Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The next generation of court-mandated domestic violence treatment: a comparison study of batterer intervention and restorative justice programs

  • Published:
Journal of Experimental Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The most common approach to treatment of domestic violence crimes in the United States is the mandated group-based Batterer Intervention Program (BIP). Several alternative treatment approaches have been developed over the years, including a restorative justice-based treatment program for domestic violence offenders called Circles of Peace (CP). This study compared a CP program administered in Arizona with a local BIP program, in controlled settings.

Methods

This study involved a randomized controlled trial with 152 domestic violence cases randomly assigned to either BIP or CP between September 2005 and March 2007. Independent sample t tests were used to measure treatment outcomes post-random assignment, in terms of both domestic violence and non-domestic violence re-arrest rates during four follow-up periods (6, 12, 18, and 24 months).

Results

CP participants experienced less recidivism than BIP during all follow-up comparisons. However, statistically significant differences were detected only for the 6-month (p < .1) and the 12-month (p < .05) follow-up comparisons for non-domestic violence re-arrests, and no statistically significant differences were detected for the domestic violence re-arrests.

Conclusions

The findings are generally statistically non-significant at .05. While these results do not suggest a change in policy from BIP to CP for domestic violence crimes, it does dispel the popular belief that restorative justice cannot be used to treat domestic violence criminal activity, in that CP does no worse than the traditional batterer intervention program. Given the low statistical power and high attrition rates, more research is necessary to test CP and restorative justice treatment generally in court-mandated domestic violence cases in order to understand the treatment impact on both domestic violence and non-domestic violence offenders.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. It is the first randomized controlled trial of a restorative justice treatment program specifically designed to address domestic violence. Davis (2009) did a field test of mediation conducted in 1979 on a population of adult felony arrest cases between acquaintances. Almost half the cases were intimate partner violence cases. The cases in the Davis study were either filed in court and prosecuted or were sent to a dispute resolution center for adjudication. Thus, the Davis study differs significantly from ours both in the procedure used and the treatment provided.

  2. In the state of Arizona, domestic violence is defined by the relationship between the victim and the offender and the type of crimes committed. The qualifying relationships include: spouse or former spouse; person residing or having resided in the same household; persons having a child in common; a party who is pregnant by the other party; parent, grandparent, grandchild, stepchild, brother, or sister; and a child who resides or has resided in the same household.

  3. An audit was performed by the research team to check the assignment; 82 participants were assigned to the experimental group and 70 to the control group following the procedures outlined in the article. From a probability theory perspective, the odds of obtaining a difference of 12 units (17 %), with a sample of 152, is within the realm of acceptability.

  4. From September 2005 to August 2007, Portable Practical Educational Preparation, Inc. (PPEP) was the treatment provider as well as the agency that conducted these “fit-for-treatment” evaluations for all CP and most BIP participants; Southeastern Arizona Behavioral Health Services, Inc. (SEABHS) operated as an alternative treatment provider for some of the BIP participants. In 2007, CP personnel who had been administering the CP treatment, incorporated a not-for-profit organization, and therefore PPEP stopped overseeing the CP treatment. The restorative justice treatment was at that point overseen and administered by this new not-for-profit organization called Circles of Peace. Both PPEP and SEABHS continued to provide BIP treatment for the duration of the study period.

  5. Petrosino et al. (2010) found that the average length of follow-up period reported across 27 studies on the effect of formal system processing of juveniles on delinquency was approximately 12 months. Restorative justice studies also normally report 12-month follow-up periods; for example, Sherman and Strang (2007) and McGarrell et al. (2000).

  6. Despite our general support for the instrumental variables technique, there are two more drawbacks that should be noted; both statistically and substantively. First, there is some criticism regarding the use of instrumental variables with limited sample sizes. For example, Hedges (2008) contends that “instrumental variables is a large sample procedure, even when [statistical] assumptions are met it is only guaranteed to be unbiased in large samples.” In this experiment, the number of cases was rather limited. Second, similar interventions are likely to experience similar (non)compliance rates. As we commented in the discussion and elsewhere, there is a growing body of evidence that suggests that more than half of domestic violence offenders (and similar clinical interventions as well) do not comply with treatment—including those administered as court-orders (Labriola et al. 2007). Therefore, the treatment compliance rates we observed in this sample may be viewed as a close approximation of treatment compliance distributions in the population, thus justifying the intention-to-treatment approach in such studies as well.

  7. National Science Foundation Grant No. 0964821 and National Institute of Justice Grant No. 2011-WG-BX-0002.

References

  • Adams, D. (2003). Treatment programs for batterers. Clinics in Family Practice, 5(1), 159–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angrist, J. D. (2006). Instrumental variables methods in experimental criminological research: what, why and how. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2(1), 23–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angrist, J. D., & Krueger, A. B. (2001). Instrumental variables and the search for identification: from supply and demand to natural experiments. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(4), 69–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ariel, B. (2009). Systematic review of baseline imbalances in randomized controlled trials in criminology. Paper presented at the Communicating Complex Statistical Evidence Conference, University of Cambridge, UK.

  • Ariel, B., Vila, J., and Sherman, L. W. (2012). Random assignment without tears: how to stop worrying and love the Cambridge Randomizer. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 8(2), 193–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence. (2009). Domestic violence related homicides. Retrieved May 14, 2010, from http://www.azcadv.org/docs/DV%20Fatalities%202009.pdf.

  • Association of Religion Data Archives, County Membership Report, Denominational Groups (2000). Retrieved May 14, 2010, from http://qqq.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/counties/040423_2000.asp.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babcock, J. C., Canady, B., Graham, K. H., & Schart, L. (2007). The evolution of battering interventions: from the dark ages into the scientific age. In J. Hamel & T. Nicholls (Eds.), Family therapy for domestic violence: a practitioner’s guide to gender-inclusive research and treatment (pp. 215–244). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellg, A. J., Borrelli, B., Resnick, B., Hecht, J., Minicucci, D. S., Ory, M., et al. (2004). Enhancing treatment fidelity in health behavior change studies: best practices and recommendations from the Behavior Change Consortium. Health Psychology, 23(5), 443–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berk, R. A. (1993). What the scientific evidence shows: on the average, we can do no better than arrest. In R. J. Gelles & D. R. Loeske (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (pp. 323–336). Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite, J. (1999). Restorative justice: assessing optimistic and pessimistic accounts. Crime and Justice, 25, 1–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bridges, W. (2003). Managing transitions: making the most of change. Cambridge: Da Capo Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brock, K. (2003). When men murder women: an analysis of 2000 homicide data. Washington, DC: Violence Policy Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burford, G., & Pennell, J. (1995). The family group decision making project: an innovation in child and family welfare. In B. Galaway & J. Hudson (Eds.), Canadian child welfare: research and policy implications (pp. 140–153). Toronto: Thompson Educational Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Catalano, S., Smith, E., Snyder, H., & Rand, M. (2009). Female victims of violence. (NCJ 228356). Bureau of Justice Statistics Selected Findings. Retrieved May 14, 2010, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fvv.pdf.

  • Cecala, S. & Walsh, M. M. (2006). New York States response to domestic violence: systems and services making a difference. Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence.

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, R. C. (2009). The Brooklyn mediation field test. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5(1), 25–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, R. C., Maxwell, C. D., & Taylor, B. G. (2003). The Brooklyn experiment. In S. Jackson, L. Feder, D. R. Forde, R. C. Davis, C. D. Maxwell, & B. G. Taylor (Eds.), Batterer intervention programs: where do we go from here? (pp. 15–22). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dugan, L. (2003). Domestic violence legislation: exploring its impact on the likelihood of domestic violence, police involvement, and arrest. Criminology & Public Policy, 2(2), 283–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dugan, L., Nagin, D., & Rosenfeld, R. (2001). Exposure reduction or backlash? The effect of domestic violence resources on intimate partner homicide, Final Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(3), 468–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durose, M., Harlow, C., Langan, P., Motivans, M. Ratala, R., Smith, E., & Constatin, E. (2005). Family violence statistics, including statistics on strangers and acquaintances. US Department of Justice. Retrieved May 14, 2010, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fvs.pdf.

  • Dutton, M. A., Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Jouriles, E., McDonald R., Krishnan, S., McFarlane, J., et al. (2003). Recruitment and retention in intimate partner violence research. Retrieved May 14, 2010, from http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/201943.pdf.

  • Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feder, L., & Dugan, L. (2002). A test of the efficacy of court-mandated counseling for domestic violence offenders: the Broward experiment. Justice Quarterly, 19(2), 343–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feder, L., & Wilson, D. (2005). A meta-analytic review of court-mandated batterer intervention programs: can courts affect abusers’ behavior? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1(2), 239–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gatowski, S.I., Dobbin, S.A., & Litchfield, M. (2001). The Miami model court family decision-making conference program: evaluation results. Technical Assistance Bulletin Vol. V (3). National Council of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Grant No. 96-CT-NX-0001.

  • Gondolf, E. W. (2004). Evaluating batterer counseling programs: a difficult task showing some effects and implications. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9(6), 605–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gondolf, E. W. (2007). Theoretical and research support for the Duluth Model: a reply to Dutton and Corvo. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(6), 644–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gondolf, E. W. (2009). Clinician ratings of batterer treatment behaviors in predicting reassault. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(11), 1792–1815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gondolf, E. W., & Jones, A. (2001). The program effect of batterer programs in three cities. Violence and Victims, 16(6), 693–704.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedges, L. (2008). Using the instrumental variables technique in educational research. Paper presented at Institute of Education Science.

  • Iyengar, R. (2009). Does the certainty of arrest reduce domestic violence? Evidence from mandatory and recommended arrest laws. Journal of Public Economics, 93(1–2), 85–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S., Feder, L., Forde, R. D., Davis, C. R., Maxwell, D. C., & Taylor, B. G. (2003a). Batterer intervention programs: where do we go from here? (NCJ Publication No. 195079). Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. Web site: http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/195079.pdf.

  • Jackson, S., Feder, L., Forde, R. D., Davis, C. R., Maxwell, D. C., & Taylor, B. G. (2003). Batterer intervention programs: do batterer intervention programs really work? Two studies (NCJ Publication No. 200331). Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. Retrieved May 14, 2010, from http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/200331.pdf.

  • Johnson, M. P. (2009). Differentiating among types of domestic violence: implications for healthy marriages. In H. Elizabeth Peters & D. Claire Kamp (Eds.), Marriage and families: complexities and perspectives (pp. 281–297). New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kane, R. J. (2000). Police responses to restraining orders in domestic violence incidents: identifying the custody-threshold thesis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27(5), 561–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, A. R. (2009). Practical implications of current domestic violence research: for law enforcement, prosecutors and judges. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institutes of Justice. (NCJ Publication No. 225722). Retrieved May 14, 2010, from http://webmail.isu.edu:8080/attach/DOJ_DV_Research_for_LE,_PA_&_Judges%5B1%5D.pdf?sid=&mbox=INBOX&uid=14147&number=4&filename=DOJ_DV_Research_for_LE%2C_PA_%26_Judges[1].pdf.

  • Labriola, M., Rempel, M., & Davis, R. C. (2005). Testing the effectiveness of batterer programs and judicial monitoring: results from a randomized trial. Final report submitted to the National Institute of Justice. New York: Center for Court Innovation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Labriola, M., Rempel, M., Finklestein, R., O’Sullivan, C. S., Frank, P. B., & McDowell, J. (2007). Court responses to batterer program noncompliance: a national perspective. Report submitted to the National Institute of Justice. New York: Center for Court Innovation.

  • Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: how ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McGarrell, E. F., Olivares, K., Crawford, K., & Kroovand, N. (2000). Returning justice to the community: the Indianapolis juvenile restorative justice experiment. Indianapolis: Hudson Institute, Crime Control Policy Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, N. (2004). Domestic violence: a review of state legislation defining police and prosecution duties and powers. Alexandria: Institute for Law and Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, L. G. (2008). Violent partners. A breakthrough plan for ending the cycle of abuse. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, L. G., Maley, M., & Shy, Y. (2009). Circulos de paz and the promise of peace: restorative justice meets intimate partner violence. NYU Review of Law and Social Change, 33(1), 127–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pence, E., Paymar, M., Ritmeester, T., & Shepard, M. (1993). Education groups for men who batter: the Duluth Model. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennell, J., & Burford, G. (2002). Feminist praxis: making family group conferencing work. In H. Strang & J. Braithwaite (Eds.), Restorative justice and family violence (pp. 108–127). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, R. R. (2008). Reducing intimate partner violence: moving beyond criminal justice interventions. Criminology and Public Policy, 7(4), 537–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrosino, A., Turpin-Petrosino, C., & Guckenberg. S. (2010). Formal system processing of juveniles: effects on delinquency. Campbell Systematic Review.

  • Piantadosi, S. (1997). Clinical trials: a methodologic perspective. New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prochaska, J. O., Norcross, J. C., & DiClemente, C. C. (1994). Changing for good. New York: William Morrow.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rand, M. R. (2009). Criminal victimization. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved May 14, 2010, from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv08.pdf.

  • Schneider, E. M. (2000). Battered women and feminist lawmaking. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, L. W. (2003). Reason for emotion: reinventing justice with theories, innovations and research. Criminology, 41(1), 1–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, L. W. (2010). An introduction to experimental criminology. In A. R. Piquero & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative criminology (pp. 399–436). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, L. W., & Berk, R. (1984). The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic assault. American Sociological Review, 49(2), 261–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, L. W., & Strang, H. (2007). Restorative justice: the evidence. London: Smith Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, L. W., Schmidt, J. D., Rogan, D. P., Smith, D. A., Gartin, P. R., Cohn, E. G., Collins, D. J., et al. (1992). The variable effects of arrest on criminal careers: the Milwaukee domestic violence experiment. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 83(1), 137–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, L. W., & Strang, H. in collaboration with D. J. Woods, C. M. Angel, G. C. Barnes, N. Inkpen, D. Newbury-Birch, & S. Bennett. (2004). Restorative justice: what we know and how we know it. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Jerry Lee Center of Criminology. Retrieved May 14, 2010, from http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/rjWorkingPaper1.pdf.

  • Sherman, L. W., Strang, H., Barnes, G.C. & Newbury-Birch, D. (2006a). Preliminary analysis of race, recidivism & restorative justice for victimed crimes in Canberra. Unpublished manuscript. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Jerry Lee Center of Criminology.

  • Sherman, L. W., Strang, H., Barnes, G. C., & Newbury-Birch, D. (2006b). Preliminary analysis of the Northumbria restorative justice experiments. Unpublished manuscript. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Jerry Lee Center of Criminology.

  • Stover, C. S., Meadows, A. L., & Kaufman, J. (2009). Interventions for intimate partner violence: review and implications for evidence-based practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40(3), 223–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strang, H. (2002). Repair or revenge: victims & restorative justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strang, H., & Braithwaite, J. (2002). Restorative justice and family violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, G. L., Temple, J. R., & Moore, T. M. (2007). Improving batterer intervention programs through theory-based research. Journal of the American Medical Association, 298(5), 560–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tolman, R. M., & Bennett, L. (1990). A review of quantitative research on men who batter. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5(1), 87–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tolman, R. M., & Edleson, J. L. (1995). Intervention for men who batter: a review of research. In S. Stith & M. A. Straus (Eds.), Partner violence: prevalence, causes, consequences and solutions (pp. 262–273). Minneapolis: National Council on Family Relations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tourangeau, R., Rips, L., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Census Bureau, 2000, State and County Quickfacts: Santa Cruz County, Arizona. Web site: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/04/04023.html; U.S. Census Bureau, State and County Quickfacts: USA. Retrieved May 14, 2010, from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html.

  • Weisburd, D., Lum, C. M., & Yang, S.-M. (2003). When can we conclude that treatments or programs “don’t work”? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587(1), 31–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 04529330027854000. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. The authors would like to thank Lawrence Sherman and Heather Strang from the Institute of Criminology at the University of Cambridge for their involvement in this study. In addition, we would like to thank the following individuals for their assistance: Judge Mary Helen Maley, James A. Soto, Rocio Taddei, Roger Hartley, Salmon Shomade, Yael Shy, Danielle Emery, George Chavez, Tina Schweizer, and Andrea Miller. We would also like to thank the following organizations: Santa Cruz County Court, Circles of Peace, Portable Practical Educational Preparation, Southeastern Arizona Behavioral Health Services, and Arizona Department of Public Safety. Finally, we would like to thank the anonymous reviewers of earlier versions of this manuscript as well as David Weisburd.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Linda G. Mills.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mills, L.G., Barocas, B. & Ariel, B. The next generation of court-mandated domestic violence treatment: a comparison study of batterer intervention and restorative justice programs. J Exp Criminol 9, 65–90 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-012-9164-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-012-9164-x

Keywords

Navigation