 .282 .310 2.191 .032 Under the influence of alcohol or drugs .654 1.606 .054 .407 .685 Time in treatment in the community .013 .044 .044 .283 .778 Prison time served .786 3.435 .033 .229 .820 Both jail and prison served 2.256 3.549 .096 .636 .527 a. Dependent Variable: SCALE_ATT

PAGE 50

44 CHAPTER VI REFERENCES Basile, K.C. (2002). Prevalence of wife rape and other intimate partner sexual coercion in a nationally representative sample of women. Violence and Victims, 17 , 511 524. Bergen , R. K (2006) . Marital rape: New research and directions. Applied Research Forum: National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women, 1 13 Bergen, R. K. & Bukovec, P. (2006). Men and intimate partner rape: Characteristics of men who sexually abuse their p artner. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(10) , 1375 1384. Bumby, K. M. (1996). Assessing the cognitive distortions of child molesters and rapists: Development and validation of the MOLEST and RAPE scales. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatme nt, 8(1), 37 54. Capaldi , D. M. , Knoble, N. B., Shortt, J. W., & Kim , H. K. (2012) . A systematic review of risk factors for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 3(2) , 231 280 Cattaneo, L. B. & Goodman, L. A. (2005). Risk factors for reabuse in intimate partner violence: A cross disciplinary critical review. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 6(2), 141 175. Colorado Revised Statute §18 6 800.3 Craig, L. A. (2011). The effect of age on sexual and violent reconviction. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55(1) , 75 97. Davies , A. M. & Simons , D. (2017). Gender bias and domestic violence and sexual offenders. Conference Presentation. Domestic Violence Offender Management Board (n.d.) Standards for Treatment with Court Ordered Domestic Violence Offenders . Denver, CO: Colorado Department of Public Safety. Hall, J. E., Walters, M. L., & Basile , K. C. (2012). Intimate partner violence perpetration by court ordered men: Distinctions among subtypes of physical violence , sexual violence, psychological abuse, and stalking. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(7) , 1374 1395. Hanson, R. K. (2002). Recidivism and age: Follow up data from 4,673 sexual offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17(10), 1046 1062. Hanson, R. K. & Thornton, D. (2000). Improving risk assessments for sex offenders: A comparison of three actuarial scales. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 119 136. Hanson, R. K. & Thornton, D. (2003). Notes on the development of Static 2002. (Correctional Rese arch User Report No. 2003 01). Ottawa: Department of the Solicitor General.

PAGE 51

45 Helmus , L., Hanson, R. K., Babchishin, K. M., & Mann, R. (2013). Attitudes supportive of sexual offending predict recidivism: A meta analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 14(1) , 34 53. Henning, K., J ones, A. R. & Holdford , R. (2005) domestic violence offenders. Journal of Family Violence, 20(3) , 131 139. Lin , J. & Simon , W. (2016). Examining specialization among sex offenders released from prison. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 28(3) , 253 267. Mann, R. E., Hanson, R. K., & Thornton , D. (2010). Assessing risk for sexual recidivism: Some proposal s on the nature of psychologically meaningful risk factors. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 22(2) , 191 217. McFarlane , J. & Malech , A. (2005 ). Sexual assault among inmates: Frequency, consequences and treatments. (NCJRS Grant No. 2002 WG BX 0003). McGrath, R. J., Lasher, M. P., Cumming, G. F. (2012). The Sex Offender Treatment Intervention and Progress Scale (SOTIPS): Psychometric properties and incremental predictive validity with Static 99R. Sexual Abuse: A Jour nal of Research and Treatment, 24(5) , 431 458. McGrath, R. K., Lasher, M. P., Cumming, G. F., Langton, C. M., & Hoke, S. E. (2014). Development of the Vermont Assessment of Sex Offender Risk 2 (VASOR 2) re offense risk scale. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Res earch and Treatment, 26(3) , 271 290. Miethe, T., D. , Olson , J. & Mitchell , O. (2006). Specialization and persistence in the arrest histories of sex offenders. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43(3) , 204 229. Nunes , K. L. & Jung , S. (2012) . Are cognitive distortions associated with denial and minimization among sex offenders? Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 25(2), 166 188. Pemberton, A. E. & Wakeling, H. C. (2009). Entitled to sex: Attitudes of sexual offenders. A Journal of Sexual Aggression, 15(3) , 289 303. Pence, E. & Paymar, M. (1993). Education groups for men who batter . New York: Springer Publishing Company. aus Piquero, A. R., Brame, R., Fagan, J., & Moffitt , T. E. (2006) . Assessing the offending activity of criminal do mestic violence suspects: Offense specialization, escalation, and de escalation evidence from the spouse assault replication program. Public Health Reports, 121 , 409 418.

PAGE 52

46 Richards, T. N., Jennings, W. G., Tomsich , E., & Gover , A. (2014) . A 10 year analysi s of rearrests among a cohort of domestic violence offenders. Violence and Victims, 29(6) , 887 906. Riggs , D. S., Caulfield, M. B., & Street, A. E. (2000) . Risk for domestic violence: Factors associated with perpetration and victimization. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56(10), 1289 1316. Robbers, M. L. (2009). Lifers on the outside: Sex offenders and disintegrative shaming. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55(1) , 5 28. Sex Offender Management Board. (n.d.). Stand ards and Guidelines for the Assessment, Evaluation, Treatment and Behavioral Monitoring of Adult Sex Offenders . Denver, CO: Colorado Department of Public Safety. Scott , K. & Straus, M. (2007) . Denial, minimization, partner blaming, and intimate aggression in dating partners. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(7) , 851 871. Shafran , L. H. (2010) . Risk assessment and intimate partner sexual abuse: The hidden dimension of domestic violence. American Judicature Society, 93(4) , 161 163. Stalans , L. J., Hacker, R., & Talbot, M. E. (2016) . Comparing nonviolent, other violent, and domestic batterer sex offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(5) , 613 638. Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney McCoy, S., & Sugarman , D. (2010). Manual for the Personal and Relationship Profile (PRP). Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.452.5350&rep=rep1&type=pdf

PAGE 53

47 APPENDIX S ex Offenses in Colorado

PAGE 54

48

PAGE 55

49

PAGE 56

50

PAGE 57

51

PAGE 58

52

PAGE 59

53

PAGE 60

54

PAGE 61

55

PAGE 62

56

PAGE 63

Domestic Violence Core Competencies A. Offender commits to the elimination of abusive behavior B. Offender demonstrates change by working on the comprehensive Personal Change Plan C. Offender completed a comprehensive Personal Change Plan D. Offender development of em pathy E. Offender accepts full responsibility for the offense and abusive history F. Offender identifies and progressively reduces pattern of power and control behaviors G. Offender accountability H. uences I. Offender participation and cooperation in treatment J. Offender ability to define types of domestic violence K. violence L. Offender understanding of intergenerational effect s of violence M. Offender understanding and use of appropriate communication skills N. O. Offender recognition of financial abuse and management of financial responsibility P. Offender eliminates all forms of violence and abuse Q. Offender prohibited from purchasing, possessing, or using firearms or ammunition R. Offender identification and challenge of cognitive distortions that plays a role in the

PAGE 64

Sex Offender Core Treatment Concepts A. Acceptance of responsibility for offending and abusive behavior B. Identify thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that lead up to the offending behavior C. Restructure cognitive distortions D. Establish adaptive pro social functioning E. Promote healthy sexuality and relationship skill s F. Gain knowledge of victim impact and empathy G. Develop pro social living plan

PAGE 65

COMIRB Number 18 0349, Kelly Friedric h, Version Date 02/12/2018 59 Script Hello, my name is Kelly Friedrich. I am a student with the University of Colorado Denver. I want to let you know that I do work for the Office of Domestic Violence and Sex Offender Management, but this study is strictly for school purposes and no one from my work is involved study will help treatment be more effective for more pe ople, since everyone with a domestic violence or sex offense is required to complete treatment. I wanted to ask you if you would be willing to participate in my study. The survey has about 50 questions on it, but should only take 5 to 10 minutes to complet e. The questions are mostly about romantic relationships you have had or how you feel about certain statements. Some of the questions may be difficult to answer or might make you uncomfortable, so it is totally okay if you do not want to participate or if you information. No one except for me and one of my professors will se asked your treatment provider to stay in their office/not in the lobby until everyone has left so If you decide to participate, just fill out the survey and put it in one of these envelopes when need to be signed, but if you woul d like a copy, I have some here so you can just grab one. And answers will be linked back to you. Thank you for your time.

PAGE 66

60 Co Occurrence of Domestic Violence and Sex Offending Scale

PAGE 67

DO NOT WRITE YOUR NAME ON ANY PAGE COMIRB Number 18 0349, Kelly Friedrich, Version Date 02/26/2018 61 Domestic Violence and Sex Offender Offense Specific Treatment Survey Current Offense Specific Treatment: Sex Offense Domestic Violence Offense Number of prior non violent/non sexual offenses: ____________________ Number of prior violent offenses: ____________________ Number of prior sex offenses: ____________________ Conviction Offense: ____________ _________________________________________________ Age: ____________________ Ethnicity or Race: __________________________ Sexual Orientation: __________________________ Highest Completed Education: High School Diploma/GED Vocational Training/Certification Some College Associates Degree Graduate Degree Current Marital Status: Single Married Separated Divorced Annual Household Income: ____________________ W ere you under the influence of alcohol/drugs when the offense occurred? Yes No Did you serve any time in jail or prison for this offense? Yes, Jail Yes, Prison No How many months have you been in treatment (in the community)? _____________ _______

PAGE 68

DO NOT WRITE YOUR NAME ON ANY PAGE COMIRB Number 18 0349, Kelly Friedrich, Version Date 02/26/2018 62 The following questions ask about actions. Remember that this information is completely confidential. Your treatment provider and supervising officer WILL NOT see these results and your answers CANNOT be used against you in any way. Please write do wn the number of times you engaged in each behavior. How many times have you ever done the following to your spouse or romantic partner (include both past and current relationships)? Number of Times Call them names or put them down? Put them down in front of others (belittle, embarrass, etc.)? Yell or swear at them? Frighten them intentionally? Be jealous or possessive of them? Try to limit contact with their family or friends? Throw objects or broken things when you were angry? Prevent them from having access to the family income? Prevent them from working? Made them have sex with you when they did not want to? Convince them to have sex? Made or tried to make them have sex with you when they did not want to while you were drunk? to? Throw something at your spouse or partner that could have potentially hurt them? Push, grab, or shove your spouse or partner in a way that could hurt them? Slap or hit your spouse or partner around the face in a way that could hurt them? Threaten to hit your spouse or partner? Kick your spouse or partner in a way that could hurt them? Put your hands around their neck? Threaten to stab your spouse or partner? Threaten to shoot your spouse or partner? Repeatedly follow or spy on your spouse or partner? Repeatedly monitor your spouse or

PAGE 69

DO NOT WRITE YOUR NAME ON ANY PAGE COMIRB Number 18 0349, Kelly Friedrich, Version Date 02/26/2018 63 The following questions ask about beliefs and not actual behavior. Answering these questions does not indicate that you participated in any of t hese behaviors. Remember that this information is completely confidential. Your treatment provider and supervising officer WILL NOT see these results and your answers CANNOT be used against you in any way. Please circle the option which best answers the following: Please indicate how much you agree with each statement below. 1 2 3 4 5 6 A man cannot rape his wife because they are married. Strongly Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree Women who get raped probably deserve it. Strongly Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree If a women does not resist strongly to sexual advances, she is probably willing to have sex. Strongly Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree If a woman gets drunk at a party, it is really her own fault if someone takes advantage of her. Strongly Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree If a man has had sex with a woman before, then he should be able to have sex with her any time he wants. Strongly Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree husband sexually whenever he wants. Strongly Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree If a woman lets a man kiss her and touch her sexually, she should be willing to go all the way. Strongly Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree If a wife refuses to have sex, there are times when it may be okay to make her do it. Strongly Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree Once sex gets past a certain point, a man Strongly Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree Some young children are much more adult like than other children. Strongly Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree Some people turn to children for sex because they were deprived of sex from adult women. Strongly Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

PAGE 70

DO NOT WRITE YOUR NAME ON ANY PAGE COMIRB Number 18 0349, Kelly Friedrich, Version Date 02/26/2018 64 The following questions ask about beliefs and not actual behavior. Answering these questions does not indicate that you participated in any of these behaviors. Remember that this information is completely confidential. Your treatment provider and supervising officer WILL NOT see these results and your answers CANNOT be used against you in any way. Please circle the option which best answers the following: Please indicate whether you think each statement below is true. 0 1 False True Sometimes I have to remind my spouse or partner who is boss. False True My partner needs to remember that I am in charge. False True I have a right to know everything my partner does. False True I am easily frustrated by women. False True I would hate it if my partner paid a lot of attention to someone besides me. False True I would hate it if someone else paid a lot of attention to my partner. False True I would be mad if my spouse or partner flirted with someone else. False True I would be upset if someone hugged my partner for a little too long. False True False True My partner likes to make me mad. False True False True She is only my step daughter, so it is okay to have sex with her. False True As a father, I can do what I want with my children, including sexual contact. False True Nothing is going to stop me from having sex with whoever I want it is my right. False True I am in control of my family and own them. False True

PAGE 71

65 Source Scales Items on the Co Occurrence of Domestic Violence and Sex Offending Scale were either taken or adapted from the following existing measures. Bumby (1996) RAPE and MOLEST Scales o Women who get raped probably deserve it o If a woman does not resist strongly to s exual advances, she is probably willing to have sex o If a woman gets drunk at a party, it is really her own fault if someone takes advantage of her sexually o If a man has had sex with a woman before, then he should be able to have sex with her any time he wa nts o whether or not she is in the mood o I believe that if a woman lets a man kiss her and touch her sexually, she should be willing to go all the way o Some people turn to children for sex because they were deprived from adult women o Some young children are more adult like than other children o Davies and Simon (2017) Relationship Beliefs and Intimacy Questionnaire o De mographic Questions o How often have you insisted that your partner have sex with you o How often have you engaged in sex with your partner while you were angry

PAGE 72

66 o How often have you insisted on make up sex after fighting with your partner Hall, Walter, and Basil (NVAWS), the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) o How often did you do the following to your spouse or partner Call her names or belittle her Put her down in front of others Did you shout or swear at your spouse or partner Frighten her Be jealous or possessive Try to limit her contact with family or friends Throw objects or broken things when you were angry Prevent her from knowing about or having access to the family income even when she asked Prevent your spouse or partner from working outside the home How often you made your partner have sex with you when she did not want to How often have you made or tried to make your p artner have sex with you when she did not want to How often have you made or tried to make your partner have sex with you when she did not want to when you were drunk How often have you made or tried to make your partner have sex with your friend or other

PAGE 73

67 How often have you made your partner have sex with you right after a Did you throw something at your spouse or partner that could hurt her Did you pus h, grab, or shove your spouse or partner in a way that could hurt her Did you slap or hit your spouse or partner around the face and shoulders in a way that could hurt her Did you threaten to hit your spouse or partner around the face and shoulders in a wa y that could hurt her Did you threaten to hit your spouse or partner with a fist or other object in a way that could hurt her Did you kick your spouse or partner in a way that could hurt her Did you choke your spouse or partner in a way that could hurt her Did you threaten to stab your spouse or partner with a knife Did you threaten to shoot your spouse or partner with a gun Did you stab or cut your spouse or partner with a knife or did you shoot your spouse or partner with a gun Did you repeatedly follow o r spy on your spouse or partner Did you repeatedly monitor your spouse or partners use of the internet mail, or other types of written or verbal correspondence Pemberton and Wakeling (2009) adaptation of the SARN Treatment Need Analysis o

PAGE 74

68 o Straus, Hamby, Boney McCoy, and Sugerman (2010) Personal and Relation ship Profile o o My partner needs to remember that I am in charge o I have a right to know everything my partner does o I am easily frustrated by women o I would hate it if my partner paid a lot of attention to someon e besides me o I would hate it if someone else paid a lot of attention to my partner o I would be mad if my partner flirted with someone else o I would be upset if someone hugged my partner a little too long o o My par tner likes to make me mad o If a wife refuses to have sex, there are times when it may be okay to make her do it o satisfied

PAGE 75

69 Codebook and Anomalies Variable Name Description Assigned Codes Type Type of treatment 1. Sex Offense 2. Domestic Violence PriorNon Number of prior non violent, non sexual offenses Numeric Value PriorVio Number of prior violence offenses Numeric Value PriorSex Number of prior sex offenses Numeric Value Offense Index Offense* Age Age at time of survey Numeric Value Race Race based on offender self report 1. White 2. Black 3. Hispanic 4. Native American 5. Asian 6. Mixed Edu Highest level of education 1. High School/GED 2. Vocational/Certificate 3. Some College 4. Associates Degree 5. Bachelors Degree 6. Graduate Degree Marital Marital status at time of survey 1. Single 2. Married 3. Separated 4. Divorced Income Annual household income at time of survey Numeric Value AOD Under the influence of alcohol or other drugs at time of offense 0. No 1. Yes JailDOC Jail or prison time served as a result of the index offense 0. No 1. Yes, Jail 2. Yes, Prison 3. Yes, Both TxTime Time spent in offense specific treatment for index offense Numeric Value NameCall Called partner names or put them down Numeric Value PutDown Put partner down in front of others Numeric Value Yell Yell or swear at their partner Numeric Value

PAGE 76

70 Fright Frighten their partner intentionally Numeric Value Jealous Be jealous or possessive of their partner Numeric Value LimitCont family or friends Numeric Value Throw Throw objects or broken things when angry Numeric Value PrevFamInc Prevent access to family income Numeric Value PrevWork Prevent partner from working Numeric Value MadeSex Made partner have sex when they did not want to Numeric Value ConvinceSex Convince partner to have sex Numeric Value DrunkSex Made or tried to make partner have sex when they did not want to while offender drunk Numeric Value OtherPpl Made or tried to make partner have sex with other people when they did not want to Numeric Value PostArgu Made or tried to make partner have sex after a violent argument when they did not want to Numeric Value ThrowAt Throw something at partner that could have hurt them Numeric Value Push Push, grab, or shove partner in a way that could have hurt them Numeric Value Slap Slap or hit partner around the face in a way that could have hurt them Numeric Value Threaten Threaten to hit partner Numeric Value Kick Kick partner in a way that could have hurt them Numeric Value HandsNeck neck Numeric Value Stab Threaten to stab partner Numeric Value Shoot Threaten to shoot partner Numeric Value Spy Repeatedly follow or spy on partner Numeric Value Monitor use of the internet Numeric Value Cell cell phone calls or text messages Numeric Value

PAGE 77

71 MaritRape A man cannot rape his wife because they are married 1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Slightly Disagree 4. Slightly Agree 5. Agree 6. Strongly Agree Deserve Women who get raped probably deserve it 1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Slightly Disagree 4. Slightly Agree 5. Agree 6. Strongly Agree Strong Resist If a woman does not resist strongly to sexual advances, she is probably willing to have sex 1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Slightly Disagree 4. Slightly Agree 5. Agree 6. Strongly Agree Drunk If a woman gets drunk at a party, it is really her own fault if someone takes advantage of her 1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Slightly Disagree 4. Slightly Agree 5. Agree 6. Strongly Agree SexBefore If a man has had sex with a woman before, then he should be able to have sex with her anytime he wants 1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Slightly Disagree 4. Slightly Agree 5. Agree 6. Strongly Agree Duty satisfy her husband whenever he wants 1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Slightly Disagree 4. Slightly Agree 5. Agree 6. Strongly Agree AllTheWay If a woman lets a man kiss her and touch her sexually, she should be willing to go all the way 1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Slightly Disagree 4. Slightly Agree 5. Agree 6. Strongly Agree Refuse If a wife refuses to have sex, there are times when it may be okay to make her do it 1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Slightly Disagree 4. Slightly Agree

PAGE 78

72 5. Agree 6. Strongly Agree CantStop Once sex gets past a certain himself until he is satisfied 1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Slightly Disagree 4. Slightly Agree 5. Agree 6. Strongly Agree AdultLike Some young children are more adult like than others 1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Slightly Disagree 4. Slightly Agree 5. Agree 6. Strongly Agree ChildCheat It is better to have sex with 1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Slightly Disagree 4. Slightly Agree 5. Agree 6. Strongly Agree Deprived So me people turn to children for sex because they have been deprived of sex from adult women 1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Slightly Disagree 4. Slightly Agree 5. Agree 6. Strongly Agree SmwhrElse sex with me, I will get it somewhere else 0. False 1. True RemindBoss Sometimes I have to remind my spouse or partner who is boss 0. False 1. True InCharge My partner needs to remember that I am in charge 0. False 1. True RightToKnow I have a right to know everything my partner does 0. False 1. True Frust I am easily frustrated by women 0. False 1. True Attention I would hate it if my partner paid a lot of attention to someone besides me 0. False 1. True Attention2 I would hate it if someone else paid a lot of attention to my partner 0. False 1. True

PAGE 79

73 Flirt I would be mad if my spouse or partner flirted with someone else 0. False 1. True Hug I would be upset if someone hugged my partner for a little too long 0. False 1. True Fault It is usually my spouse or 0. False 1. True LikesMad My partner likes to make me mad 0. False 1. True GivePlace If I give her a place to stay, 0. False 1. True StepDaught She is only my setp daughter, so it is okay to have sex with her 0. False 1. True Father As a father, I can do what I want with my children, including sexual contact 0. False 1. True MyRight Nothing is going to stop me from having sex with whoever I want it is my right 0. False 1. True OwnFam I am in control of my family and own them 0. False 1. True SCALE_FREQ Frequency of behaviors indicated by scale Numeric Value SCALE_ATT Attitude score indicated by scale Numeric Value SCALE_SANS Total scale with bad items removed Numeric Value Coding Anomalies 1. Highest Level of Education: coded in order as it appears on survey 2. Income: if monthly income was listed, sum was multiplied by 12 to determine annual income. 3. If both domestic violence and sex offense specific treatment were indicated, the respondent was assigned to the treatment group in which their survey was collected. 4. Prior offenses were coded as the raw number; s ome respondents indicated a number 5. If treatment was less than one month, the item was rounded to one month 6. If prior and current duration in treatment were listed, only the current duration was coded.

PAGE 80

74 7. occurred at least once. 8. 9. 10. 11. O nly counted the first offense listed.