Typology of substance using offenders of IPV: violence and substance use outcomes

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether aggression and substance use assessed during treatment differ based on risk level for substance-using male offenders of intimate partner violence (IPV).

Design/methodology/approach

Secondary analyses were conducted using data from Easton et al.’s (2017) study on substance-dependent IPV offenders. A cluster analysis was utilized in order to classify participants into typology groups. Analyses of covariance were conducted in order to determine group differences in aggression and substance use during treatment.

Findings

The paper provides results-related response to treatment based on offender typology. Results appear to reflect two typology groups with significant differences in psychopathy among groups. High-risk offenders demonstrated higher rates of violence throughout treatment compared to moderate- and low-risk offenders; however, no differences in substance use outcomes were found.

Research limitations/implications

A limitation of the study is the extent to which the results can be generalized beyond substance using IPV offenders. Further investigation of treatment outcomes including alternate measures is needed in order to better translate theoretical typologies to clinical settings.

Practical implications

Results provide support for differentiating treatment for substance-using male offenders of IPV based on typology as those with low/moderate risk level appear to be distinctly different and have different treatment outcomes compared to high risk level offenders.

Originality/value

Although the relationship between risk level and treatment outcomes has been researched with Drug Court Offenders, treatment outcomes based on typology has not been evaluated among substance using male offenders of IPV.

Citation

Berbary, C.M., Crane, C.A. and Easton, C.J. (2018), "Typology of substance using offenders of IPV: violence and substance use outcomes", Advances in Dual Diagnosis, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 157-168. https://doi.org/10.1108/ADD-01-2018-0001