A Comparison of Clients in a Differentiated Batterer Intervention Treatment Program: The Importance of Treatment Level Matching by Referral Sources

Abstract

Recent research has emphasized the applicability of the Principles of Effective Intervention for batterer intervention treatment programs (BIPs), including using differentiated treatment models for first-time offenders compared to repeat offenders. The current study seeks to examine treatment matching across clients in two such differentiated BIPs from a mid-Atlantic state—one short-term program aimed at first-time IPV offenders (n = 121) and one program implementing BIP “as usual” (n = 125)—regarding client characteristics and recidivism. Findings indicate that clients in the short-term program were not significantly different than those referred to BIP “as usual” regarding common risk factors such as substance use, education, or employment, and while clients in the short-term program had fewer criminal history offenses, participants were rarely first-time criminal offenders. Further analyses showed no impact of the short-term program completion on client recidivism, while completion of BIP as usual was related to lower rates of reoffending among the program’s clients. Findings suggest the importance of how clients are matched to their level of treatment and more education and monitoring of referral agencies regarding differentiated BIP models. Further research is needed to assess whether short-term BIP programs are associated with recidivism reduction.

Keywords

batterer intervention treatment programs differentiated treatment principles of effective intervention program attrition

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Andrews

D. A.

(1982). The level of supervisory inventory (LSI): 1. The first follow-up. Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services, Planning and Support Services Division, Planning and Research Branch.

Andrews

D. A.

Bonta

(1995). The level of supervision inventory-revised. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems, 106, 19–52.

Andrews

D. A.

Bonta

Hoge

R. D.

(1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17(1), 19–52.

Arias

Arce

Vilarino

(2013). Batter intervention programmes: A meta-analytic review of effectiveness. Psychosocial Intervention, 22, 153–160.

Austin

J. B.

Dankwort

(1999). Standards for batterer programs: A review and analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 152–168.

Babcock

J. C.

Green

C. E.

Robie

(2004). Does batterers’ treatment work? A meta-analytic review of domestic violence treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1023–1053.

Babcock

LaTaillade

(2000). Evaluating interventions for men who batter. In Vincent

Jouriles

(Eds.), Domestic violence: Guidelines for research-informed practice (pp. 37–77). Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Barner

J. R.

Carney

M. M.

(2011). Interventions for intimate partner violence: A historical review. Journal of Family Violence, 26(3), 235–244.

Bennett

Williams

(2001). Controversies and recent studies of batterer intervention program effectiveness. National Electronic Network on Violence Against Women. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.461.2455&rep=rep1&type=pdf

10.

Black

M. C.

Basile

K. C.

Breiding

M. J.

Smith

S. G.

Walters

M. L.

Merrick

M. T.

Chen

Stevens

M. R.

(2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

11.

Bouffard

L. A.

Zedaker

S. B.

(2016). Are domestic violence offenders specialists? Answers from multiple analytic approaches. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 53(6), 788–813.

12.

Campbell

J. C.

(1995). Prediction of homicide of and by battered women. In Campbell

J. C.

(Ed.), Interpersonal violence: The practice series, Vol. 8. Assessing dangerousness: Violence by sexual offenders, batterers, and child abusers (pp. 96–113). Sage Publications, Inc.

13.

Canon

Hamel

Buttell

Ferreira

R. J.

(2016). A survey of domestic violence perpetrator programs in the United States and Canada: Findings and implications for policy and intervention. Partner Abuse, 7, 226–276.

14.

Crane

C. A.

Oberleitner

L. M.

Devine

Easton

C. J.

(2014). Substance use disorders and intimate partner violence perpetration among male and female offenders. Psychology of Violence, 4(3), 322–333.

15.

Dutton

Corvo

(2007). The Duluth model: A data-impervious paradigm and a failed strategy. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(6), 658–667

16.

Dutton

D. G.

Kropp

P. R.

(2000). A review of domestic violence risk instruments. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 1(2), 171–181.

17.

Fals-Stewart

Kennedy

(2005). Addressing intimate partner violence in substance-abuse treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 29(1), 5–17.

18.

Feder

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.

19.

Ferraro

K. J.

(2017). Current research on batterer intervention programs and implications for policy. Battered Women’s Justice Project. https://www.bwjp.org/assets/batterer-intervention-paper-final-2018.pdf

20.

Gondolf

E. W.

(1997). Batterer programs: What we know and need to know. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12(1), 83–98.

21.

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.

22.

Gover

Jennings

W. G.

Davis

Tomsich

E. A.

Tewksbury

(2011). Factors related to the completion of domestic violence offender treatment: The Colorado Experience. Victims & Offenders, 6(2), 137–156.

23.

Gover

A. R.

Richards

T. N.

(2017). A review of state standards for Batterer Intervention Treatment (BIT) programs and the Colorado model. Court Review, 53, 36–41.

24.

Gendreau

(1996). The principles of effective intervention with offenders. In Harland

A. T.

(Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 117–130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

25.

Hilton

N. Z.

Harris

G. T.

Rice

M. E.

Lang

Cormier

C. A.

Lines

K. J.

(2004). A brief actuarial assessment for the prediction of wife assault recidivism: The Ontario domestic assault risk assessment. Psychological Assessment, 16(3), 267–275.

26.

Hilton

N. Z.

Eke

A. W.

(2016). Non-specialization of criminal careers among intimate partner violence offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(10), 1347–1363.

27.

Hilton

N. Z.

Radatz

D. L.

(2018). The criminogenic and noncriminogenic treatment needs of intimate partner violence offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62, 3247–3259.

28.

Jewell

L. M.

Wormith

J. S.

(2010). Variables associated with attrition from domestic violence treatment programs targeting male batterers: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 1086–1113.

29.

Kropp

P. R.

Hart

S. D.

Webster

C. D.

Eaves

(1995). Manual for the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment guide (SARA). British Columbia, Canada: The British Columbia Institute on Family Violence.

30.

MacKenzie

D. L.

(2006). What works in corrections: Reducing the criminal activities of offenders and delinquents. Cambridge University Press.

31.

Moore

T. M.

Stuart

G. L.

(2004). Illicit substance use and intimate partner violence among men in batterers’ intervention. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18(4), 385–389.

32.

Murphy

C. M.

Richards

T. N.

(2020). The efficacy of psychosocial interventions for partner violence individuals. In Geffner

Vieth

Vaughan-Eden

Rosenbaum

Hamberger

L. K.

White

Geffner

(Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal violence across the lifespan. Springer.

33.

Price

B. J.

Rosenbaum

(2009). Batterer intervention programs: A report from the field. Violence and Victims, 24(6), 757.

34.

Radatz

D. L.

Wright

E. M.

(2016). Integrating the principles of effective intervention into batterer intervention programming: The case for moving toward more evidence-based programming. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 17(1), 72–87.

35.

Richards

T. N.

Jennings

W. G.

Tomsich

E. A.

Gover

A. R.

(2013). A longitudinal examination of offending and specialization among a sample of Massachusetts domestic violence offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(3), 643–663.

36.

Richards

T. N.

Murphy

(2018). An examination of Maryland Abuser Intervention Programs’ (AIPs) impact on domestic violence recidivism. Baltimore, MD: Governor’s Office of Crime Control and Prevention.

37.

Richards

T.N.

Murphy

Jennings

(2019). Risk and protective factors for batterer intervention treatment program attrition: How no shows are distinct from dropouts and completers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advanced Online Publication https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519834096

38.

Shorey

R. C.

Febres

Brasfield

Stuart

G. L.

(2012). The prevalence of mental health problems in men arrested for domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 27(8), 741–748.

39.

Smith

Gendreau

Swartz

(2009). Validating the principles of effective intervention: A systematic review of the contributions of meta-analysis in the field of corrections. Victims & Offenders, 4, 148–169.

40.

Stewart

L. A.

Gabora

Kropp

P. R.

Lee

(2014). Effectiveness of risk-needs-responsivity-based family violence programs with male offenders. Journal of Family Violence, 29(2), 151–164.

41.

Tolman

R. M.

Bennett

L. W.

(1990). A review of quantitative research on men who batter. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5(1), 87–118.