Coercive Control and Policing Intimate Partner Violence: A Mixed Methods Case Study

Background and Purpose: When intervening in intimate partner violence (IPV), social workers consider the pattern of abusive and controlling behaviors. The law enforcement response, however, is incident based and focused on physical violence. This has prompted some scholars to argue that police intervention should take into account coercive control (Stark, 2007). This study examines the process by which one Police Department (PD) in a large metropolitan area of the Southwest categorizes IPV offenders based on the presence/absence of coercive control.

Methods: This mixed methods case study examines quantitative data from 11,679 intimate partner domestic violence incidents (2011-2013) and qualitative data from interviews with six detectives working in the domestic violence unit. The PD requires detectives to categorize offenders into one of three levels of coercive control: Violent Coercive Control (VCC), Coercive Control (CC), and Situational Violence (SV; no coercive control). Multinomial logistic regression examined the association of VCC, CC, and SV with incident specific characteristics (i.e. demographic and relationship characteristics, injury to the victim, physical and/or non-physical abuse) as well as a history of intimidation, demands, violence, and threats to end the relationship reported by the victim-survivor. Qualitative interviews with detectives were conducted to gather in-depth information about how coercive control categorizations are defined and applied to IPV offenders. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed thematically.

Results: Quantitative results suggest that VCC was associated with previous intimidation (RRR=2.09), demands (RRR=2.48), severe physical violence (RRR=1.95), and threats to end the relationship (RRR=1.40). Offenders who severely injured the victim (RRR=3.52) and those who were former romantic partners (RRR=1.38) were more likely to be categorized as VCC.  Offenders categorized as CC were more likely to have a history of intimidation (RRR=2.37) and demands (RRR=1.89), and were more likely to violate an order of protection (RRR=2.07). Qualitative results were consistent with the quantitative findings. Detectives reported that the most important consideration when categorizing an offender as VCC or CC was the pattern of intimidation, threats, and demands in the relationship. However, the categorization of offenders is highly subjective and detectives differed on which of these factors was most important. Detectives identified themselves as the gatekeepers to victim-advocate referrals and reported that they always referred in cases of VCC but not consistently in CC and SV cases.

Conclusions and Implications: The social work response recognizes that IPV encompasses much more than physical violence. By applying coercive control as a central component of their response, police understanding of IPV dynamics could shift tremendously (Stark, 2012). Social workers collaborate with the criminal justice system to intervene in IPV and, as the detectives in this study reported, social services are often contingent on the presence of physical violence (Kulkarni et al, 2012). Social workers can assist in educating law enforcement about coercive control and homicide risk, as well as inform best practices for safety planning, interventions, and advocacy. A shift toward policing coercive control better captures the dynamics of IPV, but necessitates a shift in law, policy and culture that may result in unintended consequences for offenders and victim-survivors.