Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Impact of Legislative Standards on Batterer Intervention Program Practices and Characteristics

  • Original Article
  • Published:
American Journal of Community Psychology

Abstract

Changes in social policy are often pursued with the goal of reducing a social problem by improving prevention efforts, intervention program practices, or participant outcomes. State legislative standards for intimate partner violence intervention programs have been adopted nearly universally across the US, however, we do not know whether such standards actually achieve the intended goal of affecting programs’ policies and practices. To assess the effect that batterer intervention program (BIP) standards have on policies and practices of programs, this study used longitudinal surveys collected as part of an ongoing evaluation conducted from 2001 to the present to compare intervention program (N = 74) characteristics and practices at three time points before and after the adoption of standards in Oregon. Analyses were conducted to examine all BIPs in Oregon at each time point, as well as change among a subset of programs in existence at all survey assessments. Results indicate that across all programs, the use of mixed gender group co-facilitation increased by 14 % between 2004 and 2008, while program length increased by approximately 12 weeks. However, other practices such as programs’ coordination with community partners were unchanged. Analyses of within-program change revealed fewer differences, with only program length increasing significantly over the three assessments. These and other findings indicate that while standards affected program length as intended, other practices commonly addressed by legislative standards remained unchanged. The findings provide needed information regarding programs’ compliance with components of the standards, the potential need for compliance monitoring, and the potential impact of state standards on program effectiveness and on the prevalence of intimate partner violence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Of the six non-responders in 2008, 50 % (n = 3) had completed a survey in 2001 and 2004 and thus could have been included in the within-program analyses if participation in 2008 had occurred. Given the reduced response rate in 2008, 2004 responses were compared for programs that completed the 2008 survey and those that did not. Systematic differences in program characteristics (e.g., location, size, etc.) and survey responses in 2004 across 2008 responders and non-responders were not detected (p > .05).

  2. Programs were coded as rural if they were outside of a ten-mile radius of neighboring cities with a population of 50,000 or greater and they did not lie within continuous suburban development.

References

  • Adams, D., & Cayouette, S. (2002). Emerge: A group education model for abusers. In E. Alarondo, & Mederos, F. (Ed.), Programs for Men Who Batter: Intervention and Prevention Strategies in a Diverse Society. NY: Civic Research Inc.

  • Allen, N. E., Todd, N. R., Anderson, C. J., Davis, S. M., Javandi, S., Bruehleer, V., et al. (2013). Council-based approaches to intimate partner violence: Evidence for distal change in the system response. American Journal of Community Psychology. doi:10.1007/s10464-013-9572-8.

  • Allen, N. E., Watt, K., & Hess, J. Z. (2008). The outcomes and activities of domestic violence coordinating councils. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 63–73. doi:10.1007/s10464-007-9149-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Austin, J. B., & Dankwort, J. (1999). Standards for batterer programs: A review and analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(2), 152–168. doi:10.1177/088626099014002004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babcock, J. C., Green, C. E., & Robie, C. (2004). Does batterers’ treatment work? A meta-analytic review of domestic violence treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 23(8), 1023–1053. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2002.07.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1974). Behavior theory and the models of man. American Psychologist, December 1974, 589–569. doi:10.1037/h0037514.

  • Bennett, L., & Piet, M. (1999). Standards for batterer intervention programs: In whose interest? Violence Against Women, 5(6), 6–24. doi:10.1177/10778019922181121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, L. W., & Vincent, N. (2001). Standards for batterer programs: A formative evaluation of the Illinois protocol. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 5(2), 181–197. doi:10.1300/J146v05n02_11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boal, A., & Mankowski, E. (in press). Barriers to compliance with batterer intervention program standards. Violence and Victims.

  • Bograd, M., & Mederos, F. (1999). Battering and couples therapy: Universal screening and selection of treatment modality. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 25(3), 291–312. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.1999.tb00249.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Castro, F. G., Barrera, M., & Martinez, C. R. (2004). The cultural adaptation of prevention interventions: Resolving tensions between fidelity and fit. Prevention Science, 5, 41–45. doi:10.1023/B:PREV.0000013980.12412.cd.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, B. (2007). What’s going on out there? A survey of batterer intervention programs. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 15(1), 59–74. doi:10.1300/J146v15n01_04.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 327–350. doi:10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Edleson, J. L., & Syers, M. (1990). Relative effectiveness of group treatments for men who batter. Social Work Research and Abstracts, 26, 10–17. doi:10.1093/swra/26.2.10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feder, L., & Wilson, D. B. (2005). A meta-analytic review of court-mandated batterer intervention programs: Can courts affect abusers’ behavior? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 239–262. doi:10.1007/s11292-005-1179-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geffner, R. A., & Rosenbaum, A. (2001). Domestic violence offenders: Treatment and intervention standards. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 5(2), 1–9. doi:10.1300/J146v05n02_01.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelles, R. J. (2001). Standards for programs for men who batter? Not yet. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 5(2), 11–20. doi:10.1300/J146v05n02_02.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gist, M. E., Schwoerer, C., & Rosen, B. (1989). Effects of alternative training methods on self-efficacy and performance in computer software training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(6), 884–891. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.74.6.884.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gondolf, E. W. (1997). Batterer programs: What we know and need to know. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 83–98. doi:10.1177/088626097012001006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gondolf, E. W. (1999). A comparison of four batterer intervention systems: Do court referral, program length, and services matter? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(1), 41–61. doi:10.1177/088626099014001003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, W. B., & Deily, M. E. (1996). Compliance and enforcement: Air pollution regulation in the US steel industry. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 31, 96–111. doi:10.1006/jeem. 1996.0034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (2001). Standards for batterer treatment programs: How can research inform our decisions? Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 5(2), 165–180. doi:10.1300/J146v05n02_10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jason, L. A., Berk, M., Schnopp-Wyatt, D. L., & Talbot, B. (1999). Effects of enforcement of youth access laws on smoking prevalence. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27(2), 143–160. doi:10.1023/A:1022831617055.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kirk, R. E. (2009). Experimental design. In R. E. Milsap & A. Maydeu-Olivaris (Eds.), The sage handbook of quantitative methods in psychology (pp. 23–45). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Klevens, J., Baker, C. K., Shelley, G. A., & Ingram, E. M. (2008). Exploring the links between components of coordinated community responses and their impact on contact with intimate partner violence services. Violence Against Women, 14, 346–358. doi:10.1177/1077801207313968.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • La Violette, A. (2001). Batterers’ treatment: Observations from the trenches. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 5(2), 45–56. doi:10.1300/J146v05n02_04.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maiuro, R. D., & Eberle, J. A. (2008). State standards for domestic violence perpetrator treatment: Current status, trends, and recommendations. Violence and Victims, 23(2), 133–155. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.23.2.133.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maiuro, R. D., Hagar, T. S., Lin, H., & Olson, N. (2001). Are current state standards for domestic violence perpetrator treatment adequately informed by research? A question of questions. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 5(2), 21–44. doi:10.1300/J146v05n02_03.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mederos, F., & Perilla, J. (2004). Community connections: Men, gender and violence. Paper presented at the Melissa institute for violence prevention and treatment, 8th Annual Conference, Miami, FL.

  • Meyers, D. C., Durlak, J. A., & Wandersman, A. (2012). The quality implementation framework: A synthesis of critical steps in the implementation process. American Journal of Community Psychology, 50, 462–480. doi:10.1007/s10464-012-9522-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, C. M., Musser, P. H., & Maton, K. L. (1998). Coordinated community intervention for domestic abusers: Intervention system involvement and criminal recidivism. Journal of Family Violence, 13(2), 263–284. doi:10.1023/A:1022841022524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oregon Department of Justice (2009). Batterer intervention program rules. Oregon Administrative Rules. Retrieved May 24, 2009, from: http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_100/OAR_137/137_087.html.

  • Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1993). Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth model. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, B. J., & Rosenbaum, A. (2009). Batterer intervention programs: A report from the field. Violence and Victims, 24(6), 757–770. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.24.6.757.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Respect (2010). Accreditation. The respect accreditation standard and process. Retrieved April 29th, 2010, from: http://www.respect.uk.net/pages/accreditation-project.html.

  • Riger, S., & Krieglstein, M. (2000). The impact of welfare reform on men’s violence against women. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 631–647. doi:10.1023/A:1005193603532.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, A., Gearan, P. J., & Ondovic, C. (2001). Completion and recidivism among court- and self-referred batterers in a psychoeducational group treatment program: Implications for intervention and public policy. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 5(2), 199–220. doi:10.1300/J146v05n02_12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, A., & Leisring, P. A. (2001). Group interventions programs for batterers. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 5(2), 57–71. doi:10.1300/J146v05n02_05.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salazar, L. F., Baker, C. K., Price, A. W., & Carlin, K. (2003). Moving beyond the individual: Examining the effects of domestic violence policies on social norms. American Journal of Community Psychology, 32, 253–264. doi:10.1023/B:AJCP.0000004746.31861.e7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sarason, I. G., & Ganzer, V. J. (1973). Modeling and group discussion in the rehabilitation of juvenile delinquents. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 20(5), 442–449. doi:10.1037/h0035389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, D. G. (1996). Feminist-cognitive-behavioral and process-psychodynamic treatments for men who batter: Interaction of abuser traits and treatment model. Violence and Victims, 11, 393–414.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shepard, M. (2005). Years of progress in addressing domestic violence: An agenda for the next 10. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(4), 436–441. doi:10.1177/0886260504267879.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shepard, M. F., Falk, D. R., & Elliot, B. A. (2002). Enhancing coordinated community responses to reduce recidivism in cases of domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 551–569. doi:10.1177/0886260502017005005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stark, E. (2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolman, R. M. (2001). An ecological analysis of batterer intervention program standards. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 5(2), 221–233. doi:10.1300/J146v05n02_13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trickett, E. J., & Espino, S. L. R. (2004). Collaboration and social inquiry: Multiple meanings of a construct and its role in creating useful and valid knowledge. American Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 1–69. doi:10.1023/B:AJCP.0000040146.32749.7d.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375–400. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190038.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge and appreciate the contributions of Chris Huffine and Margaret Braun to the development of the survey instrument and assistance with data collection; Brianna Finney, Stephanie Morgan, and Daniel Wilson to data coding; Meleshiw Agegnehu, Kimberly Fulks, Kamber Goold, Matt Johnson, Margaret Langslet, Michelle Lohn, David Moore, Janice Moore and Marilyn Ring to survey design and data collection; the Oregon Attorney General’s Standards Advisory Committee for their support of the project; and, the BIP program directors for their participation in the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Psychology Department, Portland State University, Portland, OR, 97201, USA

    Ashley L. Boal & Eric S. Mankowski

Authors
  1. Ashley L. Boal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eric S. Mankowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ashley L. Boal.

Additional information

This research was conducted as the first author’s master’s thesis under supervision of the second author.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Boal, A.L., Mankowski, E.S. The Impact of Legislative Standards on Batterer Intervention Program Practices and Characteristics. Am J Community Psychol 53, 218–230 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-014-9637-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-014-9637-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation