Recent experimental evaluations have suggested little or no effect of batterer programs on reassault but are compromised by methodological and analytical issues. This study assesses program effect using propensity score analysis with a quasi-experimental sample in an attempt to address these issues. The sample consisted of 633 batterers and their partners from three geographically dispersed batterer programs and a 15-month follow-up with their female partners. Subclassification on propensity scores was used to balance program completers and program dropouts. The propensity score was estimated as the probability of completing the batterer program conditional on observable characteristics. Direct adjustment indicates that program completion reduced the probability of reassault during the 15-month follow-up by 33% for the full sample, and by nearly 50% for the court-ordered men.
Babcock, J., & Steiner, R. (1999). The relationship between treatment, incarceration, and recidivism of battering: A program evaluation of Seattle’s coordinated community response to domestic violence. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 46-59.
2.
Berk, R. A., & Newton, P. J. (1985). Does arrest really deter wife battery? An effort to replicate the findings of the Minneapolis Spouse Abuse Project. American Sociological Review, 50, 253-262.
3.
Berk, R. A., Newton, P. J., & Berk, S. F. (1986). What a difference a day makes: An empirical study of the impact of shelters for battered women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 481-490.
4.
Cochran, W. G. (1968).The effectiveness of adjustment by sub-classification in removing bias in observational studies. Biometrics, 24, 205-213.
5.
D’Agostino, R. B. (1998). Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Statistics in Medicine, 17, 2265-2281.
6.
Daly, J., & Pelowski, S. (2000).Predictors of dropout among men who batter: A review of studies with implications for research and practice. Violence and Victims, 15, 137-160.
7.
Davis, R., & Taylor, B. (1999). Does batterer treatment reduce violence? A synthesis of the literature. Women and Criminal Justice, 10, 69-93.
8.
Davis, R., Taylor, B., & Maxwell, C. (1998). Does batterer treatment reduce violence? A randomized experiment in Brooklyn (Final report submitted to National Institute of Justice). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
9.
Dehejia, R. H., & Wahba, S. (1999). Causal effects in non-experimental studies: Reevaluating the evaluation of training programs. Journal of the American Statistics Association, 94, 1053-1062.
10.
Dutton, D., & Starzomski, A. (1993). Borderline personality in perpetrators of psychological and physical abuse. Violence and Victims, 8, 327-337.
11.
Feazell, C. S., Mayers, R., & Deschner, J. (1984). Services for men who batter: Implications for programs and policies. Family Relations, 33, 217-223.
12.
Feder, L., & Dugan, L. (2002). A test of the efficacy of court-mandated counseling for domestic violence offenders: The Broward experiment. Justice Quarterly, 19, 343-375.
13.
Gondolf, E. (1997).Patterns of reassault in batterer programs. Violence and Victims, 12, 373-387.
14.
Gondolf, E. (1999a). Characteristics of court-mandated batterers in four cities: Diversity and dichotomies. Violence Against Women, 5, 1277-1293.
15.
Gondolf, E. (1999b). A comparison of reassault rates in four batterer programs: Do court referral, program length and services matter?Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 41-61.
16.
Gondolf, E. (2001). Limitations of experimental evaluations of batterer programs. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 2, 79-88.
17.
Hamberger, L. K., & Hastings, J. (1990).Recidivism following spouse abuse abatement counseling: Treatment program implications. Violence and Victims, 5, 157-170.
18.
Heckman, J. J. (1997).Instrumental variables: A study of implicit behavior alassumptions underlying one widely used estimator for program evaluations. Journal of Human Resources, 32, 441-461.
19.
Heckman, J. J., Ichimura, H., & Todd, P. E. (1997). Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator: Evidence from evaluating a job-training programme. Review of Economic Studies, 64, 605-654.
20.
Jones, A. S. (2000). The cost of batterer treatment: How much and who pays?Journal of Inter-personal Violence, 15, 566-586.
21.
Jones, A. S., & Gondolf, E. W. (2001). Time-varying risk factors for re-assault among batterer program participants. Journal of Family Violence, 16, 345-359.
22.
Jones, A. S., & Gondolf, E. W. (2002). Assessing the effect of batterer program completion on reassault: An instrumental variables analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 18, 71-98.
23.
Millon, T. (1994). Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory–III. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.
24.
National Research Council/Institute of Medicine. (1998). Violence in families: Assessing prevention and treatment programs. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
25.
Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41-55.
26.
Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1984). Reducing bias in observational studies using sub-classification on the propensity score. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79, 516-524.
27.
Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. American Statistician, 39, 33-38.
28.
Rubin, D. B., & Thomas, N. (2000). Combining propensity score matching with additional adjustments for prognostic covariates. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95, 573-585.
29.
Selzer, M. (1971). The Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (MAST): The quest for a new diagnostic instrument. American Journal of Psychiatry, 3, 176-181.
30.
Sherman, L., & Berk, R. (1984). The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic assault. American Sociology Review, 49, 261-272.
31.
Smith, J. A., & Todd, P. E. (2001). Reconciling conflicting evidence on the performance of propensity score matching methods. American Economic Review, 91, 112-118.
32.
Straus, M. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-88.
