Arrest in Cases of Intimate Partner Violence: Associated Factors and Impact on Help Seeking

Background and Purpose: The criminal justice response is a common intervention for intimate partner violence (e.g., Catalano et al., 2009), though research is mixed on the deterrent effects of arrest (Campbell et al, 2003; Cho & Wilke, 2010; Maxwell et al., 2001). It is estimated that arrest occurs in 15% (Melton & Sillito, 2012) to 76% (Hall, 2005) of intimate partner violence (IPV) cases where the police are called, and IPV recidivism has been reported to occur in 17% (Felson et al., 2005) to 49% (Hilton et al., 2008) of IPV cases where previous reports were made to police. The purpose of this research, therefore, is twofold: first, to examine the factors associated with partner arrest among a sample of women who have experienced police-involved IPV and, second, to assess the effects of arrest on subsequent violence, and safety planning/help-seeking.

Methods: Victims of IPV were recruited to participate in the study at the scene of IPV incidents in a single police jurisdiction in a southwest state with a mandatory arrest law in place. Data on arrest were collected from police records. Additionally, structured interviews were conducted with participants as soon as possible after the IPV offense (n=279) and again 7 months later (n=173).  At the initial interview, participants provided data on demographic and relationship characteristics, history of IPV, risk for homicide, and who called the police (victim/someone else).  At follow-up, participants provided information on subsequent violence and injury, safety planning and help-seeking behaviors since the initial interview.

Results: Of the 279 cases, 39.43% resulted in the arrest of the offender.  Offenders who were physically violent toward their partner during the event that police responded to were significantly more likely to be arrested (OR=10.15, p<.05), as were offenders who were living with their partner (OR=2.12). If the victim called the police, the likelihood of arrest decreased significantly (OR=0.52, p<.05). Neither homicide risk nor prior IPV were associated with arrest. When examining arrest as a predictor of violence and help seeking at follow-up, arrest significantly decreased the chance of participants experiencing injury (OR=0.16, p<.05) and verbal abuse (OR=.51, p<.05) on follow-up. However, there were no differences in participants’ experiences of physical or severe violence on follow-up, nor were there differences in safety planning or help seeking by participants.

Conclusions and Implications: Police consider physical violence at the scene of an IPV incident as the most important factor in determining arrest. While this is consistent with previous research (Cho & Wilke, 2010), it underscores the incident-based nature of police response to IPV that does not take into account relationship history or homicide risk. In this study, while arrest reduced future injury, it did not decrease subsequent violence, perhaps indicating that arrested offenders reduced the documentable evidence of violence (i.e., injury) without reducing their use of violence in the relationship. Further, arrest is not associated with subsequent safety planning or help seeking by victims indicating a need for social services at the scene of IPV incidents when police are called.