Journal of Experimental Criminology

, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp 355–376 | Cite as

Lessons from a successful and failed random assignment testing batterer program innovations

Article

Abstract

With increasing pressure to conduct experimental evaluations of domestic violence interventions, it is important to weigh further the most challenging aspect of experimental designs: the implementation of random assignment. This paper reviews two attempted experimental evaluations of counseling programs for domestic violence offenders, and formulates implications for conducting and interpreting program evaluations. The two case studies offer an instructive comparison of a maximally implemented experiment and a failed one at the same setting. In the first study, the random assignment was introduced within the counseling program and with implicit leverage of court sanctions for non-compliance to the assignment. In the second, random assignment was disrupted by unforeseeable events and inter-agency breakdowns in the complex referral system. Interestingly, implementation issues in both studies raised divergent interpretations from researchers and practitioners. They appear to imply a need for more disclosure of implementation problems in experimental evaluations and for more caution about over interpreting the existing experimental evaluations in the field.

Keywords

Domestic violence Counseling program Random assignment Experimental evaluation Implementation problems 

References

  1. Angrist, J. (2005). Instrumental variables methods in experimental criminological research: What, why, and how? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 23–44.Google Scholar
  2. Berk, R. (2005). Randomized experiments as the bronze standard. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 416–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. BISCMI. (2009). Coordinated community responses: Are they effective? The reality, research, and results behind the Judicial Oversight Project. Conference announcement and program. Ann Arbor, MI (www.biscmi.org/jod/BISC-MI_2009_National_Conference_Program.pdf).
  4. BWJP. (2008). Training opportunity: Audio conference on violence against women. Research/Practitioner discourse/ Violence Against Women, 14, 732-733 (vaw.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/14/6/732.pdf).Google Scholar
  5. Cissner, A., & Farole, D. (2009). Avoiding Failures of Implementation: Lessons from Process Evaluation. Washington: Bureau of Justice Assistance.Google Scholar
  6. Corvo, K., Dutton, D., & Chen, W. (2008). Toward evidence-based practice with domestic violence perpetrators. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, and Trauma, 16, 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis, R., & Taylor, R. (2001). Does batterer treatment reduce violence? A synthesis of the literature. Women & Language, 24, 69–93.Google Scholar
  8. Davis, R., Taylor, B., & Maxwell, C. (1998). Does batterer treatment reduce violence? A randomized experiment in Brooklyn. Final report to the National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  9. Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (2000). Evaluating criminal justice interventions for domestic violence. Crime and Delinquency, 24, 252–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dunford, F. (2000). The San Diego Navy Experiment: An assessment of interventions for men who assault their wives. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 468–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Durlak, J., & DuPre, E. (2008). Implementation Matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affective implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 327–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elkin, I., Shea, M. T., & Watkins, J. T. (1989). The National Institute of Mental Health Treatment of Depression Collaborative Research Program: General effectiveness of treatments. Archives of General Psychiatry, 46, 971–982.Google Scholar
  13. Feder, L., & Boruch, R. (2000). The need for experiments in criminal justice settings. Crime and Delinquency, 46, 291–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Feder, L., & Dugan, L. (2002). A test of the efficacy of court-mandated counseling for domestic violence offenders. Justice Quarterly, 19, 343–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feder, L., Jolin, A., & Feyerherm, W. (2000). Lessons from two randomized experiments in criminal justice settings. Crime and Delinquency, 46, 380–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fletcher, B., Lehman, W., Wexler, H., Melnick, G., Taxman, F., & Young, D. (2009). Measuring collaboration and integration activities in criminal justice and substance abuse treatment agencies. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 1003(Supplement 1), 54–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goldkamp, J. (2008). Missing the target and missing the point: “successful random assignment but misleading results. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 4, 83–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gondolf, E. (1997). An Experimental Evaluation of Child Abuse Prevention Classes for Court-ordered Woman Batterers. Final report submitted to Child Trust Fund of Pennsylvania. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Department of Welfare.Google Scholar
  19. Gondolf, E. (2000a). Human subject issues in batterer program evaluation. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, and Trauma, 4, 273–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gondolf, E. (2000b). Mandatory court review and batterer program compliance. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 437–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gondolf, E. (2001). Limitations of experimental evaluations of batterer programs. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 2, 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gondolf, E. (2002). Batterer Intervention Systems: Issues, Outcomes, and Recommendations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  23. Gondolf, E. (2005). Culturally-focused batterer counseling for African-American Men: A clinical trial of effectiveness. Final report submitted to the National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  24. Gondolf, E. (2007). Culturally-focused batterer counseling for African American men: A clinical trial of re-assault and re-arrest outcomes. Criminology and Public Policy, 6, 341–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gondolf, E. (2008a). Implementation of case management for batterer program participants. Violence Against Women, 14, 208–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gondolf, E. (2008b). Outcomes of case management for African American men in batterer counseling. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 173–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gondolf, E. (2009a). Outcomes from referring batterer program participants to mental health treatment. Journal of Family Violence, 24, 577–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gondolf, E. (2009b). Implementing mental health treatment for batter program participants: Interagency breakdowns and underlying issues. Violence Against Women, 15, 638–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gondolf, E., & Jones, A. (2001). The program effect of batterer programs in three cities. Violence and Victims, 16, 693–704.Google Scholar
  30. Han, C., Kwak, K., Marks, D., Pae, C., Wu, L., Bhatia, K., et al. (2009). The impact of the CONSORT statement on reporting of randomized clinical trials in psychiatry. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 30, 116–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hanson, K., Bourgon, G., Helmus, L., & Hodgson, S. (2009). The principles of effective correctional treatment also apply to sexual offenders: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 865–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hollin, C. (2008). Evaluating offending behaviour programmes: Does only randomization glister? Criminology and Criminal Justice, 8, 89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hope, T. (2009). The illusion of control: A response to Professor Sherman. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 9, 125–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jones, A., & Gondolf, E. (2001). Time-varying risk factors for reassault by batterer program participants. Journalof Family Violence, 16, 345–359.Google Scholar
  35. Jones, A., D’Agostino, R., Gondolf, E., & Heckert, A. (2004). Assessing the effect of batterer program completion on reassault using propensity scores. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1002–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kober, T., Trelle, S., & Engert, A. (2006). Reporting of randomized controlled trials in Hodgkin Lymphoma in biomedical journals. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 98, 620–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Labriola, M. (2005). Testing the impacts of court monitoring and batterer intervention programs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Criminology, Toronto, Canada, November, 17.Google Scholar
  38. Labriola, M., Rempel, M., & Davis, R. (2008). Do batterer programs reduce recidivism? Results from a randomized trial in the Bronx. Justice Quarterly, 25, 252–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Levesque, D. A., Driskell, M. M., & Prochaska, J. M. (2008). Acceptability of a stage-matched expert system intervention for domestic violence offenders. Violence and Victims, 23, 432–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Loughran, T., & Mulvey, E. (2010). Estimating treatment effects: Matching Quantification to the question. In A. Piquero & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Handbook of Quantitative Criminology (pp. 163–181). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Marlowe, D. B., Festinger, D. S., Lee, P. A., Dugosh, K. L., & Benasutti, K. M. (2006). Matching judicial supervision to clients’ risk status in drug court. Crime and Delinquency, 52, 52–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McCarty, D. (2009). Understanding the importance of organization and system variables on addiction treatment services within criminal justice settings. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 103, 91–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mears, D. (2003). Research and interventions to reduce domestic violence revictimization. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 4, 127–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Melnick, G., Ulaszek, W., Lin, H., & Wexler, H. (2009). When goals diverge: Staff consensus and the organizational climate. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 103(Supplement 1), 17–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Moher, D., Schulz, K., & Altman, D. (2001). The CONSORT Statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 1987–1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Morrison, S., Lindquist, C., Hawkins, S., O'Neil, J., Nesius, J., Mathew, A. (2003). Evidence-based review of batterer intervention and prevention programs. Final report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  47. Murphy, C., & Ting, L. (2010). Interventions for perpetrators of intimate partner violence: A review of efficacy research and recent trends. Partner Abuse, 1, 26–44.Google Scholar
  48. Peterson, R. (2008). Reducing intimae partner violence: Moving beyond criminal justice interventions. Criminology and Public Policy, 7, 537–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Potter, H. (2007). Reaction Essay: The need for a multi-faceted response to intimate partner abuse perpetrated by African-Americans. Criminology and Public Policy, 6, 367–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Project MATCH Research Group. (1997). Matching alcoholism treatments to client heterogeneity: Project MATCH posttreatment drinking outcome. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 58, 7–29.Google Scholar
  51. Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  52. Saunders, D. (2008). Group interventions for men who batter: A summary of program descriptions and research. Violence and Victims, 23, 156–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sherman, L. (1992). Policing domestic violence: Experiments and dilemmas.Google Scholar
  54. Sherman, L. (2009). ‘Evidence and Liberty: The Promise of Experimental Criminology. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 9, 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sherman, L., & Strang, L. (2004). Verdicts or interventions?: Interpreting results from randomized controlled experiments in criminology. The American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 575–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Smedslund, J. (2004). Dialogues about a new psychology. Chagrin Falls, OH: Taos InstituteGoogle Scholar
  57. Smedslund, G., Dalsbo, T., Steiro, A., Winsvold, A., Clench-Aas, J. (2007). Cognitive behavioural therapy for men who physically abuse their female partner. The Cochrane Databasae of Systematic Reviews, Issue 4, Article No. CD006048. (available at www.cochranelibrary.com).
  58. Visher, C., Newmark, L., & Harrell, A. (2006). Final report on the evaluation of the Judicial Oversight Demonstration (volume 2): Findings and lessons on implementation. Washington: Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  59. Visher, C., Harrell, A., & Yahner, J. (2008a). Reducing intimate partner violence: An evaluation of a comprehensive justice system-community collaboration. Criminology and Public Policy, 7, 495–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Visher, C., Newmark, L., & Harrell, A. (2008b). The Evaluation of the Judicial Oversight Demonstration: Findings and Lessons on Implementation. (National Institute of Justice: Research for Practice), Washington: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/219077.htm).
  61. Weisburd, D. (2003). Ethical practice and evaluation of interventions in crime and justice: The moral imperative for randomized trials. Evaluation Review, 27, 336–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Weisburd, D., Lum, C., & Yang, S. (2003). When can we conclude that treatments or programs “don’t work”? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587, 31–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mid-Atlantic Addiction Research and Training InstituteIndiana University of PennsylvaniaIndianaUSA

Personalised recommendations