Most previous evaluations of batterer programs have been quasi-experimental designs or evaluations with no comparison group. Two recent experimental evaluations attempted more rigorous science and produced little or no evidence of program effect for conventional batterer counseling compared to a control group. These experimental evaluations must be viewed with caution because of methodological limitations of their own. As with many experimental evaluations, there were difficulties in implementing the random assignment of subjects and reliance on an intention-to-treat approach amid substantial dropout rates. Also, the response rates to the follow-up are relatively low, leaving one study to use probation records rather than victim reports for the outcome. Other studies have shown the influence of a variety of contextual factors on program outcome. There are alternative analytical methods and research designs to address some of these problems. These alternatives, along with practitioner and clinical experience, need to be weighed in the balance.
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.
Babcock, J.
, Green, C., & Robie, C. (in press). Does batterer's treatment work? A meta-analytic review of domestic violence treatment outcome research. Journal of Family Psychology.
3.
Boruch, R.
, Snyder, B., & DeMoya, D. (2000). The importance of randomized field trials. Crime and Delinquency, 46, 156-181.
4.
Boruch, R.
, Victor, T., & Cecil, J. (2000). Resolving ethical and legal problems in randomized experiments. Crime and Delinquency, 46, 330-354.
5.
Cordray, D.
(2000). Enhancing the scope of experimental inquiry in interventions studies. Crime and Delinquency, 46, 401-426.
6.
Davis, R.
, & Taylor, B. (1999). Does batterer treatment reduce violence? A synthesis of the literature. Women and Criminal Justice, 10, 69-93.
7.
Davis, R.
, Taylor, B., & Maxwell, C. (1998). Does batterer treatment reduce violence? A randomized experiment in Brooklyn. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
8.
Dobash, R. E.
, & Dobash, R. P. (2000). Evaluating criminal justice interventions for domestic violence. Crime and Delinquency, 46, 252-271.
9.
Dobash, R. E.
, Dobash, R. P., Cavanagh, K., & Lewis, R. (2000). Changing violent men. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
Dunford, F.
(2000a). Determining program “success”: The importance of employing experimental research designs. Crime and Delinquency, 46, 425-436.
11.
Dunford, F.
(2000b). The San Diego Navy experiment: An assessment of interventions for men who assault their wives. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 468-476.
12.
Edleson, J.
(1996). Controversy and change in batterers' programs. In J. Edleson & Z Eisikovits (Eds.), Future interventions with battered women and their families (pp. 154-169). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
Feder, L.
, & Forde, D. (2000). A test of the efficacy of court-mandated counseling for domestic violence offenders: The Broward experiment. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
14.
Gondolf, E.
(1997a). Expanding batterer program evaluations. In G. K. Kaufman & J. Jasinski (Eds.), Out of darkness: Contemporary research perspectives on family violence (pp. 208-218). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
Gondolf, E.
(1997b). Patterns of reassault in batterer programs. Violence and Victims, 12, 373-387.
16.
Gondolf, E.
(1999). A comparison of reassault rates in four batterer programs: Do court referral, program length and services matter?Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 41-61.
17.
Gondolf, E.
(2000a). How batterer program participants avoid reassault. Violence Against Women, 6, 1204-1222.
18.
Gondolf, E.
(2000b). Mandatory court review and batterer program compliance. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 428-437.
19.
Gondolf, E.
(2000c). Reassault at 30 months after batterer program intake. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44, 111-128.
20.
Gondolf, E.
, & Jones, A. (in press). The program effect of batterer programs in three cities. American Journal of Community Psychology.
21.
Gondolf, E.
, & White, R. (2000). “Consumer” recommendations for batterer programs. Violence Against Women, 6, 196-215.
22.
Guba, E.
, & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
Heckert, A.
, & Gondolf, E. (2000). The effect of perceptions of sanctions on batterer program outcome. Journal of Research on Crime and Delinquency, 37, 369-391.
24.
Kazdin. A.
(1994). Methodology, design, and evaluation in psychotherapy research. In A. E. Bergin & S. L. Garfield (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (pp. 19-71). New York: John Wiley.
25.
Lipsey, M.
, & Cordary, D. (2000). Evaluation methods for social intervention. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 345-375.
26.
Maguire, M.
(1995). Crime statistics, patterns, and trends: Changing perceptions and their implications. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan, & R. Reiner (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of criminology (pp. 233-291). New York: Oxford University Press.
27.
Mann, C.
(1990). Meta-analysis in the breech. Science, 249, 476-480.
28.
Pawson, R.
, & Tilly, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage.
29.
Pence, E.
, & Paymar, M. (1993). Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth model. New York: Springer.
30.
Pence, E.
, & Shepard, M. (1999). Developing a coordinated community response. In M. Shepard & E. Pence (Eds.), Coordinating community responses to domestic violence: Lessons from Duluth and beyond (pp. 3-25). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31.
Van Voohis, P.
, Cullen, F., & Applegate, B. (1995). Evaluating interventions with violent offenders: A guide for practitioners and policy makers. Federal Probation, 56(3), 17-27.
