Same Research, Different Perspectives: Talking to Referral Sources

1
Same Research, Different Perspectives Talking to
Referral Sources Community Partners about BIP
Efficacy

• Lisa Nitsch, Gateway Project Program Manager,
  House of Ruth Maryland David J. H. Garvin, MSW,
  LMSW, Senior Director, Catholic Social Services
  of Washtenaw County Alternatives to Domestic
  Aggression

2
To date there have been more than 35 evaluations
of batterer intervention programs

• They have yielded inconsistent results

3
Success in a BIP is defined as

• The perpetrator of DV will NEVER EVER, EVER, EVER
  batter or abuse again
• An improvement from a baseline measure.
• Victims perception of safety
• Something else

4
Defining Success
The Community
Social Policy
Batterer/Abuser
Victim/Survivor
5
Methodology dilemmas

• Defining success
• Defining abuse
• Defining re-abuse
• True random sampling
• Victim feedback as an outcome measure
• Varying philosophies methods of BIPs
• Regionally influenced confounds
• Generalizing results

6
We know

• Whether police arrested the suspect or not, their
  involvement has a strong deterrent effect.
• Wordes, M. (2000). Creating a Structured
  Decision-Making Model for Police Intervention in
  Intimate Partner
• Violence, Washington D.C.U.S. Department of
  Justice, 96-IJ-CX-0098, National Institute of
  Justice. NCJ 182781

7
We know

• Studies agree that those abusers who re-offend, a
  majority do so relatively quickly
• Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. Byrnes, J.
  (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a
  Pro-Active Court Setting, Final Report.
  Washington D.C. U.S. Department of Justice,
  95-IJ-CX-0027, National Institute of Justice, NCJ
  181427
• Newmark, L., Rempel, M., Diffily, Kane, K.
  (2001). Specialized Felony Domestic Violence
  Court Lessons on Implementation and Impacts from
  the Kings County Experience. Washington D.C.
  U.S. Department of Justice, 97-WT-VX-0005
  National Institute of Justice, NCJ 191861
• A multi-state study of abusers referred to
  batterer programs found that almost half of the
  men (44) who re-assaulted their partners did so
  within three months after batterer program intake
  and two-thirds within six months.
• Gondolf, E. (1987). Evaluating Programs for Men
  Who Batter Problems and Prospects. Journal of
  Family Violence, 2 (2), 177-191
• Gondolf, E. (December 1997). Patterns of
  Re-assault in Batterer Programs. Indiana, PA
  Mid-Atlantic Addiction Training Program
• Gondolf, E. (1997). Results of a Multi-site
  Evaluation of Batterer Intervention Systems.
  Indiana, PA Mid-Atlantic Addiction Training
  Institute.

8
We know

• Offenders with a prior arrest record for any
  offense were over seven times more likely than
  those without prior records to be rearrested.
• Hirschel, D., Buzawa, E., Pattavina, A.,
  Faggiana, D. Ruelan, M. (2007). Explaining the
  Prevalence, Context, and Consequences of Dual
  Arrest in Intimate Partner Cases. U.S. Department
  of Justice, 2001-WT-BX-0501 National Institute of
  Justice, NCJ 218355.

Judges should understand that if an abuser has a
prior record for any crime, he is a high risk
domestic violence offender, not a low risk
first offender.
9
We know

• Those who completed anger management recidivated
  at higher rates than those that completed
  batterer intervention programs even though those
  referred to batterer programs had significantly
  more criminal history, including more past order
  violations, more long standing substance abuse
  histories, and less education than those referred
  to anger management
• Bocko, S., Cicchetti, C., Lempicki, L. Powell,
  A. (November 2004). Restraining Order Violators,
  Corrective Programming and Recidivism. Boston,
  MA Office of the Commissioner of Probation.

10
Completion of a BIP

• Multiple studies of disparate programs around the
  country have found high non-completion rates
  ranging from 25 to 89 with most at around 50.
• Puffett, N. Gavin, C. (2004). Predictors of
  Program Outcome Recidivism at the Bronx
  Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Court, New York
  Center for Court Innovation
• Daly, J. Pelowski, S. (2000). Predictors of
  Drop Out Among Men Who Batter A Review of
  Studies with Implications fro Research and
  Practice. Violence and Victims, 15, 137-160
• Gondolf, E. (2005). Culturally-Focused Batterer
  Counseling for African-American Men, Final
  Report. Washington D.C. U.S. Department of
  Justice, 2001-WT-BX-003, National Institute of
  Justice (NCJ 210828).

11
Completion of a BIP

• Abusers who complete batterer programs are less
  likely to re-abuse than those that fail to
  attend, are noncompliant, or drop out.
• Puffett, N. Gavin, C. (2004). Predictors of
  Program Outcome Recidivism at the Bronx
  Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Court, New York
  Center for Court Innovation Gordon,
• J. Moriarty, L. (2003). The Effects of Domestic
  Violence Batterer Treatment on Domestic Violence
  Recidivism The Chesterfield County Experience.
  Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 118-134
• Dobash, R., Dobash, R.E., Cavanagh, K. Lewis,
  R. (1996). Reeducation Programs for Violent Men
  An Evaluation. Research Findings, 46, 309-322.
• Edleson, J. Grusznski, R. (1988). Treating Men
  Who batter Four Years of Outcome data from the
  Domestic Abuse Project, Journal of Social Service
  Research, 12, 3-12.
• Chen, H., Bersani, S., Myersm S., Denton, T.
  (1989). Evaluating the Effectiveness of
  Court-Sponsored Abuser Treatment Programs.
  Journal of Family Violence, 4, 137-160.
• Babcock, J. Steiner, R. (1999). The
  Relationship Between Treatment, Incarceration,
  and Recidivism of battering A Program Evaluation
  of Seattles Coordinated Community response to
  Domestic Violence. Journal of Family Psychology,
  1, 46-59
• Gondolf, E. (2005). Culturally- Focused Batterer
  Counseling for African-American Men, Final
  Report. Washington D.C. U.S. Department of
  Justice, 2001-WT-BX-003, National Institute of
  Justice (NCJ 210828).

12
Completion of a BIP

• The multi-state study of four programs found
  program completion reduced risk of reassault from
  46 to 66.
• Gondolf, E. (2002). Batterer Intervention
  Systems. Thousand Oaks, CA Sage
• Batterer intervention programs as currently
  configured have modest but positive effects on
  violence prevention.
• Bennett, L.W. Williams, O.J. (2001).
  Controversies and recent studies of batterer
  intervention program effectiveness. Harrisburg,
  PA National Electronic Network on Violence
  Against Women (VAWnet).

13
Edward Gondolf

• Varying lengths of program participation
• Standardized format for intake assessment
• Integrated information from multiple sources
• Initial partners
• New partners
• Police reports
• Integrated other data sources
• Program participation
• Counselor ratings of progress, etc.

14
Edward Gondolf

• Results of Research (after 48 months)
• Completers re-assaulted at a lower rate than drop
  out comparison group
• 48 vs. 70
• Of the 48 who re-assaulted
• 22 did so repeatedly (cause 80 of injuries)
• 26 did so once
• 10 did so within the 1st month after completion
• 90 did not re-assault in the last 12months
• Results of the Research (after 15 months)
• Partners reported general decrease in
  non-physical abuse
• Down from 82 to 44
• Majority of women reported being better off or
  feeling safe

15
Rev. 3-24-09
15
16
Edward GondolfCompleters vs. Non-Completers
17
We know

• Any intervention has a cumulative effect. An
  offender who is arrested, prosecuted, put on
  probation, and required to complete a BIP will
  have better outcomes than one who is simply
  arrested and put on probation or one who is only
  ordered to attend a BIP.
• Murphy, C.M., Musser, P.H., Maton, K.I.
  (1998). Coordinated community intervention for
  domestic abusers Intervention system involvement
  and criminal recidivism. Journal of Family
  Violence. 13 263-284

18
We know

• Batterer program attendance rates can be
  increased by court monitoring, specifically
  through periodic court compliance hearings. In
  the multi-state evaluation of four difference
  programs, researchers found that batterer program
  completion rates rose from under 50 to 65 after
  a court introduced a mandatory appearance 30 days
  following imposition of batterer program mandate.
• Gondolf, E. (1998). The Impact of Mandatory Court
  Review on Batterer Program Compliance An
  Evaluation of the Pittsburgh Municipal Courts and
  Domestic Violence Abuse Counseling Center,
  Indiana, PA Mid-Atlantic Training Institute.

19
We know

• Researchers generally agree that there are a
  number of variables associated with likelihood of
  program completion.
• They include being younger, having less
  education, having greater criminal histories and
  violence in their family of origin, being less
  employed and less motivated to change, having
  substance abuse problems, having children, and a
  lack of court sanctions for non-compliance
• Bersani Chen (1988) DeHart, Kennerly, Burke,
  Follingstad (1999) DeMaris (1989), Gondolf
  (1999) Grusznski Carrillo (1988) Hamberger
  Hastings (1989), Pirog-Good Stets (1986)
  Saunders Parker (1989) Feder, L. Forde, D.

20
Issues with BIP Research

• Mixed research results
• False hope for victims
• May need to match batterer to specific
  intervention to maximize positive outcomes
• Misunderstanding of effect size
• Issues that compound the problem substance
  abuse, mental disorders, poverty
• Variable standards for programs
• Lack of cultural competence
• How do we define success?
• An integrated justice response (law enforcement,
  prosecutors, advocates, defense lawyers,
  probation officers, judges, BIPs) increases the
  possibility of a positive outcome
• Court mandated participants lower motivation to
  change

20
21
Etiony Aldarondo

• 22 Individual Outcome Studies
• Follow up time 7 weeks to 3 years
• Recidivism Rate 7 to 47 (average 26)
• In Average
• Police Records 15
• Self Report 24
• Victims Report 34

22
Etiony Aldarondo

• Seven Quasi-Experimental Evaluations
• According to Police Reports
• Follow up time 4 months to 11 years
• Sample size 100 to 840
• Recidivism Rate for Completers 0 to 18
  (average 9)
• Recidivism Rate for Dropouts 10 to 40
  (average 26)

23
Etiony Aldarondo

• Six Quasi-Experimental Evaluations
• According to Abuse Victims Reports
• Follow up time 5 months to 1 year
• Sample size 68 to 840
• Recidivism Rate for Completers 26 to 41
  (average 32)
• Recidivism Rate for Dropouts 40 to 62
  (average 46)

24
Etiony Aldarondo

• Three Experimental Studies
• Follow up time One year
• Sample size 56 to 644
• Recidivism
• BIP Control
• Police Records 4-18 4-31
• Self Report 14 16
• Victim Reports 15-29 22-30

25
Etiony Aldarondo

• Limitations
• Controlling for error across studies
• Different conditions having different impacts
• Measurements were not consistent across sites
• Effect size is larger but controlling for
  differences reduces accuracy of reporting
• More difficult to make generalizations
• Only a summary of the completed research

26
Massachusetts Certified Batterer Intervention
Program Study

• Random sample of 2,045 defendants from 1998 to
  2004
• Massachusetts Office of the Commissioner of
  Probation (2004). Restraining Order Violators,
  Corrective Programming and Recidivism.

27
Massachusetts Certified Batterer Intervention
Program Study

• Findings
• Rate of restraining order violations more than
  doubled for those offenders who did not complete
  a Certified Batterer Intervention Program.
• 62 of a random sample of 2,045 offenders
  successfully completed a BIP when actively
  supervised only 30 of unsupervised did.
• More than 50 of sample were violence-prone,
  poorly-educated, under-employed, indigent, and
  had serious substance abuse issues.

28
Edward Gondolf

• Longitudinal, quasi-experimental study of four
  sites across the US with a sample size of 840,
  with follow up time of 15, 30 and 48 months
• Gondolf, E. (2002). Batterer Intervention
  Systems. Thousand Oaks, CA Sage.

29
Edward Gondolf

• Re-assaults (48 percent)
• Nearly ¾ in first 15 months
• 20 Repeat-reassaulters 80 of injuries
• Length (more than 3 mo) and content of programs
  didnt seem to matter
• But systems DID matter
• Enter program within 2 to 2.5 weeks
• Court monitoring of attendance
• Swift response to noncompliance

30
Edward Gondolf

• Limitations of Research Design
• Unable to identify key aspects of the BIP
  intervention that were effective
• Not able to account for changes in programs and
  program structures
• Unable to clearly isolate effects to program
  participation (i.e., what was learned)
• Because not randomly assigned to groups cannot be
  generalized without some caution
• Social factors that impact the research

31
Judicial Considerations Based on Research(from
Dr. Jeff Edleson)

• BIPs can assist change
• First 9 to 15 months critical period
• Should be closely coordinated with courts
• Alert to 10 (20 of 48) repeat re-assaulters
  who cause 80 of the harm
• Ordering BIP
• In restraining order
• Successful completion as condition of continued
  visitation

32
For Copies Please Contact Abbi Leman
Production EditorCommunications DepartmentVera
Institute of Justicealeman_at_vera.orgwww.vera.org
33
Essential Components of aCourt-Affiliated BIP

1. Nuanced understanding of violence (physical,
   sexual, psychological, economic, entrapment)
   power control.
2. Battering is chosen, instrumental and strategic
   behavior designed to bring about an outcome.
3. Abusers believe they are entitled to control
   partners/family members.
4. Abuser must acknowledge the various forms of
   violence the likely adverse consequences of
   exposing children to domestic violence.
5. Abuser acknowledges sole responsibility for his
   violence and abuse
6. The BIP is transparent and acceptable to criminal
   justice system and battered women.

34
What the CJS Needs to Know

• The System Matters
• Reasonable Standards Expectations
• Ongoing Assessments Interventions
• Know Research but Dont Oversimplify No Simple
  Answers for Complex Issues
• Keep Searching

35
Are BIPs Worth it?... YES

• new fieldlearning opportunity
• address the most violent men
• cost practically efficient
• jailing option overloaded and ineffective
• secondary messageneed and can change
• prompts institutional reform
• serve as a resource for many women
• provide oversight and monitoring of men

36
In both studies (Broward and New York City
Experimental Evaluations), response rates were
low, many people dropped out of the program, and
victims could not be found for subsequent
interviews. The tests used to measure
batterers attitudes toward domestic violence and
their likelihood to engage in future abuse were
of questionable validity. In the Brooklyn
study, random assignment was overridden to a
significant extent an 8 week program was
substituted for the control of no treatment.
Which makes it difficult to attribute effects
exclusively to the program. -- NIJ Special
Report Batterer Intervention Programs, June 2003.
37
Using an evidence-based research guide, the CDC
review of batterer program evaluation concluded
The diversity of data, coupled with the
relatively small number of studies that met the
inclusion criteria for the evidence-based review,
precludes a rigorous, quantitative synthesis of
the findings. However, the rudimentary analytical
strategy used suggests that the majority of BIP
studies reported positive intervention effects
for behavioral (i.e., re-assault) and
psychosocial outcomes for at least on follow-up
period. -- Briss et al. (2000, p.4)
38

• NIJ Research Summary for Judges (Worden, 2003)
• Despite an accumulation of studies evaluating
  programs for domestic violence offenders,
  rigorous studies are few, and firm conclusions
  cannot be made yet about intervention
  effectiveness (Saunders Hamill, 2003). One of
  the biggest problems with this sentencing option
  is compliance, which remains the responsibility
  of the courts or probation officers (Worden,
  2003).

39
Evaluation Articles Using A Systems Perspective

• Gamache, D., Edleson, J., Schock, M. (1988).
  Coordinated police, judicial and social service
  response to woman battering A multi-baseline
  evaluation across three communities. In G.
  Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, J. Kirkpatrick, M.
  Straus (Eds.), Coping with family violence
  Research and policy perspectives (pp. 193-209).
  Newbury Park, CA Sage Publications.
• Murphy, C., Musser, P., Maton, K. (1998).
  Coordinated community intervention for domestic
  abusers. Journal of Family Violence, 13, 263-285.

40
32
38
42
41
2/3 of 4-yr. reassault
42
Program Intake
43
40 Decrease
33 Decrease
Dropout
Dropout
44
EVIDENCE OF PROGRAM EFFECT Other indicators
Deterrence (perception of sanctions) not a
predictor of reassault Majority of mens and
womens program recommendations are
positive Majority of women attribute mens
change to the program Men identify program
lessons as a means of avoiding abuse Numerous
personal accounts of program-based change
45
ONE CONCLUSION

• Some batterer programs contribute to reduction of
  abuse and violence
• Improve outcomes with on-going case-management of
  repeaters
• Increased CCR needed to reinforce programs and
  conduct risk management

46
Research-based Resources of Judges

• NIJ--Practical Implications of Current Domestic
  Violence Research Part III Judges
  http//www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/222321.
  pdf
• Vera Institute--Enhancing Responses to Domestic
  Violence Promising Practices From the Judicial
  Oversight Demonstration Initiative
  http//www.vera.org/project/project1_3.asp?sectio
  n_id4project_id28sub_section_id38

47
SUMMARY

• Experimental evaluations have major shortcomings
  that contribute to misleading interpretations.
• Longitudinal outcomes suggest de-escalation of
  abuse following criminal justice/batterer program
  intervention.
• Complex analysis of established batterer programs
  show moderate program effect.
• Program context (e.g., court linkages) influences
  program outcomes, especially swift and certain
  response to non-compliance.

48

• The need for a Coordinated Community Response

49
CCAM
Coordinated Community Action Model
50
Importance of Program Context

• CJS process influences who is referred and how
  fast
• Court oversight influences compliance
• Victim advocacy influences womens emotional
  support, safety plans, and help-seeking
• Information sharing improves risk assessment and
  referral
• Additional referrals, treatments, supervision,
  can improve outcomes

51
Why Court Linkage?

• Makes for swift and certain response which
  improves outcomes
• Increases compliance to BIP and other referrals
• Coercion from court aids Tx motivation in Drug
  Courts
• Enhances containment of repeat offenders

52
Why linkage to other services?

• Improves information for risk assessment
• Offers referrals from BIP for additional
  treatment (e.g., drug and alcohol)
• Assists with safety planning and emotional
  support of victims
• Intensifies message of must and can change