A National Institute of Justice Ideological Hypothesis

If they have a popular thought they have to go into a darkened room and lie down until it passes. –Kelvin Mackenzie

The National Institute of Justice describes its purpose as:

NIJ is the research, development, and evaluation agency of the U.S. Department of Justice and is dedicated to researching crime control and justice issues. NIJ provides objective, independent evidence-based knowledge [italics added] and tools to meet the challenges of crime and justice, particularly at the State and local levels.

The report Measuring Intimate Partner Violence (MIPV) is on the NIJ website dated October 24, 2007. Despite the NIJ claims of objectivity and evidence-based knowledge the MIPV appears to be an ideological polemic concerning the academic discussion about the issue of domestic violence gender symmetry. The MIPV and in turn the NIJ are guilty of turning a hypothesized belief into a finding of fact.

Gender symmetry proffers that an equal number of women and men are victims (it is important to note gender symmetry is about victimization, not offending) of intimate partner violence (IPV) regardless of severity.

The data presented in the MIPV sometimes appears to be an apples and oranges presentation:

Apples: The gender symmetry of the OVW definition of domestic violence .

Oranges: The subset of “systematic, persistent, and injurious” violence .

It should be obvious to the United States Department of Justice (USDOJ), the NIJ and the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW), that the data in the MIPV, outlined below, does not meet the characteristics presented in the OVW definition of domestic violence.

A review of the research found (italics added) that violence is instrumental in maintaining control and that more than 90% of “ systematic, persistent, and injurious ” (italics added) violence is perpetrated by men (Kimmell, 2002). BJS reports that 30% of female homicide victims are murdered by their intimate partners compared with 5% of male homicide victims, and that 22% of victims of nonfatal intimate partner violence are female but only 3% are male. (Catalano, 2006).

The review by (Kimmel, 2002) only examines 100 of the now more than 200 studies concerning domestic violence. The MIPV claims that Kimmel “ found ” that violence is instrumental in maintaining control and that more than 90% of “ systematic , persistent, and injurious violence is perpetrated by men. This is clearly not an objective, independent evidence-based claim.

If one actually takes the time to read the Kimmel review, little of what the MIPV claims to be fact, other than injury, is supported by objective, independent evidence-based knowledge. Kimmel himself clearly acknowledges that his claim is only a hypothesis or an argument and his hypothesis is not empirical evidence-based data that supports a scientific finding .

Whoever is responsible at the NIJ for the MIPV either did not read the Kimmel review, misread the review or is purposely misrepresenting the review. Kimmell did not find empirical data that supports the MIPV 90% claim. The National Criminal Justice Reference Service abstract (NCJRS) of the Kimmel review document that what Kimmel actually did was to “hypothesize” that 90% number. It does not seem that a “ hypothesis ” meets the NIJ standard of “ independent evidence-based knowledge .”

One need not be a NIJ researcher of NIJ sponsored researcher to know that all researchers are expected to be both “technically competent” and “fair-minded” while conducting their research. The “systematic, persistent, and injurious violence” is only a small subset (oranges) of OVW definition of domestic violence (apples).

It seems that Kimmel draws conclusions from data that agrees with his position and excludes data that Kimmel is aware of, that does not support his position. That style of research is a misleading tactic that does not seem to be totally objective or fair-minded.

Another example of misrepresentation is the claim Kimmel makes on page 1345 of his review. Kimmel claims to document that, “Men who are assaulted by intimates are actually more likely to call the police …”  Kimmel then lists three citations to substantiate and validate his claim.

It is clear that throughout his review of the research Kimmel repeatedly uses citations from the National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS) when NVAWS data supports his position. In the claim above, as elsewhere in his review, Kimmel excludes data from the NVAWS that refutes his position and includes only data that supports it.

The NVAWS found that women, in all instances, were significantly more likely than men to report being victimized . As for law enforcement, the NVAWS reports that women are more than twice as likely to report their victimization to the police . It is improbable to impossible to believe that Kimmel is not aware of this NVAWS data. It appears that Kimmel might have simply ignored that data because it did not support his claim.

It also appears that the MIPV is unaware or unwilling to acknowledge that there is another stark contradiction in Kimmel’s “review of the research” that begins with his claim that domestic violence has emerged as one of the world’s most pressing problems while the National Crime Victimization Survey documents it effects less than ½ of 1% of Americans. And for many researchers and the MIPV crime data seems to be the defining difference when it supports their position and the same crime data is ignored when it does not.

All of the national recognized domestic violence organization including the USDOJ Office of Violence Against Women , the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence and the Domestic Violence Hotline include minor assaults and lesser actions as acts of domestic violence . In fact, most state laws include actions far more minor than physical assaults, to be acts of domestic violence .

The NVAWS clearly documents that the majority of IPV is minor and does not produce injury or death. Each and every major nationally recognized domestic violence agency (see above) features data about victimization that is data drawn from Conflict Tactics Scale styled surveys and many (the OVW for example) include actions far more minor than those documented in the CTS.

Kimmel does not present any empirical evidence-based data in his review that can document any of the violence being used is, “instrumental in maintaining control.” This claim is familiar and has been presented before in the guise of empirical evidence-based data despite the fact that any evidence-based data to document that claim is gender specific or drawn from a small sub-group of the population.

Kimmel is not the only researcher to reach that conclusion without the empirical data to support it as scientific fact. The authors of the findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, conclude on page iv of “ Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence ” that, “These findings support the theory that violence perpetrated against women by intimates is often part of a systematic pattern of dominance and control.”

I will not argue that some of the violence against women and, in fact all family members or intimate partners can be a part of a systematic pattern of dominance and control. However, no where in the above report (a click of the computer mouse will allow you to read the above report) do the authors present any empirical evidence-based data that documents their claim to be true.

I also agree that the reason for some of the violence or assertive and aggressive behavior between intimate partners include the issue of “dominance and control.”  However, the issue of dominance and control runs through family and intimate partner violence regardless of age, gender and sexual orientation. The causes of domestic violence appear to be as complex, multifaceted and varied as the many definitions of just what domestic “violence” is or is not.

It should be obvious to all interveners and public policy makers that these domestic violence actions do not arise suddenly and unexpectedly the day heterosexual intimate partners reach adulthood and then require criminal justice intervention. Intervention needs to begin at the beginning of this behavior and not simply react after the consequences of that behavior. And most importantly, interventions need to be individualized to fit the needs of those involved.

Many of the assertive and aggressive actions under the OVW definition are not what most people commonly associate with “violence.” These actions commonly occur among very young children and siblings without criminal justice intervention. Harvey Wallace notes in his college text, Family Violence: Legal, Medical, and Social Perspectives that:

Researchers have interviewed, tested, observed, and evaluated thousands of people in an attempt to discover the factors that contribute to family violence. Unfortunately, to date no one authority has discovered the single correct answer.

The most troubling lack of “fair-mindedness” in the Kimmel review is that Kimmel devotes more than 12 pages in rebuking the use of data that is based on the Conflict Tactics Scale that was developed by Murray Straus and colleagues.

Kimmel and the MIPV know full well that all the nationally recognized domestic violence organizations make use of the CTS data and the Domestic Violence Hotline – funded by millions from the federal government, actually includes being called, “bad names” in their CTS styled definition. As noted above, the OVW definition is far more inclusive than the CTS. In fact much of the behavior listed by the OVW might very well include behavior that can be found in every family in America.

Mathematical Manipulations

Furthermore, while not unethical, it does seem manipulative for the MIPV to report the claim that “30% of female homicide victims are murdered by their intimate partners compared with 5% of male homicide victims, and that 22% of victims of nonfatal intimate partner violence are female but only 3% are male.”

The above may not amount to apples and oranges but it seems to be at least pears and peaches. Whoever is responsible for the MIPV knows, or should know, that the apparent dramatic differential is technically correct but it is not an actually or honest differential. The apparent dramatic differential is a result of mathematical manipulation.

The difference in intimate partner victimization only “appears” that dramatic because far more males are homicide and nonfatal violence victims than females. Again, researchers should have the freedom to present data any way they want. However, should the USDOJ, the NIJ and the OVW be involved in the manipulation of the data?

This misrepresentation or manipulation of domestic violence data is the cause of much of the confusion and disarray in the criminal justice system. And it is OVW definition along with the definitions of domestic violence by the majority of the national recognized domestic violence organizations that adds to the trivialization of the victims of serious and lethal violence.

The MIPV notes that the data compiled through the CTS may not be appropriate for intimate partner research. Perhaps it is time that the USDOJ and all of the agencies it supports to caution all of the nationally recognized domestic violence organizations against using data that may not be appropriate for intimate partner research that is compiled from the CTS.

It is a fact, as their websites very clearly document, that all of the nationally recognized domestic violence organizations use CTS styled data to document female victimization while they ignore the CTS styled data that supports the gender symmetry argument.

The misuse of the CTS data – using only the data that supports female victimization and ignoring the data that supports male victimization – began decades ago by all the national recognized agencies and it continues unabated.

It is not appropriate or logical for a social scientist to present a hypothesis and then have the USDOJ-NIJ through the MIPV declare that hypothesis to be an empirical evidence-based finding.

And it is worse still for a governmental agency – the United States Department of Justice – to redefine the issue of domestic violence regardless of age, gender, or sexual orientation into an issue that is exclusively or primarily about the violence against women and then to actively engage in minimizing, marginalizing and ignoring the victimization of boys and men. If you do not believe the latter is true, then you have not read the MIPV.

Is there really someone at the NIJ that thinks the MIPV is providing objective, independent evidence-based knowledge ? Should not both males and females be provided with justice by the United Stated Department of Justice? It is apparent from their websites that the majority of domestic violence organizations are exclusively or primarily concerned about the victimization of women and their children. However, should not the USDOJ be concerned with all victims regardless of age, gender or sexual orientation? Clearly the MIPV is not.

Richard L. Davis

This has been excerpted from my paper “ Unintended Social Implications .” The complete paper is online at www.PoliceOne.com .