Journal of Experimental Criminology

, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 239–262 | Cite as

A meta-analytic review of court-mandated batterer intervention programs: Can courts affect abusers’ behavior?

Original article

Abstract

Court-mandated batterer intervention programs are being implemented throughout the United States to address the problem of domestic violence. Prior reviews of research on the effectiveness of these programs have arrived at conflicting conclusions. This study is a systematic review of the extant research on this topic. Experimental and quasi-experimental studies that used matching or statistical controls were included. The results were mixed. The mean effect for official reports of domestic violence from experimental studies showed modest benefit, whereas the mean effect for victim reported outcomes was zero. Quasi-experimental studies using a no-treatment comparison had inconsistent findings indicating an overall small harmful effect. In contract, quasi-experimental studies using a treatment dropout design showed a large, positive mean effect on domestic violence outcomes. We discuss the weakness of the latter design and raise concerns regarding official reports. The findings, we believe, raise doubts about the effectiveness of court-mandated batterer intervention programs.

Key words

batterer intervention domestic violence intimate partner violence meta-analysis recidivism 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, D. & McCormick, A. (1982). Men unlearning violence: A group approach based onthe collective model. In M. Roy (Ed.), The abusive partner: An analysis of domesticbattering (pp. 170–197). New York: Van Nostrand-Reinhold.Google Scholar
  2. Babcock, J. C. & Taillade, J. (2000). Evaluating interventions for men who batter. InJ. Vincent & E. Jouriles (Eds.), Domestic violence: Guidelines for research-informedpractice (pp. 37–77). Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
  3. Babcock, J. C., Green, C. E. & Robie, C. (2004). Does batterers’ treatment work? A meta-analyticreview of domestic violence treatment. Clinical Psychology Review 23(8), 1023–1053.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Berk, R., Boruch, T., Chambers, F., Rossi, P. & Witte, S. (1985). Social policyexperimentation: A position paper. Evaluation Review 9(4), 387–429.Google Scholar
  5. Berk, R., Campbell, A., Klap, R. & Western, B. (1992). The deterrent effect of arrest inincidents of domestic violence: A Bayesian analysis of four field experiments. AmericanSociological Review 57(5), 698–708.Google Scholar
  6. Brisson, N. (1981). Battering husbands: A survey of abusive men. Victimology 6, 338–344.Google Scholar
  7. Chalk, R. & King, P. (1998). Violence in families: Assessing prevention and treatmentprograms. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  8. *Chen, H., Bersani, C., Myers, S. & Denton, R. (1989). Evaluating the effectiveness of acourt sponsored treatment program. Journal of Family Violence 4, 309–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cook, T. D. & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issuesfor field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  10. Cromwell, N. & Burgess, A. (1996). Understanding violence against women. Washington,DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  11. Davis, R. & Taylor, B. (1999). Does batterer treatment reduce violence? Women andCriminal Justice 10, 69–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. *Davis, R. C., Taylor, B. G. & Maxwell, C. D. (2000). Does batterer treatment reduceviolence? A randomized experiment in Brooklyn. Washington, DC: National Institute ofJustice.Google Scholar
  13. *Dunford, F. W. (2000). The San Diego Navy experiment: An assessment of interventionsfor men who assault their wives. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 68,468–476.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. *Dutton, D. (1984). Interventions into the problem of wife assault: Therapeutic, policy andresearch implications. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science 16(4), 281–297.Google Scholar
  15. Dutton, D. (1986). Wife assaulter’s explanations for assault: The neutralization of selfpunishment.Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science 18(4), 381–390.Google Scholar
  16. Dutton, D. (1988). Research advances in the study of wife assault: Etiology and prevention.Law and Mental Health 4, 161–220.Google Scholar
  17. Dutton, D. & McGregor, B. (1991). The symbiosis of arrest and treatment for wife assault:The case for combined intervention. In M. Steinman (Ed.), Woman battering: Policyresponses (pp. 131–154). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  18. Eisikovits, Z. & Edleson, J. (1989). Intervening with men who batter: A critical review ofthe literature. Social Service Review 63, 384–414.Google Scholar
  19. Feder, L. (1997). Domestic violence and police response in a pro-arrest jurisdiction. Womenand Criminal Justice 8(4), 79–98.Google Scholar
  20. *Feder, L. & Dugan, L. (2002). A test of the efficacy of court mandated counseling fordomestic violence offenders: The Broward Experiment. Justice Quarterly 19(2), 343–375.Google Scholar
  21. Feder, L. & Forde, D. (2000). A test of the efficacy of court-mandated counseling fordomestic violence offenders: The Broward Experiment (Final report, Grant NIJ-96-WTNX-0008). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  22. Farley, D. & Magill, J. (1988). An evaluation of a group program for men who batter. SocialWork With Groups 11(3), 53–65.Google Scholar
  23. Feazell, C., Mayers, R. & Deschner, J. (1984). Services for men who batter: Implications forprograms and policies. Family Relations 33, 217–223.Google Scholar
  24. Ford, D. & Regoli, M. J. (1993). The criminal prosecution of wife assaulters. In Z. Hilton(Ed.), Legal responses to wife assault: Current trends and evaluation (pp. 127–164).Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Gondolf, E. (1987). Evaluating programs for men who batter: Problems and prospects.Journal of Family Violence 2(1), 95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goolkasian, G. (1986). Confronting domestic violence: The role of criminal court judges.Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  27. *Gordon, J. A. & Moriarty, L. J. (2003). The effects of domestic violence batterer treatmenton domestic violence batterer treatment and domestic violence recidivism. CriminalJustice and Behavior 30(1), 118–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hamberger, L. K. & Hastings, J. (1989). Counseling male spouse abusers: Characteristics oftreatment completers and dropouts. Violence and Victims 4(1), 275–286.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Hamberger, L. K. & Hastings, J. (1993). Court-mandated treatment of men who assault theirpartner. In Z. Hilton (Ed.), Legal responses to wife assault: Current trends and evaluation(pp. 188–229). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. *Harrell, A. (1991). Evaluation of court-ordered treatment for domestic violence offenders(Final report). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  31. Hasselblad, V. & Hedges, L. V. (1995). Meta-analysis of screening and diagnostic tests.Psychological Bulletin 117, 167–178.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Healey, K. & Smith, C. (1998). Batterer programs: What criminal justice agencies need toknow. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  33. Healey, K., Smith, C. & O’Sullivan, C. (1998). Batterer intervention: Program approachesand criminal justice strategies. Washington, DC: Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  34. Hilberman, E. (1980). Overview: The “wife-beater’s wife” reconsidered. American Journalof Psychiatry 137(11), 1336–1347.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Hirschel, J. D. & Hutchinson, I. (1992). Female spouse abuse and the police response: TheCharlotte, North Carolina Experiment. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 83(1),73–119.Google Scholar
  36. Hotaling, G. & Sugarman, D. (1986). An analysis of risk markers in husband to wifeviolence: The current state of knowledge. Violence and Victims 1(2), 101–124.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Jennings, J. (1987). History and issues in the treatment of battering men: A case forunstructured group therapy. Journal of Family Violence 2(3), 193–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Johnson, J. & Kanzler, D. (1993). Treating domestic violence: Evaluating the effectivenessof a domestic violence diversion program. Studies in Symbolic Interaction 15, 271–289.Google Scholar
  39. *Jones, A. S. & Gondolf, E. W. (2002). Assessing the effect of batterer program completionon reassault: An instrumental variables analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 18(1), 71–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Langan, P. & Innes, C. (1986). Preventing domestic violence against women. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  41. McCord, J. (2003). Cures that harm: Unanticipated outcomes of crime prevention programs.Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 587, 16–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Miller, T., Cohen, M. & Wiersema, B. (1996). Victim costs and consequences: A new look.Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  43. *Palmer, S., Brown, R. & Barrera, M. (1992). Group treatment program for abusivehusbands: Long-term evaluation. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 62(2), 276–283.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Pence, E. (1983). The Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project. Hamline Law Review 6,247–275.Google Scholar
  45. Pirog-Good, M. & Stets-Kealey, J. (1985). Male batterers and battering prevention programs:A national survey. Response. 8, 8–12.Google Scholar
  46. Rennison, C. R. & Welchans, S. (2000). Intimate partner violence. Washington, DC:National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  47. Roberts, A. (1982). A national survey of services for batterers. In Maria Roy (Ed.), Theabusive partner: An analysis of domestic battering (pp. 230–243). New York: VanNostrand-Reinhold.Google Scholar
  48. Rosenfeld, B. (1992). Court-ordered treatment of spouse abuse. Clinical Psychology Review12, 205–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Saunders, D. (1996). Interventions for men who batter: Do we know what works? InSession: Psychotherapy in Practice 2(3), 81–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sherman, L. (1992). The influence of criminology on criminal law: Evaluating arrests formisdemeanor domestic violence. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 83, 1–45.Google Scholar
  51. Snyder, D. & Scheer, N. (1981). Predicting disposition following brief residence at a shelterfor battered women. American Journal of Community Psychology 9, 559–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sonkin, D. J. (1988). The male batterer: Clinical and research issues. Violence and Victims3(1), 65–79.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Straus, M. (1991). Conceptualization and measurement of battering: Implications for publicpolicy. In M. Steinman (Ed.), Woman battering: Policy responses (pp. 19–47). Cincinnati,OH: Anderson.Google Scholar
  54. Straus, M., Hamby, S., Boney-McCoy, S. & Sugarman, D. (1996). The revised ConflictTactics Scale (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal ofFamily Issues 17(3), 283–316.Google Scholar
  55. Sullivan, C., Rumptz, M., Campbell, R., Eby, K. & Davidson, W. (1996). Retainingparticipants in longitudinal community research: A comprehensive protocol. Journal ofApplied Behavioral Science 32(3), 262–276.Google Scholar
  56. *Syers, M. & Edleson, J. (1992). The combined effects of coordinated criminal justiceintervention in woman abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 7, 490–502.Google Scholar
  57. Taylor, B., Davis, R. & Maxwell, C. (2001). The effects of a group batterer treatmentprogram: A randomized experiment in Brooklyn. Justice Quarterly 18(1), 171–201.Google Scholar
  58. Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (2000). Prevalence and consequences of male-to-female andfemale-to-male intimate partner violence as measured by the National Violence AgainstWomen Survey. Violence Against Women 6(2), 142–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tolman, R. & Bennett, L. (1990). A review of quantitative research on men who batter.Journal of Interpersonal Violence 5, 87–118.Google Scholar
  60. Tolman, R. & Edleson, J. (1995). Intervention for men who batter: A review of research.In S. Stith & M. Straus (Eds.), Understanding partner violence: Prevalence, causes,consequences and solutions (pp. 262–273). Minneapolis, MN: National Council onFamily Relations.Google Scholar
  61. Weisburd, D., Lum, C. & Petrosino, A. (2001). Does research design affect study outcomesin criminal justice? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 578, 50–70.Google Scholar
  62. Widom, C. S. (1992). The cycle of violence. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  63. Zorza, J. (2003). New research: Broward County Experiment shows no benefit from battererintervention programs. Domestic Violence Report 8, 23–25.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Administration of JusticePortland State UniversityPortlandUSA
  2. 2.George Mason UniversityManassasUSA

Personalised recommendations