Running head: INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE IN POLICE FAMILIES

The Complexity of Intimate Partner Violence in Police Families

Stan Rodriguez
University of Utah

1
The Complexity of Intimate Partner Violence in Police Families
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a very challenging problem in our society. The issue of
IPV has no boundaries and crosses racial, ethnic, gender, religious, and socioeconomic lines.
Typically however males most often are the perpetrators. There is also a greater tendency for this
form of abuse to be reported in lower socioeconomic relationships. In addition, there is also a
higher representation of this crime committed by some employed in certain professions. Law
enforcement is one of those occupations where studies have shown there to be a higher
occurrence of this form of domestic violence than the general public as a whole according to
Anderson & Lo (2011). Officer involved domestic violence (OIDV) is a form of IPV in police
families which is especially troubling because the men and women in law enforcement are the
ones tasked with keeping us safe from all forms of violence. This dichotomy along with the
relative privilege that police officers are afforded as a result of their position of authority, creates
many complexities with trying to address and solve intimate partner violence in police families.
Privilege afforded to police officers allows many perpetrators of OIDV to have first hand
knowledge of how the criminal justice system works and allows them to avoid not only being
prosecuted for domestic violence, but even avoid getting charged with it in the first place. For
starters police officers are trained to control situations on the job by using intimidation
techniques. These techniques are easily taken from the job and can be used to control partners at
home through means of coercion. The practice of intimidation and coercion is a form of IPV,
which allows perpetrators to use psychological abuse, and leaves no physical marks.
Furthermore police officers know how to inflict pain without causing bruises and other visible
marks. In addition, as the enforcement arm of the legal system police officers carry guns and
other weapons, which in itself can serve as a means of intimidation towards partners in IPV

2
situations. Finally, this can be further complicated by the subculture within law enforcement,
which serves to promote a sense of family, and can encourage keeping problems private and
working them out internally.
A few studies have been done to understand the issues of IPV in police families. Almost all
of the studies, like the ones conducted by Johnson (1991), Neidig, Russell, & Seng (1992), and
Neidig, Seng, & Russell (1992), have relied on survey data that was self-reported. The issue with
the self-reported methodology of studies, is that the numbers indicating the frequency of IPV in
police families could easily be under-representative of the actual frequency because of the
cultural norm by many in society, not to air their dirty laundry. In addition police officers might
fear that there would be repercussions if they admitted they had engaged in IPV. This is
especially true for studies done after the Lautenberg Amendment to the federal Gun Control Act,
which was passed in 1996. This amendment which is part of a 1996 Omnibus Appropriations
Bill, states police officers with a misdemeanor domestic violence convictions are barred from
owning or using a firearm (Lonsway, 2006, p. 399). In fact studies done after the enactment of
the Lautenberg Amendment done by Gershon (2000, 2009) do indicate much lower rates of selfreported physical abuse in police officer families. Measurement issues in studies due to selfreporting, are a complexity when trying to address IPV in police families after anti-violence
policy implementation, as causes of violence can only be addressed when theres knowledge of
the problem.
Lonsway (2006) examined the implementation of policies regarding OIDV. She referenced
the four main studies that had been done up to that point which estimated the percentage of
police families that experienced domestic violence. The study by Johnson (1991), used survey
data from a sample of 728 police officers and 479 of their spouses which showed that 40% of

3
police officers reported that they had behaved violently towards their spouses or their children
within the last six months. In the second study Lonsway (2006) reported on a sample of 385 male
officers and 115 wives that were asked about violent behaviors including pushing, grabbing,
shoving, slapping, kicking, biting, hitting, throwing things, choking, strangling, beating up,
threatening with a knife or gun, and using a knife or gun on your spouse. The result from both
officers and wives, was 37% to 41% of the relationships involved some level of physical
violence (Neidig, Russell, & Seng, 1992). The Fraternal Order of Police conducted the third
study Lonsway (2006) reported on, which was done in a similar manner as the second with 891
male officers and 119 wives. The results of this study showed 24% of the officers and 28% of the
wives reported some form of violence used against a spouse (Neidig, Seng, & Russell, 1992).
The fourth study Lonsway (2006) reported on was conducted on 1106 Baltimore police officers.
Of those, 9% answered yes to the question: Have you ever gotten out of control and been
physical (e.g., pushing, shoving grabbing) with their spouse/significant other? (The Public
Health, 1999). Since the figure is considerably lower than previous research its unclear if it is
due to the affect of the Lautenberg Amendment or some other factor like methodology or sample
difference, according to Lonsway (2006, p. 399). The bottom line when looking at the data, is
that all of these studies relied on a self-reported methodology which as mentioned earlier is
problematic. Lonsway (2006, p. 399) summarizes that its impossible to know the exact
percentage of OIDV but the existing evidence suggests that domestic violence is at least as high
as the general population and possibly considerably higher.
As mentioned, only a small amount of research data has been collected to fully understand
the prevalence of OIDV in police families, and most of the studies have relied on self-reported
data which is can be problematic for several reasons. This method can result in underreporting

4
due to the tendency to provide "socially desired responses" and "the interests of the officers to
maintain a code of silence" according to Stinson & Liederbach (2011, p. 603). The subculture
within law enforcement serves to promote a sense of family, which encourages keeping problems
private and working them out internally (Stinson & Liederbach, 2011, p. 605). "Secrecy is seen
as the glue that binds police solidarity. In exchange for their protection, officers tacitly agree to
never blow the whistle or testify against a fellow officer" (Johnson et al., 2005, p. 4). In essence
police officers have a brotherhood that protects them when faced with allegations of wrongdoing.
This protection of fellow officers has a huge negative affect on victims of OIDV, isolating them
and making them invisible like victims of IPV were 30 years ago (Johnson et al., 2005, p. 4). In
addition the knowledge of shelters and experience police officers have around IPV can
discourage a victim from reporting OIDV, because all it takes is for a police officer to use
character assassination to paint a picture of a troubled partner to get help from fellow officers
to track down and even apprehend a victim trying to escape. Reporting OIDV is especially
problematic as it can result in the officer responding to a call, to invoke a "code of silence by
doing nothing or writing an inaccurate report" (Johnson et al., 2005, p. 4). The institution that is
supposed to protect victims from violence, ends up becoming a barrier to address it due to the
support of colleagues, whether or not they personally condone the behavior (Wetendorf, 2015).
The Lautenberg Amendment to the federal Gun Control Act that was passed in 1996 also
has the potential to discourage victims from reporting OIDV (Stinson & Liederbach, 2011, p.
605). This Amendment prohibits individuals, including police officers, from owning or using a
firearm if convicted of domestic violence. Due to the penalty of the law, it's not hard to see how
an unintended consequence would be concern on the part of the victim, to report OIDV due to
the potential job loss of the offending police officer partner. The law itself while protecting

5
families from IPV can also cause financial hardship to the same family it is designed to protect.
Even more problematic is that research data indicates that law enforcement officers have rarely
been held accountable since enactment of the Lautenberg Amendment (Lonsway, 2006, p. 400).
There are many inherent issues with the consistent enforcement of the Lautenberg Amendment,
including the ability of police officers to circumvent the ban by pleading guilty to a charge other
than domestic violence (Lonsway, 2006, p. 401). Ultimately the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
and Firearms, which is the agency responsible for enforcing the Lautenberg Amendment, only
recommends a small number of cases for prosecution each year, with only a portion of those
actually resulting in conviction (Lonsway, 2006, p. 400).
When looking at ways to reduce OIDV it's important to look at some of the prevailing
theories to explain the causes. One theory discussed in studies of OIDV is angry aggression
theory. Angry aggression theory looks at the subcultural trait of having an authoritarian
personality in law enforcement and the correlation to IPV (Griffin & Bernard, 2003). According
to Griffin & Bernard (2003, p. 9) police officers tend to see more threats and respond more
aggressively to threats than others in society. They further go on to say that this leads to jobrelated stress and a separation of the actual "chronic physiological arousal" from the actual
sources and ultimately become "embedded in subcultural norms, values, and expectations of
police officers" (Griffin & Bernard, 2003, p. 9). The issue according to them is inability to
respond to the actual source of stress, which results in a tendency to be aggressive to others as a
result, according to Griffin & Bernard (2003, p. 12). They do go on to say however, that these
tendencies are not guaranteed and that individual officers use "cognitive structuring and stressreduction" to mitigate this. For those who struggle to diffuse the arousal there would be a
tendency to use force when it isn't necessary (Griffin & Bernard, 2003, p. 15).

6
In another study, Anderson & Lo (2011) suggest general strain theory can play a role in
how stress caused at work can complement angry aggression theory linking occupational stress
to criminal behavior. In their study they explain how the frustrations of being police officers
cause severe stress. They suggest that there are many instances where police officers attempt to
address issues, but that the structural design of the police department and to an extent criminal
justice system along with lack of public support, creates this severe stress (Anderson & Lo, 2011,
p. 1177). They describe general strain theory as having three categories of strain developing from
negative relationships with others. The one that they postulate as being the most relevant to
police officers is that where life-threatening events and acts of violence are presented to them on
an on-going basis (Anderson & Lo, 2011, p. 1179). According to their study they suggest that
police officers may have a tendency to use violence in response to these events, or sometimes
hold their violent impulses in, creating negative feelings and frustration. Anderson & Lo, (2011,
p. 1179) also indicate the possibility that these "negative emotions arising in response to stressful
events could explain IPV in police families." Anderson & Lo (2011, p. 1186) recognized a
relatively strong correlation between negative emotions and what is termed authoritarian
spillover (Salari, S. 2015, p. 194). Their study results demonstrate the usefulness of general
strain and angry aggression theories for delineating social mechanisms that underlie domestic
violence in law enforcement families (Anderson & Lo, 2011, p. 1186).
An authoritarian personality perspective suggests that there is a negative spillover of
occupational stress into family life (Johnson, 2000, p. 108). In a study presented to the U.S.
Congress in June 1991 Johnson provided data on the relationship between police officers stress
and their families. Many of these stressors like multiple arrests of the same offenders, lack of
support from supervisors and internal departments, poor opportunities for development, along

7
with fatigue, disturbing situations, and dangerous conditions, created large amounts of stress that
often led to job burnout by police officers (Johnson, 1991, p. 33). What Johnson discovered in
the study was that many police officers struggled with leaving their job at work. Often the
responses received from spouses of police officers in the study, was that family was treated like
citizens, expecting the last word and being over-critical and this was often attributed to high
levels of strain on family life (Johnson, 1991, p. 33). In addition the tightly knit organization of
police departments, has also created a social network which in many cases has attributed to some
officers only associating with other officers. In cases where police officers only had other police
officers who were their best friends versus police officers that diversified their social network of
friends, the officers experienced higher job burnout (Johnson, 1991, p. 34).
To address IPV in police families, more studies and accurate data collection need to be
done to better understand the scope of the problem, and also develop actions to solve this form of
domestic violence. There are several ideas on how to reduce OIDV. To collect and analyze data
on policies to prevent OIDV, a study was done using a random sample of 125 large police
agencies, with at least two agencies from each state (Lonsway, 2006, p. 403). Of those that
responded (62.4%) it was revealed that only 29% had specific policies addressing OIDV
(Lonsway, 2006, p. 416). What was further revealed, was that these policies, that were in place
after the modeling of the "IACP model policy and Supporting Concepts and Issues on OIDV" by
the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) were "widely varying in their focus,
scope, and specific provisions" (Lonsway, 2006, p. 408). What this study uncovers is the need
for all police agencies to adopt comprehensive policies based on the IACP model. In addition
these policies need to be specifically addressed in an OIDV section, rather than in the general
domestic violence section for the public. This helps ensure more progressive reform along with

8
innovative practices, early detection, training and assistance for officers and their families
(Lonsway, 2006, p. 419). Other studies suggest varying ideas on how to address and ultimately
reduce OIDV. What's clear is that in addition to adherence to the Lautenberg Amendment, is that
a focus needs to be placed on implementing policies within police departments that align with
the IACP model. A part of the 2005 Violence Against Women Act reauthorization (VAWA)
aims to do that.
The Act (VAWA) which was signed into law in 2006 has a provision called the Crystal
Judson Domestic Violence Protocol Program, which makes funding available to assist with
programs to combat violence in police families. To receive the funds, requires development and
implementation of protocols similar to the IACP model within law enforcement agencies, to
ensure consistent and effective responses to acts of domestic violence by personnel within their
agencies. Another part of the requirement is that these protocols are to be created in collaboration
with victim service providers and domestic violence coalitions. In addition, the agency must
provide a report of the adopted protocol to the Department of Justice, along with a summary of
progress after two years. While this is a great first step, there's still a need for more programs to
help police officers cope with the challenging issues of being a police officer, and how to
alleviate the underlying stresses and build up of aggression inherent in police work. Many
studies indicate that without an outlet to deal with these issues in a safe manner, there's a strong
possibility that the alternative can lead to violence committed by police officers. In addition
more studies with better data collection methodology need to be done in the area of OIDV. Until
we truly understand the prevalence of this form of domestic violence and it's underlying
complexities we won't be able to put steps in place to prevent it.

9
References
Act, A. (2006). One Hundred Ninth Congress of the United States of America. cal. Accessed:
November 21, 2015. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-109hr3402enr/pdf/BILLS109hr3402enr.pdf
Anderson A., Lo C. C. (2011). Intimate partner violence within law enforcement families.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 11761193.
Gershon, R. (2000). Project shields: Final Report (NCJ 185892). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. Retrieved
from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/185892.pdf
Gershon, R., Barocas, B., Canton, A. N., Li, X., & Vlahov, D. (2009). Mental, physical, and
behavioral outcomes associated with perceived work stress in police officers. Journal of
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 275-289. doi:10.1177/0093854808330015
Griffin, S. P., & Bernard, T. J. (2003). Angry aggression among police officers.
Police Quarterly, 6, 3-21.
Johnson, L. B. (1991, May 20). On the front lines: Police stress and family well- being. Hearing
before Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families, House of Representatives, 102
Congress, First Session (pp. 32-48). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Lonsway, K. A. (2006). Policies on police officer domestic violence: Prevalence and specific
provisions within large police departments. Police Quarterly, 9, 397-422. doi:10.1177/
1098611104268884
Neidig, P. H., Russell, H. E., & Seng, A. F. (1992). Interspousal aggression in law
enforcement families: A preliminary investigation. Police Studies, 15(1), 30-38.

10
Neidig, P. H., Seng, A. F., & Russell, H. E. (1992). Interspousal aggression in law enforcement
personnel attending the FOP biennial conference. National FOP Journal, pp. 25-28.
Salari, S. (2015). Family Violence Across the Life Course: Research, Policy and Prevention.
Kendall Hunt Publishers. p. 194.
The public health and law enforcement stress. (1999). National Institute of Justice Journal: At-aglance. Recent research findings. p. 27. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Wetendorf, D. (2015). Abusive Police Officers Working the System. Accessed: November, 21,
2015. http://www.abuseofpower.info/Wetendorf_Working2015.pdf