Sexual violence is a growing public health problem, and there is an urgent need to develop sexual violence prevention programs. Logic models have emerged as a vital tool in program development. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded an empowerment evaluation designed to work with programs focused on the prevention of first-time male perpetration of sexual violence, and it included as one of its goals, the development of program logic models.
Studies concerning inmate-on-inmate sexual assaults within male correctional facilities are sparse in the sociological and correctional literatures. Only a few studies have specifically examined the characteristics of male inmate sexual assault targets. The current research sought to address this gap by providing an examination of factors related to victimization likelihood. Using data gathered in March 2000 from 142 inmates (18% return rate) in one Southern maximum-security prison, the authors examined demographic and behavioral characteristics of male inmate sexual targets. Based on inmates
Dating couples (college students) were given the Conflict Tactics Scale and measures of emotional commitment. Members of a couple were tested at the same time with no opportunity to compare responses during the session. For violence and verbal aggression, participants reported on acts inflicted and received. For commitment, they indicated their own level of commitment and rated the commitment of their partners.
Reports on information concerning dynamic (changeable) risk factors that were collected through interviews with community supervision officers and file reviews of 208 sexual offense recidivists and 201 nonrecidivists. The recidivists were generally considered to have poor social supports, attitudes tolerant of sexual assault, antisocial lifestyles, poor self-management strategies, and difficulties cooperating with supervision. The overall mood of the recidivists and nonrecidivists was similar, but the recidivists showed increased anger and subjective distress just before reoffending.
The current study examines the effects of three forms of childhood victimization on self-reported delinquency and aggression in adolescent girls. These analyses are based on a longitduinal sample of 141 mother-daughter pairs participating in a study about marital violence and child development. When the children were school aged, mothers and children provided reports describing (a) child exposure to marital violence, (b) escalated physicl abuse against the child, and (c) child sexual abuse. Children were followed up into adolescence and re-interviewed.
Dominance may be the most widely mentioned risk factor for physical assaults on an intimate partner, but empirical studies have found mixed results. A new measure, the Dominance Scale, operationalizes a reconceptualization that examines three different forms of dominance: Authority, Restrictiveness, and Disparagement. Preliminary psychometric characteristics demonstrated good distributions and internal consistency in a sample of 131 undergraduates.
Assessed the effects of the Safe Dates program on the primary and secondary prevention of adolescent dating violence. 14 public schools in a predominantly rural county were randomly assigned to either a treatment or control condition. 1,886 Ss (aged 11-17 yrs) completed baseline questionnaires and 1,700 completed follow-up questionnaires. Ss in the treatment group were exposed to Safe Dates school and community activities: control Ss were exposed to community activities only. Treatment and control groups were comparable at baseline.
To determine whether categorizing levels of violence along dimensions of frequency and severity would result in informative distinctions among individuals using dating violence, reported use of physical violence, along with variables theorized to be related to use of force in intimate relationships, was assessed in a sample of 617 college students (males = 290; females = 327). When participants' scores were analyzed by dichotomizing them along the lines of ever versus never using dating violence, numerous past findings were replicated.
Individuals reporting violence within a dating relationship may fit into one of three profiles: (a) victim only--the individual sustains violence but does not initiate violence in the dating relationship; (b) perpetrator only--the individual initiates violence but does not sustain violence in the dating relationship; or (c) mutually violent--the individual both sustains violence and initiates violence within the dating relationship. Very little is known about how individuals within these three dating violence profiles may differ. The present study